Sentences with phrase «particular amount of warming»

I hope it will be helpful; many people still think that a particular amount of warming will have the same effect as would a change of that amount during a typical day.

Not exact matches

ECS is shorthand for the amount of warming expected, given a particular fossil - fuel emissions scenario.

On the high end, recent work suggests that 4 feet is plausible.23, 3,6,7,8 In the context of risk - based analysis, some decision makers may wish to use a wider range of scenarios, from 8 inches to 6.6 feet by 2100.10,2 In particular, the high end of these scenarios may be useful for decision makers with a low tolerance for risk (see Figure 2.26 on global sea level rise).10, 2 Although scientists can not yet assign likelihood to any particular scenario, in general, higher emissions scenarios that lead to more warming would be expected to lead to higher amounts of sea level rise.

Many climate model simulations focus on the amount of warming caused by emissions sustained over decades or centuries, but the timing of temperature increases caused by particular emission has been largely overlooked.

It is completely plausible that by burning fossil fuels we accelerate the amount of co2 increase and that that could have an impact on our climate by warming it up — in particular (and people seem to forget this) by warming it and changing our climate faster than we can adapt.

ECS is shorthand for the amount of warming expected, given a particular fossil - fuel emissions scenario.

In Colorado in particular, low amounts of rainfall coupled with dry weather (plus an ever - lengthening warm season allowing pine beetles to flourish and destroy living trees) made the state a match waiting to be lit... and that ignition has happened multiple times in the past few weeks.

I'm not a scientist so I ask those that are what does a particular forcing feedback scheme mean for the amount of warming in the second half of the 20th century for forcings from the first half.

The reasons for that are many: the timid language of scientific probabilities, which the climatologist James Hansen once called «scientific reticence» in a paper chastising scientists for editing their own observations so conscientiously that they failed to communicate how dire the threat really was; the fact that the country is dominated by a group of technocrats who believe any problem can be solved and an opposing culture that doesn't even see warming as a problem worth addressing; the way that climate denialism has made scientists even more cautious in offering speculative warnings; the simple speed of change and, also, its slowness, such that we are only seeing effects now of warming from decades past; our uncertainty about uncertainty, which the climate writer Naomi Oreskes in particular has suggested stops us from preparing as though anything worse than a median outcome were even possible; the way we assume climate change will hit hardest elsewhere, not everywhere; the smallness (two degrees) and largeness (1.8 trillion tons) and abstractness (400 parts per million) of the numbers; the discomfort of considering a problem that is very difficult, if not impossible, to solve; the altogether incomprehensible scale of that problem, which amounts to the prospect of our own annihilation; simple fear.