Sentences with phrase «meaning future warming»

Climate change projections have vastly underestimated the role that clouds play, meaning future warming could be far worse than is currently projected, according to new research.

Not exact matches

A new study takes aim at the mysterious relationship between clouds and climate, and it finds that a warmer planet could mean fewer clouds, which would mean an even more sultry future for the planet

In a paper published in Science today, researchers from ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies (Coral CoE) at James Cook University (JCU) and the University of Queensland (UQ), as well as the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) investigated what this warming pattern means for GBR coral bleaching events into the future.

(NOAA) investigated what this warming pattern means for GBR coral bleaching events into the future.

And this would mean that future warming has been underestimated.

[Update: Co-author Zeebe says results may possibly mean «future warming could be more intense.»

The kinder, gentler model from the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in the United Kingdom estimated a wetter, warmer future: Rainfall may increase 20 percent to 25 percent, mean annual temperatures could increase 2 degrees Fahrenheit by 2030 and 4 degrees by 2100.

The steady uptick in warming, even with a relative slowdown in recent decades, means that the likelihood of seeing a record cold year in the future is, according to a quick calculation by Mann, «astronomically small.»

Contemporary global mean sea level rise will continue over many centuries as a consequence of anthropogenic climate warming, with the detailed pace and final amount of rise depending substantially on future greenhouse gas emissions.

While every storm has its own characteristics and quirks, this one being particularly unusual, a warming global ocean means we're likely to see more storms of this strength in future.

It means warmer days are right around the corner, which means we are DONE hibernating and park days are in the near future.

Warmer weather has arrived and that means that chances are you will be going on vacation, attending weddings, picnics, and family gatherings in the near future.

Thus, at that point in the future, a lessor volume of accumulated GHGs in the atmosphere would mean a global climate that is not as warm as the global climate would have been had we not emitted fewer GHG emissions now.

What Knutson et al are asking us to do in essence is to put all that aside (because, they argue — in short — that its not the warming but the pattern of warming that matters here) and instead take on faith the perhaps not - much - more - than 50/50 proposition that the mean changes in ENSO state and variability projected by the IPCC multimodel ensemble (which are a key determinant in the projected future Atlantic TC activity) should be trusted.

While noisy, the correlation looks significant, with those models that calculate a warmer mean temperature projecting (on average) a lower rate of future warming.

And this would mean that future warming has been underestimated.

or Ballester et al. 2009 «Future changes in Central Europe heat waves expected to mostly follow summer mean warming.»

The standstil of global average temperature predicted by the «improved» modell compared to warming predicted from the «old» modell is nothing that happens in the future, it should have happened (but did not happen) in the past, from 1985 to 1999: The «improved» modell (green graph) shows that the global average temperature did not change from 1985 (= mean 1980 - 1990) to 1999 (= mean 1994 to 2004).

This has implications for future scenario's, as a lower sensitivity for CO2 (and a higher for solar) means that there will be less warming for the same CO2 emissions (assuming no large excursions of solar).

First of all, Oreskes et al. emphasize that the reality of mean global warming is essentially undisputed, but that the future impacts on the scale for which humans would have to prepare are still the subject of considerable research, inquiry, and debate.

That can not change quickly, even if it means a much warmer world for future generations.

For all the above reasons the Realclimate theory is simply not sufficiently plausible and I see no credible means as to how AGW can warm up the oceans fast enough to be a threat in the foreseeable future.

Global warming — doesn't mean we'll all just have warmer weather in future.

Continued greenhouse gas emissions leading to further warming would mean that the chances of seeing years at 1.5 °C or more would likely increase in future years.»

It can't be said too often that climate models are merely contrivances meant to project a future warming trend indefinitely.

That may mean that some of the highest estimates of future temperature rises, of more than 6C within several decades, are less likely, but it does not let the world off the hook — warming of more than 2C is still highly likely on current high emissions trends, and that would cause severe consequences around the world.

Since the mean radiative forcing progression in RCP 8.5 is likely steeper than the radiative forcing progression of the recent past, this finding can not be used to suggest that models are overestimating the response to forcings and it can not be used to infer anything about future rates of warming.

Contemporary global mean sea level rise will continue over many centuries as a consequence of anthropogenic climate warming, with the detailed pace and final amount of rise depending substantially on future greenhouse gas emissions.

Although there is as yet no convincing evidence in the observed record of changes in tropical cyclone behaviour, a synthesis of the recent model results indicates that, for the future warmer climate, tropical cyclones will show increased peak wind speed and increased mean and peak precipitation intensities.

Following the signing of the Paris Agreement in December 2015, a targeted focus has emerged within the scientific community to better understand how changes to the global climate system will evolve in response to specific thresholds of future global mean warming, such as 1.5 ◦ C or 2 ◦ C above «pre-industrial levels».

By the year 2070, however, researchers found that the warming would nearly catch up to the reference simulation, which means that a future grand solar minimum would merely slow down global warming.

(By this I mean could one show a perceptible impact on our planet's future climate at a reasonable cost per degree C global warming averted a) at an estimated 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3C or b) at a CS of 1C?)

Part of problem is that even with current levels of emissions, the inertia of the climate system means that not all of the warming those emissions will cause has happened yet — a certain amount is «in the pipeline» and will only rear its head in the future, because the ocean absorbs some of the heat, delaying the inherent atmospheric warming for decades to centuries.

It's true that as the ocean warms, it can't absorb as much CO2, but that is a reason to be more worried about climate change, since it means global warming may well speed up in the future.

If you «pause» it means warming may resume at some time in the future (or perhaps even cooling... but let's not go there for the sake of this argument).

When the earth's temperature rises on average by more than two degrees, interactions between different consequences of global warming (reduction in the area of arable land, unexpected crop failures, extinction of diverse plant and animal species) combined with increasing populations mean that hundreds of millions of people may die from starvation or disease in future famines.

The climate change had already affected the seas around Antarctica and is warming some coastal waters.So now both Antarctic Peninsula and West Antarctica Ice sheet are losing ice.For now, the East Antarctic Ice sheet is stable but it will influence on global climate change due to sea ice.In the future there is growing concern about the possible impact of climate change.Is Antarctica gaining ice that meant it will effect to climate change and the ecosystem of the regions?

That means there is still a lot of uncertainty about the extent of future warming — estimates of the effect of doubling CO2, including all feedback processes, range from 2 °C to 6 °C.

Any reduction in global mean near - surface temperature due to a future decline in solar activity is likely to be a small fraction of projected anthropogenic warming.

That amount of warming would be disastrous and means we should remain scared about the future in the way I wrote about in my book Requiem for a Species, which led some to see me as a «Dr Doom» figure.

Picking 1985 - 2005 as a baseline to indicate that warming from 1950 is predominately man made, doesn't mean that 1985 to 2005 is the «new» baseline or Zero for future warming.

But it does mean that the IPCC's climate scientists were wrong about future global warming, and that the consensus is now changing due to actual climate reality.

However, with all the above stated, this does not mean that climate change is not happening; that human activities have no influence on weather and climate; nor that global warming won't occur in the near future.

``... the future evolution of the global mean temperature may hold surprises on both the warm and cold ends of the spectrum due entirely to internal variability that lie well outside the envelope of a steadily increasing global mean temperature.»

Scratch an global warming activist and you will find, not an altruistic crusader for a safer, cleaner future, but a mean, self - aggrandizing misanthrope who is perfectly comfortable with lying and cheating in the service of spreading misery among as many people as possible.

When we constrain the model projections with observations, we obtain greater means and narrower ranges of future global warming across the major radiative forcing scenarios, in general.

«The global warming that has occurred so far is merely a fraction of what we're going to see in the future, and global warming does not mean we're not going to have winters,» Singh explained.

Undoubtedly, there are mistaken understandings and new dynamics to be understood in AGW, that does not mean the idea that we are causing warming or can influence temperature is null and void and we can just walk away without responsibility for stewardship for our children's and the planets and all that inhabit it futures.

The multi-model ensemble mean warmings for the three future periods in the different experiments are given in Table 10.5, among other results.

If you believe, as I do, that radiative forcing tends to cause global mean temperature increase, then it is a contradiction to believe that future rates of warming will be higher when increases of radiative forcing are slower than they were in the past.