Sentences with phrase «if humans cause warming»

Not exact matches

If a Republican candidate would say, — yes even if a messiah is coming, people had been saying that for 2000 years, therefore, we are all obliged to preserve the planet for future generations and human activities do excessively cause global warminIf a Republican candidate would say, — yes even if a messiah is coming, people had been saying that for 2000 years, therefore, we are all obliged to preserve the planet for future generations and human activities do excessively cause global warminif a messiah is coming, people had been saying that for 2000 years, therefore, we are all obliged to preserve the planet for future generations and human activities do excessively cause global warming.

«Warming greater than 2 degrees Celsius above 19th - century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity and — if sustained over centuries — melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea levels of several meters,» the AGU declares in its first statement in four years on «Human Impacts on Climate.»

At least two studies published since 2010 — one report from the United Nations Environment Programme in 2011 and a follow - up published in Science last year — suggested that significantly reducing the emissions of soot and methane could trim human - caused warming by at least 0.5 °C (0.9 ° F) by 2050, compared with an increase of about 1 °C if those emissions continued unabated.

If you listen to global warming deniers, or even much of the public, it seems like there is some stack of scientific studies somewhere that refute anthropogenic — human - caused — climate change.

We humans could be pulling the trigger on that right now, and who knows when we might reach a point at which even if we cease & desist from our human emissions, the positive feedback chain of «warming causing emissions causing more warming» takes on a life of its own.

If human - caused climate change is to be slowed enough to avert the worst consequences of global warming, carbon dioxide emissions from coal - fired power plants and other pollutants will have to be captured and injected deep into the ground to prevent them from being released into the atmosphere.

Just as many of the home runs hit by a baseball player on steroids were almost certainly due to the taking of steroids — even if you can't prove that any one home run resulted from it — so too is it likely that the record - breaking heat we are seeing in the U.S. this summer of 2012 is very likely due, in substantial part, to the impact of human - caused climate change and global warming.

If we listen to what Earth system scientists, including climate scientists, are telling us, the warming of the Earth due to human causes is a slowly unfolding catastrophe.

Some effects of human - caused global warm - ing are now unavoidable, but is it inevitable that sea level rise of many meters is locked in, and, if so, on what timescale?

If global warming is only caused by burning of fossil fuels then it may be possible for humans to do something about global warming.

If we accept that human CO2 on the order of parts per billion causes warming, it begs the question of what we should do to cause a cooling.

If it is not human activity that is causing global warming (or greatly contributing to it), then why is it happening?

Walt, if you've ever studied Pleistocene geology and the million year history of glacial advances and interglacial warming cycles you would know human - induced global warming and climate changes are the dominant cause of current and future catastrophic consequences.

But as a starting point, I'll propose now — and I'll change this if they disagree — the names of some leading scientists in this field who would NOT say there is sufficient evidence to conclude that human - caused global warming IS the main cause of increasing summer retreats of sea ice (although they would say there is strong likelihood that it will eventually dominate):

(2) Prudence requires us to mitigate global warming, even if we are not sure it is being caused by human emissions (and we are sure, and this new skeptical study does not reduce that high level of certainty).

And it'll be interesting to see if Charlie Gibson of ABC News asks Gov. Sarah Palin about all these official projections of impacts from human - caused global warming.

[UPDATE, 8/13/09: Fresh analysis shows, once again, the challenges involved in discerning if the changes in hurricane frequency and characteristics in recent years are anomalous and linked to human - caused global warming.]

Now, if warming also causes increased CO2, then we may be talking about a positive feedback loop in which the warming spirals upwards, which amplifies the warming effect of whatever CO2 we humans contribute to the atmosphere.

Second, even if and when the ocean becomes a net emitter of CO2, that will be because of human - caused warming, not some natural phenomenon.

[UPDATE] After visiting various research buildings, he gave a pep talk on the energy revolution he said was vital if the United States and the world are to avoid conflicts over limited supplies of oil and eventual disruptive impacts from human - caused global warming.

This instrument delivers important, and sobering, studies — such as the recent finding that as anthropogenic (human - caused) warming occurs, lakes naturally emit more methane which accelerates the warming further (or makes our cuts in emission worth more, if you want to look at the positive side).

But this tactic can backfire if a story downplays the uncertainties surrounding unusual climate events or if it portrays everything unusual in the world today as driven by human - caused warming.

If he says the world has warmed 0.8 degrees and most of that is human caused, then it must be at least that.

If the authors had acknowledged that numerous international organizations agree, as bodies, that global warming is a major, human - caused problem, but that there are dissenters, that would have been acceptable.

Logically, if the warming back then was caused by human emissions of CO2 it would not have stopped in 1996 — 1998 because humans didn't stop emitting CO2.

Both Kahan and Corner have also argued that if consensus messaging could work, then it should have worked by now, whereas American public acceptance of human - caused global warming in 2014 is lower than in 2003.

I have no idea what you mean by the heat on the planet, but if you mean why do I reject the hypothesis of human caused global warming, here is a good place to start: http://www.cfact.org/2018/01/02/no-co2-warming-for-the-last-40-years/

The science is clear to me and to most experts in the various fields associated with climate science: Humans are causing most of the observed global warming in the past several decades and, if we continue emitting GHGs under a «business as usual» scenario, it will become increasingly difficult and costly to adapt to the changes that are likely to occur.

The team set out to present its findings «in plain English» to congress and the media — findings which suggested a lack of significant or human - caused global warming while concluding that «if the earth were to warm slightly, and atmospheric CO2 were to increase, the effects would be mostly beneficial.»

Now the IPCC says that 50 % of warming is probably coming from humans and 50 % is natural variation so if we assume that 50 % of all the warming from 1850 to now is CO2 induced (which it is not, the bit from 1850 to 1950 is unlikely to be CO2 related) at best we causing just 0.77 degrees of warming due to mans gasses, and the other 0.77 degrees must be something else which won't necessarily accumulate.

Even if human - caused global warming could be proven, such dire predictions ignore the marvelous historic adaptability of humans, who have thrived in climates ranging from the Arctic to the Sahara.

If you don't care about humans and the other species here, global warming may not be all that important; nature has caused warmer and colder times in the past, and life survived.

c) If it's not caused by humans then we should be focused on learning to live in a warmer world rather than attempting to moderate CO2 output.

It claimed that the process resulting in the IPCC report was flawed, and that if Global Warming really was human - caused that energy would be better spent trying to mitigate the damage it would do, as opposed to trying to stop it.

If future global emissions are not curbed, human - driven global warming could cause further large declines in long - term temperature variability, the lead author tells Carbon Brief, which may have far - reaching effects on the world's seasons and weather.

«If, say, 50 % of the warming in the last 50 to 100 years has been natural, then this profoundly impacts our projections of human - caused warming in the future, slashing them by about 50 %.»

2 — For future planning, it is more likely the world will be warmer rather than colder even if you exclude potential human - caused forcing (i.e. based on a continuation of the current overall trend, which has been broadly similar for a couple of centuries).

Ian Blanchard writes» — For future planning, it is more likely the world will be warmer rather than colder even if you exclude potential human - caused forcing (i.e. based on a continuation of the current overall trend, which has been broadly similar for a couple of centuries).»

If nuclear plants were being scaled up globally at the rate France and Sweden did in the 1970s and 1980s, then I would probably be a «lukewarmer» — somebody who believes that humans are causing global warming, but that it probably won't get too hot, or be that bad.

A 2012 study in the journal Nature Climate Change found that people were more likely to accept human - caused global warming if they were informed that scientists were in broad agreement (which we know they are).

Pekka is technically correct if he means the word CAGW only exists in skeptical discourse, as opposed to the thing the word refers to, which is dangerous human caused global warming.

Abstracts that were rated Level 2 («explicit endorsement without quantification») or Level 3 («implicit endorsement») can not generally be claimed to support the position that humans caused «most» global warming (> 50 %) if they only endorse the weaker position that humans are a cause of warming (> 0 %).

Forty - seven percent of Americans say that if global warming is happening, it is caused mostly by human activities.

But it is true that some of the fossil - fuel funded groups that formerly argued that there is no global warming have reacted to criticism by changing their argument to «the climate is always changing,» as if that somehow disproves the scientific consensus that human greenhouse - gas emissions are causing dangerous warming.

But if they can be linked to warmer conditions globally, then these would be most likely caused by solar variations or cosmic rays, a recovery from the LIA and certainly not due to increases in CO2 levels, which aren't caused by human emissions anyway.

If we look only at the human - made contribution to Earth's 0.037 % CO2, then the amount of CO2 causing global warming is 0.00177 % of Earth's whole atmosphere.

The inescapable if unfashionable conclusion is that the human use of fossil fuels has been causing the greening of the planet in three separate ways: first, by displacing firewood as a fuel; second, by warming the climate; and third, by raising carbon dioxide levels, which raise plant growth rates.

«No one seriously claims to know whether the past warming was caused by human activities; whether further warming will occur and, if it does, whether it will result from human activities, and whether such warming in some general sense would be a bad thing.»

If global warming is real and significant and caused by humans burning oil, it seems to have a natural limit to the amount of damage that can be done (i.e., the amount of readily obtainable oil).

The multiple harms that global warming is causing, especially to human access to adequate food supplies, will only increase if the science deniers continue to provide politicians with excuses to do nothing about the problem, while the media remains nearly silent.