Sentences with phrase «rather warm future»

Sometimes they think that Salvation is a sort of fire - insurance policy which guarantees that we shall not have a rather warm future beyond death.

Not exact matches

``... From this we conclude that the elimination of carbon dioxide emissions leads to little or no further climate warming; that is, future warming is defined by the extent of future emissions, rather than by past emissions.»

«This kind of study discusses the natural cycle and could help define the likely positive feedbacks we can expect in the long - term future, [for example] as temperatures warm, the ocean will want to give up more CO2, or rather absorb less,» says climatologist Gavin Schmidt of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies.

Previous research has shown that limiting future global warming to 1.5 C rather than 2C could greatly improve the Great Barrier Reef's chances of survival.

But even if you're not planning to travel to a warm destination and would rather go skiing, camping or on a museum - hopping adventure, starting to brainstorm for your next trip together is a great opportunity to talk about your future as a couple in a fun and exciting way.

Rather» push a golf ball» or a tennis ball, I am in my own small way pushing the idea of» polar cities» to house future survivors of global warming in year 2500 or so (google «polar cities» to see more info) out of a sense of obligation and care for the future.

There is also no reason to expect less warming in the future — in fact, perhaps rather the opposite as the climate system will catch up again due its natural oscillations, e.g. when the Pacific decadal oscillation swings back to its warm phase.

This gives us all more cause to defend our rights and our future by voting this November 4th for candidates that will help fight global warming and will honor the importance of civic engagement, rather than fear it.

In discussing the Kleypas study, you are mixing up small effects that can limit the rather mild tropical warming seen so far, with what will happen in the future as CO2 continues to build up.

But as illustrated in the figure below, simply extrapolating this correlation forward in time puts the Antarctic temperature in the near future somewhere upwards of 10 degrees Celsius warmer than present — rather at the extreme end of the vast majority of projections (as we have discussed here).

[4] While a range of positions is possible, it seems particularly strange that ExxonMobil takes the position that it does in that future global warming will be caused most by emissions from use of coal rather than by emissions from use of petroleum or natural gas.

But as I understand the IPCC claims, the postulated future GH warming is supposed to occur primarily at higher latitudes, rather than in the warmer regions today, so it appears to me that this would present a «win - win» situation: lower heating costs, fewer cold weather deaths, increased high latitide crop yields, etc. while presenting no new problems for the warmer regions.

I'd rather know if the «now» I'm living in «now» is warmer than the «now» I was living in before and whether or not the «now» I'll be living in the future is likely to be warmer, or not, than the «now» I'm living in now.

These folks prefer rather more exotic explanations that seek to deflect the blame away from the climate models and thus preserve their over-heated projections of future global warming.

2 — For future planning, it is more likely the world will be warmer rather than colder even if you exclude potential human - caused forcing (i.e. based on a continuation of the current overall trend, which has been broadly similar for a couple of centuries).

Ian Blanchard writes» — For future planning, it is more likely the world will be warmer rather than colder even if you exclude potential human - caused forcing (i.e. based on a continuation of the current overall trend, which has been broadly similar for a couple of centuries).»

And I'm kinda of the old school which, rather unimaginatively favors strategic, long - range planning in the form of a multiplicity of potential futures — to include a world of possible, cold climate change along with a possible, warm climate change — especially when the planning horizon is more than 80 years out.

She says NASA and NOAA should not be funding research into why it is warming so fast, and its impacts in the future, and she is trying to give Cruz ammunition to defund these agencies until they look at climate variability rather than this ongoing and very visible and understood climate change.

The current consensus ie that GH gases are responsible for most of the current global warming and will be responsible fore even more warming in the future, can only be replaced by a new one if a coherent case, rather than a whole collection of mutually incompatible objections, is made.

Even worse, economists warn that, rather than create a surplus of jobs, the global warming tax will kill up to 1.1 million more jobs in the future,.

Forecasts of the future are not based on extrapolating temperature trends, or hang on whether the 0.7 C of warming to date is 0.4 C anthropogenic and 0.3 C natural, or rather 0.3 C anthropogenic and 0.4 C natural.

As for the MWP, we don't know that global temps were «as high or higher» than today, but even if they were the fact that it would have been due to some «natural» factor (s) rather than CO2 doesn't alter our expectation that increased CO2 levels should have caused warming in recent decades and should do in the future.

It seems quite likely that a natural cooling with declining solar activity — amplified through Pacific Ocean states — will counteract rather than add to future greenhouse gas warming.

Rather, it both offers a tool for exploring the sea level implications of polar ice sheets» complex physical responses to global warming and highlights the deep uncertainty that characterizes sea level change in a high - emissions future.

However, there is no known suite of technologies that can affect this rate significantly, so the proper policy is to invest in the future rather than to waste money today in a futile attempt to significantly reduce warming.»

So while it is true that 13 - year hiatuses occur from time to time in CMIP5 models of a future warming world, they are statistically rather scarce.

And, rather than magic windows into our future, the only use for academia's mathematical global warming models are their utility in helping to give power to the most unaccountable, unworldly and fundamentally dishonest sector of Western society.

And if we want to reduce the amount of warming that we commit the future to, we need to reduce our carbon emissions sooner rather than later.

Howard, With regards comparison to LGM climate to inform understanding of future WMGHG warming, this is usually done through equilibrium rather than transient experiments.

These studies tend to be rather sensitive to the time period chosen, and a future warm decade could considerably change the picture.

Or I expect conditions in near future to become more like the Medieval Warm Period rather than more like the Little Ice Age.

There would definitely be future warming under CC, so we had better stabilise sooner rather than later.