Sentences with phrase «warming in the pipeline»

Here are some facts, the long term trend is up, and there is more warming in the pipeline.

Both studies (which I have not seen) focus on warming in the pipeline and no doubt involve modelling of future ocean warming.

That could easily be 50 %, which means that even if atmospheric CO2 levels off today, there's as much warming in the pipeline as we've already seen.

Warming in the pipeline very largely reflects ocean heat uptake, which reduces the extent to which surface temperatures need to rise in order to counteract increased forcing from CO2 etc..

There are already several decades of warming in the pipeline.

Among other things, the author [of the Economist's report] hopelessly confuses transient warming (the warming observed at any particularly time) with committed warming (the total warming that you've committed to, which includes warming in the pipeline due to historical carbon emissions).

Fellow US climate expert Michael Mann emailed the the ThinkProgress website, arguing that: «the author hopelessly confuses transient warming (the warming observed at any particularly time) with committed warming (the total warming that you've committed to, which includes warming in the pipeline due to historical carbon emissions).»

It seems to me that «Earth's Energy Imbalance» paper is not strictly a science paper; there are also policy warnings e.g. «this example [~ 0.6 C warming in the pipeline]... implies the need for near - term anticipatory actions».

That is 2.3 C per doubling or 4.1 incuding warming in the pipeline.

Anyway warming in the pipeline means even if we stop now there is more to come, and this has been known for at least several IPCC reports and a decade, and that is because the forcing has not all been realized yet as warming.

But the HTM warming wasn't driven by rapidly - increasingly GHG levels, which have a significant thermal lag — that is, there is a lot more warming in the pipeline today.

Quigley: «Thermal inertia of the ocean is the cause of the 1 °F (0.5 - 0.6 °C) additional warming in the pipeline.

That gives.90 observed and 1.6 including warming in the pipeline.

David (# 29) and Gaz (# 30): In another discussion Barry has said that global surface temperatures have indeed levelled out (while cautioning that this ignores factors such as warming in the pipeline).

See: Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. «There is no warming in the pipeline»)

The persistent energy imbalance measured by this study is essentially future global warming, or «warming in the pipeline».

The continued forcing from CO2 over this period is substantial, not to mention «warming in the pipeline» from late 20th century increase in CO2.

The reason why there is «warming in the pipeline» is because there is a significant imbalance in radiation at the top of the atmosphere.

It's one reason why the targets being «by 2050» is pants: if we wait till 2045 and do it all in 5 years, we will see all the warming in the pipeline and THEN some 50 years later (figure pulled from thin air) see the reduction.

That rounds the estimates to about 3.2 degrees per doubling for observed warming and 5 degrees including the warming in the pipeline.

But Hansen's Scenario C in which GHG forcing stabilizes in the year 2000, only predicted about 5 more years of very minimal (0.1 C) warming in the pipeline.

This is referred to as the «warming in the pipeline».

This eventual release of buried gases and heat from the oceans is sometimes called the «warming in the pipeline» or «warming commitment» that people will eventually have to contend with, Romanou said.

This eventual release of buried gases and heat from the ocean is sometimes called the «warming in the pipeline» or «warming commitment.»

Barry, will the recent Pacific Decadal Oscillation shift mask some (or a lot) of the warming in the pipeline?.