Sentences with phrase «warming mean for the future»

Not exact matches

A new study takes aim at the mysterious relationship between clouds and climate, and it finds that a warmer planet could mean fewer clouds, which would mean an even more sultry future for the planet

In a paper published in Science today, researchers from ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies (Coral CoE) at James Cook University (JCU) and the University of Queensland (UQ), as well as the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) investigated what this warming pattern means for GBR coral bleaching events into the future.

(NOAA) investigated what this warming pattern means for GBR coral bleaching events into the future.

The kinder, gentler model from the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in the United Kingdom estimated a wetter, warmer future: Rainfall may increase 20 percent to 25 percent, mean annual temperatures could increase 2 degrees Fahrenheit by 2030 and 4 degrees by 2100.

This has implications for future scenario's, as a lower sensitivity for CO2 (and a higher for solar) means that there will be less warming for the same CO2 emissions (assuming no large excursions of solar).

First of all, Oreskes et al. emphasize that the reality of mean global warming is essentially undisputed, but that the future impacts on the scale for which humans would have to prepare are still the subject of considerable research, inquiry, and debate.

That can not change quickly, even if it means a much warmer world for future generations.

For all the above reasons the Realclimate theory is simply not sufficiently plausible and I see no credible means as to how AGW can warm up the oceans fast enough to be a threat in the foreseeable future.

Although there is as yet no convincing evidence in the observed record of changes in tropical cyclone behaviour, a synthesis of the recent model results indicates that, for the future warmer climate, tropical cyclones will show increased peak wind speed and increased mean and peak precipitation intensities.

Part of problem is that even with current levels of emissions, the inertia of the climate system means that not all of the warming those emissions will cause has happened yet — a certain amount is «in the pipeline» and will only rear its head in the future, because the ocean absorbs some of the heat, delaying the inherent atmospheric warming for decades to centuries.

If you «pause» it means warming may resume at some time in the future (or perhaps even cooling... but let's not go there for the sake of this argument).

That amount of warming would be disastrous and means we should remain scared about the future in the way I wrote about in my book Requiem for a Species, which led some to see me as a «Dr Doom» figure.

Picking 1985 - 2005 as a baseline to indicate that warming from 1950 is predominately man made, doesn't mean that 1985 to 2005 is the «new» baseline or Zero for future warming.

Scratch an global warming activist and you will find, not an altruistic crusader for a safer, cleaner future, but a mean, self - aggrandizing misanthrope who is perfectly comfortable with lying and cheating in the service of spreading misery among as many people as possible.

Undoubtedly, there are mistaken understandings and new dynamics to be understood in AGW, that does not mean the idea that we are causing warming or can influence temperature is null and void and we can just walk away without responsibility for stewardship for our children's and the planets and all that inhabit it futures.

The multi-model ensemble mean warmings for the three future periods in the different experiments are given in Table 10.5, among other results.

A new study is shedding light on what that could mean for the future by providing the first direct physical evidence of a massive release of carbon from permafrost during a warming spike at the end of the last glacial period.

Global warming has been stuck in neutral for more than a decade and a half, scientists are increasingly suggesting that future climate change projections are overblown, and now, arguably the greatest threat from global warming — a large and rapid sea level rise (SLR)-- has been shown overly lurid (SOL; what did you think I meant?).

> Scientists probably did not adequately convey to the public that their projections for future warming are based on models that account only for the so - called «forced response» in global mean surface temperatures — that is, the change caused by greenhouse - gas emissions.

Does that mean, since I see evidence for a global warming in the last 100 years and also an anthropogenic influence, that I am in the «apocalyptic half» of this study, beside the fact, that I am indeed very skeptical of the predictions for our future as given in the IPCC - reports?

It will get warmer though I think and various animals will be extinct etc... I am an optimist for humanity actually and the planet but that does not mean we should be blind about our future.

«In our models, the Indian Ocean shows very clear and dramatic warming into the future, which means more and more drought for southern Africa,» said Dr. James W. Hurrell, author of a recent study by the US - based National Center for Atmospheric Research.

«No one can predict the future, but if the region's past 900 years is any indication, and you factor in climate change, you're going to have a warmer situation that could mean the river will no longer be a sustainable water source for the tar sands,» he said.