Sentences with phrase «warming in the pipeline due»

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).

Not exact matches

(Editor's Note: Claims that warming will «resume» due to explosive heat in the «pipeline» have also been thoroughly debunked.

Yet deleterious effects of warming are apparent (IPCC 2007), even though only about half of the warming due to gases now in the air has appeared, the remainder still «in the pipeline» due to the inertia of the climate system (Hansen et al 2011).

Another 0.5 K of warming is already «in the pipeline» due to ocean heat storage no matter what we do.

However even the moderate scenarios which have eventual stabilisation give more warming than 0.8 C. Even in the extremely unlikely event that there is no further growth in emissions, the current planetary energy imbalance (estimated to be almost 1W / m2)(due to the ocean thermal inertia) implies that there is around 0.5 C extra warming already in the pipeline that will be realised over the next 20 to 30 years.

Furthermore, what the IPCC chart is missing is that there is going to be some warming even if concentrations don't rise at all, due to warming in the pipeline.

Not wanting to add to the gloom but you didn't mention the committed warming already in the pipeline due to Earth's energy imbalance.

Thirdly, the temperature several decades from now is to a large extent already determined by the current energy imbalance due to the extra CO2 already in the atmosphere right now, so short of a complete cessation of emissions today, there is no foreseeable way to avoid the bulk of the warming that is «in the pipeline».

I do, because there is CO2 induced warming, due to the lagg in the climate system, in the pipeline.

Whether or not global warming is entirely or largely due to human use of carbon for fuel, the reduction of the dependence on carbon makes sense for reducing asthma in children; reducing black lung disease; reducing the production of coal ashes, residues, and effluents; reducing the impact of carbon greenhouse gasses; reducing pipeline failures; reducing coal and oil surface transport accidents; reducing pipeline - related warfare; and reducing air pollution.

First, that the impact of adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will be much smaller than most estimates; second, that almost all of the warming due to the greenhouse gases we've put in the atmosphere so far has already been felt, so there's almost no warming «in the pipeline» due to greenhouse gases already in the air.

Using these values, the X-factor would be 0.43 with the proviso that it is determined over a century and that the system is at equilibrium (Warmists like to have it both ways here, ie that it was at equlibrium to start with, but not at the end, where there is «warming in the pipeline» due to absorption and release of heat by the oceans).