Sentences with phrase «significant further warming»

Recent studies suggest that the balance of these effects has already turned negative (i.e. total crop yields are down), and there is no question that significant further warming will result in greatly decreased agricultural output.

Because of the first of these reasons, were we to abruptly halt all emissions now, the sulfate aerosols would rapidly be removed from the atmosphere by precipitation whereas the CO2 concentration would remain elevated, and so there would be a significant further warming influence just as a result of past emissions; this warming would lead to the quite significant global warming that Lindzen mentions.

«Remarkably for a report published by the GWPF, the authors agree with mainstream climate scientists that significant further warming is expected... It is great to see the GWPF accepting that business - as - usual means significant further warming is expected.

«It is great to see the GWPF accepting that business - as - usual means significant further warming is expected.

Not exact matches

Aside from keeping America's java drinkers content, PCMs developed by PureTemp are also being used in far more significant ways, including the Embrace infant warmer; the Cool Vest, which prevents overheating in human and canine troops in Afghanistan; and the Greenbox, which safely transports pharmaceuticals, blood and vaccines.

Remember that direct greenhouse effect from CO2 is quite small; the predictions rely on positive feedback from other effects (particularly water vapour feedbacks, a far more significant greenhouse gas) to cause substantial warming.

This kind of significant change could increase the rate of warming already in progress, affect further sea ice loss in the Arctic and alter shipping access to the Arctic Ocean.

Thus it appears that, provided further satellite cloud data confirms the cosmic ray flux low cloud seeding hypothesis, and no other factors were involved over the past 150 years (e.g., variability of other cloud layers) then there is a potential for solar activity induced changes in cloudiness and irradiance to account for a significant part of the global warming experienced during the 20th century, with the possible exception of the last two decades.

So the magnitude of warming is not what is significant (disregarding the melting threshold), rather it's that this warming has occurred with far less noise then usual.

And 2 degrees could mean significant melting of GIS and WAIS, so eventually maybe up to 10 meters sea level rise, or even more, plus extensive melting of permafrost and release of methane, which would lead to further warming, melting and sea level rise.

As far as evidence for CO2 emissions as a significant cause of the warming, sorry but I see precious little of that.

Significant or not, would a 0.2 C change in mean temperature blunt any further warming that resulted from a 4 W / m ^ 2 increase in DWLWIR?

MattStat, «Significant or not, would a 0.2 C change in mean temperature blunt any further warming that resulted from a 4 W / m ^ 2 increase in DWLWIR?»

Although five years is far too short of a timespan to determine a significant trend, the trend since 2006 is positive (warming).

And as far as the Antarctic is concerned: There hasn't been no significant warming since 1955 (the 7 station series from New Zealand show the same and for what it's worth I don't trust the BOM temperature - series)

Warming will resume when further significant cleansing of the air is attempted, as when China, India and recent EPA efforts are implemented.

Herman, if natural variability has not cause significant warming after the year 2000, wouldn't it be reasonable to question whether it contributed significantly to the far greater 1975 - 2000 warming?

And, given the fact that the amount of kinetic energy needed to raise temps by 1C in the Arctic is far less than needed to raise by 1c at lower latitudes, is not the cooling far more significant than the warming?

The study concludes significant correlation to global warming ocean temperatures continue to increase, and that further studies «this decline will need to be considered in future studies of marine ecosystems, geochemical cycling, ocean circulation and fisheries.»

Meanwhile, the good news (if further research bears it out) that the world's warming has been slowed, at least for a few years, needs to be leavened with the realisation, yet again, that there are significant uncertainties in science's understanding of the climate — and thus unquantifiable risks ahead.

Further, if you decrease the significance level from 95 % to something like 85 %, the warming trend is again significant.

In the North Sea, global warming is affecting plankton and the marine food chain, compounding the pressures of overfishing.3 Future warming is also expected to exert a significant impact on the marine ecosystem, creating further uncertainty for the fishing industry.7, 8,15

I think warmer oceans is far more significant in term of some kind of buffer against cooling.

Well the devil is in the details — further, if we are to be convinced by the AR5 attribution of what is essentially a strong warming period of 30 years, then unexplained periods temperature variability of 30 years are significant.

I think when people are clearly deaf to the obvious continuation of the warming, emphasising the higher OLS trend is perhaps justified but claims that it is significant — «a clear acceleration» — are probably a step too far.

We do not need models to anticipate that significant rises in atmospheric CO2 concentrations harbor the potential to raise temperatures significantly (Fourier, 1824, Arrhenius, 1896), nor that the warming will cause more water to evaporate (confirmed by satellite data), nor that the additional water will further warm the climate, nor that this effect will be partially offset by latent heat release in the troposphere (the «lapse - rate feedback»), nor that greenhouse gas increases will warm the troposphere but cool the stratosphere, while increases in solar intensity will warm both — one can go on and on

Looking at the amplitude the AMO could have conceivably contributed to global warming, perhaps one fiftieth to one thirtieth of the total, we are very far away from having to consider this, or any of the even smaller parts of the stadium wave, significant.

In the 10,000 — year context, it is significant because it is among the 3 percent coldest years, which is far more significant than the 100 - year warm alarmists proclaim.

since most people who are concerned about it would much rather that global warming be far less significant.

The 0.8 C of warming that occurred over the 20th century (half of which occurred prior a significant increase in CO2 levels), as far as I can tell, has had either a positive impact or no significant impact at all.

This might seem trivial but the 6.5 Watts / m ^ 2 is far greater than the 3.71 Watts / m ^ 2 that the CO2 forcing parameter inputs for a doubling of CO2 so this error is in fact significant enough to more than wipe out the entire catastophic global warming predicted for a doubling of CO2.

Now, Professor Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia has admitted publicly, and — as far as I know — for the first time, that there has been no statistically significant «global warming» for 15 years.

«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.

Depending on how far east winter storm tracks travel up the east coast, the battle line between cold arctic air masses to the west and warm Atlantic air to the east causes significant temperature changes.

Even if it only accounts for a small part of these two «features» (say 0.2 C for 4 - 5 years) the perceived excessive «warming 1910 - 1940» and «the flat trend between mid 1940 ′ s and mid 1970 ′ s» look far less significant.

(The only one I can think of, by the only really solidly qualified contrarian, Lindzen, who also claimed that tobacco wasn't linked to lung cancer, came up with an Iris theory that has been thoroughly repudiated (recent studies have in fact continued to strongly show increased atmospheric moisture), but his theory of a significant enough decrease to keep the earth from significantly warming at the same time this radical shift toward lack of global cloud cover (and far more drought everywhere?)

Yet if this data has * no significant effect * on the Antarctic Warming conclusion then this error is not all that relevant as RC has suggested (unconvincingly so far in my view)

Because of that gap and the IPCC's emissions targets, many climate analysts say that while the Clean Power Plan is a significant step toward decarbonization, it doesn't go far enough if the goal is to play a meaningful leadership role in keeping warming below 2 degrees centigrade.

Democratic Reps. Mark DeSaulnier and Ted Lieu, both members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said they were «alarmed» by the possibility that Exxon withheld significant climate change information and went so far as to try to discredit the science confirming global warming.

In the 10,000 — year context, it is significant because it is among the 3 percent coldest years, which is far more significant than the 100 - year warmest that alarmists proclaim.

Willis (nor any other skeptic as far as I know) has never said that «greenhouse gases have no relationship to the observed warming» but that no - one has shown that increased greenhouse gases cause significant measureable warming, that is outside of the natural variation of climate.

Though SAG and SRM can achieve significant cooling anomalies over large areas, it comes at a cost of a far worse overall global warming.

A quick glance at the chart makes it clear that the INDCs that have been submitted by nations so far makes it very unlikely that the international community will be successful in limiting warming to 2 degrees C and virtually impossible to limit warming to 1.5 degrees C unless nations make significant increases in the ambition of their INDCs.

He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no «statistically significant» warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long - term trend.

Finally, I judge that the Steig authors were very much aware of showing warming trends that were statistically significant and in order to do that one would be motivated to reach far enough back in time to do that.

Although less common than carbon dioxide and water vapor, each molecule is far more powerful and potentially as significant for global warming.

Black carbon has likely played a far more significant role there, because of the contrast between absorbing aerosols deposited on the ice surface, and the high albedo perennial ice cover, and thus in this particular region black carbon has likely been an aggravating factor when it comes to anthropogenic surface warming.

The significant difference points to far less warming, as the bad sites warm and the good sites don't, at least not nearly as much.