Sentences with phrase «stronger greenhouse warming»

Changes to the temperature and pressure of permafrost soils (and ocean waters) could lead to methane, a gas with a much stronger greenhouse warming potential than carbon dioxide, being released.

According to the accepted view, the formation of the Earth released vast amounts of water vapour and carbon dioxide, which formed a thick atmosphere and caused strong greenhouse warming at a time when the Sun was 15 to 20 per cent fainter than today.

Do you think that in the same way that the Solanki et al paper on solar sunspot reconstructions had a specific statement that their results did not contradict ideas of strong greenhouse warming in recent decades, this (the fact that climate sensitivity projections are not best estimates of possible future actual temperature increases) should be clearly noted in media releases put out by scientists when reporting climate sensitivity studies?

Not exact matches

An active hydrological cycle would have required a warmer climate in the planet's early history and therefore a thicker atmosphere, one capable of creating a strong greenhouse effect.

This means that the science of climate change may partially undergo a shift of its own, moving from trying to prove it is a problem (it is now «very likely» that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have already caused enough warming to trigger stronger droughts, heat waves, more and bigger forest fires and more extreme storms and flooding) to figuring out ways to fix it.

From climate campaigners to high - level diplomats, those who are committed to fighting global warming say making a strong agreement in Paris next year that radically reduces levels of greenhouse gas emissions is critical.

The earth is being pulled to a warmer climate and will be pulled increasingly in this direction as the «anchorman» of greenhouse warming continues to grow stronger and stronger.

Two U.N. reports this month said greenhouse gases had reached record levels in the atmosphere and a warming world would likely bring more floods, stronger cyclones and more intense droughts.

With greenhouse gas emissions continuing to rise, strong efforts will be required to reverse global warming

(At the time, the sun was as much as 6 % fainter than it is now, Lenton says, so the planet - warming effect of greenhouse gases wasn't as strong.)

Since the end of last El Niño warming event of 1997 to 1998, the tropical Pacific Ocean has been in a relatively cool phase — strong enough to offset the warming created by greenhouse gas emissions.

In my view, the most important omission related directly to science and technology aspects of the greenhouse gas issue is the failure to point out the tremendous opportunity that exists to limit warming over the next few decades by imposing strong, mandatory controls of short - lived warming agents (so methane, black carbon, and tropospheric ozone).

While a strong El Niño provided a boost to global temperatures last year, the main driver of the planet's temperature surge, as well as other climate trends, is the warming caused by the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

A few of the main points of the third assessment report issued in 2001 include: An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system; emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols due to human activities continue to alter the atmosphere in ways that are expected to affect the climate; confidence in the ability of models to project future climate has increased; and there is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.

U.S. scientists say the evidence linking rising levels of greenhouse gases and global warming is as strong as the link between smoking and lung cancer

After the failure of federal climate legislation in Congress this year, the fate of California's law was viewed as a US turning point — either away from addressing global warming or toward stronger action to curb greenhouse gases.

So the report notes that the current «pause» in new global average temperature records since 1998 — a year that saw the second strongest El Nino on record and shattered warming records — does not reflect the long - term trend and may be explained by the oceans absorbing the majority of the extra heat trapped by greenhouse gases as well as the cooling contributions of volcanic eruptions.

«You have scenarios assuming very strong decisions, very quick and sharp reduction of greenhouse gases, and you have other scenarios with business as usual, where you end up with predictions of additional warming of 5, 6 degrees, maybe even more.

While a strong El Niño has given global temperatures a boost, the bulk of that heat comes from the manmade global warming driven by increasing amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

While a strong El Niño has given global temperatures a boost, the main reason for the spate of intensely warm months is the long - term warming of the planet caused by the accumulation of heat - trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, scientists have found.

As example of how greenhouse gases have affected global temperatures, 2016 was almost 0.5 °F (0.9 °C) warmer than 1998, both years that experienced comparably strong El Niños.

For the late 20th century, a period of strong greenhouse gas increases, but with diminishing solar influence, variability in ocean warming shown in the profiles falls much further still.

These records show both the influence of the long - term trend in global warming — caused by the continued release of heat - trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere — as well as an exceptionally strong El Niño that is altering weather around the world.

This result is in complete contradiction to greenhouse theory, which predicts strong warming, especially at high latitudes.

But there are two greenhouse gases, which are actually much stronger than carbon dioxide: Methane, with a warming potential 30 times as strong as carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxide, -LSB-...]

In 1991, the language was already strong and urgent, noting that the risks were sufficient to justify action even with substantial unanswered questions: «Despite the great uncertainties, greenhouse warming is a potential threat sufficient to justify action now.»

And those initial warming events can trigger even greater warming because of the «feedback loops» associated with the melting of ice and the potential release of methane (a very strong greenhouse gas).»

Pieter Tans of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration stressed the persistent uncertainty in the range of warming expected from a buildup of greenhouse gases as cutting against the idea of specific thresholds: «Our biggest science problem is that we do not know how strong the climate feedbacks are, or even whether we know all of the ones that are important on decadal and longer time scales,» he said in an e-mail.

On the contrary, roughly 80 percent of HOT is devoted to on - the - ground reporting that focuses on solutions — not just the relatively well known options for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and otherwise limiting global warming, but especially the related but much less recognized imperative of preparing our societies for the many significant climate impacts (e.g., stronger storms, deeper droughts, harsher heat waves, etc.,) that, alas, are now unavoidable over the years ahead.

«Limiting global warming to 1.5 or 2.0 °C requires strong mitigation of anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

It's been nice in recent days to see some strong advocates for curbs in emissions of greenhouse gases shift from the more overheated, and unsupported, rhetoric they used earlier this year in attempting a kind of «kitchen sink» argument aiming to tie virtually every recent harmful weather event to warming, even those — like powerful tornadoes — for which there is no link and certainly no trend.

Despite this strong evidence for a warming planet, greenhouse gas forcing fails to explain the 2010 heat wave over western Russia.

Even under strong warming the melting of permafrost takes time and the release of greenhouse gases will be quite gradual and will manifest itself as increased leakages.

The first thorough federal review of research on how global warming may affect extreme climate events in North America forecasts more drenching rains, parching droughts (especially in the Southwest), intense heat waves and stronger hurricanes if long - lived greenhouse gases continue building in the atmosphere.

And in that analysis, there's also a limit to how long the trades can slow down warming: they need to keep getting stronger to keep offsetting the extra greenhouse warming.

In 2001 it was claimed «there is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities» and the current report concludes says it is: «90 % probable» that the recent warming is «due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations».

I have often said that I will take solutions to greenhouse warming seriously when Greenpeace becomes a strong advocate for nuclear energy.

In terms of the aerosols: If you want to argue really simplistic, you could still explain what is seen in Dave's NH - SH time series: due to the larger thermal inertia of the SH, you would expect slower warming there with greenhouse gas forcing, so an increase in NH - SH early on, which would then be reduced as aerosol forcing becomes stronger in the NH.

If, for example, scientists had somehow underestimated the climate change between Medieval times and the Little Ice Age, or other natural climate changes, without corresponding errors in the estimated size of the causes of the changes, that would suggest stronger amplifying feedbacks and larger future warming from rising greenhouse gases than originally estimated.

His book is strong on fundamental principals of the physics of the atmosphere underlying the greenhouse effect and global warming.

«Future projections based on theory and high - resolution dynamical models consistently suggest that greenhouse warming will cause the globally averaged intensity of tropical cyclones to shift towards stronger storms,» Knutson et al. (2010); Grinsted et al. (2013) projected «a twofold to sevenfold increase in the frequency of Katrina magnitude events for a 1 °C rise in global temperature.»

A prominent (in the media, anyway) research study last year by Rutgers's Jennifer Francis and University of Wisconsin's Stephen Vavrus suggests that the declining temperature difference between the Arctic and the lower latitudes (adding greenhouse gases into the atmosphere warms colder, drier regions more so than warmer, wetter ones — with the notable exception of Antarctica) has led to changes in the jet stream which result in slower moving, and potentially stronger East Coast winter storm systems.

Not only that, but they give it power over El Nino by pontificating that «Pinatubo climate forcing was stronger than the opposite warming effects of either the El Nino event or anthropogenic greenhouse gases in the period 1991 - 93.»

The new report — the first of three comprehensive studies to come out this year — makes one of the strongest claims yet in support of the hypothesis that human activity, namely the relentless pumping of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, is what's behind climate change — an effect climate scientists refer to as anthropogenic global warming.

There is strong evidence that greenhouse gases played a significant role in that post-ice-age warming.

The likely record warming of both 2015 and 2016 is down to a combination of rising greenhouse gases and a «smaller» contribution from the strong

Against that, an «unknown» response may merely indicate the respondent thinks it is not yet determined whether the greenhouse gas contribution was 75 - 100 or 100 - 125 % (quantitative question) or a moderate or strong warming contribution (qualitative question).

If the body of evidence is so strong and the concensus so overwhelming, why is it that no organisation, including IPCC, will directly answer the question «what percentage of forecast global warming is due to greenhouse gas emissions».

If we had a Tardis, we would be able to go back in time to the Paleoecene - Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) about 55 - 56 million years ago, a time of substantial natural global warming, and observe the Greenhouse Effect growing stronger.

The particularly striking flat portion of MRES is from 1860 to 1950, which is strong support for my point that global warming can already be observed starting in 1860 as shown in Figure 2, Observed Global Warming or OGW, and follows a curve that is in remarkable agreement with what the greenhouse effect hypothesis should pwarming can already be observed starting in 1860 as shown in Figure 2, Observed Global Warming or OGW, and follows a curve that is in remarkable agreement with what the greenhouse effect hypothesis should pWarming or OGW, and follows a curve that is in remarkable agreement with what the greenhouse effect hypothesis should predict.