Sentences with phrase «over next century»

Even if today's climate remained unchanged, water use in Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah would more than double over the next century, just from population and income growth.

Although there is uncertainty about what the precise impacts will be, there is no longer legitimate scientific disagreement about the fact that the climate is changing and that those changes will accelerate over the next century.

CO2e is derived by first determining how many times worse than carbon dioxide a given greenhouse gas is over the next century, and using that as a multiplier.

So, based on history, we might expect at worst another 0.5 C from warming over the next century.

But if it turns out that such sources as nuclear fusion are impossible to implement over the next century, that will not be because the moral problems of complacent over-consumption are inseparable from the economic and environmental problems caused by such consumption.

In contrast, the risk of extinction without climate change was calculated to be less than 1 %, suggesting that climate change will cause a dramatic increase in extinction risk for these taxonomic groups over the next century.

Assuming the greatest pace of economic development with little regard for the environment, the study predicted that 1,101 species would be lost over the next century due to habitat loss alone, while just 64 would be lost to climate change alone.

Assuming that the largest remaining ice shelves in East Antarctica — Filchner - Ronne and Ross — will remain intact, sea level rise from all other melting ice and the expansion of seawater as the weather gets warmer over the next century would be somewhere between 2.6 feet (0.8 meter) and six feet (two meters)-- or nearly twice as much as projected last year by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

A new grand solar minimum would not trigger another LIA; in fact, the maximum 0.3 °C cooling would barely make a dent in the human - caused global warming over the next century.

The «A1B» scenario assumes that 50 % of energy over the next century will come from fossil fuels, resulting in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations causing drastic climatic consequences.

Additionally, the IPCC Summary for Policymakers (SPM) noted that, if global warming trends persist as predicted over the next century, the impact on human systems could be catastrophic.

All the analyses imply that over the next century the human economy will squeeze most of the carbon out of its system and move, via natural gas, to a hydrogen economy.3 Hydrogen, fortunately, is the immaterial material.

So, in order to trigger another LIA, a new grand solar minimum would have to cause about 1 °C cooling, plus it would have to offset the continued human - caused global warming of 1 to 5 °C by 2100, depending on how our greenhouse gas emissions change over the next century.

There is little benefit to acting now rather than, say, two years from now, but potentially major benefits, since what we learn over the next couple of years will make a major difference in understanding what the optimal course of action over the next century looks like.

But if global warming continues over the next century, how will the frequency and strength of cyclones be affected?

A recent study estimated that the median onset of plant growth in spring will happen three weeks earlier over the next century, as a result of rising global temperatures.

«The impact of anthropogenic global warming over the next century... may be no more than one - third to one - half of the IPCC's current projections,» they wrote.

For years I have opposed steps like a Federal carbon tax or cap and trade system because I believe (and still believe) them to be unnecessary given the modest amount of man - made warming I expect over the next century.

So these two articles are suggesting that a grand solar minimum could have a net cooling effect in the ballpark of 1 to 6 °C, depending on how human greenhouse gas emissions change over the next century.

And scientists say that unless we curb global - warming emissions, average U.S. temperatures could increase by up to 10 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century.

New research from glaciologist Tad Pfeffer of the University of Colorado at Boulder and colleagues published in Science attempts to better estimate the possible sea level rise over the next century by measuring the speed at which the world's glaciers — in Greenland and Antarctica but also the many mountain ice sheets throughout the globe — are actually speeding to the sea as well as how swiftly they may melt.

The scientific paper, entitled «Why Models Run Hot,» concludes that the computer models overstated the impact of CO2 on the climate: «The impact of anthropogenic global warming over the next century... may be no more than one - third to one - half of IPCC's current projections.»

Climate models produce realistic estimations of future climate change over the next century.

New results reported by the National Oceanography Centre suggest that 38 percent of deep ocean life in the North Atlantic could be lost over the next century due to a reduction of plant and animal life in the upper levels of the oceans that feed deep - sea life.

Now in Yokohama, the second IPCC working group will set out the impact that rising temperatures will have on humans, animals and ecosystems over the next century.

To make matters worse, the massive die - off may just be the first in a long line as climatologists predict more severe drought to come as climate change worsens over the next century.

Weakening Solar Output Won't Slow Warming Over Next Century One argument often cited by climate skeptics and global warming deniers is that solar cycles are responsible for at least part of the warming we're seeing now.

We will most likely see larger than previously expected increases in sea levels over the next century according to a recent study conducted by a team of researchers from the Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research at the University of Colorado,

The rapid melt of small glaciers and mountain ice caps will be the main source of sea level rise over the next century, according to a new study.

Even if we assign every bit of 20th century warming to man - made causes, this still only implies 1C of warming over the next century.

Such warming could cause accelerated melting of glacial ice and a consequent increase in the sea level of several feet over the next century.

The existence of a strong and positive water - vapor feedback means that projected business - as - usual greenhouse gas emissions over the next century are virtually guaranteed to produce warming of several degrees Celsius.

If we do nothing to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases, future warming will likely be at least two degrees Celsius over the next century.

Over the next century, amateur and official meteorologists continued taking observations in settlements dotted around the continent, providing documentary evidence of climate variability in Australia.

The scientific consensus is that doubling its level as is expected over the next century will cause about 1C of warming.

When the IPCC gets to a forecast of 3 - 5C warming over the next century (in which CO2 concentrations are expected to roughly double), it is in two parts.

Current results continue to be fairly consistent with my personal theory, that man - made CO2 may add 0.5 - 1C to global temperatures over the next century (below alarmist estimates), but that this warming may be swamped at times by natural climactic fluctuations that alarmists tend to under - estimate.

My view has always been that the earth will warm at most a degree for a doubling of CO2 over the next century, and may warm less if feedbacks turn out to be negative.

On the other we have people asking that we base our predictions on the real science of the CO2 greenhouse effect which suggests beneficial warming of about 1C over the next century.

If so, how does the projected net damages over next century reconcile with the strong net benefit of warming and CO2 fertilistion during the last century as suggested by Figure 3 in Tol (2011)?

However, the accelerated retreat of glaciers, combined with greater melting of these ice sheets, suggest that earlier projections of sea - level rise over the next century — such as in the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — are conservative.8, 9

The temperature rise of 3 - 6 degrees Celsius over the next century promised by pessimists could not have a significant influence on the Antarctic, where the average temperature is less than 40 degrees below zero.

Wiley: First generation climate — carbon cycle models suggest that climate change will suppress carbon accumulation in soils, and could even lead to a net loss of global soil carbon over the next century.

Peak insolation from orbital forcing will be significantly lower over the next century than what the Earth received during the peak warm period around 126,000 years ago.

The chances of proving — «proving» in the hard scientific sense of requiring both observational support and replication — that the projected change of climate over the next century will be large enough to be disastrous are virtually nil.

Study: Long - term warming equivalent to 10 °C per century could be sufficient to trigger compost - bomb instability in drying organic soils Wiley: First generation climate — carbon cycle models suggest that climate change will suppress carbon accumulation in soils, and could even lead to a net loss of global soil carbon over the next century.

Researchers used two climate models to project rising temperatures over the next century and applied those results to current safety procedures used in determining the viability of a host city.

«Scientific and economic challenges still exist,» writes Harvard geoscientist Daniel Schrag, «but none are serious enough to suggest that carbon capture and storage will not work at the scale required to offset trillions of tons of carbon dioxide emissions over the next century.»

Say the doomsayers predicting several feet of sea level gains over the next century are right.

Regarding the only prediction cited — «the likelihood over the next century...» — I notice that