Sentences with phrase «then current warming»

If Mann's study is invalid, (not an unreasonable assumption), then our current warming began at the bottom of the LIA, around 1680.

Peer reviewed literature supports the three most recent warming periods in the last 10,000 years as being as warm or warmer then the current warm period The NH and global drop in T from the late 1940s to 1979 or so was a well established part of the record.

Not exact matches

But so long as we have to choose between one or the other when playing big games, and as long as that means the PL's top scorer has to warm the bench, then I will continue to think there's something» not right» about our current squad.

These ladies don't seem to be aware of the current SIDS guidelines stating as long as your babies head and face are uncovered and you are using cotton or bamboo bedding then it is perfectly safe to layer up the amount of these blankets to keep your baby warm.

However, if you're looking for bargains and packs of leggings, then check out Carter's current sale on all things leggings and leg warmers!

To retrofit the magnets, engineers will have to warm one or two of the accelerator's eight segments from its current 1.9 kelvins, install the rods and then cool the segments down again.

If you decouple that ice from where it's grounded — something that currents of warming water, already circulating around the Antarctic coast, could do — then water could flow beneath the inland ice and lubricate its slide into the ocean.

As they report in a paper published July 16 in Current Biology, the minute insects employ a razor - sharp sense of smell to tip them off that a warm - blooded meal is nearby, and then use vision and other senses to home in on the feast.

That CO2 then warmed the globe, melting back the continental ice sheets and ushering in the current climate that enabled humanity to thrive.

The swirling dislodged particles travel upward with the human convection plume, or currents of warmed air that rise around any human body, then get swept into a filter that takes out contaminants like dust, lint, and skin cells.

We then examine climate impacts during the past few decades of global warming and in paleoclimate records including the Eemian period, concluding that there are already clear indications of undesirable impacts at the current level of warming and that 2 °C warming would have major deleterious consequences.

My current HIIT session consists on a 5 min walk to warm up, then about 15 - 20 minutes of sprinting 30secs on at 15.5 -16 kmph and then rest for 30 sec.

The Approach has obligingly extended its wonderful Bill Lynch exhibition to 1 March so you can catch that, have a pub lunch downstairs with a glass of something to warm the cockles, then head over to Herald Street to see Laura Bartlett's current show.

but even if the current tooo - short - to - call cooling trend reverses, and it is proved that co2 MIGHT have some limited effect on planetary warming, then the question is, how much warming?

Is it not the case that if the relative lack of El Niño's and predominance of La Nina's is in fact due to global warming, rather than natural variability, then the current increase in the rate of warming of the ocean below 700m may continue.

If we knew ocean heat uptake as well as we know atmospheric temperature change, then we could pin down fairly well the radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere, which would give us a fair indication of how much warming is «in the pipeline» given current greenhouse gas concentrations.

Bern: «And even then, I'd only consider calling Dr Hansen a «charlatan» if he stuck with his current predictions of imminent strong warming and never once changed his opinion, despite evidence to the contrary.»

Thus doubling the solar wind velocity [which is what happens during these solar wind peaks of 500 - 1000 km / s and more increases the dynamic pressure pulse four fold, increases the electrical field - aligned currents, which then increases ionospheric Joule heating which contribute to global warming.

[Response: Hansen's argument for 350 is that it would stop the Earth from warming further — he calculates the committed warming at our current 390 or whatever it is, then dials down CO2 until the climate stays as is with no further committed warming.

However, if either A we are simply dead wrong about the impact of GHGs and / or B we are missing the forest (solar / astronimical and tectonic things) for the trees (gas mixture things) and the actual future, among the several possible futures, turns out to be one of cooling — possibly the outright end of the current interglacial, then all those people wound up to believe in a warm future are going to be cold, hungry and out for blood.

The Solomon Committee report amplifies this conclusion when it confirms that we observe, in any year, only 50 % of the warming to which we have committed the planet by allowing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases to rise to the then current level.

If there was more natural variation in the past millenia, specifically due to solar changes, then that goes at the cost of the GHG / aerosol combination, as both are near impossible to distinguish from each other in the warming of the last halve century... Solar activity has never been as high, and for an as long period, as current in the past millenium (and even the past 8,000 years).

«If current policy continues to fail — along the lines of the «agree and ignore» scenario — then 50 % to 80 % of all species on earth could be driven to extinction by the magnitude and rapidity of warming, and much of the planet's surface left uninhabitable to humans.

If it shows a fraction of the current warming, well, then that is interesting too.

The risks need to be assessed and then there needs to be dialogue among nations to determine which is the greater risk (Global Warming is right or Global Warming is wrong) before jumping to solutions.Cuuerntly the noise generated by the current polarized debate (see many comments above) obscures the evaluation of risks associated with both sides of the issue.

The current climate warming commenced about the year 1800 and has progressed nearly linearly since then.

Important factors in the current anthropogenic warming episode is that the warming in ecological terms is substantial faster then other known episodes and temperatures could be higher then they have been in millions of years.

Once we have used real observations to understand the probability in the historical record, then we can use climate models to compare the probability in the current climate (in which global warming has occurred) with a climate in which there was no human - caused global warming.

Andy, I found the plankton post informative, but I have a concern: IF public understanding of global warming (and potential ways to address it) were at the «A» level, or at least the «B» level, then we'd all have context within which to find these types of things (e.g., the current story) very helpful.

Should the ice sheet start to melt in a serious way (i.e. much more significantly than current indications suggest), then lowering of the elevation of the ice sheet will induce more melting simply because of the effect of the lapse rate (air being warmer closer to sea level due to pressure effects).

But as cogently interpreted by the physicist and climate expert Dr. Joseph Romm of the liberal Center for American Progress, «Latif has NOT predicted a cooling trend — or a «decades - long deep freeze» — but rather a short - time span where human - caused warming might be partly offset by ocean cycles, staying at current record levels, but then followed by «accelerated» warming where you catch up to the long - term human - caused trend.

The ocean currents carry this sunlight - warmed water to the west and then poleward.

Kevin Hamilton, who co-authored the report, warns: «If our model results prove to be representative of the real global climate, then climate is actually more sensitive to perturbations by greenhouse gases than current global models predict, and even the highest warming predictions would underestimate the real change we could see.»

The mid-century suspension of warming could then be explained as a temporary resumption of the previous flow pattern of currents.

or — if they want to claim this current lack of warming is due to natural variability, then the previous warming could also be due to natural variability — and that hurts them too!

Just to rephrase my last question: If the current global warming situation is man made, and / or caused by other natural Earthly factors, then why is every planet in our solar system experiencing this phenomenon as well?

The scientists also calculate that the world's emissions of heat - trapping gases must peak in less than 10 years and then dive quickly to nearly zero, if warming of more than another 2 degrees Fahrenheit above the current annual global temperature is to be prevented after 2050.

Thank you for agreeing that there are other factors at work in global warming and bearing in mind the strength of those as demonstrated by climate history then any claim that man - made factors are anywhere near as large as 100 % or greater are going to have to demonstrate the current and past natural changes and how they interact.

This disagreement ties into the debate over man - made global warming, because if the Current Warm Period is not that unusual, then man - made global warming could be either (1) superimposed over considerable «natural global warming» or (2) non-existent (in which case global warming would have nothing to do with our «carbon footprint»).

Then coincident with the arrival of a warmer water via the Irminger Current, the glaciers abruptly began retreating.

If a researcher chooses to use the Esper version then it will make the Medieval Warm Period seem warmer than the Current Warm Period.

If the «current pause in global warming» does extend into the 2030s, then Wyatt and Curry have identified the most likely «culprit».

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).

To achieve a (theoretical) reduction of 0.5 degC warming by 2100 will require that a calculated 510 Gt CO2 are removed from the atmosphere by 2100 (compared to the «base case» of CO2 increase to 600 ppmv by then); with the current 50 % of the emitted CO2 «remaining» in the atmosphere, this would mean not emitting 1,020 Gt between now and 2100.

She then argues that this can't be attributed to human - caused global warming, which presumably implies something about the current rise in ocean heat content.

It is followed by the step warming of oceanic origin and that then initiates the current warming pause.

Then there is ENSO, for example, which was the principal cause of the all - time record warm year, 1998, plus other ocean currents, which contribute to natural variability but whose impact and root cause is not known.

It then follows that we * MIGHT * actually be seeing the after effects of the Medieval warm period... Though I've read this wasn't a worldwide phenomena, though, it is likely that ocean current would have circulated the effect, and after 800 years, a localised heating of this type, might have an effect in all the deep ocean areas.

Conversely, during low solar activity during the Little Ice Age, transport of warm water was reduced by 10 % and Arctic sea ice increased.17 Although it is not a situation I would ever hope for, if history repeats itself, then natural climate dynamics of the past suggest, the current drop in the sun's output will produce a similar cooler climate, and it will likely be detected first as a slow down in the poleward transport of ocean heat.22 Should we prepare for this possibility?

Well, ANU, snarky though you may be, you raise a nominally interesting point; the problem, however, is that the amounts are anomalies; so the 90's are on average a certain amount above the average of the base period; now to compare the increase in anomalies in the noughties, which are higher than the nineties and say this is evidence of progressive warming, hottest ever, or whatever is the current alarmist catch - cry, ignores the fact that the true measure of the warming is not the absolute anomalies but their difference; that is the amounts for the noughties should have the amounts for the nineties subtracted from them and then compared with the nineties after they have the eighties subtracted from them.