Sentences with phrase «ipcc leading climate scientist»

By P. Gosselin One of the main features at this year's Swiss Climate and Energy Summit (Bern Switzerland, 12 - 14 September) was a debate between IPCC leading climate scientist Prof. Thomas Stocker and renewable energy expert and chemist Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt.

One of the main features at this year's Swiss Climate and Energy Summit (Bern Switzerland, 12 - 14 September) was a debate between IPCC leading climate scientist Prof. Thomas Stocker and renewable energy expert and chemist Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt.

Not exact matches

He is a leader at the renowned Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, PIK; an Adjunct Scientist at Columbia University in New York; the Lead Author of the latest IPCC chapter on Sea Level Change; journal editor, and more.

We believe that policymakers, the media, and the public should pay attention to scientific expert credibility and the well - vetted comprehensive assessment reports prepared by a large number of the leading scientists — in particular the new IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, along with the National Academy of Sciences (4 - volume America's Climate Choices report) and the National Climate Assessment forthcoming from the U.S. Global Change Research Program.

For good measure, Tunmore followed up with a blog post that same day in which she claimed that IPCC personnel are the «world's top climate scientists» and that the IPCC is the «world's leading authority on the science of climate change.»

A broad array of leading climate scientists and policy specialists were also criticizing the panel for the exact opposite reason: They believe the main conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) may be too general and too conservative to convey a clear message about the grave threat of warming and to inform policies to address local climate change climate scientists and policy specialists were also criticizing the panel for the exact opposite reason: They believe the main conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) may be too general and too conservative to convey a clear message about the grave threat of warming and to inform policies to address local climate change Climate Change (IPCC) may be too general and too conservative to convey a clear message about the grave threat of warming and to inform policies to address local climate change climate change issues.

A worldwide panel of certified legitimate climate scientists from the worlds leading climate / science organisations (USA, Britain, Japan, every nation on the planet) literally thousands of scientists who got together and produced the IPCC reports (all 4 of them) on the undeniability of climate change are all wrong.

said Andrew Weaver, a Canadian climate scientist and lead author of the IPCC's section on climate projections, who was elected in May to British Columbia's provincial legislature as a Green Party member.

This report will come from IPCC's Working Group 1, which is an update on the physical science of the climate change, compiled an synthesized by 258 leading climate scientists.

The International Panel of Climate Change (IPCC), the leading group of the world's scientists says that glacier melting (retreat) and intense rainfall events are two leading manifestations of the warming weather.

The answer is the entire body of work of the IPCC, along with the statement of the National Academies of Sciences of the leading countries in the world, the American Geophysical Union, the Bali Declaration from more than 200 of the world's leading climate scientists, and on and on.

The theory advanced by Soon that the sun is a contributor to recent climate change has been widely discredited by scientists worldwide as well as by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world's leading international body on climate sclimate change has been widely discredited by scientists worldwide as well as by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world's leading international body on climate sClimate Change (IPCC), the world's leading international body on climate sclimate science.

And — warming to his theme: «You look at the credentials of some of these people [on the IPCC] and you realise that the world doesn't have that many experts, that many «leading climate scientists»».

I also suggested that it is incomprehensible to me that a blog that has made the IPCC the object of scrutiny has «never heard of IIASA» when so many of their scientists are lead authors on IPCC reports, and dozens of their scientists have contributed as members of the research community, and their scientists are among the pioneers of climate science, and the person who is perhaps best know for his affiliation with IIASA is a close colleague of the blog owner.

Everything I've read on the subject leads me to accept that the high level of confidence expressed by the IPCC on the broad questions of whether AGW is real and likely to be a threat is representative of the view of the large majority of climate scientists and of the underlying science itself.

These werenâ $ ™ t just a few renegade scientists; in the following months, damning information came to light about the worldâ $ ™ s leading climate alarmists and their work with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Stern Report, the U.S. National Climate Data Center and eveclimate alarmists and their work with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Stern Report, the U.S. National Climate Data Center and eveClimate Change (IPCC), the Stern Report, the U.S. National Climate Data Center and eveClimate Data Center and even NASA.

Quote: Mr Garvey I am a climate scientist at the Met Office Hadley Centre and also a lead author with the IPCC (NB.

If the «pause» is causing climate scientists to question the reliability of the climate models, then this should have led the IPCC authors to reduce their confidence in their claim that most of the global warming since the 1950s was man - made.

Prof Piers Forster, a physical climate scientist at Leeds University and lead author of the chapter on clouds and aerosols in working group one of the last IPCC report, tells Carbon Brief:

On Friday the IPCC, which represents the world's leading climate scientists, produced a landmark report on the state of knowledge of global warming.

Here in England our leading climate scientists Proff Grubb at University College London and Prof Myers at Oxford have published that they now accept as Dr Curry has been saying for a long time that the ipcc and other mainstream academic climate models were not actually very good and were definitely projecting too hot predictions for global temperature increases.

Extreme weather will strike as climate change takes hold, IPCC warns Heavier rainfall, storms and droughts could wipe billions off economies and destroy lives, says report by 220 scientists Heavier rainfall, fiercer storms and intensifying droughts are likely to strike the world in the coming decades as climate change takes effect, the world's leading climate scientists said on Friday.

Leading scientists associated with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will be present at the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio +20), which takes place in Rio de Janeiro from 20 to 22 June, 2012, with preparatory meetings starting the previous week.

Some leading climate scientists see the IPCC as a «deeply conservative body».

Considering that the last report was described by one IPCC lead author (no less a luminary than Canada's «best - known climate scientist») as a «barrage of intergalactic ballistic missiles» one can hardly wait to see how much deeper into the apparently bottomless hyperbole pool they will be diving.

I asked my colleague Peter Frumhoff — our chief scientist, a former IPCC lead author, and the co-author of a recent study on climate science and policy — if I could share his reaction to Dr. Curry's argument.

Claims such as «2,500 of the world's leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate are disingenuous», the paper states unambiguously, adding that «they rendered the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism...».»

The vast areas of uncertainty within IPCC reports coupled with «The science is settled» statements from leading GISS scientists revealed a terribly unbalanced equation within climate science.

Within the last two years, a number of leading scientists — including Rajendra Pachauri, head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), British ecologist James Lovelock, and NASA scientist James Hansen — have all declared that humanity is about to pass or already has passed a «tipping point» in terms of global warming.

«There is the open question as to how we should be doing these assessments,» said Don Wuebbles, a climate scientist at the University of Illinois, who has been a leading author of the IPCC reports since they began in the late 1980s.

The group of scientists − led by Carlos Nobre, a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and co-ordinator of the Centre for Weather Forecasting and Climate Studies at Brazil's Space Research Institute (INPE) − set out their vision in an article published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.

In 1995, the IPCC had already concluded — based on work by Ben Santer and other leading climate scientists working on the problem of climate change «detection and attribution» — that there was already now a «discernible human influence» on the warming of the planet.

The most recent report from the IPCC, compiled by a coalition of the world's leading climate scientists, found that developed nations would have to reduce emissions between 25 % and 40 % below 1990 levels by 2020.

Now go read IPCC 2007 Working Group 1, chapter 8.4 and tell me if everything in the conclusion of this paper isn't already backed up by the worlds leading climate scientists.

- Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models can not predict climate.

The peer - reviewed study, led by scientists from The Nature Conservancy and 15 other institutions, and published today in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, expanded and refined the scope of land - based climate solutions previously assessed by the United Nations» Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change climate solutions previously assessed by the United Nations» Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change Climate Change (IPCC).

The seven - month review, led by Muir Russell, found scientists at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) did not unduly influence reports detailing the scale of the threat of global warming produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

«Our results suggest that stratospheric ozone is important for the Southern Hemisphere climate change, and ought to be more carefully considered in the next set of IPCC model integrations,» said Seok - Woo Son, lead - author of the study and a postdoctoral research scientist at Columbia's Fu Foundation School of Engineering and Applied Science (SEAS).

Rather the IPCC reports represent a compendium of all the relevant scientific literature, summarized by the leading climate scientists of the world.]

In a paper presented at the American Meteorological Society meeting in January, leading climate scientist and IPCC lead author Kevin Trenberth talks about climate change deniers, «climategate», the IPCC assessments, the media, and politicians.

We emphasize that more than half of all industrial emissions of carbon dioxide have occurred since 1988: after the establishment of the IPCC, after leading scientists had stated publicly that anthropogenic climate change was underway, and after a vigorous and visible public discussion of its causes and risks had begun.