Sentences with phrase «reduced expected warming»

Full implementation of current Paris pledges plus all announced mid-century strategies would reduce expected warming by 2100 to 3.3 °C, a difference of 0.9 °C [1.6 °F].»

Not exact matches

Hundreds of thousands are expected to demand greater action by the US and other world governments to reduce global warming.

The Paris Agreement pledges to reduce the expected level of global warming from 4.5 °C to around 3 °C, which reduces the impacts, but we see even greater improvements at 2 °C; and it is likely that limiting temperature rise to 1.5 °C would protect more wildlife.

Will Clements, an ecotoxicologist at Colorado State University in Fort Collins, noted that warming in the Rocky Mountains is expected to reduce the mass of lying snow, thus decreasing summer run - off.

If more of the heat from global warming is going into the ocean, does that reduce the amount of surface warming (both transiently and long - term) that we should expect from doubling CO2?

«While we expected this to reduce the influence from clouds, we find that clouds forming in the Arctic appear to further warm the surface, especially in the fall and winter.»

Large variability reduces the number of new records — which is why the satellite series of global mean temperature have fewer expected records than the surface data, despite showing practically the same global warming trend: they have more short - term variability.

Also high, is their explanation of negative feedback reducing the expected 6.6 C warming down to 0.8 C.

If the warming scenarios are correct then I would have expected wind speeds to decrease as the driver, temperature difference, will also be reduced between the tropics and the poles.

We therefore repeated the calculation excluding this data point, using the 1910 — 2009 data instead, to see whether the temperature data prior to 2010 provide a reason to anticipate a new heat record.With a thus revised nonlinear trend, the expected number of heat records in the last decade reduces to 0.47, which implies a 78 % probability -LSB-(0.47 − 0.105) ∕ 0.47] that a new Moscow record is due to the warming trend.

It discusses the only the impact of the ocean on rates of warming and how that reduced expected trends in Antarctica with respect to earlier simulations that did not include such effects.

Global warming is expected to reduce the ocean's ability to absorb CO2, leaving more in the atmosphere... which will lead to even higher temperatures as below from NASA.

IF cool deep sea water were mixed relentlessly with surface water by some engineering method --(e.g. lots of wave operated pumps and 800m pipes) could that enouromous cool reservoir of water a) mitigate the thermal expansion of the oceans because of the differential in thermal expansion of cold and warm water, and b) cool the atmosphere enough to reduce the other wise expected effects of global warming?

Global warming is indeed expected to reduce the temperature differential between the poles and the equator.

In terms of the aerosols: If you want to argue really simplistic, you could still explain what is seen in Dave's NH - SH time series: due to the larger thermal inertia of the SH, you would expect slower warming there with greenhouse gas forcing, so an increase in NH - SH early on, which would then be reduced as aerosol forcing becomes stronger in the NH.

Attribution of the observed warming to anthropogenic forcing is easier at larger scales because averaging over larger regions reduces the natural variability more, making it easier to distinguish between changes expected from different external forcings, or between external forcing and climate variability.

Warmer stream temperatures, increased risk of habitat - damaging flooding, and reduced summer streamflows are expected to reduce suitable habitat by 47 percent for native fish like trout and salmon.

On top of this, the charts were only for the temperatures of the United States, and had they been applied to global temperatures instead (as one might expect for global warming), they would show the opposite result — that adjustments supposedly reduce the amount of global warming.

So you should expect that some of the adjustments will reduce the temperatures and some adjustments will make them warmer.

In summary, then, the best available models indicate that 1) global warming is a problem that is expected to have only a limited impact on the world economy and 2) it is economically rational only to reduce slightly this marginal impact through global carbon taxes.

The fry pan being heated should reduce convection losses as it's in addition to heating the sheet metal, it's heating the air, and therefore I would expect from this effect some warming of the plate due to sunlight.

Coinciding with cycles of reduced sea ice, glaciers on the island Novaya Zemlya in the Barents Sea, also underwent their greatest retreat around 1920 to 1940.61 After several decades of stability, its tidewater glaciers began retreating again around the year 2000, but at a rate five times slower than the 1930s.47 The recent cycle of intruding warm Atlantic water45 is now waning and if solar flux remains low, we should expect Arctic sea ice in the Barents and Kara seas to begin a recovery and Arctic glaciers to stabilize within the next 15 years.

A wider range of functional forms to describe emission pathways would be expected to reduce the strength of the relationship between 2050 emissions and peak warming.

However, on windy days, I expect the UHI effect to be vitiated by mixing of air from outside the region of the city with the relatively warmed air; and I expect the windiness to reduce the stratification of the boundary layer («mix it up») and thus reduce the cooling effect of the NSTI.

The new report, for example, slightly reduces the lower end of the estimated uncertainty range for the amount of warming scientists expect in response to a doubling of CO2 concentrations compared to preindustrial levels.

«So far, the benefits of global greening have been greater than expected, while the costs of global warming have been smaller than expected and the price of reducing carbon dioxide emissions has been higher than expected.

If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling in the NH — just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.

This is as to be expected, since continued efforts to reduce atmospheric aerosols in the West have resulted in less dimming (more warming), while in the East increasing pollution has caused more dimming (less warming).

This work relies on the new flood risk assessment framework proposed by Alfieri et al. (2015b) to illustrate the benefits of adaptation in reducing expected damages and population affected by river floods in Europe under 4 °C global warming by the end of the century.

He certainly reduced the noise in the trend by a lot, and gets a pretty good steady trend, which is what would be expected from a steady warming effect due to increasing GHG's in the atmosphere.

But, were the Sun's activity and total radiation to drop in the coming century to levels of the Maunder Minimum, solar effects might reduce the expected surface temperature effects of enhanced greenhouse warming — by at most about 0.5 °C.

High solar activity means a stronger heliospheric magnetic field and thus a more efficient screen against GCR, then under the hypothesis underlined above, the reduced GCR flux would promote less clouds amplifying the warming effect expected from high solar activity.

It is expected to stress, more convincingly than ever before, that our planet is already warming due to human actions, and that «business as usual» would lead to unacceptable risks, underscoring the urgent need for concerted international action to reduce the worst impacts of climate change.

Alarmists have posited that global dimming from anthropogenic aerosols reduced the warming that might have been expected, some implying that dimming may have prevented catastrophic warming.

That is, there is still a fair chance that we can «hold the 2 °C line», if strong mitigation of greenhouse gases is combined with the following three actions: (i) a slow, rather than instant, elimination of aerosol cooling, (ii) a directed effort to first remove warming aerosols like black carbon, and (iii) a concerted and sustained programme, over this century, to draw - down excessive CO2 (geo - and bio-engineering) and simultaneously reduce non-CO2 forcings, such that the final equilibrium temperature rise will be lower than would otherwise be expected on the basis of current concentrations.

As expected, we found that at mid - and high latitudes, projected warming will reduce the number of days below freezing, resulting in more suitable growing days (the average global number of days above freezing will increase by 2 %, 5 %, and 7 % under RCP 2.6, RCP 4.5, and RCP 8.5, respectively; Fig 2A, S5A — S5D Fig, S6A — S6C Fig)[35].