Sentences with phrase «conclusions about the future climate»

Not exact matches

Musk should look at the team Trump has put in charge of the country's climate - and - energy future and draw the obvious conclusions: Valid climate science is now officially under siege, and sustainable or renewable energy sources are about to lose out big - time to Big Oil.

«We can also draw conclusions about past atmospheric circulation patterns, with implications for future climate changes.

Based on the above conclusions, they consider that the future integrity of the property is highly at risk, taking into account the possible prospect of offshore oil exploitation, the uncertainty about the impact of invasive species, the already existing threats for which progress on the corrective measures is unclear and the globally increasing effects of climate change to coral reef systems, including the Belize Barrier Reef system.

This conclusion holds even if one includes the necessity for mid-course corrections in the future as we learn more about the climate system and more about how the economy will evolve.

Koenig's careful description of the science and the uncertainty about what the future holds prompted a public spanking from the Center for American Progress climate blogger Joe Romm, who charged her with «scientific reticence» — alluding to NASA scientist James Hansen's paper criticizing sea - level researchers for being overly cautious in 2007 conclusions about the possible rate of sea rise in this century.

Therefore, it is a (by some deliberately promoted) misunderstanding to draw conclusions from such a short trend about future global warming, let alone climate policy.

The fact that certain analytical conclusions about observed climate change, attribution to human causes, in particular the energy system and deforestation, projected greater climate change in the future, observed impacts of climate change on natural and human systems, and projected very disruptive consequences in the future given our current trajectory, is not due to «group think» but rather to a generally shared analysis based on evidence.

It's hard to find fault with McIntyre's overarching conclusion about the report and the panel's Working Group 3 (WG3 below), which is tasked with charting possible responses to climate change: The public and policy - makers are starving for independent and authoritative analysis of precisely how much weight can be placed on renewables in the energy future.

Paleo evidence have indeed shown quite strong spikes in temperature anomolies which gets back to the most important point of your paper with Judith: the extent of natural internal variability needs to be disentangled from anthropogenic and other forcings before we can make any conclusions about the future course of climate.

«Whilst it is always important to think about the future in the light of changes we observe to the Earth's climate, in trying to draw conclusions so far ahead based on what we know, the IPCC scientists are speculating far beyond any reasonable scientific justification.»

Anyone expecting me to use this comment to document my conclusions about the entirety of anthropogenic climate change will be disappointed, but I have addressed individual points on many past occasions and will continue to do so in the future.

It is intellectually dishonest to devote several pages to cherry - picking studies that disagree with the IPCC consensus on net health effects because you don't like its scientific conclusion, while then devoting several pages to hiding behind [a misstatement of] the U.N. consensus on sea level rise because you know a lot reasonable people think the U.N. wildly underestimated the upper end of the range and you want to attack Al Gore for worrying about 20 - foot sea level rise.On this blog, I have tried to be clear what I believe with my earlier three - part series: Since sea level, arctic ice, and most other climate change indicators have been changing faster than most IPCC models projected and since the IPCC neglects key amplifying carbon cycle feedbacks, the IPCC reports almost certainly underestimate future climate impacts.

Many of the 71 conclusions in the «Current Knowledge About Future Impacts» section of the Working Group II Summary for Policymakers are imprecise statements made without reference to the time period under consideration or to a climate scenario under which the conclusions would be true.

BARRY BROOK: Looking hard at renewable energy, there are a lot of limitations, especially in terms of energy storage and energy back up that make it extraordinarily implausible, according to my view and that of many others, that it could supply most of our power needs in the future, which, for someone who's really concerned about climate change impacts is a pretty disappointing conclusion.