To stave off
the catastrophic effects of that warming, some experts are studying how to hack Earth's climate.
Not exact matches
The latest research shows that climate talks must lead to more aggressive action to avoid the
catastrophic effects of global
warming
It is clear that continuing to rely on fossil fuels will have
catastrophic results, because
of the dramatic
warming effect of carbon dioxide.
But given the potentially
catastrophic effects of global
warming, scientists have an obligation to study the idea, he says.
Beyond preparing for the inevitable, the report also calls for climate mitigation, including implementing the 2015 Paris Agreement in order to have «any hope
of avoiding
catastrophic effects from sea - level rise and other outcomes
of global
warming.»
«I don't see the
catastrophic effects from
warming that others predict,» said John Christy, a professor at the University
of Alabama in Huntsville who says satellite data since 1979 shows temperatures rising fastest at the surface.
It's now commonplace to talk about global
warming and carbon footprints, so much so that it's easy to forget that until quite recently few thought it was even possible that the actions
of our species could have a potentially
catastrophic effect on the Earth's climate.
The resulting computer simulation is the basis for predicting the
catastrophic effects of increasing AGHG on global
warming.
On the other hand, another
effect of global
warming, namely massive, continent - wide, intense, persistent drought, could begin at any time and have
catastrophic effects on agriculture, leading to widespread famine within a few years.
It might be that serious authorities such as Hansen and the head
of the UNFCCC secretariat are wrong to declare that goal
of a 2.0 C ceiling
of warming poses unacceptably dangerous climate destabilization, but it seems widely accepted that a peak
of 450ppmv CO2 would allow a near - even chance
of staying below 2.0 C and thereby avoiding the feedbacks taking off with
catastrophic effects.
In 2011, the Global
Warming Policy Foundation's website ran the headline «900 + Peer - Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism
Of «Man - Made» Global Warming (AGW) Alarm,» listing more than 900 papers which, according to the GWPF, refute «concern relating to a negative environmental or socio - economic effect of AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic.&raqu
Of «Man - Made» Global
Warming (AGW) Alarm,» listing more than 900 papers which, according to the GWPF, refute «concern relating to a negative environmental or socio - economic
effect of AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic.&raqu
of AGW, usually exaggerated as
catastrophic.»
In short, since 1997 there has been neither any global
warming nor any enhancement
of the greenhouse
effect to cause it in the first place, and with no possible correlation between increased CO2 emissions and global
warming; there is simply no scientific basis for the for the ludicrous concept that fossil fuel derived CO2 emissions are or could even cause
catastrophic global
warming!
But this bait is replaced by unfounded claims that the
warming and other
effects of increased CO2 will be
catastrophic.»
You don't have to doubt the
catastrophic anthropogenic global
warming theory to know that there are key variables that have important, measurable
effects on world temperatures at these kind
of timescales — ocean cycles come to mind immediately — which he has left out.
«
Warming of the oceans... affecting... large - scale climate patterns... however, due to the long time scales
of ocean dynamics... and the relatively short length
of observational data... the
effects of those changes on
catastrophic risk... unclear.»
Among them, to you Leonard, are: what do you think constitutes «small AGW» and
catastrophic AGW, and to what extent have you reviewed the biological / ecological literature that address the ecosystem's functional sensitivity
of different
warming levels (sufficient CO2 - driven ocean acidification alone likely qualifies as «
catastrophic» — or are you separating
warming from the other
effects of high CO2?)
In summary, there is little new about climate science in the report, and nothing at all new about attribution
of past
warming and extreme weather events to human activity, projections
of future
warming and its
effects, or potential for
catastrophic changes.
«It is true,» Mann writes, «that the projected
effects of unmitigated
warming might objectively be characterized as
catastrophic.»
Since the proportions in Australia deeply concerned about the possibly
catastrophic effects of anthropogenic global
warming (however much
warming there actually is) are probably about the same as in the USA, how is it that President Trump can ignore something in his country that no one in ours seems to be able to do?
«(5) That some
of the adverse and potentially
catastrophic effects of global
warming are at risk
of occurring and not a certainty does not negate the harm persons suffer from actions that increase the likelihood, extent, and severity
of such future impacts.
To prevent
catastrophic global
warming human greenhouse gas emission must cease, but this will also end the aerosol cooling
effect and the full heating
effect of our «Faustian bargain» will be revealed.
World leaders are ostensibly committed to keeping the increase in average global temperature below 2 °C relative to pre-industrial levels — the threshold beyond which the most
catastrophic effects of global
warming would be triggered.
According to the Cato Institute's book summary, «Acknowledging that industrial emissions
of greenhouse gasses have
warmed the planet and will continue to do so over the next several decades, Michaels and Balling argue that future
warming will be moderate, not
catastrophic, and will have benign economic and ecological
effects.»
If the countries make good on their pledges, they will dramatically reduce the emissions scientists link to global
warming, but not enough to hold temperatures to levels scientists say are needed to minimize risks
of drought, flooding and other
catastrophic effects.
It's very clear (thanks to Steve M, Willis etc) that there are issues with both but given the current hyped claim by the «
warmers» that the past
effects of man - caused global
warming have largely been masked by the
warming of the oceans and that unless we reduce CO2 emissions now that we won't be able to mitigate future global
warming when this «stored heat» eventually comes back out
of the oceans and leads to
catastrophic effects, I'm very interested in getting to the punchline
of this debate on SSTs.
The IPPC has long conceded that
catastrophic AGW is impossible without some further unknown, unobserved and unmeasured magick mystery forcing to amplify the
warming effect of CO2.
To stop
catastrophic natural global cooling (CNGC) we need to pump out all the CO2 we can as a «precaution» to mitigate some
of the
effects of cold — which are much worse than the
effects of warm.
No
catastrophic global
warming either, so CO2 levels have only the smallest
of effects on global temperature — H2O vapour is the major GHG.
The main evidence for
catastrophic anthropogenic global
warming (CAGW), the principal alleged adverse
effect of human emissions
of carbon dioxide (CO2), is climate models built by CAGW supporters in a field where models with real predictive power do not exist and can not be built with any demonstrable accuracy beyond a week or two because climate and weather are coupled non-linear chaotic systems.
Climate Science however was established with the premise that humans are having a
catastrophic effect on the climate, primarily by forcing global
warming through the emission
of ACO2, and charged with the mission
of confirming it.
I am a global
warming skeptic, not a denier, and part
of the difference is that it's not an either / or between no
effects from
warming and the
catastrophic vision
of Al Gore.
In
effect Kaya misdirects the reader to believe that all CO2 emissions are anthropogenic, thus setting the agenda for his fallacious and untrue argument, independent
of the premiss «CO2 causes
catastrophic global
warming».
The prophecy
of Anthropogenic Global
Warming yielding trillions
of dollars in redistributive change will have a
catastrophic effect on human relationships, island stability, and the climate in diverse societies.
E.g., research assumes greenhouse gas emissions cause
warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause»... carbon sequestration in soil is important for mitigating global climate change» (4a) No position Does not address or mention the cause
of global
warming (4b) Uncertain Expresses position that human's role on recent global
warming is uncertain / undefined «While the extent
of human - induced global
warming is inconclusive...» (5) Implicit rejection Implies humans have had a minimal impact on global
warming without saying so explicitly E.g., proposing a natural mechanism is the main cause
of global
warming»... anywhere from a major portion to all
of the
warming of the 20th century could plausibly result from natural causes according to these results» (6) Explicit rejection without quantification Explicitly minimizes or rejects that humans are causing global
warming»... the global temperature record provides little support for the
catastrophic view
of the greenhouse
effect» (7) Explicit rejection with quantification Explicitly states that humans are causing less than half
of global
warming «The human contribution to the CO2 content in the atmosphere and the increase in temperature is negligible in comparison with other sources
of carbon dioxide emission»»
The resulting computer simulation is the basis for predicting the
catastrophic effects of increasing AGHG on global
warming.
And don't forget «Global
warming is going to have
catastrophic consequences, so we need to decarbonize the global energy economy» — The big lie
of certainty regarding cause,
effect, impacts and cost that is repeated by default conservatives everywhere, especially here.
Written by thousands
of science, policy, and economics experts from around the world, the UN International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports represent a synthesis
of existing climate research knowledge, focusing on the evidence
of a
warming climate («virtually certain»), the global impacts, and the ways we might avert its most
catastrophic effects.
For example, the argument that follows very substantially from the extent
of continental shelf that there is within the Arctic Basin and, therefore, the particular relationship that
warming on that relatively shallow sea has on trapped methane - for example, the emergence
of methane plumes in that continental shelf, apparently in quite an anomalous way - leading possibly to the idea that there may be either tipping points there or
catastrophic feedback mechanisms there, which could then have other
effects on things, such as more stabilised caps like the Greenland ice cap and so on.
The main evidence for
catastrophic anthropogenic global
warming (CAGW), the principal alleged adverse
effect of human emissions
of carbon dioxide (CO2), is climate models built -LSB-...]
follows the very strong advice
of scientists, who have told us what needs to be done to avert the
catastrophic effects of unchecked global
warming.
While the
warming has been
catastrophic, the underlying
effects of our treatment
of the Arctic have been overlooked.