Sentences with phrase «significant current warming»

Not exact matches

«Using a numerical climate model we found that sulfate reductions over Europe between 1980 and 2005 could explain a significant fraction of the amplified warming in the Arctic region during that period due to changes in long - range transport, atmospheric winds and ocean currents.

The significant difference in the results, Jahn said, might provide added incentive for countries to attempt to hit the 1.5 - degree Celsius warming target in order to preserve current ecological conditions.

So, while there may be a long term gradual decline in solar irradiance, it is barely significant compared to current rate of warming.

Naivety is believing that there is some other magical explanation for the current warming trend and that AGW won't have significant impact on society.

«Borehole temperatures in the ice sheets spanning the last 6000 years show Antarctica repeatedly warming when Greenland cooled, and vice versa... The phenomena has been called the polar see - saw... Attempts to account for it have included the hypothesis of a south - flowing warm ocean current with a built in time lag... There is (however) no significant delay in the Anarctica climate anomaly...

Because the long - term warming trends are highly significant relative to our estimates of the magnitude of natural variability, the current decadal period of stable global mean temperature does nothing to alter a fundamental conclusion from the AR4: warming has unequivocally been observed and documented.

A significant aspect of the forecast is an exuberant prediction for strengthening of the current El Niño / Southern Oscillation (ENSO) warm phase and its accompanying interaction with the Pacific - North American mode at higher latitudes.

In contrast, current global warming is occuring in both hemispheres and particularly throughout the world's oceans, indicating a significant energy imbalance.

Research indicates that the Arctic had substantially less sea ice during this period compared to present Current desert regions of Central Asia were extensively forested due to higher rainfall, and the warm temperate forest belts in China and Japan were extended northwards West African sediments additionally record the «African Humid Period», an interval between 16,000 and 6,000 years ago when Africa was much wetter due to a strengthening of the African monsoon While there do not appear to have been significant temperature changes at most low latitude sites, other climate changes have been reported.

The current generation of GCMs failed to account for a significant piece of data and therefore predicted too much warming — they were imperfect, or if you insist, wrong.

If the «pause» continues into the 2030s, as predicted by Wyatt / Curry, then the «stadium wave» hypothesis has been corroborated as a plausible explanation for (at least) a significant portion of the past warming and current slight cooling — and, while not falsifying AGW itself, it will most likely have falsified the IPCC hypothesis of CAGW (as outlined specifically in its AR4 and AR5 reports).

If current trends in global warming continue unmitigated, some of the world's most well - known and historically significant cultural landmarks — including the Statue of Liberty in New York City, the Tower of London in the United Kingdom, and the archaeological sites of Pompeii in Italy — could be destroyed by rising global sea levels over the next 2,000 years, according to new research.

They explain how, overall, Antarctic sea ice cover (frozen sea surface), for separate reasons involving wind changing in relation to the location of certain warming sea water currents, shows a slight upward trend, though it also shows significant melting in some areas.

More clouds both drastically reduce energy input from the sun and simply slow release of what energy there is trapped in the lower troposphere, but the long term effect would be a fall in average temperature because of the significantly reduced input power but the atmosphere's ability to cool is aided by air current circulation whereby the warmer air rises above those low clouds and that infra - red is more easily re-emitted into space, whereby the low clouds now block that re-emission from hitting the ground again to any significant degree.

-- never predicted monotonic warming — never predicted that natural variability would cease — do argue for significant warming by the end of the century — suggest several possible causes for the current warming hiatus * — reject claims that the hiatus invalidates any of the above on grounds of robust physics and parsimonious reasoning

This puts me roughly in the same camp as James Annan, though possibly I am less skeptical that there could be benefits for moderate warming, and I am probably more skeptical of claims about the supposedly significant level of damage from the current level of anthopogenically induced climate change.

Any statistically significant trends to the current date show warming.

But the risk is certainly real — while there may be benefits to warming in parts of the world, any kind of significant, long - lasting climate change to a world of > 7billion people optimized for current temps will be dangerous.

The current lack of warming is not a statistically significant trend.

And just maintaining current rates of warming without significant added feedbacks from the Earth System would result in Earth hitting close to 3 C warming by 2100 — a level that would inflict severe harm to life on Earth, including human civilizations.

cit., 1936/8) refers to Birkeland's work from 1930, assuming that all warming analyses have to begin with the observation of the Spitsbergen phenomenon, because only here the temperature increase was measured in the winter of 1918/19 for the first time (Scherhag, 1939); (a) There were increased Gulf Current temperatures, particularly significant in the Barents - and East Greenland Sea.

Other factors, including greenhouse gases, also contributed to the warming and regional factors played a significant role in increasing temperatures in some regions, most notably changes in ocean currents which led to warmer - than - average sea temperatures in the North Atlantic.

However, urbanization bias is still a significant problem, which seems to have introduced an artificial warming trend into current estimates of U.S. temperature trends.

«Climate science» as it is used by warmists implies adherence to a set of beliefs: (1) Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations will warm the Earth's surface and atmosphere; (2) Human production of CO2 is producing significant increases in CO2 concentration; (3) The rate of rise of temperature in the 20th and 21st centuries is unprecedented compared to the rates of change of temperature in the previous two millennia and this can only be due to rising greenhouse gas concentrations; (4) The climate of the 19th century was ideal and may be taken as a standard to compare against any current climate; (5) global climate models, while still not perfect, are good enough to indicate that continued use of fossil fuels at projected rates in the 21st century will cause the CO2 concentration to rise to a high level by 2100 (possibly 700 to 900 ppm); (6) The global average temperature under this condition will rise more than 3 °C from the late 19th century ideal; (7) The negative impact on humanity of such a rise will be enormous; (8) The only alternative to such a disaster is to immediately and sharply reduce CO2 emissions (reducing emissions in 2050 by 80 % compared to today's rate) and continue further reductions after 2050; (9) Even with such draconian CO2 reductions, the CO2 concentration is likely to reach at least 450 to 500 ppm by 2100 resulting in significant damage to humanity; (10) Such reductions in CO2 emissions are technically feasible and economically affordable while providing adequate energy to a growing world population that is increasingly industrializing.

Because, as we have demonstrated in the recent article on «equity» and climate change, there are approximately 50 ppm of CO2 equivalent atmospheric space that remain to be allocated among all nations to give the world approximately a 50 % chance of avoiding a 2oC warming and developing nations that have done little to elevate atmospheric CO2 to current levels need a significant portion of the remaining atmospheric space, high emitting developed nations need to reduce their emissions as fast as possible to levels that represent their fair share of the remaining acceptable global budget.

Sort of like global warming: «generally» rising has local cooling (suggesting that, like glaciers, the LOCAL situation, like cloudiness / albedo / ocean currents) is the significant factor, and not an equally distributed, universal force (like CO2)

I think the current Arctic warming is just as significant as it was the last time around.

In the report, the panel emphasized that the significant remaining uncertainties about climate patterns over the last 2,000 years did not weaken the scientific case that the current warming trend was caused mainly by people, through the buildup of heat - trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

This is in strong contrast with the current position of the US National Academy of Sciences:»... there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring... It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities... The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action.»

Lansner and Pepke Pedersen (2018) point out that, due to the divergent rates of warming and cooling for land vs. ocean water, there is a significant difference in the range of temperature for the regions of the world influenced by their close proximity to oceans and coastal wind currents (ocean air affected, or OAA) and the inland regions of the world that are unaffected by ocean air effects and coastal wind because they are sheltered by hills and mountains or located in valleys (ocean air sheltered, or OAS).

The scientific basis for current projections of significant warming due to enhanced minor greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is reviewed.

And the reversal from the current temp spike could well lead to another «Pause» in any significant warming.

If the central question is whether the current warming is statistically significant, then one must know something rather precise about the past to answer this question.

Current warming is so fast that reconstructions are pushed to their limits... what?!?!? And this supposed unprecedented warming wasn't significant locally / regionally from 1980 - end of 2004, at least not enough to be captured by proxies... but, of course, operate under the assumption that all warming in the past was significant at the local / regional level and therefore captured by the proxies.

The difference between Scaffetta's paper and the current paper is that his Fig. 30 B also ignores the Millennial temperature trend inversion here picked at 2003 and he allows for the possibility of a more significant anthropogenic CO2 warming contribution.

3 / looking at individual weather stations, one can also observe significant and questionable adjustment evolutions: Few examples of how to hide the inconvenient truth that temperature have been warmer in the past, despite small anthropogenic signature: Station Data: Reykjavik (64.1 N, 21.9 W)-- Old adjustments: the 30's are clearly warmer than current period.

Ural Mountains, Russia Mazepa, V.S. 2005 Medieval Warm Period lasted from approximately AD 700 to 1300 and that significant portions of it were as much as 0.56 °C warmer than the Current Warm Period.