Sentences with phrase «predict less warming»

The reason the instrumental studies predict less warming isn't obvious.

«Climate sceptics like to criticize climate models for getting things wrong, and we are the first to admit they are not perfect, but what we are finding is that the mistakes are being made by those models which predict less warming, not those that predict more,» said Prof. Sherwood.

Not exact matches

On one hand, areas of high climatic stability are predicted to warm less than the global average.

«For the most part I agree with the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause some warming,» Spencer said, adding that the temperature rise will be much less than the panel predicts.

«I would have predicted that lizards were less vulnerable to warming.»

Despite the strong warming trend of the past 15 years, worldwide temperatures have risen less than models predict, given the build - up of carbon dioxide in the air to 25 per cent above pre-industrial levels.

And since lightning strikes are predicted to increase in a warming world... we may end up seeing less of the Sun itself... but more of its electrifying influence.

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 implicit assumption here is that the problem will turn out to be less serious than the models predict; thus, any carbon we have chosen to leave in the ground out of fear for the consequences of global warming will have gone uncombusted for nothing.

Bounoua L., F. G. Hall, P. J. Sellers, A. Kumar, G. J. Collatz, C. J. Tucker, and M. L. Imhoff, 2010, Quantifying the negative feedback of vegetation to greenhouse warming: A modeling approach, Geophysical Research Letters, 37 This one finds that the doubling of the Carbon Dioxide concentration may be less serious than the IPCC predicts

Some models predict that global warming will make tornadoes less frequent and less severe.

While observational data from satellites show less warming than predicted by most models, Santer and his co-authors demonstrate that the observed warming is consistent with models including both human and natural forcings, but inconsistent with models using only natural forcings and variability.

What deniers want to do is skip all that, misrepresent the models by claiming they predict steady warming (conflate multi-model ensemble means with individual model runs), and conclude the physics is wrong and CO2 causes less warming.

Later they say «An increase in global temperature is predicted to worsen the effect, since warmer waters hold less gas.»

This suggests to me that he was getting the basics more or less right, which in turn emphasises the point that the best models and theory we have all predict and have consistently predicted the same thing: warming, and quite a bit of it by the end of this century if we keep dumping CO2 in the atmosphere at our current rates.

Read on for the comment I just posted on the piece, by Katie Herzog *, which hailed the prospect of fewer hills, less traffic and a benefit when it comes to global warming: «Yes, it's stressful to know that you're going to die in one of Seattle's 30,000 predicted landslides, but look on the bright side: The carbon footprint of your lifeless body sliding downhill is zero.»

In terms of the gold that a climate science denier might find in the paper, at the very least, they could argue that the fact that the troposphere isn't warming more quickly than the surface shows that the climate models are unreliable — even though the models predict just the pattern of warming that we see — with the troposphere warming more quickly than the surface over the ocean but less quickly than the surface over land.

The leading experts predict that we have less than 10 years to make dramatic changes in our global warming pollution lest we lose our ability to ever recover from this environmental crisis.

For example, one might predict that the pattern they see (wide rings more common) would be prevalent in cooler, wetter parts of Alaska, whereas the opposite pattern (wide rings less common) might be more prevalent in warmer, drier parts, where warming may have pushed temperature past critical thresholds to the point where warm temps become a limiting factor.

- temperature sensors on satellites report much less warming in the upper atmosphere (which the theory of global warming predicts should warm first) than is reported by temperature sensors on the ground.

Given that the warming then is less than that predicted for this century, is that what we can expect for Africa's future?

While many studies of the effects of global warming on hurricanes predict an increase in various metrics of Atlantic basin - wide activity, it is less clear that this signal will emerge from background noise in measures of hurricane damage, which depend largely on rare, high - intensity landfalling events and are thus highly volatile compared to basin - wide storm metrics.

Whether it's warmer or colder, wetter or drier, more ice or less, more storms or fewer storms, «It's exactly what we predicted,» climate alarmists say.

Climate skeptics frequently predict that the real climate will warm less than climate models suggest it will over the next century.

Anyone who, at the time, to a lesser or greater extent, may have thought Hansen was exaggerating, by definition was «predicting» less warming.

Since 1970 we have seen exactly what global warming models predict — more rainfall in the North - West and some desert areas and less in the major agricultural regions.

In terms of predictions from «skeptics», I imagine that those who disagreed with Hansen predicted that warming would be less.

The implicit assumption here is that the problem will turn out to be less serious than the models predict; thus, any carbon we have chosen to leave in the ground out of fear for the consequences of global warming will have gone uncombusted for nothing.

Bob D. wrote: «As long as the trend from global GISS is still positive for the last 10 years, what is all the fuss?It is still warming, the trend for the last 10 years may be less that what the contributors to the IPCC predicted, but the uncertainty for a 10 year trend is quite large n'est pas?Isn't that what you have been going on about?»

The climate scientists behind the report are less ready, however, to predict what the specific impacts of global warming will look like in the coming decades, meaning it won't be very useful for regional planners.

A plateau where there is no warming is more difficult to explain than a wiggly gradual increase in temperature where the rate of increase is less than predicted.

And as to his claim that there may be «places around the world where global warming will lead to less crop success and yield, even when taking into account the carbon dioxide fertilization effect,» he appears to be equally ignorant that rising levels of atmospheric CO2 tend to raise the temperature of optimum plant photosynthesis beyond the predicted temperature values associated with global warming, effectively nullifying this worn out claim (Idso & Idso, 2011).

For instance, what is the usual response of a CAGW movement supporter to learning that, under their own climate sensitivity assumptions, other forms of geoengineering than CO2 cutbacks could neutralize the predicted warming for < = ~ 1 % the cost and with lesser biological side - effects (such as stratospheric dispersion of micron - scale reflective dust staying suspended for months at appropriate altitude, in radiative forcing neutralizing orders of magnitude more than its own mass in CO2)?

His initial findings showed a lesser degree of warming than most climate models predict, leading him to question those models.

There is a new myth circulating in the climate contrarian blogosphere and mainstream media that a figure presented in the «leaked» draft Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report shows that the planet has warmed less than previous IPCC report climate model simulations predicted.

As Indur Goklany has shown, even assuming that the climate models on which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) accurately predict (rather than exaggerate by 2 to 3 times) the warming effect of added CO2 in the atmosphere, people the world over, and especially in developing countries, will be wealthier in warmer than in cooler scenarios, making them less vulnerable than today to all risks — including those related to climate.

If my winning of the bet also means «no warming or cooling», or anything less than 0.3 warming (the warming predicted by the IPCC) then I feel extremely confident.

Global warming's crystal ball is clearing as climate models improve, and scientists now predict that some regions will see a month's less rain and snow by 2100.

So you agree that there was some late 20thC warming, even if much less than predicted?

Yet on all datasets, the atmosphere is warming at less than half the rate originally predicted by their fellow - activists at the error - prone Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — who have a vested interest in overstating the supposed extent of our influence on climate.

If we assume that the Met Office data published by the Daily Mail is roughly correct, then it is clear that warming is less than predicted, by a long way.

thats much less clear than the science that predicts the warming

Although this concentration is far less than that of CO2, methane is 30 times as potent a greenhouse gas and so may now be responsible for 15 — 20 % of the predicted global warming.»

This is false, global warming theory does not predict less extreme weather.

Dr. Kenner attacks the notion that extreme weather has increased in the past 15 years, or that Global Warming will cause in increase in extreme weather, noting, «If anything, global warming theory predicts less extreme weather.Warming will cause in increase in extreme weather, noting, «If anything, global warming theory predicts less extreme weather.warming theory predicts less extreme weather.»

If global warming were affecting sea ice (as climate models predict), then Arctic sea ice should be declining in a less jerky manner, and Antarctic sea ice should not be as steady as it is.

A major scientific study conducted at the University of Reading on the interactions between aerosols and clouds is much weaker than most climate models assume, meaning the planet could warm way less than predicted.

This is less than 1 / 6th of the 0.2 deg C per decade warming predicted by the IPCC.

the modellers make aggressive assumptions which predict more rather than less warming those in charge of the temperature record aggressively adjust for factors that might make the warming look greater, and fudge adjustments that might make it less.

The fact that the actual measured planetary warming is less than the lowest IPCC model prediction warming and is found only at high latitudes (which is not predicted by the IPCC models) logically supports the assertion that the planet's response to a change in forcing is to resist the change (negative feedback, planetary clouds in the tropics increase reflecting more sunlight in to space) rather than to amplify the change (positive feedback) due increased water vapour in the atmosphere.