Sentences with phrase «significant warming ended»

Keeping the observed oscillation in mind, the last significant warming ended with a peak in 1998 (the peak during 2010 was a very close second) and temperatures have since paused.

Not exact matches

«Yes, we must protect the environment — it is our number one resource — but at the end of the day, studies have pointed to global warming, human contact, coastal development» as other significant threats to coral.

With Arctic temperatures warming twice as fast as the global average, scientists estimate thawing permafrost could release large amounts of carbon into the atmosphere through the end of the century with significant climate impacts.

The significant lead that 2016 has makes the odds good that the year will end up the warmest, though there is no guarantee.

«The world will not come to an end right away in the event of stronger warming, nor are we definitely saved if warming is not as significant.

If the GHG - temperature link is on the low end of the range of estimates (1.5 C to 4.5 C per doubling), then global warming will not be a significant problem.

The following three short pieces will not make a convincing scientific argument that Southern Australia's drought is being driven by a warming planet but municipal governments are facing the grim reality their water supplies could run out by the end of next year if significant rainfall does not occur.

Folks can continue arguing about whether global warming is a significant factor intensifying Western wildfires or can dig in to end irrational incentives fostering development in fire - prone «red zones.»

The thing is that for the World Ocean to rise any significant amount then it would need all the frozen fresh water to melt, and even though the fear mongers keep saying this is happening, its not, JP Lovecraft was the flag bearer of the CAGW movement, he coined the word Gaia, he said that mankind would only be able to breed in those areas of the warm arctic and Antarctic, the rest of us would be dead, he said that and many other scaremongering things but close to the end of his life then he recanted it all, he said that «enough time had passed had passed for the models to be proved correct, and that all that the passing of time had proved was that all the models were not correct» me I think that he did not want to die with his horses still hitched to this faulty wagon.

In April, the Met Office released figures up to the end of 2010 — an extremely warm year — which meant it was able to say there had been a statistically significant warming trend after 1997, albeit a very small one.

-- 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

If emissions stay as high as they are, that means even a low value of climate sensitivity would see a significant amount of warming by the end of the century.

On 17 - year trends, we can achieve 95 % confidence reaching to the end of 2005 of strong ongoing statistically significant global warming.

As can be seen, for the period chosen in this example, the 24 years (288 months) ending July 2013, the «global warming» trend is not statistically significant.

When you change the definition of climate to 60 years of weather there is no significant warming post 1950 as compared to the warming since the end of the LIA.

Using the 2013 year - end major temperature datasets listed in that expert discussion, the above grid table (click on to enlarge) represents the lack of statistically - significant warming for each dataset.

The inclusion of the very warm 1998 El Nino year at the end (or start) of either of those two periods only has a significant effect on the trend over the shorter period.

I guess in the end it doesn't really matter, as I believe we are getting warmer and I'm willing to accept that anthropogenic causes can be a significant factor.

Implementation of the Kigali amendment could avoid up to 0.5 degrees Celsius of warming by the end of the century; this is a significant step towards limiting global warming to under two degrees, as committed under the Paris Agreement.

Therefore, ending their financing for fossil fuel projects would have a significant effect on mitigating climate change — an important piece of keeping global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius and honoring the commitments made as part of the Paris agreement last year.

Interestingly, Penner et al. find that whether the climate sensitivity parameter is on the low or high end, reducing anthropogenic emissions of the short - lived warming pollutants would achieve a significant reduction in global warming over the next 50 - 100 years.

Surprisingly, the statement by the sixteen scientists that «CO2 is not a pollutant» is defended by reference to a common dictionary rather than to a scientific source.d But in the end they agree that the real issue is whether this «component» will «cause significant and destructive global warming.»

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.

If the world warms by 4C towards the end of this century, this will pose a «significant risk to food security even with adaptation».

Some have found it notable that the GWPF is explicitly acknowledging a significant future warming (albeit at the low end of IPCC projections) thanks to ongoing emissions.

A significant warming ought to occur by the end of the 21st century, but the predicted consequences range from an ominous, catastrophic future to a mildly uncomfortable one.