Sentences with phrase «on 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.»

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.

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

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.

Either way, their survival depends far more on their adaptation than it does to US action, since no matter what policies we enact, there is warming already in the «pipeline» and the warming to come from the economic growth in the developing world will dwarf any attempts to limit our own emissions.

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.

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.

Then (2004) he saw that his model predictions on warming were not happening (they were exaggerated by 2:1), so he used «circular logic» to come up with the «hidden in the pipeline» postulation.

But you are right — I don't actually believe that there is warming in the pipeline — which depends on oceans slowly warming.

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.

In hopes that a subsequent paper may remedy this shortfall, one further seminal shift would seem worth including, being a case for permafrost GHG contribution on top of the warming from the best case of emissions control, specifically: — present realized warming, — plus pipeline warming, — plus warming from phase - out emissions reaching near - zero by 2050, — plus a multiplier for the consequent loss of the fossil sulphate parasol.

They included the following nifty graph, with the observed surface temperature but also the eventually expected temperature at the corresponding CO2 concentration (which they dub the» real global temperature»), based on different approaches to account for warming in the pipeline:

Based on this information and published atmospheric CO2 data I can now estimate the CO2 impact on observed past warming and the observed 2xCO2 impact (or climate sensitivity), leaving out (for now) any notions of energy «hidden in the pipeline»..

Whether or not global warming is entirely or largely due to human use of carbon for fuel, the reduction of the dependence on carbon makes sense for reducing asthma in children; reducing black lung disease; reducing the production of coal ashes, residues, and effluents; reducing the impact of carbon greenhouse gasses; reducing pipeline failures; reducing coal and oil surface transport accidents; reducing pipeline - related warfare; and reducing air pollution.

In a news analysis published today, the New York Times concludes that while the tax bill provision on Keystone XL will likely kill the project, the victory will do little to stop future pipelines, stall tar sands development, or slow down global warming.

Based on no further acceleration of temperature rise and nothing in the pipeline, this would imply a warming of +2.3 C.