Sentences with phrase «several decades of warmer»

Even if the natural variation in temperatures caused by the AMO is the only factor affecting temperatures in the western U.S., that region is set for several decades of warmer, drier conditions, according to Swetnam's paper, published online December 26 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA.

There are already several decades of warming in the pipeline.

In 1910, the synchronisation was followed by a warmer regime and several decades of warming.

Not exact matches

They concluded that the upper levels of the planet's oceans — those of the northern and southern hemispheres combined — had been warming during several decades prior to 2005 at rates that were 24 to 58 percent faster than had previously been realized.

And since mitigation reduces the rate as well as the magnitude of warming, it also increases the time available for adaptation to a particular level of climate change, potentially by several decades.

Much of this change has occurred over the last several decades indicating that the warming trend accelerated over the 1925 — 2016 period.

As it turned out, the world's temperature has risen about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F) and mainstream scientists continue to predict, with increasing urgency, that if emissions are not curtailed, carbon pollution would lock in warming of as much as 3 to 6 °C (or 5 to 11 °F) over the next several decades.

But even La Nina years now are warmer than El Niño years several decades ago because of the long - term warming caused by carbon dioxide and other heat - trapping gases emitted into the atmosphere.

Decades of weather reports show a strong link between the polar blasts that have plunged the eastern United States in a deep freeze several times in the past few winters and the warming of the Arctic, where temperatures have been hitting unusual highs, a new study reports.

Ocean temperatures experience interannual variability and over the past 3 decades of global warming have had several short periods of cooling.

Terrestrial permafrost emissions of CH4 and CO2 likely can occur on a time scale of a few decades to several centuries if global warming continues [215].

Also, James Hansen successfully predicted in 1981 the trend of the past several decades of global warming, including a good approximation of the noise around the trend.

«This uncertainty is illustrated by Pollard et al. (2015), who found that addition of hydro - fracturing and cliff failure into their ice sheet model increased simulated sea level rise from 2 m to 17 m, in response to only 2 °C ocean warming and accelerated the time for substantial change from several centuries to several decades.»

Further, since you agree with us that the warming rate during the next several decades will be below 0.325 ºC / decade, then, as I have pointed out, due to the level of natural variability, a 20 - yr time period is too short to really differentiate between your beliefs and ours (if there exist any).

If the net forcing increased for several decades, then leveled off 15 - 20 years ago, wouldn't that cause the rate of warming to level off too, not to slow down?

Paleo - evidence suggests that temperatures rose several degrees in a matter of decades to centuries, which compare to our current rate of contemporary warming.

It is possible that we are on the brink of a several - decades - long period of rapid warming.

Temperatures in Greenland jumped up by more than 10 ºC within a few decades at the beginning of DO events, typically remaining warm for several centuries after.

There is no «global cooling» at all, despite Monckton's caption — the globe is warming at about 0.18 °C per decade and has been for several decades, with no sign of even a slowdown in this warming, let alone a halt or reversal.

Observations show a general increase in permafrost temperatures during the last several decades in Alaska, northwest Canada, Siberia and Northern Europe, with a significant acceleration in the warming of permafrost at many Arctic coastal locations during the last five years.

[T] here have now been several recent papers showing much the same — numerous factors including: the increase in positive forcing (CO2 and the recent work on black carbon), decrease in estimated negative forcing (aerosols), combined with the stubborn refusal of the planet to warm as had been predicted over the last decade, all makes a high climate sensitivity increasingly untenable.

A new study co-authored by Francis Zwiers, the director of UVic's Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium, suggests that human - induced global warming may be responsible for the increases in heavy precipitation that have been observed over much of the Northern Hemisphere including North America and Eurasia over the past several decades.

At the time (1981) that Hansen published his paper on global warming, it was a theory of what could happen in future times — the trend in global temperatures was still decidedly downwards, as it had been for several decades, and upswings and downswings in the trend were regarded as «random fluctuations» which nobody bothered to try explain.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the main heat - trapping gas largely responsible for most of the average warming over the past several decades.

While it is worth continuing study of global climate engineering to control warming if the rising concentrations of GHGs can not be halted over the next several decades, the potential for climate engineering approaches to moderate impacts in the particularly exposed regions being affected merits investigation.

The science is clear to me and to most experts in the various fields associated with climate science: Humans are causing most of the observed global warming in the past several decades and, if we continue emitting GHGs under a «business as usual» scenario, it will become increasingly difficult and costly to adapt to the changes that are likely to occur.

These compounds remain in the atmosphere only days to decades — versus centuries for the CO2 perturbation — so cutting their emissions can appreciably slow the rate of warming over the next several decades.

It was oceanic, not greenhouse in origin, and is responsible for the very warm first decade of our century that included several record years.

Of course geological history suggests that neither run away warming nor catastrophic cooling (within the time scales of years to several decades) are anything other than highly improbable (without some catastrophe such as a major asteroid strike), but it is the job of military planners to have some contingency for all eventualitieOf course geological history suggests that neither run away warming nor catastrophic cooling (within the time scales of years to several decades) are anything other than highly improbable (without some catastrophe such as a major asteroid strike), but it is the job of military planners to have some contingency for all eventualitieof years to several decades) are anything other than highly improbable (without some catastrophe such as a major asteroid strike), but it is the job of military planners to have some contingency for all eventualitieof military planners to have some contingency for all eventualities.

That may mean that some of the highest estimates of future temperature rises, of more than 6C within several decades, are less likely, but it does not let the world off the hook — warming of more than 2C is still highly likely on current high emissions trends, and that would cause severe consequences around the world.

Some people, well - known for disputing the mainstream consensus on climate science, are asking the judge to admit their views in a friend of the court brief, asserting that «there is no agreement among climatologists as to the relative contributions of Man and Nature to the global warming» of the past several decades.

Nevertheless, over several decades of model development, they have consistently provided a robust and unambiguous picture of significant climate warming in response to increasing greenhouse gases.

One reason for this is that many impacts of climate change are expected to be proportional to the amount of global average warming that occurs over the next several decades to centuries.

As most of you are aware, Arctic sea ice has shrunk dramatically over the last several decades, because of man - made global warming.

For several years the most plausible overall picture of the temperature development has been that it's a combination of AGW and natural variability strong enough to cancel the warming over the last decade.

From the Vostok Ice Core, it is clear that the Earth is subjected to many levels of NATURAL «warmings»: JUST one «category «10» warming of 9 + with an ~ 12000y duration every 120,000 y; several category «6» warmings of 5 - 6C peaking ~ every 7500y after each category «10» event; many category «3» warmings of 2 - 3C peaking ~ every 5000y; and a multitude of category «2» warmings of 1 - 2C peaking on decade and century scales.

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.

It is also worth noting that the use of both modes of Geo - E in a Troika strategy can not entirely guarantee a benign outcome, however long the R&D period, since we have no firm information on how large the response the Methane Hydrates Melt feedback will be to the sum of ocean warming that is already penetrating the seabed plus that from the several decades of further warming as the natural sea temperatures are slowly restored.

If treatments at this scale are completed and repeated over the next several decades, increases in runoff could help offset the current and projected declines in snowpack and stream flow due to warming while improving the resilience of forest stands.

Internal variability can only account for ~ 0.3 °C change in average global surface air temperature at most over periods of several decades, and scientific studies have consistently shown that it can not account for more than a small fraction of the global warming over the past century.

By process of elimination, there is net flow of CO2 into vegetation / land (with emissions from them being overall negative aside from fuel combustion), which is unsurprising in contexts ranging from a multitude of studies on co2science.org to how satellite - measured global net terrestrial primary production increased by several percent per decade during the period of global warming (Nemani et al. 2003, for instance).

We need to be careful focussing upon «trends» — it can lead to serious errors of context — and this underlies the entire «global warming» thesis which relies upon computer models with entirely false (i.e. non-natural) notions of an equilibrium starting point and calculations of trend — this conveniently ignores cycles, and it has to because a) there are several non-orbital cycles in motion (8 - 10 yr, 11, 22, 60, 70, 80, 400 and 1000 - 1500) depending on ocean basic, hemisphere and global view — all interacting via «teleconnection» of those ocean basins, some clearly timed by solar cycles, some peaking together; b) because the cycles are not exact, you can not tell in any one decade where you are in the longer cycles.

According to the Cato Institute's book summary, «Acknowledging that industrial emissions of greenhouse gasses have warmed the planet and will continue to do so over the next several decades, Michaels and Balling argue that future warming will be moderate, not catastrophic, and will have benign economic and ecological effects.»

As a climate scientist who has worked on this issue for several decades, first as head of the Met Office, and then as co-chair of scientific assessment for the UN intergovernmental panel on climate change, the impacts of global warming are such that I have no hesitation in describing it as a «weapon of mass destruction».

We found that the world naturally switches between periods of global warming and periods of global cooling, with each period lasting several decades.

Rather, it is because the warmth in these different regions was not synchronous, which means that when you average over the whole hemisphere, you get a broad, diffuse bump rather than the more dramatic spike we get over the past several decades when most places have warmed with a large degree of synchronicity.

For several decades now, it has been widely believed that humans are causing unusual global warming by increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

No one in his right mind (least of all the ocean dwellers) cares a whit whether or not the ocean is warming by a few thousandths of a degree over the next several decades.

Depending where you look and in which decade they advance and retreat, but now with sea level rising twice as fast as in the last century, you may be able to figure out that glaciers are melting more quickly, and that with several more degrees of warming they would be on a downward trend.

Such models also indicate that warming would initially cause the Antarctic ice sheet as a whole to gain mass owing to an increased accumulation of snowfall (*; some recent studies find no significant continent - wide trends in accumulation over the past several decades; Lemke et al., 2007 Section 4.6.3.1).