Sentences with phrase «warming scenario over»

Their sensitivity is assessed in several configurations under a high - end global warming scenario over the time range 1976 — 2100.

In summer and autumn the CSIRO projections were for smaller decreases in rainfall than in winter and spring, but the observed change was a substantial decrease: in fact, as large a decrease between the successive 11 - year periods as CSIRO projected on the high global warming scenario over the 40 - year period from 1990 to 2030.

Not exact matches

The long - term warming over the 21st century, however, is strongly influenced by the future rate of emissions, and the projections cover a wide variety of scenarios, ranging from very rapid to more modest economic growth and from more to less dependence on fossil fuels.

A team at British Antarctic Survey (BAS) examined the potential distribution of over 900 species of shelf - dwelling marine invertebrates under a warming scenario produced by computer models.

Over this 100 - year period, O'Gorman found that average snowfall decreased substantially in many Northern Hemisphere regions in warm - climate scenarios compared with the milder control climates, but that snowfall amounts in the largest snowstorms did not decrease to the same extent.

Thus as a practical matter, it doesn't really matter whether the inertia is climatic or societal or technological or economic because the globe will continue to warm under all realistic scenarios (what we do have a possible control over is the magnitude of that warming).

You have also brushed over the fact that the warming rate increases rapidly in the mid and upper scenarios so using the centenial trend applied to the next 20 years is inappopriate.

To be consistent with recent observations, anthropogenic warming is likely to lie in the range 0.1 to 0.2 °C / decade over the next few decades under the IS92a scenario.

In contrast, the scenario in Fig. 5A, with global warming peaking just over 1 °C and then declining slowly, should allow summer sea ice to survive and then gradually increase to levels representative of recent decades.

Instead, Director Jonathan Levine (Warm Bodies) cranks the silly dial to» 20» going for the most over the top scenarios.

That 0.1 to 0.2 degrees Celsius over the next two decades represents the warming ONLY for the IS92a scenario (under different climate sensitivities).

«To be consistent with recent observations, anthropogenic warming is likely to lie in the range 0.1 to 0.2 Â °C / decade over the next few decades under the IS92a scenario.»

To be consistent with recent observations, anthropogenic warming is likely to lie in the range 0.1 to 0.2 °C / decade over the next few decades under the IS92a scenario.

You have also brushed over the fact that the warming rate increases rapidly in the mid and upper scenarios so using the centenial trend applied to the next 20 years is inappopriate.

The current rate (over the last 2 years) is about 1 m per century and we still have a lot more warming to cause in a BAU scenario.

[Response: You're wrong, as JA points out, since much of the warming over the next few decades is contrained by commitment and current levels and doesn't much vary by scenario.

Southern Greenland turns out to have one of the slowest rates of warming of any land area in any of the scenarios (the figure is the mean over all models for the SRES A1B scenario).

«In a scenario of zeroed CO2 and sulfate aerosol emissions, whether the warming induced by specified constant concentrations of non-CO2 greenhouse gases could slow the CO2 decline following zero emissions or even reverse this trend and cause CO2 to increase over time is assessed.

The 2007 IPCC report highlights surface temperature projections for the period 2090 - 2099 under a business - as - ususal scenario that reveals +5 °C to +7 °C warming warming of annually average temperatures over much of Eurasia under an aggressive A2 scenario.

This is a big departure from the work of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change over the last 20 years, in which scientists have periodically laid out «what if» scenarios for emissions, warming, impacts and responses, but avoided defining how much warming is too much.

Building cities along coastlines as we have throughout our so - far short modern history, short though it has been from the standpoint of our climate history, should be recognized as the kind of short term planning that has gotten us into this trouble whether it happens now or a few decades or centuries down the road, and this concern over atmoshperic warming is just one of a multitude of possible planet - affecting scenarios that could have devastating effects on our world's societies.

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.

Another riddle was that previous research indicated that under global warming scenarios Pacific Equatorial Trade winds would slow down over the coming century.

The results for change scaled by global mean warming are rather similar across the four scenarios, an exception being a relatively large increase over the equatorial ocean for the commitment case.

«A rise of over 1 m by 2100 for strong warming scenarios can not be ruled out,» Rahmstorf (2007), extended by Vermeer and Rahmstorf (2009), who project sea - level rise from 1990 to 2100 in the range 75 - 190 cm.

The report's «higher emissions» scenario projects a devastating 8 °F to 10 °F warming over the interior of this country — and, unimaginably, upwards of 18 °F over in the Arctic — by 2071 to 2100.

On the other hand, Easterbrook's two temperature projections showed a 0.2 °C and 0.5 °C cooling over this period, while the IPCC TAR Scenario A2 projection showed a 0.2 °C warming (Figure 6).

As Indur Goklany has shown, even assuming that the climate models on which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) accurately predict (rather than exaggerate by 2 to 3 times) the warming effect of added CO2 in the atmosphere, people the world over, and especially in developing countries, will be wealthier in warmer than in cooler scenarios, making them less vulnerable than today to all risks — including those related to climate.

«Using the IPCC warming rate for our demonstration, we projected the rate successively over a period analogous to that envisaged in their scenario of exponential CO2 growth — the years 1851 to 1975.

So when I tell you that volcanoes are the major reason for the global Warming / Climate Change scenarios being touted by scientists (lobbyists) the world over, I was hoping you might do some due diligence and find out why?

The beginning of the document includes this disclaimer: «We believe our portfolio is resilient under a wide range of outlooks, including the IEA's 450 scenario [compatible with avoiding 2C of warming]... [However,] we have no immediate plans to move to a net - zero emissions portfolio over our investment horizon of 10 — 20 years.»

«warming in the pipeline» usually assumes constant concentrations, not zero emissions (though if CO2 emissions were dropped to zero tomorrow, and all other emissions were held constant, I'd probably expect a little bit of warming before it turned over and started dropping) 2) Don't forget aerosols: they are following the Level 1 scenario from Wigley et al. 2009, and may actually dominate short - term temperature trends.

The red line with yellow range represents the warming to come over the next 90 years in one of the more moderate IPCC business - as - usual emissions scenarios (A1B - rapid global economic growth with a balanced emphasis on all energy sources).

... that a range of 2,050 — 2,100 Gt CO2 emissions from year 2000 onwards cause a most likely CO2 - induced warming of 2 °C: in the idealized scenarios they consider that meet this criterion, between 1,550 and 1,950 Gt CO2 are emitted over the years 2000 to 2049.

While the planet has only warmed about 0.8 °C over the past century, the IPCC projects that in a business - as - usual scenario, the planet will warm 2.5 — 4 °C over the next century.

report that ocean sediment cores containing an «undisturbed history of the past» have been analyzed for variations in PP over timescales that include the Little Ice Age... they determined that during the LIA the ocean off Peru had «low PP, diatoms and fish,» but that «at the end of the LIA, this condition changed abruptly to the low subsurface oxygen, eutrophic upwelling ecosystem that today produces more fish than any region of the world's oceans... write that «in coastal environments, PP, diatoms and fish and their associated predators are predicted to decrease and the microbial food web to increase under global warming scenarios,» citing Ito et al..

Using these scenarios led the IPCC to report a range of global warming over the next century from 1.4 — 5.8 °C, without being able to report any likelihood considerations.

In contrast, the scenario in Fig. 5A, with global warming peaking just over 1 °C and then declining slowly, should allow summer sea ice to survive and then gradually increase to levels representative of recent decades.

Though observational data is limited on the links between climate change and dengue risk in Hawaii, future climate scenarios predict warmer temperatures and wetter summers in Hawaii over the next 25 year, which will cause an expansion of mosquito habitat and potential dengue risk areas.

In this scenario, there is approximately 2.4 °C global surface warming over the 21st century.

It seems that every new climate scenario making the media over the past 20 years they always describe a warm future on a multidecadal scale ignoring a cool future as if variability didn't exist, but isn't scientific climatology primarily concerned with longer millenia time scales of a thousand years or more?

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.

Over that time, the globally averaged temperature difference between the depth of an ice age and a warm interglacial period was 4 to 6 °C — comparable to that predicted for the coming century due to anthropogenic global warming under the fossil - fuel - intensive, business - as - usual scenario.

Based on these data, the 10 - year period, 1146 — 1155, was selected as a scenario of worst - case warm drought from the paleoclimate data for the past 12 centuries over the Southwest.

My arithmetic for a 2x C02 would be: Present Warming: 0.75 deg C Current warming Rate 0.15 deg C per decade Time to 2x C02 (BAU scenario) approx 100 years So 0.15 x 10 +0.75 = 2.25 deg C Further warming due to time lag at end of 100 year period ~ 0.75 deg, probably over several dWarming: 0.75 deg C Current warming Rate 0.15 deg C per decade Time to 2x C02 (BAU scenario) approx 100 years So 0.15 x 10 +0.75 = 2.25 deg C Further warming due to time lag at end of 100 year period ~ 0.75 deg, probably over several dwarming Rate 0.15 deg C per decade Time to 2x C02 (BAU scenario) approx 100 years So 0.15 x 10 +0.75 = 2.25 deg C Further warming due to time lag at end of 100 year period ~ 0.75 deg, probably over several dwarming due to time lag at end of 100 year period ~ 0.75 deg, probably over several decades.

«A well - known feature of global warming scenarios is the land — sea contrast, with stronger warming over land than over oceans.

In such a scenario, the planet still has a radiative imbalance, and the warming will continue until the oceans have warmed sufficiently to equalise the situation — giving an additional 0.3 to 0.8 ºC warming over the 21st Century.

I concluded that the projections of extreme sea level rise are not consistent with plausible physical mechanisms, not supported by the available data, and further, that the AR4 projected range (about 30 - 50 cm by 2100) agreed perfectly with my projections over a wide range of warming scenarios.

While the window for global decisive action is rapidly closing, climate scientists should not make careless promises about their ability to reduce uncertainties in climate scenarios over the next few years, and thereby provide our governments with excuses to shun their responsabilities until they know more detail about how fast and adverse their regional impacts of global warming will be (compared to those in other countries).

In looking at the rate of change in warming I found what of which I was somewhat aware previously but still a little surprised to find the warming slow down over the periods just before and after the join year of 2005 where the Historical part of the RCP scenarios meets the scenario part of the series.