Sentences with phrase «warming the science indicates»

Not exact matches

The 2011 UNEP / WMO assessment and the related article by Shindell et al. in Science in 2012 indicate that an aggressive program to limit emissions of these substances could relatively inexpensively cut projected warming between the present and 2050 in half while also having tremendous co-benefits for health, air quality, and improved energy efficiency, in the US and around the world.

Although the global warming signal is relatively weak today in most of the planet (outside of the Arctic), our best science indicates that the warming will greatly increase by the end of the century.»

The report, «Atmospheric Warming and the Amplification of Precipitation Extremes,» previewed in Science Express this Thursday, August 7, and published in an upcoming issue of Science, found that both observations and models indicated an increase in heavy rainstorms in response to a warmer climate.

The study often cited by the people who do not «believe» in a global warming is the one by Christy and Spencer that indicates a weak trend, whereas other studies (Mears et al.; Vinnikov & Grody Science 2003 vol 302; Prabhakara et al. 1998; Fu et al..

Political realities indicate only unusually rapid development of this (and parallel) revolutionary science and technology can improve the odds for human survival on this dangerously warming planet.

If the book goes on to say that current science indicates at least half the warming of the last 50 years is due to human influence, is that not exactly what the IPCC says?

And, the IPCC projection is probably too high because it was driven by a collection of climate models which new science indicates produce too much warming given a rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.

«Climate science experts who publish mostly on climate change and climate scientists who publish mostly on other topics were the two groups most likely to be convinced that humans have contributed to global warming, with 93 % of each group indicating their concurrence.»

Polls indicate that a lot of people who know little of the science say global warming is not happening.

The polls indicate that the fraction of informed opinion in climate science that believes that climate is warming; that humans are contributing; that unabated the warming is dangerous is much closer to 1 than to 0.5.

Since at least 1995, the balance of evidence in climate science has indicated that human - caused greenhouse - gas emissions are behind the planet's warming.

While President Bush's recent public statements seem to indicate that he may also be falling for global warming junk science so far, he's only for voluntary cuts in greenhouse gas emissions as well as «technology - based solutions.

Global warming science facts from new research indicates that ENSO will not become a permanent feature as speculated by the IPCC's resident AGW alarmists - the massive climate phenomenon will remain variable

While the climate science establishment continues its costly and misallocated efforts against «catastrophic» global warming, the empirical evidence indicates the worlds» elites are pursuing a laughably ludicrous Don Quixote quest against an imaginary climate - evil.

Sound science — supported by objective, real - world data — indicates humans are not creating a global warming crisis.

On Sept. 17, the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change released Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, or CCR - 2, containing more than 1,000 pages of scientific research indicating global warming is not an impending crisis.

It would be an enormous relief if the recent attacks on the science of global warming actually indicated that we do not face an unimaginable calamity requiring large - scale, preventive measures to protect human civilization as we know it.

The science indicates warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in less of than 1C of warming with most of the warming occurring at higher latitudes where it will be result in an expansion of the biosphere.

Worse, every rise in atmospheric temperature is taken by AGW «science» to indicate warming, when in many cases, it merely is a sign that additional heat is exposed to the 4 degree Kelvin temperature of outer space, resulting in higher radiative losses.

«Climate science» as it is used by warmists implies adherence to a set of beliefs: (1) Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations will warm the Earth's surface and atmosphere; (2) Human production of CO2 is producing significant increases in CO2 concentration; (3) The rate of rise of temperature in the 20th and 21st centuries is unprecedented compared to the rates of change of temperature in the previous two millennia and this can only be due to rising greenhouse gas concentrations; (4) The climate of the 19th century was ideal and may be taken as a standard to compare against any current climate; (5) global climate models, while still not perfect, are good enough to indicate that continued use of fossil fuels at projected rates in the 21st century will cause the CO2 concentration to rise to a high level by 2100 (possibly 700 to 900 ppm); (6) The global average temperature under this condition will rise more than 3 °C from the late 19th century ideal; (7) The negative impact on humanity of such a rise will be enormous; (8) The only alternative to such a disaster is to immediately and sharply reduce CO2 emissions (reducing emissions in 2050 by 80 % compared to today's rate) and continue further reductions after 2050; (9) Even with such draconian CO2 reductions, the CO2 concentration is likely to reach at least 450 to 500 ppm by 2100 resulting in significant damage to humanity; (10) Such reductions in CO2 emissions are technically feasible and economically affordable while providing adequate energy to a growing world population that is increasingly industrializing.

The science indicates the Russian drought was not caused by global warming: http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/09/natural-causes-drove-russian-heat-wave-study-finds/ Sure, global warming has the potential to reduce crop output, but the information posted here has nothing to do with global warming.

So yes, I emphatically stand my my statements, and if you find that «alarmist» it may simply be a consequence of the fact that the science indicates that the ecophysiological effects of global warming will be alarming - to put it mildly...

So, if we take what the best science gives us, we find that pretty close to half of the warming that is currently indicated by the extant global temperature datasets may be from influences other than anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases — perhaps a bit less, perhaps a bit more.

At the very least, the science indicates that we ought to consider cancelling the «acid rain» controls and take advantage of the cooling effect of the aerosols to buy us some time against greenhouse warming.

Not likely, but for those who prefer objective science to propaganda, this study clearly indicates warmer temperatures enhance life expectancy - there are less cardiac / respiratory / digestive related deaths when its warmer.

Most modern lobbyists do not deny the irrefutable science indicating that our planet is warming, but instead deny the need for viable solutions — such as a cost on industrial carbon pollution, energy efficiency, clean energy alternatives to fossil fuels — as demonstrated by the science.

Finally, there is this recent article indicating the forever changing «settled science» in regards to the predicted influence of CO2 on global warming.

But when I look at the single figure in Kevin Trenberth's recent Science paper («Uncertainty in Hurricanes and Global Warming», vol 308, 1753 - 54) the mean SSTA averaged over the tropical Atlantic («10 N to 20 N excluding the Caribbean west of 80 W») sure doesn't indicate recent cooling.

Much of the public argument against the science indicating that our greenhouse gas emissions are driving global warming has been carried by lobbyists and paid spokesmen who attempt to reposition global warming as theory rather than fact.

«I think that the science is inconclusive on this... I personally believe that the solar flares are more responsible for climatic cycles than anything that human beings do and our lunar, our rovers on Mars have indicated that there has been a slight warming in the atmosphere of Mars and that certainly was not caused by the internal combustion engine.»