Sentences with phrase «over the next century if»

Realistic large - scale solar panel coverage could cause less than half a degree of local warming, far less than the several degrees in global temperature rise predicted over the next century if we keep burning fossil fuels.

The study confirms past estimates of likely rapid climate change over the next century if there are not major climate - change policies.

Note this statement by Nordhaus: «The study confirms past estimates of likely rapid climate change over the next century if there are not major climate - change policies.»

Not exact matches

If we stay on our current emission pathway, this will change: The metro region will likely see 2 to 7 extremely hot days on average over the next 5 to 25 years, 4 to 17 such days likely by mid-century, and 11 to 59 days — nearly two months — over 95 °F likely by the end of the century.

So it has been 130 years since the Scopes Trial, Darwin him self said if over the next century science could not discover support for complex evolution then his theory was false.

If these studies are closer to the true picture, models might be giving us accurate answers for warming over the next few decades, but underestimating warming over the next few centuries and more.

«If you go up to the size of a Tunguska impactor, the next one will likely hit us within a few centuries and impact over the ocean.»

Even if you were to manage the difficult importation of a non-street legal car, the 22B would not see public roads for the next seven years until it turns 25 in 2023, per U.S. laws that only allow import of foreign cars that are over a quarter - century old.

was a gesture, but it planted something that would grow over the next two decades, even if their importance was never fully recognized by institutions until the twenty - first century.

[Response: Here's a simple back - of - envelope consideration for the future: if the Greenland ice sheet melts completely over the next ~ 1,000 years (Jim Hansen argues in the current Climatic Change that the time scale could be centuries), this would contribute an average flux of ~ 0.1 Sv of freshwater to the surrounding ocean.

The potential for efficiency remains enormous, and given the likely improvements in technology and changes in societal norms over the next century which it will take us to do the right thing, we are likely to be able to cut fossil fuel use further than most people imagine possible, even if renewables don't become commercially competitive (which wind is already, and solar is in certain situations).

And could temporary stability switch to more radical climate change if these kinds of forcings offset greenhouse gases over the next century?

So, if the data trend up to now and the models agree, then the projections — region by region — should be fairly robust, at least over the next century.

If our best scientists, with the accumulated knowledge of millennia, can not agree on the seriousness of our current situation or what climate variables will come into play over the next century, then how the heck are they supposed to determine the exact size, number, and placement of massive sun shields to deflect the perfect the amount of radiation, without any unforeseen consequences?

When it comes to our economy, our security, and the very future of our planet, the choices we make in November and over the next few years will shape the next decade, if not the century.

Renewables and alternatives will all play a role, but even if those forms of energy grow by orders of magnitude over say the next fifty years, traditional hydrocarbons — oil and gas — will still make up the majority of the energy mix for at least the next century.

If fossil fuel consumption is to blame, and if it continues to track the exponential growth rate of the past century, it stands to reason that the temperature increase over the next century will be considerably more than over the previous onIf fossil fuel consumption is to blame, and if it continues to track the exponential growth rate of the past century, it stands to reason that the temperature increase over the next century will be considerably more than over the previous onif it continues to track the exponential growth rate of the past century, it stands to reason that the temperature increase over the next century will be considerably more than over the previous one.

If global temperatures rise 1.5 degrees Celsius over the next century, the rate will be about 10 times faster than what's been seen before, said Christopher Field, one of the scientists on the study.

Even if «catastrophic» AGW is correct and we do warm another 3 C over the next century, if it stabilized the Earth in warm phase and prevented or delayed the Earth's transition into cold phase it would be worth it because the cold phase transition would kill billions of people, quite rapidly, as crops failed throughout the temperate breadbasket of the world.

Because of the way opportunity costs compound over time the world at the turn of the next century will be poorer by the equivalent of $ Quadrillions and I suspect, if we could send a probe to our future descendants to ask if they would prefer a little less CO2 or an extra $ 500,000 each for everyone on Earth, the answer we get back would not be congratulatory for surrendering to these brain dead mooks.

If the rate of sea level rise would double, for example, over the next century from the current satellite estimates, we would expect a total sea level rise of roughly about 1.2 - 1.4 ft. by 2100.

«Even if we agreed on a particular computer simulation of the monetary damages accruing from climate change over the next few centuries, the calculation of the «social cost of carbon» would vary widely, depending on our choice of parameters that have nothing to do with climate science,» he said.

If the United States «stays the course» with President Bush's non-interventionist climate policies over the next decade, then by the third decade of this century all of American life — politics, international relations, our homes, our jobs, our industries, the kind of cars we drive — will be forever transformed.

This involves growing enough plant material in the next 50 years to more than completely make up for all the arbon dioxide lost through deforestation and land use change over the past few centuries, which is really remarkably ambitious, especially if people are still going to have some space to grow food.

If, over the next century or two, we lose a large fraction of the ice now in the Greenland Ice Sheet — or, perish the thought, the Antarctic Ice Sheet — then greenhouse gases will have a lot to answer for.

For example, decision makers already have a good idea what will happen if no action to reduce CO2 emissions is taken: the «business as usual» scenario shows significant increases in temperature and changes in precipitation, leading to serious impacts over the next century.

If the temperature rise is lower, the sea level will rise one and a half feet, and if temperatures are driven higher by our inaction over the next few years, sea level rise will be almost five feet by 2100 (and continue rising in subsequent centuriesIf the temperature rise is lower, the sea level will rise one and a half feet, and if temperatures are driven higher by our inaction over the next few years, sea level rise will be almost five feet by 2100 (and continue rising in subsequent centuriesif temperatures are driven higher by our inaction over the next few years, sea level rise will be almost five feet by 2100 (and continue rising in subsequent centuries).

Meehl's models predict that thermal expansion alone would make sea levels rise by about 11 centimetres over the next century, even if greenhouse gases were held at 2000 levels.

If one or several models predict Black Swan events, like unprecedented extended droughts in some region over the next century, that should not be ignored, but added as a possible scenario.

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)?

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.

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.

The world can reduce global GHG emissions over the next half century if it wants to.

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.

Even if we limit warming to 1.5 °C, as a number of low - lying island nations recently called for, sea levels will rise by two meters in coming centuries — with one meter rise by 2100 and up to five meters over the next 300 years.

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

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.

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.

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.

If the former represents the perception of seniors housing and care held by many over the last quarter century, the latter offers what others see as the future for the industry for the next 25 years.