Sentences with phrase «much future temperature»

Bjorn Lomborg used the standard MAGICC climate model to determine how much the future temperature would change due to the United States «Nationally Determined Contribution».

Using a simple, publically - available, climate model emulator called MAGICC that was in part developed through support of the EPA, we ran the numbers as to how much future temperature rise would be averted by a complete adoption and adherence to the EPA's new carbon dioxide restrictions *.

Not exact matches

Studies by the ICO suggest that prices may stabilize in the future and that production in some countries, such as Ethiopia and Vietnam may increase as warming temperatures make more ground available for coffee cultivation, but much will depend on factors outside the coffee industry.

«Where these data sources disagree, however, is by how much temperatures have changed and are expected to change in the future.

The future of the currents, whether slowing, stopping or reversing (as was observed during several months measurements), could have a profound effect on regional weather patterns — from colder winters in Europe to a much warmer Caribbean (and hence warmer sea surface temperatures to feed hurricanes).

That means existing climate change models predicting the effects of rising temperatures and heat stress on maize may be counting on yield boosts that aren't coming, and overestimating how much our corn fields will yield in the future.

While the work doesn't predict how much of the Arctic will burn as temperatures rise, the findings do suggest that people need to prepare for more fires in the future.

And while computer models have become much more sophisticated, they still have difficulty predicting future temperatures for precise regions.

But the U.K. Met Office (national weather service), the U.S.'s National Center for Atmospheric Research and other partners around the globe aim to change that in the future by developing regular assessments — much like present evaluations of global average temperatures along with building from the U.K. flooding risk modeling efforts — to determine how much a given season's extreme weather could be attributed to human influence.

In the 487th Brookhaven Lecture, Stephen Schwartz speaks about his research on why Earth's temperature has not increased as much as expected from the observed increase in greenhouse gases, and what this might mean for the future.

It showed, surprisingly, that drought stress is driven as much by growing season temperatures as winter snowpack.Carswell is deftly layering in the science and building a case about the impact of future warming.

If we thus want to know whether Harvey is a «harbinger» for the future of Houston, the attribution question addressing the overall likelihood of a hurricane like Harvey to occur, which includes many variables other than temperature and sea level rise that interact, needs to be answered by carefully estimating the likelihood of such hurricanes developing in a warming world as well as how much rain they bring.

Pinning a number on how much global temperature rises in response to a doubling of carbon dioxide — known as the climate sensitivity — is a big question in climate science as it helps more accurately predict how much warming we'll see in future.

Though, researchers are quick to point out that this bleak future depends on how much greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase, and on how this will affect temperature, snowfall and rainfall in the area.

Many recent studies (e.g. Hansen & Sato) have claimed that future rise in global average temperature (GAT) will create a much greater effect on sea level than IPCC AR4 predicts.

And, as increase in ocean temperature lags increase in atmospheric temp., even if no AGW signal is yet visible in the hurricane data, this may not mean very much in terms of the future impact of AGW on hurricane intensity.

The basic story of human caused global warming and its coming impacts is still the same: humans are causing it and the future will bring higher sea levels and warmer temperatures, the only questions are: how much and how fast?

If you accept that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that human fossil fuel use is now the dominant contributor to atmospheric CO2 changes, then knowing how much global temperatures respond to increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is important for understanding the future climate.

The first is climate inertia — on very many levels, from fossil lock - in emissions (decades), ocean - atmospheric temperature inertia (yet more decades), Earth system temperature inertia (centuries to millennia) to ecological climate impact inertia (impacts becoming worse over time under a constant stress)-- all this to illustrate anthropogenic climate change, although already manifesting itself, is still very much an escalating problem for the future.

Currently set at $ 36 per ton of carbon dioxide, the metric is produced using a complex, and contentious, set of models estimating a host of future costs to society related to rising temperatures and seas, then using a longstanding economic tool, a discount rate, to gauge how much it is worth today to limit those harms generations hence.

A nice atmospheric pressure passive safe high temperature reactor that can burn used fuel in the future, is much better than fielding a complex PWR today.

[T] he author is convinced that recent increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide have contributed much less than 5 % of the recent changes of atmospheric temperature, and will contribute no more than that in the foreseeable future.

A future strong positive feedback from the carbon cycle, on the other hand, could add as much CO2 to the atmosphere as humans have, leading to temperature increases well beyond the International Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) upper limits.

We don't know what will happen in the future, but we do know, for instance, that with a small rise in temperatures, hurricanes have been much less likely to strike the US over the past approximately 15 years.

But how much worse will it get as temperatures rise in the future?

There is a widespread view that a 4 degrees C future is incompatible with an organised global community, is likely to be beyond «adaptation,» is devastating to the majority of ecosystems, and has a high probability of not being stable (i.e., 4 degrees C would be an interim temperature on the way to a much higher equilibrium level).

-- Muller believes humans are changing climate with CO2 emissions — humans have been responsible for «most» of a 0.4 C warming since 1957, almost none of the warming before then — IPCC is in trouble due to sloppy science, exaggerated predictions; chairman will have to resign — the «Climategate» mails were not «hacked» — they were «leaked» by an insider — due to «hide the decline» deception, Muller will not read any future papers by Michael Mann — there has been no increase in hurricanes or tornadoes due to global warming — automobiles are insignificant in overall picture — China is the major CO2 producer, considerably more than USA today — # 1 priority for China is growth of economy — global warming is not considered important — China CO2 efficiency (GDP per ton CO2) is around one - fourth of USA today, has much room for improvement — China growth will make per capita CO2 emissions at same level as USA today by year 2040 — if it is «not profitable» it is «not sustainable» — US energy future depends on shale gas for automobiles; hydrogen will not be a factor — nor will electric cars, due to high cost — Muller is upbeat on nuclear (this was recorded pre-Fukushima)-- there has been no warming in the USA — Muller was not convinced of Hansen's GISS temperature record; hopes BEST will provide a better record.

The questions we are trying to answer are how much warmer was it at different latitudes and how can that information be used to project future temperatures based on what we know about CO2 levels?»

If all future Argo floats were of the Deep Argo variety, in five or ten years we would know as much about the deep ocean's temperature and salinity structure as we currently know about the surface.

For example, the rate of warming of surface air temperature observed during the past 20 years is much greater than that observed during the previous 20 - year interval, 1960 — 79, and is not necessarily indicative of the rate of temperature change that will be observed during the future interval 2000 — 2019.

The majority of expert climate scientists have reached the consensus view that human activity has resulted in global warming, although there is debate about how much the temperature will rise in the future.

Subsequently, however, based on statistical models that employ semi-empirical relationships between past and predicted future increases in global temperature, Vermeer and Rahmsdorf (2009), Jevrejeva et al. (2010) and Grinsted et al. (2010) derived much greater increases on the order of 60 to 190 cm over the same time interval.

But the truth is that the ocean recirculates that extra load and, at some point, will release some of it back to the atmosphere, where it will keep raising temperatures, even if future carbon dioxide emissions were to be much lower than they are now.»

Science - based targets provide companies with a clearly defined pathway to future - proof growth, by specifying how much and how quickly they need to reduce their GHGs to help keep global temperature rises to below 2 °C.

«With both the frequency of forest fires and warmer temperatures predicted to increase with climate change, widespread melt events are likely to happen much more frequently in the future,» Keegan says.

Or that average global temperatures could increase by as much as 11.5 °F by 2100, depending on the level of future greenhouse gas emissions, according to recent climate models.

«When future generations look back on the global - warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records — on which the entire panic ultimately rested — were systematically «adjusted» to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.»

If one were to get 2 C by 2075, at the time of 2075 one should not have seen much in terms of sea level rise - though one might expect significant rise in the future if such higher temperature continue for decades into the future.

Booker writes future generations will «look back on the global - warming scare of the past 30 years» and «nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records -LSB-...] were systematically «adjusted» to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.»

Mostly, it is because the forcings in the past (prior to the satellite era) are much more poorly constrained (aerosols + solar in particular)- so the attribution of the ~ 0.75 warming so far is more tricky than calculating the estimated change in temperature in the future (which of course assumes some GHG trajectory).»

[55] According to the World Climate Report, «Dr. MIchaels» general message was that the recent behavior of global temperatures is starting to push the (lower) bounds of climate models» expectations of such behavior and that if the current slowdown in the rate of global warming continues for much longer, we must start to question the reliability of climate projections of the future state of our climate.»

So, it's quite likely that the next IPCC report will have much larger error bars on its estimates of future temperature or precipitation, compared with AR4.

Admittedly, the much higher levels of ESS play out over much longer periods but we may already have condemned future generations to intolerable temperatures and sea level rise.

That baseline has told us much about what has been happening to global temperature lately, but it may not be the best baseline to use in exploring our future.

The issue of how much credibility the global models have in their simulations of the spatial structure of the trends in ocean surface temperatures is likely to be a central issue when assessing the credibility of projections of future tropical storm activity.

More research is needed to determine whether future temperatures in those regions would increase as much or more than currently indicated by computer models.

So, the future rise in temperature is dependent on future emissions, not so much on past emissions.