Sentences with phrase «already know the climate»

Not exact matches

The section of the «Impossible is a Dare» chapter that proves we already know how to turn hunger and poverty into sufficiency, war into peace, and catastrophic climate change into planetary balance

Share: FacebookTwitterLinkedinGoogle + emailIf you follow climate policy in Canada, there's a good chance you already know the name Andrew Leach.

With the exception of Neymar, who was new in town and perhaps did not fully understand the situation (though the match official, knowing better, offered the Brazilian winger no quarter from the heavy Atletico challenges throughout the game), the rest of the Barcelona side appeared to play with the awareness that the rightful champions of Spain were the blue collar grafters from Madrid, simply by virtue of having already come so close considering the current climate of the Spanish game.

We know that that laying more tarmac at either Heathrow or Gatwick will bust any hope we have of meeting our climate change commitments, and inflict noise and air pollution on already blighted local communities.

Nations could help by cutting funding on climate research, and boosting funding for the solution to climate change, which we already know: use less fossil fuel.

If you live in a wet climate, you already know the importance of owning a good dehumidifier.

We already know that climate change has a hold on Earth's surface processes, such as erosion and fluctuations in sea levels... but do surface processes in turn have an influence on volcanic activity?

Yet that is the quandary facing many nations, which still don't know how climate change will affect them — even though it is already happening.

«At one level, it just reinforces a point that we already knew: that the effects of climate change and sea level rise are irreversible and going to be with us for thousands of years,» says Williams, who did not work on the study.

Seeing the sharp declines in parts of the ocean I have come to know and love reminds me that as we look into new ways to protect our planet from climate change, we need to look again at the natural machinery that already works, that developed over four and a half billion years, and do everything we can to restore its functions.

Such shifts are just some of the changes already happening as a result of increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, otherwise known as climate change.

It will be clear that, for the most part, climate change is bringing more of what we already know and suffer from.

«Climate change is already altering the character of the places we know and love,» Hayhoe says.

Climate conditions in Kansas have already been noted to have changed in noticeable ways, and many such conditions are known to favorably affect tick phenology and spatial distribution.»

But it makes equally clear that climate - related changes are already being observed globally and that new problems and challenges will develop no matter how radically emissions are reduced in the future.

Humanity already possesses the fundamental scientific, technical, and industrial know - how to solve the carbon and climate problem for the next half - century.

«The overall significance is that although we already know that reducing methane emissions can bring great societal benefits via decreased near - term warming and improved air quality, and that many of the sources can be controlled at low or even negative cost, we still need better data on emissions from particular sources,» Duke University climate sciences professor Drew Shindell said.

«We have seriously underestimated the effects of climate change on the most well - known groups, which means those other groups, reptiles, amphibians, fish, plants, the story is going to be much, much worse in terms of what we think the threat is from climate change already,» he said.

«We already know about as much as we are going to about climate system's response to greenhouse gases,» Roe says.

The whole CAGW — GHG scare is based on the obvious fallacy of putting the effect before the cause.As a simple (not exact) analogy controlling CO2 levels to control temperature is like trying to lower the temperature of an electric hot plate under a boiling pan of water by capturing and sequestering the steam coming off the top.A corollory to this idea is that the whole idea of a simple climate sensitivity to CO2 is nonsense and the sensitivity equation has no physical meaning unless you already know what the natural controls on energy inputs are already ie the extent of the natural variability.

Remembering IPCC projections for atmospheric CO2e ppm growth do NOT include significant and already known positive climate feedback mechanisms.

Second, the current generation of climate models seem to do a pretty good job, based on already - known physics.

However, we now know that climate change is already affecting regional circulation patterns and by extension helping to shape local extreme weather.

We already know from climate science that the world is getting hotter, and the atmosphere is getting wetter.

Many of these people were a part of the writing teams» listening sessions that occurred early in the process — a focused effort to get out into the state and ask Montanans, «What do you know about climate change in the state, what do you need that you don't already have, and how would you like information delivered?»

For years, we at Greenpeace have been working to make public the secret paper trails that show what everyone already knows: climate science deniers - #Fakexperts - are few and far between, and most of them are paid by companies most responsible for global warming to downplay the problem.

The point of this post is that the ice core data are entirely consistent with what we already knew (and have known since 1896 A.D. when Arrhenius published his climate sensitivity calculations).

Scientists need to explain to the public that while they continue to study the details of anthropogentic global warming and consequent climate change, that we already know enough to be certain that continued unmitigated warming will be a disaster for all humanity, and that we urgently need to phase out all fossil fuel use as quickly as possible.

And instead of telling you what temp you've set the climate control on (which you already know), it tells you what the outside temp is - until you ask for an interior adjustment.

Now, clouds do not make heat exchange imponderable, especially in long term trends of climate analysis, the averages due to what we already know about dynamic equilibrium outcomes and what we observe in the feedbacks going back even greater then 30 years.

Some of you that follow my twitter account will have already seen this, but there was a particularly amusing episode of Q&A on Australian TV that pitted Prof. Brian Cox against a newly - elected politician who is known for his somewhat fringe climate «contrarian» views.

THis is what the professional deniers already know, and why it is they have been able to take advantage of the naivety of the Climate science and Academic community, and the IPCC lack of direct engagement in the public arena.

[Response: I left out the notion of lightening because the post was already getting quite long and because I think we do not know much about the relationship between lightenig, climate, and solar activity.

It is more of a general speech on climate change, but of course he knows what is in his (by then already accepted) paper.

I remember hearing one Oceanographer / Climate scientist declare that the Atlantic THC could have already «stopped» and we wouldn't know about it yet, such were the paucity of relevant observations.

I speak to college and high school kids all the time, and I know one can not simply be negative in discussing the climate crisis or they will turn off and become paralyzed by despair (as many grown - ups already have).

After all we know the climate does not have a linear response to rising CO2 levels or the Earth would have already suffered a runaway greenhouse effct in its past.

Hank Roberts @ 124 — if you would read Climate Etc, you would already know that.

The answers should already have been written by climate scientists and very well known publicly long before a Judge requested it.

And, since they couldn't confirm or deny, they just accept that fact without any skepticism (and this is why «climate skeptic» isn't right) and because it tells them what they already «know», they don't need to look any further, don't need to know any more.

For a really great image of how environmental changes are already affecting people, in fact destroying an entire culture — and no, not in some low - slung Pacific Island — The New York Times has a poignant piece about how the Kamayurá people in Brazil are struggling today with deforestation and climate change making their way of life less and less tenable: Forest Homelands Now Surrounded by Ranches The Kamayurá people live in the middle of the Xingu National Park — which was once deep in the Amazon but is now surrounded by ranches — and live by hunting, fishing and some agriculture.

Roughly, I'd guess the debates over global climate change took place largely between 1981 and 1995; a good bit shorter than the debates over continental drift, but then there was less radical about the idea of global climate change — it was already known that the planet's climate had changed in the past, so the idea that it might be changing in the present was less radical than the idea that the vast continents might, in fact, be drifting like huge floating islands.

A team of scientists is pioneering new strategies for ensuring that polar bears can persist even as summer sea ice — a vital feeding platform — retreats under the climate change that is already in the pipeline no matter how aggressively societies tackle the greenhouse challenge.

Yes, of course that is true and all the climate scientists already know this.

FWIW, we found an upper limit on climate sensitivity of about 6C, but apparently that also isn't sexy enough to publish cos everyone knew it already.

I mean: she already knows about the connection between the use of fossil fuels and the greenhouse effect, the global warming and the wide spread climate changes.

We already know that vermiculture (composting with worms) can help dispose of and «reuse» your garbage and fight climate change; this month, Martha Stewart is helping show that it can be part of anyone's gardening regiment.

Crucially, the project is also tackling the effects of climate change that are already making themselves known — for example exploring solar dryers as an alternative to the traditional coffee drying techniques which have been affected by changing rainfall patterns.

G&T managed to get their work out there; publishing it in Nature or Science would not have changed the fact that they're arguments just don't hold any water (they didn't do any new science, they just took what was already known, and then tried to use that to argue against what is already known — a search for logical inconsistency, which might have been worthwhile if they'd known what they were doing and if they'd gone after contrarian «theory»)-- unless it were edited, removing all the errors and non-sequitors, after which it would be no different than a physics book such as the kind a climate scientist would use...

If we knew everything we needed to know about navigating the climate and ecological crises, we would have done it already.