Sentences with phrase «temperatures hundreds to thousands of years»

And to find those answers, one must go back and look at what was happening with temperatures hundreds to thousands of years ago.

Not exact matches

Hoegh - Guldberg said scientific consensus was that hikes in carbon dioxide and the average global temperature were «almost certain to destroy the coral communities of the Great Barrier Reef for hundreds if not thousands of years».

For hundreds of thousands of years, carbon dioxide and temperature had been linked: anything that caused one of the pair to rise or fall had caused a rise or fall in the other.

Turning up the heat seems to increase the rate at which the plants produce methane, Keppler says, which could explain why atmospheric levels of methane were high hundreds of thousands of years ago when global temperatures were balmy.

«We tend to think that ice sheets will melt or respond to increases in temperature on hundreds - or thousands - of - year time scales,» Montañez said.

«We know that bacteria have the potential to remain viable and metabolically active at low temperatures for hundreds to thousands of years,» said Redeker.

Not to mention that we KNOW levels of CO2 are higher than they have been in hundreds of thousands of years, and data from dendrochronology and ice core studies prove that high levels of CO2 are correlated with higher temperatures.

Of course not, the rise will continue approximately at the current rate, as e.g. the ice sheets will continue to melt due to the elevated temperature — it takes hundreds if not thousands of years until they have finished this response to the past warminOf course not, the rise will continue approximately at the current rate, as e.g. the ice sheets will continue to melt due to the elevated temperature — it takes hundreds if not thousands of years until they have finished this response to the past warminof years until they have finished this response to the past warming.

Specifically, how much will temperatures rise if the concentration of the main greenhouse gas of concern, carbon dioxide, doubles from the level of 280 parts per million that prevailed as the industrial revolution got into gear in the 19th century and was not exceeded for hundreds of thousands of years prior to that.

They found that over hundreds of thousands of years, CO2 and temperature had been linked through feedbacks: anything that caused one of the pair to rise or fall brought a rise or fall in the other.

The fairly sharp projected increase in temperature of the troposphere at present gives a big disparity in the changes of temperature over thousands of years to a hundred thousand years.

On blogs like Dr. Curry's I continually see learned, and heated, arguments over the meaning of fluctuations in the «annual temperature of the earth» in the hundredths of a degree range (sometimes thousandths), with data plotted over hundreds or thousands of years, while noticing that there doesn't seem to be a DEFINITION of the «Annual Temperature of the Earth» and that the climate science community, collectively, would be hard pressed to provide me with an «Annual Temperature of Bob's House» with a credible and defensible resolution and precision of + / -.01 degree, using an instrumentation system of thtemperature of the earth» in the hundredths of a degree range (sometimes thousandths), with data plotted over hundreds or thousands of years, while noticing that there doesn't seem to be a DEFINITION of the «Annual Temperature of the Earth» and that the climate science community, collectively, would be hard pressed to provide me with an «Annual Temperature of Bob's House» with a credible and defensible resolution and precision of + / -.01 degree, using an instrumentation system of thTemperature of the Earth» and that the climate science community, collectively, would be hard pressed to provide me with an «Annual Temperature of Bob's House» with a credible and defensible resolution and precision of + / -.01 degree, using an instrumentation system of thTemperature of Bob's House» with a credible and defensible resolution and precision of + / -.01 degree, using an instrumentation system of their choice.

If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow the average temperature of the planet is not going to drop in several hundred years, perhaps as much as a thousand years because the system is overburdened with CO2 that has to be absorbed and that only happens slowly.

The scientific consensus has concluded that further increases in CO2 and average global temperature are almost certain to destroy the coral communities of the Great Barrier Reef for hundreds if not thousands of years.

Swings of temperature that scientists in the 1950s believed to take tens of thousands of years, in the 1970s to take thousands of years, and in the 1980s to take hundreds of years, were now found to take only decades.

Are you actually claiming that the «best efforts» of the data massagers are able to not only tease out temperature anomalies with hundredth degree resolution for the «annual temperature of the Earth» going back a thousand years or more, all but the most recent couple of hundred years based solely on a variety of «proxies», but, having teased them out, are able to successfully attribute them to some specific «driver», like ACO2?

The second question is, postulating that the temperature record from satellites is absolutely accurate and unfudged, and in light of the fact that climate changes historically occur naturally with periods of hundreds to thousands of years, do you think that the 31 annual data points available from the satellite record are adequate to establish long term climate trends and that the trends are a consequence of human activity?

Given human nature over that hundred plus years of records, it is highly likely that all the foibles and faults of those thousands of observers and their measuring equipment will through sheer numbers and bulk have about evened out to a neutral point around which the real actual temperature will be centered.

When scientists later used ice cores to tease out the pattern of temperature and CO2 changes over the past few hundred thousand years, they got the sort of pattern you'd expect from the 1990 hypothesis (here's another graph).

Should we continue to burn fossil fuels at the current rate, we are likely to see the same temperature increase in the space of a few hundred years that took a few thousand years 55 million years ago.

My guess the temperature changes can't be measured there, the deep ocean takes hundreds of years if not a thousand to come to the surface where it can impact the atmosphere and even then the dissipated heat can't raise the atmospheric global temperature because of all the changing currents and winds again spread it out.

Even if AGW use the unsubstantiated claim that CO2 stays in the atmosphere accumulating for hundreds and even thousands of years, take your pick, they make up the numbers to suit, and double current amounts actually stayed in the atmosphere, this would be nonsense as «insulating blanket» to not only stop heat loss globally but raise the global temperature of the Earth.

During its over three year journey the HMS Challenger not only collected thousands of new species and sounded unknown ocean depths, but also took hundreds of temperature readings — data which is now proving invaluable to our understanding of climate change.