Sentences with phrase «very high global warming»

Many fluorinated gases have very high global warming potentials (GWPs) relative to other greenhouse gases, so small atmospheric concentrations can have proportionately large effects on global temperatures.

Not exact matches

But current methods to desalinate water come at a very high cost in terms of energy, which means more greenhouse gases and more global warming.

Our study shows that the northeast United States is one of those regions where warming will proceed very rapidly, so that if and when the global target is reached, we will already be experiencing much higher temperatures, with all of the related ecological, hydrological and agricultural consequences.»

IPCC [26] projects the following trends, if global warming continue to increase, where only trends assigned very high confidence or high confidence are included: (i) increased malnutrition and consequent disorders, including those related to child growth and development, (ii) increased death, disease and injuries from heat waves, floods, storms, fires and droughts, (iii) increased cardio - respiratory morbidity and mortality associated with ground - level ozone.

All of the effects of global warming have been foretold for almost 5 decades in advance (if memory serves, the first climate model was created sometime back during the late 60's), and was able to compute current warming to a very high level of accuracy.

My own view is, (a) if we wind up at the lower end of the IPCC expected warming, maybe we shouldn't be spending large sums to avert it, whereas if we are likely to land at the high end, the costs miht start to get fairly grave (b) nobody has a very good idea how much it would really cost to avert, or slow, global warming (hope this doesn't contradict (a)-RRB-.

Even now global temperatures are very high again — in the GISS data, with an anomaly of + 0.77 °C November was warmer than the previous record year of 2010 (+ 0.67 °), and it was the warmest November on record since 1880.

-- Keep global warming below 2oC, implying a peak in global CO2 emissions no later than 2015 and recognise that even a warming of 2oC carries a very high risk of serious impacts and the need for major adaptation efforts.

Nevertheless I say again that I'd like to see someone of stature in science or someone of high visibility in the national media challenge Professor Happer specifically about the contrast between the very headline on his WSJ op - ed («Global warming models are wrong again») and what's asserted by this RC posting (and by Lazarus @ 31) about the retrospective reliability of Hansen et al. (1981).

Marco @ 47: I see what you mean about the general relevance and importance of the posting that you cited, but I'd still like to see someone of stature in science or someone of high visibility in the national media challenge Professor Happer specifically about the contrast between the very headline on his WSJ op - ed («Global warming models are wrong again») and what's asserted by this RC posting (and by Lazarus @ 31) about the retrospective reliability of Hansen et al. (1981).

«Although this is a very rare event, the probability of this kind of high - pressure system is likely increasing with global warming,» the authors said.

Global warming is a «very high» priority for the government, says Capizzi.

It doesn't sound like no global warming, it sounds like we had a very high plateau and now 2014 and 2015 we are going back up the staircase again.

«With very high sea surface temperatures that have a strong global warming component, these flooding events break records, and cause untold damage,» he says.

The «very high confidence» the IPCC expresses in the global warming thesis is the strongest statement any reputable scientist would make about his area of study.

These experts again found no support for the Pounds» global warming hypothesis.22 So much for Pounds» forceful storytelling and his «very high confidence» (> 99 %, following the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) that global warming was the driver of amphibian extinctions.

In contrast, modern warming (especially post-1970) is global in scale, and confidence in attribution to CO2 forcing has risen to a very high level.

So Nature published Pounds» more adamant connection to CO2 in «Widespread amphibian extinctions from epidemic disease driven by global warming».17 Embodying the forceful storyteller Pounds boldly stated, «we conclude with «very high confidence» (> 99 %, following the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC) that large - scale warming is a key factor in the disappearances.

Even among wealthy countries, most of which rank high or very high on the human development index (HDI), fighting global warming barely notches above the 10th most concerning issue.

AGW is a hypothesis that makes sense, namely: — GHGs absorb outgoing radiation, thereby contributing to warming (GH theory)-- CO2 is a GHG (as is water vapor plus some minor GHGs)-- CO2 concentrations have risen (mostly since measurements started in Mauna Loa in 1959)-- global temperature has risen since 1850 (in ~ 30 - year warming cycles with ~ 30 - year cycles of slight cooling in between)-- humans emit CO2 and other GHGs — ergo, human GHG emissions have very likely been a major contributor to higher GHG concentrations, very likely contributing to the observed warming

Please reevaluate and update us on the accuracy and significance of global warming models in light of this evidence and the need for very high significance in climate science to justify major changes in public policy.

In very short form (recognizing that I will write somewhat loosely for purposes of brevity in this setting), Weitzman's central claim is that the probability distribution of potential losses from global warming is «fat - tailed», or includes high enough odds of very large amounts of warming (200C or more) to justify taking expensive action now to avoid these low probability / high severity risks.

Fifth, the governmental actions the CIC proposes would have no measurable effect on global warming, and probably none at all, at a very high cost to taxpayers and ratepayers, particularly less well - to - do ones.

Belief that global warming is a serious problem is at its highest level in two - and - half - years... telephone survey of Likely Voters finds that 64 % say global warming is at least a somewhat serious problem, including 30 % who say it's Very Serious.

Next there was very high solar activity (high deflection of GCRs and reduced cloud cover) in cycles 21 - 22 from 1976 to 1996, the global warming scare.

I think James» point about the last decade is not that global warming has stopped (implying low or zero climate sensitivity) but that it has not accelerated to the extent that it would have if climate sensitivity were very high (above, say, 4).

While I am certain that the consensus is very high among experts this article talks about consensus amongst peer reviewed papers mentioning causes for global warming.

IPCC [26] projects the following trends, if global warming continue to increase, where only trends assigned very high confidence or high confidence are included: (i) increased malnutrition and consequent disorders, including those related to child growth and development, (ii) increased death, disease and injuries from heat waves, floods, storms, fires and droughts, (iii) increased cardio - respiratory morbidity and mortality associated with ground - level ozone.

It has been suggested that higher latitudes — Siberia, for example — may become productive due to global warming, but the soil in Arctic and bordering territories is very poor, and the amount of sunlight reaching the ground in summer will not change because it is governed by the tilt of the earth.

Agricultural fertilizer causes dead areas near river mouths, while global warming is causing very similar effects on the high seas.

Climate science deniers are very fond of showing extremely deceptive temperature graphs: They plot the data starting in 1998, when temperatures were higher than average, so it looks like the world hasn't gotten much warmer since then, and talk about the global warming «pause.»

The percentage change in the number of very hot days can be quite large.11 Global warming boosts the probability of very extreme events, like the recent «Summer in March» episode in the U.S. in which thousands of new record highs were set, far more than it changes the likelihood of more moderate events.12

4) the end results on the bottom of the first table (on maximum temperatures), clearly showed a drop in the speed of warming that started around 38 years ago, and continued to drop every other period I looked / /... 5) I did a linear fit, on those 4 results for the drop in the speed of global maximum temps, versus time, ended up with y = 0.0018 x -0.0314, with r2 = 0.96 At that stage I was sure to know that I had hooked a fish: I was at least 95 % sure (max) temperatures were falling 6) On same maxima data, a polynomial fit, of 2nd order, i.e. parabolic, gave me y = -0.000049 × 2 + 0.004267 x — 0.056745 r2 = 0.995 That is very high, showing a natural relationship, like the trajectory of somebody throwing a ball... 7) projection on the above parabolic fit backward, (10 years?)

Well, here's a link that shows (or purports to show) that the vast majority of global warming in the past few decades has taken place in very high Northern latitudes — well North of anyplace with significant population.

Surveys conducted around the time of the meeting found about ten percent of the American public saying they followed the global warming news «very closely,» a substantial fraction for such an issue (for more exciting stories, the fraction could be several times higher).

The last time in Earth history when the global average surface temperature was as warm as the IPCC projects for 2100 in its mid-range scenarios, there was very little polar ice and sea level would have been roughly 70 meters (over 200 feet) higher than at present.

Although the extremely persistent high pressure is at least a century - scale occurrence (8), anthropogenic global warming has very likely increased the probability of such conditions (8, 9).

There has not been shown to be a density variation of significance that correlates with average temperature variation (e.g, the recent high average temperature came from a small very hot area over the ocean and a small northern area, and more normal to even colder temperatures everywhere else, not global temperatures being warmer), and Solar activity has been shown to correlate very well with much of the long term (thousands of years time scale) global temperature trend.

One Yale survey, for example, has found very broad support for higher fuel - efficiency standards for cars even among people who question global warming.

From said study: «A large majority of Americans (77 %) say global warming should be a «very high» (18 %), «high» (25 %), or «medium» priority (34 %) for the president and Congress.

There is very high confidence that models reproduce the general features of the global - scale annual mean surface temperature increase over the historical period, including the more rapid warming in the second half of the 20th century, and the cooling immediately following large volcanic eruptions...

During the Last Interglacial Period (about 129,000 to 116,000 years ago) when peak global warmth was not more than 2 °C above pre-industrial temperatures, and peak global annual sea surface temperatures were 0.7 [0.1 to 1.3] °C warmer (medium confidence), maximum GMSL was at least 5 m higher than at present (very high confidence), but did not exceed 10 m (high confidence).

The panel concludes there is very high confidence that the warming is due to human activities, which are likely to have been at least five times greater than the impact of solar irradiance changes on global warming.

For DJF (figure 4a), the spatial extent of the maximum and minimum areas projected to experience the highest climate changes under a global warming of 4 °C is very different, highlighting the uncertainty that mostly originates from the different temperature changes projected by the models.

«Warming during the past half century can not be explained without external radiative forcing Global Extremely likely (> 95 %)[1] Anthropogenic change has been detected in surface temperature with very high significance levels (less than 1 % error probability).

Although I am not well versed in research as I am only in high school, I have found that the information surrounding global warming is overwhelming and seems very biased on both sides.

If we get 2 °C of global warming, for instance, the risk of crop failures in Africa due to drought and heat rises to «very high.»