Sentences with phrase «see accelerated warming»

The headline would have been more accurate if it said, «World poised to see accelerated warming in the coming decade.»

«When we look at actual climate data, however, we do not see accelerated warming in the tropical troposphere.

Not exact matches

Safety concerns over fracking are overblown — but so are the boosterish claims made for its environmental and economic benefits (see «Fracking could accelerate global warming» and «Frack on or frack off: Can shale gas really save the planet?

«It's fair to say that over the next couple of decades, we would expect to see the trend reverse, and internal variability accelerating the warming.»

The combination of global warming and accelerating sea level rise from Greenland could be the trigger for catastrophic collapse in the WAIS (see, for instance, here).

Climatologists reporting for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) say we are seeing global warming caused by human activities and there are growing fears of feedbacks that will accelerate this warming.

The accelerated loss of sea ice should come as no surprise given that another study presented at the AGU meeting found accelerated Arctic warming (see NSIDC: Arctic melt passes the point of no return, «We hate to say we told you so, but we did»):

The relevance of the models has to do with your point that by 2100 we will see 3 - 4 degrees C warming and that therefore the ice melt is bound to accelerate.

[Response: I still don't see why you think that the warming will accelerate much faster than the models suggest since they include these mechanisms.

I certainly have seen references to accelerated warming in the press, and I do think what they really have in mind is something like «accelerated impacts of warming,» which would be a fairer description of what has been coming out in the scientific literature.

I don't see why Romm comes down so hard on this, though he has a point that the coverage could have made it a lot clearer that the interrupted warming of the next several years will be made up for accelerated warming sometime after 2010, so that in the end you wind up at the same place the uninitialized climate models say you would be.

But because that warming is now dominant, see comment 75 #, the Arctic warming will certainly accelerate.]

However, I would keep in mind the fact that over a decade's time, we have seen more than a doubling of the rate of loss of mass balance in Greenland, a tripling in icequakes, the warming of the West Antarctic Peninsula resulting in the acceleration of glaciers, the accelerating loss of global glacier mass balance, etc..

And, quite disturbingly, with a manifest warming of only 0.8 ºC, we are already seeing effects − such as the precipitous receding of the Arctic sea ice − that are not only dangerous in themselves but also producing positive feedbacks that accelerate the warming.

You may have seen it before in another form, perhaps while reading part 10 of this series, explaining biodiversity loss accelerates under warming — based on that same study.

There is no real debate in the peer - reviewed scientific literature over the fact that the unusual, accelerating global warming seen since the 19th Century is attributable to the increase of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide, in the atmosphere due to burning fossil fuels.

These patterns provide the peaks and valleys that we see, yet we can still detect the underlying accelerating warming trend.

But, hey, that last 30 year «accelerated» warming cycle ended after 2000 — since then we are seeing a slight cooling cycle (as we did for the 30 years or so before 1970).

I say «more or less» because one could argue from the data (as we'll see below) that the warming rate during recent years has upticked with the warmth in 2010 indicating a warming that is occurring faster than projected and is accelerating.

Looking at a much longer time span, we see that the long term [natural] global warming trend is not accelerating.

But I am now a «lukewarmer» who has yet to see any evidence saying that the current warming is, or is likely to be, unprecedented, fast or tending to accelerate.»

Since to me (and many scientists, although some wanted a lot more corroborative evidence, which they've also gotten) it makes absolutely no sense to presume that the earth would just go about its merry way and keep the climate nice and relatively stable for us (though this rare actual climate scientist pseudo skeptic seems to think it would, based upon some non scientific belief — see second half of this piece), when the earth changes climate easily as it is, climate is ultimately an expression of energy, it is stabilized (right now) by the oceans and ice sheets, and increasing the number of long term thermal radiation / heat energy absorbing and re radiating molecules to levels not seen on earth in several million years would add an enormous influx of energy to the lower atmosphere earth system, which would mildly warm the air and increasingly transfer energy to the earth over time, which in turn would start to alter those stabilizing systems (and which, with increasing ocean energy retention and accelerating polar ice sheet melting at both ends of the globe, is exactly what we've been seeing) and start to reinforce the same process until a new stases would be reached well after the atmospheric levels of ghg has stabilized.

The modest global warming seen to - date (around 0.13 degrees Celsius per decade) is likely to accelerate over the coming century - and models have even the US Corn Belt in the firing line.

In fact, if we continue on our current path of high heat - trapping emissions, the region is projected to see forest fires during June and July at two to three times its current rate.2, 6 Some 1 billion metric tons of organic matter and older - growth trees could burn7, 15 — accelerating the release of stored carbon and creating a dangerous global warming amplification or feedback loop.5, 14

But aren't we seeing an accelerating trend in the long term warming recently rather than a slowdown?

Although the globe has warmed since 1988 (not rapid, nor accelerating, see here and here), the trend for Canadian boreal forest fires has been the opposite of that predicted over the 27 years after the Hansen 1988 testimony.

However, this trend seems unlikely to continue, and we will probably see accelerated surface warming in the coming decades.

1998 was near the tail end of a decade that jumped well above the mean average longer term rate of increase (there is a thing called climate variability, it didn't disappear with climate change, and if anything probably only intensified;, and ocean warming and glacial melt both accelerated during this period, taking more energy out of the air — see below).

(And I still can't see how a newly open and increasingly warm summer Arctic Ocean won't produce more water vapor, vapor whose GHG properties will further accelerate Arctic warming — or is that completely offset by increased cloud formation??)

Second, this general prediction «'' internal variability leading to slower than expected warming in recent years through 2010, followed by accelerated warming «'' is almost exactly the same prediction that the Hadley Center made last summer in Science (see here).

The rate of warming has accelerated over the past 30 years, the agency reports, increasing globally since the mid-1970s at a rate approximately three times faster than the trend as seen over the entire past century.