Sentences with phrase «between global warming science»

Steve has posted in the past about the comparison between global warming science and the intel leading up the Iraq War.

Not exact matches

Environmentalists have long scrutinized Exxon Mobil for giving money «to dozens of right - leaning interest groups whose main purpose was to cast doubt on that very science» despite understanding the link between global warming and the burning of fossil fuels as early as the 1970s, according to the New York Times.

From stem cell research to global warming, human cloning, evolution, and beyond, the science debates are not exactly about science, but come down to a dispute between liberals and conservatives about the right way to think about the future.

Toby Tyrrell, Professor in Earth System Science at the University of Southampton and co-author of the study, said: «In the future ocean, the trade - off between changing ecological and physiological costs of calcification and their benefits will ultimately decide how this important group is affected by ocean acidification and global warming.

Re # 4 Naomi Oreskes wrote an article in Science which reported on the papers about global warming published between 1993 and 2003.

In particular, when we speak about targets of 2 degrees, or even 1.5 degrees, we should remember that climate science has yet to uncover a simple deterministic relationship between carbon emissions and the level of future global warming.

Consider the oddball doctors who took tobacco money to deny a link between cigarette smoking and cancer, or the handful of scientists who take oil and coal money to discredit global warming science, or the people who have done both.

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.

Between the enormous snow storm last October and the tornados we have been seeing here in the Northweast, I have been looking more and more into the science behind global warming.

The Keeling Curve, a famous graph named after scientist Charles David Keeling, measures the increase in carbon dioxide concentration in the air since 1958; it is considered the bedrock of global warming science because it is generally believed that there is a direct correlation between increasing levels of carbon dioxide and global warming.

Now, if there's a single take - away from this summary, it would be that the science on the relationship between fossil fuel combustion, rising atmospheric carbon dioxide, and global warming and climate change was really settled by 1979.

«The most discouraging aspect of the statements out of Japan, for many experts, was seeing the persistent gap between what science is saying about global warming and what countries are doing.»

The connection between global warming and the changes in ocean heat content has long been a subject of discussion in climate science.

Al Gore's book, The Assault on Reason, cites a Union of Concerned Scientists 2006 report showing that «Exxon Mobil has funneled nearly $ 16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.»

Re # 4 Naomi Oreskes wrote an article in Science which reported on the papers about global warming published between 1993 and 2003.

It is rare for questions to flow in two directions between a scientist and a science journalist, but on an issue as fraught and complex as human - driven global warming — with both the physical climate and communications climate in flux — there's never been a more important moment for such a conversation.

The discussion has centered on a new study reviewing how anthropogenic global warming was characterized in more than 12,000 climate science papers between 1991 and 2011.

Nevertheless I say again that I'd like to see someone of stature in science or someone of high visibility in the national media challenge Professor Happer specifically about the contrast between the very headline on his WSJ op - ed («Global warming models are wrong again») and what's asserted by this RC posting (and by Lazarus @ 31) about the retrospective reliability of Hansen et al. (1981).

Marco @ 47: I see what you mean about the general relevance and importance of the posting that you cited, but I'd still like to see someone of stature in science or someone of high visibility in the national media challenge Professor Happer specifically about the contrast between the very headline on his WSJ op - ed («Global warming models are wrong again») and what's asserted by this RC posting (and by Lazarus @ 31) about the retrospective reliability of Hansen et al. (1981).

This is consistent with the latest science, which says global emissions should be between 40 and 70 % below 2010 levels in 2050, reaching net - zero between 2080 and 2100, if warming is to be limited to two degrees above pre-industrial temperatures.

Advocates of global warming remain must explain their science in the form of a paper that is accepted, quantitative, confirmed by observation and that gives a useful mathematical relation between air temperatures and the concentrations of GHG in them.

The news this summer has featured several new climate change science reports, and drawn the link between current extreme events and global warming.

On Thursday, May 20th, the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming will hold a hearing to examine the intersection between climate science and the political process.

23 Sept: Live Science: Becky Oskin: Climate Scientists: IPCC Report Must Communicate Consensus Climate experts also told LiveScience they would like to see the new report stress the scientific consensus on climate change, and emphasize the link between human activities and global warming.

In keeping with the long - term framework required by climate science, hurricane experts like Chris Landsea, the late Bill Gray and Jim O'Brien have consistently reported there are no links between global warming and hurricanes.

I searched the Web of Science, an online science publication tool, for peer - reviewed scientific articles published between January first 1991 and November 9th 2012 that have the keyword phrases «global warming» or «global climate change.Science, an online science publication tool, for peer - reviewed scientific articles published between January first 1991 and November 9th 2012 that have the keyword phrases «global warming» or «global climate change.science publication tool, for peer - reviewed scientific articles published between January first 1991 and November 9th 2012 that have the keyword phrases «global warming» or «global climate change.»

In 2004, as they correctly point out, Harvard science historian Naomi Oreskes published an essay in Science magazine in which she examined the abstracts of 928 articles on the subject of «global climate change» published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and «found that 75 % supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.science historian Naomi Oreskes published an essay in Science magazine in which she examined the abstracts of 928 articles on the subject of «global climate change» published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and «found that 75 % supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.Science magazine in which she examined the abstracts of 928 articles on the subject of «global climate change» published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and «found that 75 % supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.»

If you want to know what I think about the science of climate change, then you should read what Mojib (if my name weren't Mojib Latif it would be global warming) Latif has to say about the relationship between natural variability and long - term climate change (which includes, very prominently, the discussion about natural variability «swamping» mean surface temperature on a short - term basis).

Most global warming predictions are based on fluctuations in CO2 levels and temperature that happened between a relatively recent series of ice ages, said DePaolo, who was not involved in the new study, which will appear in tomorrow's issue of the journal Science.

Cook et al read the abstracts of nearly 12 000 papers published between 1991 and 2011 — every single hit from the ISI Web of Science with the keywords «global climate change» or «global warming».

For instance, US Senator James Imhofe of Kansas called climate change «the greatest hoax ever» (Johnson, 2011) To claim that climate change science is the greatest hoax ever is at minimum, if not a lie, reckless disregard for the truth given the number of prestigious scientific organizations that have publicly supported the consensus view, the undeniable science supporting the conclusion that if greenhouse gases increase in the atmosphere some warming should be expected, the clear link between rising greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere and increases in fossil fuel use around the world, as well undeniable increases in warming being that have been experienced at the global scale.

WASHINGTON (AP)-- With each upward degree, global warming will singe the economies of three - quarters of the world's nations and widen the north - south gap between rich and poor countries, according to a new economic and science study.

We face a tremendous gap between what scientists warn about the dangers of global warming and what the public understands, and a discourse that has been hijacked by toxic, politically motivated attacks on the credibility of the climate science community.

The apparent attempts to cover up problems with temperature data from the Chinese weather stations provide the first link between the email scandal and the UN's embattled climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as a paper based on the measurements was used to bolster IPCC statements about rapid global warming in recent decades.

You don't need to think long to find a reason for the tobacco industry and big oil wanting to spread doubt about the science behind the link between tobacco and cancer, and behind greenhouse gases and global warming, respectively.

The climate science is indisputable... the known physics requires that each tonne of new CO2 emissions will have a smaller impact than the previous tonne... there is no escaping the actual logarithmic relationship between atmospheric CO2 and global warming...

Related articles: «Climate Science» in Shambles: Real Scientists Battle UN Agenda Global - warming Alarmism Dying a Slow Death A Climate of Repression: Interview of Czech Republic President Klaus The Real Agenda Behind UN «Sustainability» Unmasked Global Warming and the Arctic Economy The Link Between Eugenics & Global Warming Hype UN Coverup of «Climate Refugees» Scandal Fails Lord Monckton Blasts UN Global Agenda; Expresses Optimism Climategate 2: More E-mails Leaked Ahead of UN Summit Climwarming Alarmism Dying a Slow Death A Climate of Repression: Interview of Czech Republic President Klaus The Real Agenda Behind UN «Sustainability» Unmasked Global Warming and the Arctic Economy The Link Between Eugenics & Global Warming Hype UN Coverup of «Climate Refugees» Scandal Fails Lord Monckton Blasts UN Global Agenda; Expresses Optimism Climategate 2: More E-mails Leaked Ahead of UN Summit ClimWarming and the Arctic Economy The Link Between Eugenics & Global Warming Hype UN Coverup of «Climate Refugees» Scandal Fails Lord Monckton Blasts UN Global Agenda; Expresses Optimism Climategate 2: More E-mails Leaked Ahead of UN Summit ClimWarming Hype UN Coverup of «Climate Refugees» Scandal Fails Lord Monckton Blasts UN Global Agenda; Expresses Optimism Climategate 2: More E-mails Leaked Ahead of UN Summit Climategate

As Chris Mooney writes in his post about the discussion between Drs Francis and Trenberth, «The biggest debate in climate science may be over whether global warming will create more winters like this one.

The assembled panel issued the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report entitled «The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policy Makers» that concludes that global average temperature will rise between 1.1 °C to 6.4 °C by 2100, and that it is «very likely» (90 % certainty) that human activities and emissions are causing global warming.

The supposed link between sunspots and global warming is so tenuous and has so many problems in its science, any effect sunspots have on our planet are likely to be very weak:

Attacks on any scientific consensus, whether it be human - caused global warming or the link between smoking and cancer, exhibit five characteristics of science denial.

In our paper, Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature, we analysed over 12,000 papers listed in the «Web Of Science» between 1991 to 2011 matching the topic «global warming» or «global climate change».

Indeed, global warming is a classic example of the persistent mismatch between the language of science and the needs of policy.

We performed a keyword search of peer - reviewed scientific journal publications (in the ISI Web of Science) for the terms «global warming» and «global climate change» between the years 1991 and 2011, which returned over 12,000 papers.

«There is a huge debate in climate science over the relationship between global warming and ocean temperatures.

So, the most recent science shows 1) no observed relationship between global warming and winter severe weather outbreaks and 2) future «polar vortex» - associated cold outbreaks are projected to mollify — yet the White House prepares a special video proclaiming the opposite with the intent to spread climate alarm.

Under Watson's tenure, the IPCC last year produced its third comprehensive assessment of the state of climate science, concluding that» [t] here is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities,» and predicting that average global temperatures will rise between 3 and 10 degrees Fahrenheit by the endof the century — conclusions reaffirmed last spring at White House request by the National Academy of Sciences.

«A new survey of over 12,000 peer - reviewed climate science papers [between the years1991 and 2011] by our citizen science team» has found a 97 % consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer - reviewed literature that humans are responsible.»

If the author is already peddling denialism based on limited facts used out of context, and this new paper is published likely just to be used as the latest red herring distraction in the global warming argument by examining «Svalbard and Greenland temperature records» in a too limited time span without relevant context, which, just in case some may not have noticed does not represent the region known as planet Earth, uses too short a time span in relation to mechanism outside of the examined region because it is in fact a regional analysis; one is left with a reasonable conclusion that the paper is designed to be precisely what I suspect it is designed for, to be a red herring distraction in the argument between science and science denialism regarding global warming.

The emerging science points to a complex interplay between manmade global warming, natural climate variability, and sea ice dynamics that scientists are only just beginning to truly understand.