Sentences with phrase «then global average temperature increases»

If climate skeptics are right about climate sensitivity (green), then global average temperature increases will be more moderate this century, shown here for RCP6 (left) and RCP8.5 (right).

Figure 1: If climate skeptics are right about climate sensitivity (green), then global average temperature increases will be more moderate this century, shown here for RCP6 (left) and RCP8.5 (right).

Not exact matches

Combining the asylum - application data with projections of future warming, the researchers found that an increase of average global temperatures of 1.8 °C — an optimistic scenario in which carbon emissions flatten globally in the next few decades and then decline — would increase applications by 28 percent by 2100, translating into 98,000 extra applications to the EU each year.

But average global temperatures will increase dramatically if nations just sit and wait until then, concludes the report, Redrawing the Energy - Climate Map.»

An increase (0.35 °C) occurred in the global average temperature from the 1910s to the 1940s, followed by a slight cooling (0.1 °C), and then a rapid warming (0.55 °C) up to the end of 2006 (Figure 1).

However, at the increased levels seen since the Industrial Revolution (roughly 275 ppm then, 400 ppm now; Figure 2 - 1), greenhouse gases are contributing to the rapid rise of our global average temperatures by trapping more heat, often referred to as human - caused climate change.

According to the Paris Agreement, global emissions must peak by 2020 and then start declining if we want to keep average global temperature increase under 2 ° Celsius.

90 Jim Larson wrote: «Perhaps a way to squash this belief would be to subtract the global average increase in temperature and then calculate the sigmas.

If you wanted the global / regional / local averages to somehow provide a measure of average human misery due to increasing temperatures, then population - weighted or un-weighted averages will probably capture that, since the density of met stations is a reasonable proxy for population density.

If average global temperatures rise by just 3 °C, then Europe's drought risk could increase to double the area faced with drying out.

Then in 1987, Congress, recognizing that «man - made pollution — the release of carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons, methane and other trace gases into the atmosphere — may be producing a long - term and substantial increase in the average temperature on Earth,» passed the Global Climate Protection Act.

In fact, since then, greenhouse gas emissions have continued to rise, and accordingly global average temperatures have steadily increased, along with sea levels.

Should the veracity of the GH theory not have to answer to these far more detailed predictions then to a simple estimation of increased surface temperature, and using whichever of the various means of arriving at a global average best matches that one parameter?

I present a graph from NOAA of change in average global temperature from 1880 to today and then show the graph of the U.S. increase in heavy precipitation days from 1950 to today.

To counter this business - as - usual scenario, the Stern Review proposes a climate stabilization regime in which greenhouse gas emissions would peak by 2015 and then drop 1 percent per year after that, so as to stabilize at a 550 ppm CO2e (with a significant chance that the global average temperature increase would thereby be kept down to 3 °C).

«It is possible that an increase in concentration of atmospheric gases which absorb the outgoing infrared radiation could result in a rise in average global temperature,» William McCollam, Jr., then president of EEI, admitted to Congress in 1989.

Denmark's prime minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen said if the world wants to limit increase in average global temperatures to 2 degrees Celsius, then both developed and developing nations have to take urgent action and that poverty alleviation or development goals can not be tackled without addressing climate change.

Were the increase in average global temperatures held below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), then drastic climate change and long - term irreversible damage — like the melting of Greenland's glaciers — could still be avoided.

Why, then, does an average global temperature increase of only a fraction of one degree in 150 years seem to cause such an emotional stir in so many people?

So I estimate that if we followed IEO2011 / RCP8.5 out to 2035, and then stabilized our forcing, we would eventually arrive at an average global temperature increase of 2.4 ºC.

«So a decade of no, or well below projected, increases in global average temperature would be «odd» and a «subject of serious study» then, would it not?

An increase (0.35 °C) occurred in the global average temperature from the 1910s to the 1940s, followed by a slight cooling (0.1 °C), and then a rapid warming (0.55 °C) up to the end of 2006 (Figure 1).