Sentences with phrase «as climate scientists agree»

Simply put, as all climate scientists agree, urban / metro and airport areas are robustly warmer than surrounding areas, during both the daylight and night hours.

Economists agree on that policy prescription just as strongly as climate scientists agree on the diagnosis.

Not exact matches

As reiterated in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report issued on March 31, scientists estimate that we can emit no more than 500 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide in order to limit the increase in global temperature to just 2 degrees C by 2100 (and governments attending the successive climate summits have agreed in principle to this objeClimate Change report issued on March 31, scientists estimate that we can emit no more than 500 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide in order to limit the increase in global temperature to just 2 degrees C by 2100 (and governments attending the successive climate summits have agreed in principle to this objeclimate summits have agreed in principle to this objective).

He agrees with other scientists who think that the U.S. must begin a series of talks with the European Commission and the European Space Agency as well as with counterparts in India, China and Japan to find a way to develop an international climate observing system.

Several of these are expected to «go dark» in the next two years, robbing scientists of critical data needed for monitoring climate change and verifying international agreements, just as a critical mass of global players is agreeing that such agreements are essential to the future health of the world's people and economies.

While we're unlikely to get atmospheric CO2 concentrations down as low as they were (275 ppm) before we started pumping pollution skyward during the Industrial Revolution, climate scientists and green leaders agree that 350 ppm would be a tolerable upper limit.

In the past few years, climate scientists finally agreed that the world is indeed warming, humans are behind it, and natural processes are unlikely to rein it in - just as they had suspected.

That aside, scientists and evangelicals have managed to find common ground on issues such as climate change, agreeing on the moral imperative to preserve the planet.

Watch Video David L. Chandler MIT News Office Scientists agree that changes in land use such as deforestation, and not just greenhouse gas emissions, can play a significant role altering the world's climate systems.

Over the long term, however, scientists agree: As climate change messes with weather patterns, California will likely experience longer and more severe droughts in the coming decades, threatening the sustainability of the state's main water supply system.

Though the vast majority of climate scientists agree that the Earth's climate is changing as a result of human activities that increase the amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, researchers like Soon foment debate by publishing alternate hypotheses or denials.

Perceptions of where the scientific community stands on climate change have fluctuated from a low of 44 % in 2010 who said that scientists agree about human activity as the main cause of warming temperatures to a high of 57 % saying this today.19

Having said that, I agree that climate scientists have already learned and communicated far more than enough to justify urgent action to end anthropogenic GHG emissions as quickly as possible — which numerous national and international scientific organizations, and many individual climate scientists, have explicitly called for in public statements.

As with perceptions of scientific consensus on other topics, public perceptions that scientists tend to agree about climate change tend to vary by education and age.

As you point out other studies agree with the MBH study so I would have thought what amounts to a sudden global climate shift would be of major interest to climate scientists everywhere yet one sees relatively little written about it.

According to Climate Progress, the report, Climate Policy and Industrial Competitiveness (pdf), completed by the economists, climate scientists, and academics of the German Marshall Fund, reveals that Europe's cap and trade has lead many countries in the EU to meet their carbon targets as agreed to in the Kyoto PrClimate Progress, the report, Climate Policy and Industrial Competitiveness (pdf), completed by the economists, climate scientists, and academics of the German Marshall Fund, reveals that Europe's cap and trade has lead many countries in the EU to meet their carbon targets as agreed to in the Kyoto PrClimate Policy and Industrial Competitiveness (pdf), completed by the economists, climate scientists, and academics of the German Marshall Fund, reveals that Europe's cap and trade has lead many countries in the EU to meet their carbon targets as agreed to in the Kyoto Prclimate scientists, and academics of the German Marshall Fund, reveals that Europe's cap and trade has lead many countries in the EU to meet their carbon targets as agreed to in the Kyoto Protocol.

Given that skeptics, taken as a whole, put forward a nearly infinite variety of often conflicting and contradictory beliefs regarding global warming and climate science, exactly what is a climate scientist supposed to agree with?

I don't think that sun spot activity is solely reasonable for climate change, just as most scientist do agree that humans are not the only or even the main cause.

I think she is calling them deniers because they entertain ideas which may be seems as outside the definitive conclusions of the mythical 97 % of scientist who agree in detail on all things relating to climate, energy, politics, economics...

The climate study isn't surprising, as past research has come away with similar findings: a study in 2010 questioned nearly 1,000 scientists and found that 97.5 percent agreed that climate change is being caused by human activities.

BTW, while I agree that Michaels can't be regarded as a climate scientist any more, he might take exception to this characterisation.

This brief history, as well as some «on the street» interviews with the public about what percentage of climate scientists they think agree on the cause of climate change, are described by Cook in a short video while his post at the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists also discusses some motives for attacking the scientists they think agree on the cause of climate change, are described by Cook in a short video while his post at the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists also discusses some motives for attacking the Scientists also discusses some motives for attacking the consensus.

'' As a rule, Dr. XXX has no interest in taking part in any event that continues to perpetuate the myth that scientists don't agree that human induced climate change is a real and serious problem.

The claim, which Mann himself uses in the NYT, for example, that 97 % of scientists agree that «climate change is real» and that «we must respond to the dangers of a warming planet» isn't borne out by a reading of the survey, which was itself imprecise about its own definitions, and captures the perspectives Mann has himself dismissed as «anti-science»: sceptics are part of the putative ’97 per cent».

In particular, Allen uses in his support that «When 97 percent of climate scientists agree that man is changing the climate,» with a link to the Cook, Nuccitelli et al paper as his source.

As he explains: «97 % of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming; however, less than half of Australians are aware of humanity's role in climate change, while half of the US Senate has voted that humans aren't causing global warming.

None of seven the topics are at all scientifically controversial within the scientific community: Global warning, often presented in the media as an inconclusive theory, is anything but, with 97 % or more of scientists agreeing that recent climate change is very likely due to human activity.

As a scientist, Judith, you don't have to agree that your activity around climate change amounts to irresponsible advocacy, or even advocacy of any sort, but as a scientist it does seem that you have an obligation to address counterarguments to your position in a manner that at least attempts to control for you biaseAs a scientist, Judith, you don't have to agree that your activity around climate change amounts to irresponsible advocacy, or even advocacy of any sort, but as a scientist it does seem that you have an obligation to address counterarguments to your position in a manner that at least attempts to control for you biaseas a scientist it does seem that you have an obligation to address counterarguments to your position in a manner that at least attempts to control for you biases.

Simply because you feel that these seven claims qualify as «disinformation» doesn't mean that the mass of climate scientists and actual experts agree with you.

Meanwhile, the vast majority of climate scientists still agree the data on global warming is solid, despite the setback of «Climategate» — a set of highly controversial, private e-mails among climate researchers that were hacked from a university server that point to possible cases of misconduct and that climate skeptics have touted as the «smoking gun» against climate change, though no scientific fraud was revealed.

In fact, 97 percent of actively publishing climate scientists agree — that's right, there is an overwhelming 97 % consensus position that global warming is real and largely driven by human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.

Some scientists criticized aspects of the new study, but agreed that an initial focus on the other greenhouse gases could achieve significant slowing of climate warming, as long as carbon dioxide cuts were also made.

For a discussion of the scientific consensus on global climate change, which is to say, the facts and theories reputable climate scientists agree on as a result of repeated experiment and study, see realclimate.org.

These plans, known in UN jargon as Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), must be produced by all countries so that scientists can assess whether their sum total is enough to keep the world from overheating by 2 °C — the limit agreed by politicians to prevent dangerous climate change.

But it has also created tensions between two groups that might be expected to agree on the issue: climate scientists and meteorologists, especially those who serve as television weather forecasters.

«Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming» chews up these sound bites, such as: «97 percent of scientists agree» with the conclusion that humans are causing catastrophic climate change; or, skeptics of the «consensus view» are paid off by big fossil fuel iScientists Disagree About Global Warming» chews up these sound bites, such as: «97 percent of scientists agree» with the conclusion that humans are causing catastrophic climate change; or, skeptics of the «consensus view» are paid off by big fossil fuel iscientists agree» with the conclusion that humans are causing catastrophic climate change; or, skeptics of the «consensus view» are paid off by big fossil fuel industries.

No, you cant find as many climate scientists that rejects the main finding of their science, that GW exists and AGW is possible (and ongoing), 98 % of them agrees on AGW.

«While scientists routinely find themselves explaining that day - to - day weather patterns are not the same as long - term climate trends, they also widely agree that human - caused climate change is exacerbating extreme weather.

«'' The evidence shows us quite the opposite — that we can't rest easy at all» as scientists agree that climate change «is happening in an accelerated way.»

In fact many scientists believe that the warming limit should be lower than 2 degree C to prevent dangerous climate change and as a result the international community has also agreed to study whether the warming limit should be lowered to 1.5 degree C.

Its supplemental online interview of the late IPCC scientist Dr Stephen Schneider quoted his opinion about the Global Climate Coalition as being «a coalition of liars and spin doctors to reposition the debate onto the issue of uncertainty, way beyond [what] the scientific community agreed with» (he probably meant to say it was the Western Fuels Association, out to «reposition global warming as theory rather than fact», an error I note at item 17 here).

Governments have agreed an informal deadline of March 31 to submit plans as the basis of the U.N. deal to slow climate change, which nearly all climate scientists say is mainly due to rising emissions of man - made greenhouse gases.

«Remarkably for a report published by the GWPF, the authors agree with mainstream climate scientists that significant further warming is expected... It is great to see the GWPF accepting that business - as - usual means significant further warming is expected.

Over the last three years, I've had the opportunity to meet with scientists who occupy different positions on the climate spectrum: Some are out - and - out «skeptics»; some broadly agree with the so - called «consensus» but dislike its intolerance; others define themselves as «lukewarmers» or have only relatively modest disagreements with Mann & Co - yet even that can not be tolerated by the Big Climate enfclimate spectrum: Some are out - and - out «skeptics»; some broadly agree with the so - called «consensus» but dislike its intolerance; others define themselves as «lukewarmers» or have only relatively modest disagreements with Mann & Co - yet even that can not be tolerated by the Big Climate enfClimate enforcers.

Using the same methodology as the vaunted «97 percent» paper by researcher John Cook, two climate scientists have made a bold discovery: virtually all climate scientists agree that global warming has «stopped» or «slowed down» in recent years.

Let's linger on the fact that these figures are converted into «75 % of climate scientist agree», or as you would have it, «100 % of climate scientists agree».

And as New Scientist points out, people in high places are wont to agree that stable climate = world peace.

And rates are expected to continue increasing as global warming, which climate scientists agree is the result of greenhouse gas emissions, continues.

97 % of climate scientists agree that excellent climate models prove Category 6 sharknados will be commonplace by 2017 as temps reach millions of degrees.

Put another way, Dessler and Bickmore are claiming that scientists are not largely motivated by financial gain, and as such they don't agree with the «it's about the research grant money» motivation accusations made by so many climate disruption deniers.