Sentences with phrase «cause dangerous warming»

For CO2 to cause dangerous warming it must cause an increase in atmospheric humidity.

The existing anthropogenic excess of atmospheric CO2 is self - evidently already causing dangerous warming so we do need to draw it down to preindustrial levels as quickly as possible.

But it is true that some of the fossil - fuel funded groups that formerly argued that there is no global warming have reacted to criticism by changing their argument to «the climate is always changing,» as if that somehow disproves the scientific consensus that human greenhouse - gas emissions are causing dangerous warming.

700 climate scientists, 31,000 American scientists and 48 % of US meteorologists say there is no evidence that humans are causing dangerous warming or climate change.

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.»

We've just spent billions disconfirming the hypothesis that anthro - CO2 causes dangerous warming.

Not at all, and I don't think anything I wrote actually implied that we're not causing dangerous warming.

Not exact matches

Many governments believe that holding the average global temperature rise caused by man - made warming to 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels gives the world the best chance to avoid dangerous climate change.

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.

• GLOBAL WARMING Physicist Richard A. Muller, although convinced that climate change is real, potentially dangerous and probably caused in part by humans, has disagreed with many climate scientists, asserting that their measurements and analyses are deeply flawed.

For climate scientists who are skeptical that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions will cause a dangerous amount of warming, such as Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer, their skepticism hinges mainly on this cloud cover uncertainty.

Is there dangerous, human - caused global warming affecting the climate of the continental U.S.?

In the light of this perhaps I should rephrase my question to — Do you think that a dangerous thermal event like the Eocene is probable with the degree of warming from anthropogenic causes?

It does not mean that human - caused global warming is not potentially dangerous... just read the published body of research since 1842... or better yet talk to research scientists who are actively publishing in this like I talk to them weekly.

The study concluded that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) cause dangerous global warming.

That means wildfires are a dangerous amplifying feedback, whereby global warming causes more wildfires, which release carbon dioxide, thereby accelerating global warming.

A human that causes global warming is more dangerous than natural causes of global warming.

Much of what they said meshed with the overall theme of the meeting, which organizers said was aimed at proving that the recent consensus on dangerous human - caused global warming was shaped more by politics and passion than data.

In the light of this perhaps I should rephrase my question to — Do you think that a dangerous thermal event like the Eocene is probable with the degree of warming from anthropogenic causes?

The trigger was an e-mail chain maintained by Benny J. Peiser, a British social scientist who sends out daily summaries of research questioning dangerous human - caused global warming and international climate treaties, along with other subjects.

Black carbon is the second largest cause of global warming, and this bill will ensure that we have the information we need to address this dangerous pollutant.»

It does not mean that human - caused global warming is not potentially dangerous... just read the published body of research since 1842... or better yet talk to research scientists who are actively publishing in this like I talk to them weekly.

A central dispute was over how scientists can best discuss risks and responses related to inherent, and dangerous, extremes of climate in a world increasingly fixated on how to limit global warming caused by human activity.

For a 2003 story on the politicization of climate science, for example, I interviewed Patrick J. Michaels, a University of Virginia climatologist and outspoken critic of the mainstream view that human - caused warming is dangerous.

The actual observed effects of the warming that has already occurred, as a result of the greenhouse gases we have already emitted, are self - evidently already «dangerous» since they are already causing massive and costly harm.

So just because CH4 doesn't all go into the atmosphere or doesn't seem to be the light - sleeping irracible dragon we made it out to be (which we are compulsively poking with our CO2 emission - caused warming), doesn't mean it isn't dangerous.

Unlike these climate scientists, who have solid evidence that humans are not causing the majority of warming and / or the warming is not dangerous, Galileo and his fellow helieocentrists did not have a shred of evidence to back up the claim.

I am convinced next Monday there will be a newspaper explaining the cold and the snow was caused by» extremely dangerous human induced runaway global warming as the driver of climate change».

I regret deeply that the attacks on me now appear to have spilled over onto other scientists who have dared to question the degree to which human activities might be causing dangerous global warming, a topic that ought rightly be the subject of rigorous open debate, not personal attack.

«There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming,» it stated in an official declaration in 2009.

How dangerous it is to question the ruling paradigm of human caused global warming, a once interesting idea that the United Nations latched onto with all the enthusiasm of a fox in a hen coop, simultaneously drawing the interest of various national governments, and dragging with it many unwitting but eager scientifically credentialed sycophants.

Pekka is technically correct if he means the word CAGW only exists in skeptical discourse, as opposed to the thing the word refers to, which is dangerous human caused global warming.

How has this process been followed for AGW or, more specifically, for the premise that the observed warming since the modern record started has been caused principally by AGW and that this represents a serious potential threat to humanity and our environment (let's call this the «dangerous AGW» hypothesis or dAGW, which Trenberth would like to see as the «null hypothesis»)?

That means wildfires are a dangerous amplifying feedback, whereby global warming causes more wildfires, which release carbon dioxide, thereby accelerating global warming.

But no evidence exists for the proposition that such a feedback loop will cause dangerous or runaway warming.

However there is considerable uncertainty and disagreement about the most consequential issues: whether the warming has been dominated by human causes versus natural variability, how much the planet will warm in the 21st century, and whether warming is «dangerous».

This warming was obviously caused by Californian Indians ripping around in SUVs and motorcycles spewing dangerous greenhouse gases with no thought for the future.

That is decidedly not how this paper is used in public discourse though, I think in many instances this paper is used to say that not only do humans cause global warming, but they are also the major cause and the degree of effect on nature / climate is in some way dangerous and needs to be mitigated.

There is little evidence that global warming is necessarily bad for the world or humans, and especially there is little evidence that it will cause a militarily more dangerous or less stable world, or cause more work or misery for the US Army.

Simply put, the trace gas CO2 does not regulate temperature; it does not act like a control knob or thermostat; and the greater growth in CO2 levels has not caused accelerated, dangerous warming.

While the greenhouse effect is undeniably real, and while most scientists agree that there has been a rise in global temperatures caused in some part by human emissions of carbon dioxide, no one knows how much more warming will occur this century or whether it will be dangerous.

But a new draft study being published this week by a team of 17 leading international climate scientists warns that even 2 degrees of warming is «highly dangerous» and could cause sea level rise of «at least several meters» this century, leaving most of the world's coastal cities uninhabitable.

For an increasing fraction of the world's population, the real climate crisis is not the possibility that dangerous human - caused global warming may someday occur.

True believers in the theory of man - made climate change can't understand how anyone can question the «overwhelming evidence» that mankind is causing dangerous global warming.

The United States is needlessly penalizing itself and squandering its resource endowment, all because of the big lie that carbon dioxide is causing dangerous global warming.

Business has been captured by Climatism, the belief that humans are causing dangerous global warming.

There is an initial simple claim, such as «humans are causing potentially dangerous global warming.»

This prescient statement merits careful examination by those who continue to assert the fashionable belief, in the face of strong empirical evidence to the contrary, that human CO2 emissions are going to cause dangerous global warming.

significant new peer - reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human - caused global warming. . .

Keep all this in mind when the President and other Washington politicos bring up «dangerous manmade global warming,» insist that we slash fossil fuel use, and tell us we need to give poor countries billions of dollars a year to compensate them for «losses and damages» they incurred due to warming we caused.