Sentences with phrase «of warming in the pipeline»

There are already several decades of warming in the pipeline.

In the latter case that would indicate that we have a whole lot of warming in the pipeline from the raised levels that we've generated at the present time!

Barry, will the recent Pacific Decadal Oscillation shift mask some (or a lot) of the warming in the pipeline?.

Not exact matches

For instance, when Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne emerged from a January meeting with Alberta's Rachel Notley to say warm, fuzzy things about Alberta's new climate strategy and the quest for pipelines, the prime minister quickly praised their efforts from Switzerland, where he was attending the World Economic Forum: «I am very much in the camp of both premiers, Wynne and Notley, who demonstrated that Canada can and should work together on economic issues for all of us.»

In light of this fact, will stopping the pipeline decrease global warming, or just make other countries richer and more powerful, and Canada poorer and weaker?

The World Energy Outlook 2016, released last week, is just one among an increasing line of studies showing how nations need to slow and, ultimately, phase out investment in new fossil fuel supply infrastructure — from oil fields and pipelines to coal mines — if they are serious about keeping warming to 2C or less.

This is much less than the current «best estimate» of about 3 deg.C, and would imply that there is * not * any unfelt warming «still in the pipeline» from greenhouse gases we've already emitted.

Do you mean to imply that the subsequent decrease of CO2 in («so absent any human emissions, there would be a net decrease of CO2») would cancel the temperature rise that would otherwise result from the warming still in the pipeline so that M & W's «zero emission» plot would immediately go flat?

The Kia Ceed at this point then is hardly an evo - centric car, but then as opposed to the influx of compact SUVs, and with the possibility of a warmer future offering in the pipeline, we'll take one of these over a dull compact SUV any day.

If we have had 1C of warming (giss) since pre-industrial and human made aerosols are masking between 0.5 and 1.1 (Samset et al) and there is warming «in the pipeline» as well — has the possibility of a 1.5 C target already passed?

Re; # 36: Raypierre says: «except to say that over a time scale of «a hundred years», some heat does mix down to a depth of around 300m, which is why we have «committed warming» in the pipeline»

On the overarching question of «solving» the climate problem, I'm sure Joe would agree that global warming is inevitably going to be, at best, managed — not «fixed» — given the trajectories for emissions in a world inexorably headed toward roughly nine billion people seeking energy - enabled lives and with substantial warming already in the pipeline, according to a heap of research.

I don't know how to give a simple few - line answer to that question, except to say that over a time scale of a hundred years, some heat does mix down to a depth of around 300m, which is why we have «committed warming» in the pipeline.

If we knew ocean heat uptake as well as we know atmospheric temperature change, then we could pin down fairly well the radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere, which would give us a fair indication of how much warming is «in the pipeline» given current greenhouse gas concentrations.

Yet deleterious effects of warming are apparent (IPCC 2007), even though only about half of the warming due to gases now in the air has appeared, the remainder still «in the pipeline» due to the inertia of the climate system (Hansen et al 2011).

Curry seems confused on «warming in the pipeline» since this comes about from stabilization of forcing which has not occurred.

Also, the idea is to keep warming below +1.5 ºC even with the current energy imbalance (warming in the pipeline) and reductions in aerosols that accompany emissions reductions (though Hansen says the impact of aerosols from fossil fuels was overstated and other manmade aerosols seem to dominate).

The reason why there is «warming in the pipeline» is because there is a significant imbalance in radiation at the top of the atmosphere.

To better understand why it is so important to stop the Keystone XL pipeline and why tens of thousands rallied in DC on Sunday and why activists participated in acts of civil disobedience, you must understand the math of global warming.

That may undo some of the warming already done and likewise reduce the amount in the pipeline (since it will reduce before it appears).

The current energy imbalance at the surface (as demonstrated by the increasing heat content of the oceans) implies there is at least a further 0.5 deg C surface warming in the «pipeline».

There's still plenty of global warming and centuries of coastal retreats in the pipeline, so this is hardly a «benign» situation, as some have cast it.

This imbalance is really an important quantity — estimates of how much warming is in the «pipeline», the size of the aerosol cooling effect etc. all depend on knowing what this number is.

But aren't these way too low, since LOTI shows we are — as of 2017 — already around 0.95 C warmer than the 1951 - 1980 average, and there is more warming «in the pipeline» because of the time lag, and another (estimated) 0.5 C warming when the anthropogenic aerosols dimming effect is removed?

But, of course, CO2 is not about to stop rising tomorrow or any time soon, so it's not just the warming «in the pipeline» that we have to worry about.

Another 0.5 K of warming is already «in the pipeline» due to ocean heat storage no matter what we do.

So the pipeline itself is really just a skirmish in the battle to protect climate, and if the pipeline gets built despite Bill McKibben's dedicated army of protesters, that does not mean in and of itself that it's «game over» for holding warming to 2C.

It is also inferred that the planet is now out of radiation balance by 0.5 to 1 W / m2 and that additional global warming of about 0.5 °C is already «in the pipeline».

It is the inertia of societal infrastructure, the carbon cycle and the climate that implies that at any point there is a significant warming that is already «in the pipeline» (and thus very difficult to avoid).

But more warming is already «in - the - pipeline,» delayed only by the great inertia of the world ocean.

We can now argue about whether the GH warming has reached «equilibrium» over the past 150 years or whether there is still some GH warming «hidden in the pipeline», but IMO that is like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

In particular, pipeline opponents are angry that the review panel is not hearing evidence about emissions from the Alberta oil sands and the greater issue of global warming.

The fate of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, he suggested, would be determined by whether or not it would contribute to global warming through a net increase in greenhouse gases — or not.

IPCC (AR4) has figured that 0.6 C of warming is still «in the pipeline».

To determine what «unrealized» warming is in the pipeline you would have to know what the normal forcing «it» should receive plus the amount of additional forcing we have provided.

I was referring to the «pipeline» paper, which he co-authored in 2005, in which the authors postulate that half of the warming since 1880 was «still in the pipeline».

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.

The confluence of the twin issues of Native American respect for the land and modern environmentalists» alarm over global warming has met in resistance to a North Dakota oil pipeline, observed Ann Wright.

Police arrested more than 140 Native American and environmental protesters challenging an oil pipeline near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation in North Dakota, a project touching the raw nerves of water and global warming, reports Dennis J Bernstein.

Short of a complete cessation of emissions today, there is no foreseeable way to avoid the bulk of the warming «in the pipeline.»

As you said in your presentation, a substantial fraction of the warming from greenhouse gases still sits in the pipeline or is compensated by aerosols.

«warming in the pipeline» usually assumes constant concentrations, not zero emissions (though if CO2 emissions were dropped to zero tomorrow, and all other emissions were held constant, I'd probably expect a little bit of warming before it turned over and started dropping) 2) Don't forget aerosols: they are following the Level 1 scenario from Wigley et al. 2009, and may actually dominate short - term temperature trends.

in regard to the idea of «warming in the pipeline».

However, given that the CAGW position doesn't rest on specific numbers, but is instead an unorganized collection of anecdotal evidence, coupled with heavily - tweaked computer models, unfounded assumptions about positive feedbacks, and a healthy imagination about possible future disasters, a lower warming number for the 20th century will simply be brushed over with claims about aerosols being stronger than previously thought, more warming still waiting in the «pipeline» or similar ad hoc «explanations» that keep the overall story alive.

51 Fig. 20 - 14, p. 481 Cut fossil fuel use (especially coal) Shift from coal to natural gas Improve energy efficiency Shift to renewable energy resources Transfer energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies to developing countries Reduce deforestation Use more sustainable agriculture and forestry Limit urban sprawl Reduce poverty Slow population growth Remove CO 2 from smoke stack and vehicle emissions Store (sequester) CO2 by planting trees Sequester CO 2 deep underground Sequester CO 2 in soil by using no - till cultivation and taking cropland out of production Sequester CO 2 in the deep ocean Repair leaky natural gas pipelines and facilities Use animal feeds that reduce CH 4 emissions by belching cows Solutions Global Warming PreventionCleanup

Alarmists, embarrassed by the earth's refusal to warm as their models predict, have concocted all sorts of scary stories about «warming in the pipeline,» etc..

«With some level of warming and sea level rise already in the pipeline no matter what we do, we won't see a reduction in impacts or even a sudden levelling - off — impacts are projected to increase at the same rate in all scenarios for the next couple of decades or so, and after that they merely increase more slowly in the deep emissions cuts scenarios,» Betts told Mongabay.

Among other things, the author [of the Economist's report] hopelessly confuses transient warming (the warming observed at any particularly time) with committed warming (the total warming that you've committed to, which includes warming in the pipeline due to historical carbon emissions).

I should also point out that there is a difference between a projection and a prediction, but given the short time scales here and the amount of warming «in the pipeline» already it's probably not germane in this case.

This eventual release of buried gases and heat from the oceans is sometimes called the «warming in the pipeline» or «warming commitment» that people will eventually have to contend with, Romanou said.