Sentences with phrase «rather high climate»

Hansen's model assumed a rather high climate sensitivity of 4.2 °C for a doubling of CO2.

Not exact matches

And the brouhaha shifts the national discussion to divisive social issues that could repel swing voters rather than economic ones that could attract them in a climate of high unemployment and stumbling recovery, the GOP officials said.

But «let's try not to make it so» is also a good idea, if those who do want a consensus to address climate change could challenge that trend: David Cameron has done so in making it a high profile issue and taking a clear line - but he has tended to tell us that this proves his party has changed, which means he underestimates how far he seems to be from convincing a rather large chunk of it.

That's why we have to look at the balance in terms of what is cheaper: Can we reduce emissions of greenhouse gases today so that we can stabilize the earth's climate, rather than adapt to the impacts of climate change and incur much higher costs over a period of time?

«We need a planning process that is equal to the scale and complexity of the challenge, rather than continuing to depend on piecemeal efforts that put wildlife species and human communities at higher risk in the face of global pressures like climate change and a race for resources.»

Vattenfall has high hopes for clean coal, but the company regards this process as a bridge to renewable - energy technologies rather than a permanent solution to climate change.

A high - pressure blocking event, which may have been climate change - related, steered the storm toward the East Coast rather than out to sea.

Those patterns matched three rather dire climate model predictions: that storm tracks — the paths along which cyclones travel in the Northern and Southern hemispheres — would shift poleward; that subtropical dry regions would expand, and that the tops of the highest clouds would get even higher.

Rather, their analysis shows that if you compare the LGM land cooling with the model land cooling, then the model that fits the land best has much higher GLOBAL climate sensitivity than you get for best fit if you use ocean data.

Such research is needed for understanding future changes in cyclones and avoided impacts if we follow the Paris Agreement on climate change, rather than current, high greenhouse gas emission pathways.»

«We all must be wary of any system that creates a climate where students are viewed as part of the pay equation, rather than young people who deserve a high quality education that prepares them for their future,» says Bill Raabe, NEA's director of Collective Bargaining and Member Benefits.

The higher grade also gains three extra audio speakers (taking the total to seven), a 6.1 - inch touchscreen, sat nav, climate control (in lieu of manual air conditioning) and 17 - inch alloy wheels (rather than 16s).

Thanks to its high altitude, Tana Toraja has a rather temperate climate.

(in general, whether for future projections or historical reconstructions or estimates of climate sensitivity, I tend to be sympathetic to arguments of more rather than less uncertainty because I feel like in general, models and statistical approaches are not exhaustive and it is «plausible» that additional factors could lead to either higher or lower estimates than seen with a single approach.

I like this little dig at the denier - sceptic - contrarians who appear to be tree ring obsessed: «It is intriguing to note that the removal of tree - ring data from the proxy dataset yields less, rather than greater, peak cooling during the 16th — 19th centuries for both CPS and EIV methods... contradicting the claim... that tree - ring data are prone to yielding a warm - biased «Little Ice Age» relative to reconstructions using other high - resolution climate proxy indicators.»

Thus, would you rather have some of your money going toward the makers of high - efficiency vehicles, many (or at least some) of which should be in the U.S., helping to create or preserve jobs in the U.S, by making these shifts, and all - the - while helping to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and protect the climate; OR would you rather continue to have much more of your money going to ExxonMobil and to overseas providers of oil, all - the - while continuing to pour larger amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere?

At World Climate Report, we believe, that instead of having an equal likelihood of occurrence, that the temperature rise during the next 50 to 100 years will lie closer to the low end of the IPCC projected range than to the high end of the range and thus the overall impacts will tend towards the modest rather than the extreme.

Finally, Montford asks the question as to why the scientists and the IPCC promoted the hockey stick at such a high confidence level so prematurely, and why such extraordinary efforts were made to defend it when it arguably isn't a critical piece of the climate puzzle, rather than to learn from outside statisticians and do a credible error analysis on the data and the inferences.

In today's high - tech climate though, technology should be considered as a potential mechanism to foster curiosity and enhance engagement with the natural world, rather than an adversary with which nature must compete.

If climate senstivity to CO2 is eventually shown (rather than just assumed) to be close to the sensitivity to solar, I think a case can then be made that the GHG attribution should be equal or higher than the solar attribution, despite the large uncertainty in our knowledge of the increase in solar forcing.

«Thus, if climate change effects are anticipated, or detected in basin - wide storm statistics, sensible policy decisions should depend on the projected overall shift in the probability of damage rather than on a high - threshold criterion for trend emergence.»

[T] he last 10 to 15 years «make it more plausible that the size of climate response to greenhouse gas increase is on the lower side of what models have been projecting over the last 10 or 20 years rather than over the high side.»

I myself am rather curious about just exactly what will happen to clouds in a high - CO2 world, since this would help resolve some of the mysteries of the Cretaceous climate.

What's new is that several recent papers have offered best estimates for climate sensitivity that are below four degrees Fahrenheit, rather than the previous best estimate of just above five degrees, and they have also suggested that the highest estimates are pretty implausible.

... we strongly support Delworth and Knutson's (2000) contention that this high - latitude warming event represents primarily natural variability within the climate system, rather than being caused primarily by external forcings, whether solar forcing alone (Thejll and Lassen, 2000) or a combination of increasing solar irradiance, increasing anthropogenic trace gases, and decreasing volcanic aerosols.

The period between was a period where oscillation of Climate was observed as variation of (much higher) sea levels rather than recurring glaciation events, for well over 200 Million years until the last ~ 3 Million.

Thus (for example) goals to enhance economic growth and reduce poverty should sit alongside environmental considerations in any research funding strategy, and as I've noted emphasis should be given to reducing the uncertainty rather than simply projecting the extremes of it forward for little useful purpose (a high volume of current research in climate science).

Finally, we have not yet taken note here of Shindell»14 «Inhomogeneous forcing and transient climate sensitivity» which makes a very strong case not only for the unexpected aerosol loading from China being the culprit for the divergence, but also, unfortunately, for the case that a rather high sensitivity is a logical consequence of that explanation.

With record precipitation, megaflood evidence, and studies warning of higher extreme weather, with likelihood of confluence and climate persistence, should not the Oroville Dam Design Peak Maximum Flood and Spillway Peak Outflow parameters be increased rather than decreased?

It is a particularly appropriate instrument in the context of emerging high - risk technologies such as climate engineering in that its focus is not on past violations, but rather on developing tools to avoid violations of rights in the future.

Under those circumstances, I would say that evaluating the three time periods mentioned above are important, and as such there remains a rather high degree of uncertainty w / r / t «fat tail» large - scale impact on our climate as the result of BAU.

Both short - lived and long - lived species appear to cause enhanced climate responses in the same regions of high sensitivity rather than short - lived species having an enhanced effect primarily near polluted areas.

Personally I hope they're right, but I also consider the broader picture and rather than bet on the 5 % chance they are right, I also consider the 95 % chance that climate sensitivty is somewhat higher.

The lack of an increase in the rate of warming is therefore a major obstacle for a high sensitivity to CO2, and strongly supports the view that Climate Sensitivity to CO2 (if any at all) must be rather low.

High mountain areas in that region experience a rather different climate.

This means that: 1) the annular modes vary on timescales as fast as weeks; and 2) the high and low index polarities of the annular modes do not reflect two distinct states of the climate system, but rather the wings of a normally distributed frequency distribution.

For this reason, a joint research project between Widener University Commonwealth Law School and the University of Auckland recommended in Paris that national climate commitments be stated in tons of emissions over a specific period rather than percent reductions by a given date because waiting to the end of specific period to achieve percent reductions will cause the total tons of ghg emitted to be higher than if reductions are made earlier.

I won't repeat what I said on an earlier forum, but a quick look at Paul Williams» presentation on numerical errors in climate modeling shows a host of issues that would lead me to assign a rather high uncertainty to the model results, and then we have the uncertainties in the physical models themselves.

Meanwhile, the few studies that involve a higher spatial resolution generally do so by sacrificing the temporal coverage of the data, providing them with a «case study» point of view of a particular weather event, rather than robust statistics required for an understanding of climate.

The benchmarking of RE statistics was an issue that was put into play in McIntyre and McKitrick 2005a, where we observed that you could get high RE statistics from pseudoproxies with autocorrelation coefficients mimicking the autocorrelation coefficients of actual proxies, rather than the very low - order AR1 coefficients assumed (without proof) by climate scientists.

Rather, we propose the possible development of a «warm LIA» climate scenario for the coming century that combines high precipitation variability (similar to LIA conditions) with warm and dry conditions.

Clustering algorithms are, however, biased towards high - density regions of climate variable space and tend to select scenarios that describe the central tendency rather than the full spread of an ensemble.

And when they're not hating the Jews there's always someone else to hate, Rather than climate change there is a far greater causal connection between the global warming alarmism of the Left and a moribund economy, staggeringly high real unemployment, and the Left's war on everyone and everything from William Gray, George Bush, Gov. Palin to oil companies, hamburgers, big Cokes and the Tea Party.

I don't live in a cold climate and don't have direct experience with this, but if you talk to people in the really cold places, like IECC climate zones 6 and higher, they'll say you have to use a heat recovery ventilator rather than an energy recovery ventilator.

A year later, there has been some rather spectacular unraveling of the climate change juggernaut, although the high priests of the IPCC don't quite realize it yet: the positive feedback at work, but in the opposite direction.

Surprisingly the record was set not this year, or even this decade, rather it was set in the year 1982: World Meteorological Organization verifies highest temperatures for Antarctic region ASU climate expert, WMO rapporteur talks about -LSB-...]

The point is not what has happened but what will happen, and it is not controversial to say that increased incidence and severity of heat waves will create more crop failures in direct proportion with their increased incidence and severity (climate change bulls will claim offsets to cold snaps at higher latitudes rather than debate this point).

He was interested in knowing about anything which might help discover the identity of the Climategate whistleblower, or as he referred to them «the hacker», and why «foia» might have chosen «the Talkshop» to place a link to the server where he had uploaded the FOIA2011.zip file rather than another «higher profile» UK climate blog.

Michael Mann «Their climate model scenario wherein Greenland and Antarctic meltwater caused by warming poles, leads to a near total shutdown of ocean heat transport to higher latitudes, cooling most of the globe (particularly the extratropics), seems rather far - fetched to me.»

So the carbon cycle sensitivity to temperature should be more relevant than the climate sensitivity to CO2... or maybe not after all, considering that the ppm / C ratio around 280 ppm seems to be an order of magnitude higher when CO2 is a forcing rather than a feedback.