Sentences with phrase «about dangerous climate»

Put simply, if we are concerned about dangerous climate change, we can take action to try to prevent the climate from changing, or we can try to stop any climatic changes from being «dangerous».

I always remember this point when people talk about dangerous climate change.

If you want more, see our Honesty About Dangerous Climate Change and its technical notes.

Many of you know Dr. Hansen, the former Director of the Goddard Space Center of NASA — as the man who warned the U.S. Congress about dangerous climate change in 1988.

Not exact matches

I would love to move to a state with enough land and a warmer climate for my sons to ride their race bikes, my daughter to have the horse she dreams of and me to finally be at peace, I also believe that there should be someone home with the kids no matter what their ages are and as a single Mom with no family support or father involvement being at home for me is even more important, especially now that they are teenagers, There are no more nap times or time outs and the things you worry about during this age are so much more dangerous than falling down and hitting their heads as toddlers.

If, however, the Catholic now sees that despite, and in addition to, his ethics based on essential natures, he must develop an individual ethics of concrete moral decision which goes beyond mere casuistry, and if the Protestant ethical theorist perhaps realizes that in the new and dangerous situation he must perhaps be less carefree in simply leaving the Christian to his «conscience», then perhaps the new situation will bring about a new climate in which, even theoretically, people will be compelled more readily to think towards one another rather than away from one another, and in which people will understand one another more easily and even gradually unite.

If we are serious about avoiding dangerous climate change, 250,000 megatonnes is the maximum amount of carbon we can put into the atmosphere.

The BBC team used clever analogies and appealing graphics to discuss three key numbers that help clarify important questions about climate change: 0.85 degrees Celsius — how much the Earth has warmed since the 1880s; 95 % — how sure scientists are that human activity is the major cause of Earth's recent warming; and one trillion tons — the best estimate of the amount of carbon that can be burned before risking dangerous climate change.

I don't care about consensus, but for what it's worth: 10 out of 17 means a 59 % consensus that climate sensitivity is likely to be 2C or lower and as such global warming is not dangerous according to UN politically agreed criteria.

There was a conference held at the begining of this year that went over this sort of thing, it was subtitled «Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change» and you can find the presentation [slides] that were presented at http://www.stabilisation2005.com/programme.html There's a lot of interesting things about possible thresholds, stabilisation levels for CO2 and emission reduction pathways and the potential costs.

I'd also like to ask them, «Are most things about climate change more dangerous or more benign than previously thought?»

Despite their status as invasive or dangerous, these plants have immense value and can teach us about climate change adaptation and how to survive NYC's harsh urban conditions.

To stand the best chance of keeping the planetary warming below an internationally agreed target of 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit above preindustrial levels and thus avoiding the most dangerous effects of climate change, the panel found, only about 1 trillion tons of carbon can be burned and the resulting gas spewed into the atmosphere.

On July 23, I wrote about the rocky rollout, prior to peer review, of «Ice Melt, Sea Level Rise and Superstorms: Evidence from Paleoclimate Data, Climate Modeling, and Modern Observations that 2 °C Global Warming is Highly Dangerous.»

We are here today to talk about how we as Americans and how the United States of America as part of the global community should address the dangerous and growing threat of the climate crisis.

«Based on climate model studies and the history of the Earth the authors conclude that additional global warming of about 1 °C (1.8 °F) or more, above global temperature in 2000, is likely to be dangerous.»

I clearly have a bias (in that I believe based on the evidence I've seen that AGW is both real and dangerous enough to warrant strong action), but when I see a reference to a climate mechanism I know nothing about (the PDO in this instance), I tend to want to look at the available literature before leaping to conclusions based on my bias.

Two major studies from military intelligence experts have warned our leaders about the dangerous national security implications of the climate crisis, including the possibility of hundreds of millions of climate refugees destabilizing nations around the world.

More on Michele Bachmann Michele Bachmann: Abolish the EPA (Video) Michele Bachmann Tells Citizens to Get «Armed And Dangerous» About Climate Change

Much of the discussion about tipping points, like the discussion about «dangerous interference» with climate often implicitly assumes that there is just «a» point at which things tip and become «dangerous».

I read some Hansen papers about «dangerous climate change», but his comparison (notably) with Eemian didn't convince me (beyong global mean temperature of the two periods, there was a huge solar forcing on Greenland during the thermal maximum of Eemian).

What is Dangerous climate change anyway and what to do about it.

The issue is that we actually need China to do more than its fair share if we're to keep warming from becoming too dangerous (I never know how to phrase this... to avoid run - away climate change is really what I'm most scared about but I don't want to minimise the devastating impacts that will happen before that too).

Have you ever wondered, when uttering your «green» blarney about «dangerous climate change» that humans have adapted to environmental lives across our planet where the temperature differences exceed 95 degrees centigrade?

This scientific debate about whether anthropogenic climate change is dangerous needs to end up like a game of postal chess (on the internet).

Your «dangerous climate change» speaks about 2C differences for a climate which has changed up and down throughout history, and your personal history only amounts to about 20 years of that 65,000,000 years — hardly worth thinking about but a demonstration of some men's supercilious self - deceit.

Matt G says: November 19, 2013 at 3:39 pm It continues a dangerous president in climate science Did you mean «precedent» or are talking about president Obama?

Because the radiation balance of the earth shows that CO2 is warming and environmental science suggests that the warming will be dangerous, the yadayada about the emails is a mere distraction from the next agenda item, protecting climate.

Sixteen retired US admirals and generals then warned that droughts and other climate disruptions were about to make the world a very dangerous place.

Driven by the climate science, the international community is increasingly concerned about the need to set a long - term emission reduction strategy so as to me et a target that will prevent dangerous climate change, or at least, as some dangerous climate change appears unavoidable, limiting the damage.

(They didn't always get the details quite right: our survey was of the literature, not of scientists» opinions and we had nothing to say about how dangerous climate change would be.)

«All countries are going to need to increase their ambition a decade after that because, when we look at keeping the world safe from dangerous climate change, you know, we realise we've got about half of the agreed reductions we need.»

Methane is 84 times more dangerous to our climate than carbon dioxide in the short term, and it accounts for about 25 percent of the warming we're experiencing today.

It could be a relatively cheap, effective and quick way to cool the planet by mimicking the natural effects on climate of large volcanic eruptions, but scientists concede there could be dramatic and dangerous side effects that they don't know about.

Yet understanding how delay makes achieving the goals of preventing dangerous climate change extraordinarily more challenging also requires some knowledge about how increasing atmospheric concentrations affect global emissions reductions pathways options.

Join us on a journey to learn why the story of climate change isn't just about melting glaciers or disappearing polar bears, and not just about a more dangerous world for far - off future generations.

«Such surveys are often cited as demonstrating a near - unanimous scientific consensus in favor of a climate policy, when they never ask any question about whether and to what extent the anthropogenic component in recent warming might be dangerous or about whether a «climate policy» should be adopted in attempted mitigation of future warming.»

«In 42 engaging, bite - size chapters, Marshall presents the psychological research demonstrating why climate change simply doesn't feel dangerous enough to justify action and how we can trick our brains into changing our sense of urgency about the problem.

Whatever your motive for participating in what can only be considered a campaign of climate engineering cover - up, rest assured that we, at GeoengineeringWatch.org, will do our best to publicly expose you (and all those like you who are participating in the climate engineering cover - up) to populations that deserve to know the truth about the ongoing highly destructive and dangerous geoengineering programs that were long ago deployed without public knowledge or consent.

Conservative think tanks in the United States are a sort of «ground zero» for the production of doubt about the links between fossil fuel burning and dangerous climate change.

About climate change: the problem with people believing that it is a lie are dangerous if it turns out that we are right.

Yet, when not too busy taking selfies near Alaskan glaciers, Obama spent time to prophesize about dangerous «global warming,» thus exhibiting either a deep ignorance of real climate science and facts or an amazing dishonesty that journalists allowed him to get away with.

It can be most useful to think about climate change through a risk management lens — the more greenhouse gases that we emit, the greater the risks for dangerous impacts to occur.

I watched videos of Bob presenting the geological and paleontological evidence that there is nothing unusual or dangerous about our ideal interglacial climate today.

Nurse hasn't the foggiest idea about the key part of climate science, aerosols / water vapour interactions supposed to produce dangerous positive feedback.

Back in 1992 — well before science had anything conclusive to say about humanity's impact on the climate — the United Nations persuaded countries to sign an international treaty aimed at saving the planet from «dangerous» human - emitted greenhouse gases.

In the conclusion to his «Plan B» chapter (p 228), Bob Carter writes: «It is therefore time to move away from stale «he - says - she - says» arguments about whether human carbon dioxide emissions are causing dangerous warming, and on to designing effective policies of hazard management for all climate change, based on adaptation responses that are tailored for individual countries or regions... By their very nature, strategies that can cope with the dangers and vagaries of natural climate change will readily cope with human - caused change too should it ever become manifest.»

What specific scientific references and sources do you rely upon to conclude that there is a reasonable scientific dispute about whether human actions are causing dangerous climate change?

If emissions continue unabated, the world is on track to exceed this budget in only about 30 years — exposing communities to increasingly dangerous forest fires, extreme weather, drought, and other climate impacts.

In this situation the government official has a strong duty to go beyond his or her own uninformed opinion about whether humans are causing dangerous climate change.