Sentences with phrase «then in another couple of decades»

Interestingly, the EU has shown marked improvement, and if you projected it forward, then in another couple of decades, who can say?

Not exact matches

His argument, in a nutshell: Take out a HECM as soon as you're eligible, at age 62, and then let it earn interest so you can milk it for cash a couple of decades down the road.

Though the US dollar has remained the strongest fiat currency in a pool of rapidly devaluing fiat currencies over the past two years, if one calculates the declining purchasing power of the US dollar in the past couple of decades when using real rates of inflation inside the US (versus the bogus rates produced by federal entities), then one can easily reach the conclusion that the US dollar has crashed as well.

Rob is on to something when he says we'll soon be living in a world where women will «have some of their eggs harvested and frozen in their twenties, spend a couple of decades building a career, and then use the eggs to become pregnant in their forties or fifties.»

Then he faded from the scene for a couple of decades, only to be picked up by the left wing of the Democratic party after their electoral disaster of 2004 in order to certify their sympathy for «religious values.»

But it is even better than that because to go from generation to generation in the human world is either nine months or 21 years, depending on who you talk to; you've got to get pregnant; you've got to buy baby clothes, the whole thing; the kid goes to school and then college and a couple of decades later, you've got a new generation.

Then I remembered the lemon yogurt cake I had a couple of decades ago in Saint - Tropez.

Bill (Michael Sheen) and Kate (Maria Bello), a professional couple preparing to separate after two decades of marriage, are thrust into a nightmare when their only son, Sam (Kyle Gallner), kills 20 people and then takes his own life in a college shooting rampage.

Then, late in the year, it will introduce the first midsize Jeep pickup in a couple of decades.

Paperno: I started in 1973 with Bank of America, then fast - forward a couple of decades to Experian, one of the three national credit bureaus, and 17 years at Fair Isaac Corporation, which is known to most folks as FICO, the credit scoring folks.

Lamontagne says that if the Minellis can increase the return on the money in their savings account from 0.75 % to 3 %, then based on a projected average annual inflation rate of 3 %, the couple can live off their money for decades and still have $ 1 million left at age 90.

It wouldn't be a good idea right now for me to sell, rent for a couple of years, then buy, but it would have been fine in the prior decade.)

But it's nice that the picture confirms what we already knew: That it was much warmer 6000 years ago than in the last couple of hundred years (we've known that for a long time, I learned in school decades ago that in Norwegian mountains which are now Arctic tundra, there were huge forests back then — the preserved roots of those trees can still be found in marshes).

To point out just a couple of things: — oceans warming slower (or cooling slower) than lands on long - time trends is absolutely normal, because water is more difficult both to warm or to cool (I mean, we require both a bigger heat flow and more time); at the contrary, I see as a non-sense theory (made by some serrist, but don't know who) that oceans are storing up heat, and that suddenly they will release such heat as a positive feedback: or the water warms than no heat can be considered ad «stored» (we have no phase change inside oceans, so no latent heat) or oceans begin to release heat but in the same time they have to cool (because they are losing heat); so, I don't feel strange that in last years land temperatures for some series (NCDC and GISS) can be heating up while oceans are slightly cooling, but I feel strange that they are heating up so much to reverse global trend from slightly negative / stable to slightly positive; but, in the end, all this is not an evidence that lands» warming is led by UHI (but, this effect, I would not exclude it from having a small part in temperature trends for some regional area, but just small); both because, as writtend, it is normal to have waters warming slower than lands, and because lands» temperatures are often measured in a not so precise way (despite they continue to give us a global uncertainity in TT values which is barely the instrumental's one)-- but, to point out, HadCRU and MSU of last years (I mean always 2002 - 2006) follow much better waters» temperatures trend; — metropolis and larger cities temperature trends actually show an increase in UHI effect, but I think the sites are few, and the covered area is very small worldwide, so the global effect is very poor (but it still can be sensible for regional effects); but I would not run out a small warming trend for airport measurements due mainly to three things: increasing jet planes traffic, enlarging airports (then more buildings and more asphalt — if you follow motor sports, or simply live in a town / city, you will know how easy they get very warmer than air during day, and how much it can slow night - time cooling) and overall having airports nearer to cities (if not becoming an area inside the city after some decade of hurban growth, e.g. Milan - Linate); — I found no point about UHI in towns and villages; you will tell me they are not large cities; but, in comparison with 20-40-60 years ago when they were «countryside», many small towns and villages have become part of larger hurban areas (at least in Europe and Asia) so examining just larger cities would not be enough in my opinion to get a full view of UHI effect (still remembering that it has a small global effect: we can say many matters are due to UHI instead of GW, maybe even that a small part of measured GW is due to UHI, and that GW measurements are not so precise to make us able to make good analisyses and predictions, but not that GW is due to UHI).

A couple of decades of national madness with the «dry» forces in control, then at last Roosevelt beats the clueless Hoover in a landslide..

The slowed debris would then decay into a lower orbit, where it could be expected to fall into earth's atmosphere within a couple of decades, not the hundreds of years which the debris could remain in orbit at their current altitudes.

if we make it to 450ppm CO2 in a couple of decades what then?