Sentences with phrase «dangerous changes in the global climate»

Not exact matches

And, of course, those commitments and associated domestic measures are just Canada's means to achieve the ends of contributing to reducing global greenhouse gas emissions to a level that avoids the dangerous climate change, the shared goal set out in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and reiterated in the Paris Agrclimate change, the shared goal set out in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and reiterated in the Paris Agrechange, the shared goal set out in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and reiterated in the Paris AgrClimate Change and reiterated in the Paris AgreChange and reiterated in the Paris Agreement.

Global dairy and meat production and consumption must be cut in half by 2050 to avoid dangerous climate change and keep the Paris Agreement on track, according to a new Greenpeace report.

• 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.

The world needs to drop its global warming pollution by 6 percent annually to avoid «dangerous» climate change in the estimation of Hansen and his co-authors in a recent paper in PLoS One.

For example, the report summarizes recent research underpinning the scientific rationale for large and rapid reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions, in order to reduce the likelihood of dangerous human - induced climate change.

This is one dollar for every man, woman and child in the U.S. — a small price to pay for helping to break the back of our oil dependency — and curb the dangerous effects of global climate change.

With an 80 % reduction in GHGs by 2050 we have a 50 % chance of dangerous climate change or runaway global warming.

CAGW or Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is the acronym used (mostly by those that don't support taking immediate action on climate change) for the theory (or collection of hypotheses) that attribute most of the observed modern warming to human activities and warn that continuing similar activities (mostly emitting CO2) could result in warming that is dangerous to both civilization and a number of ecosystems.

The idea (quoted in the United Nations Environmental Programme report) that in order to be reasonably sure of avoiding dangerous and potentially irreversible climate change, a minimum of a 50 % cut in global emissions compared with 1990 levels is required by 2050, is based firmly on the IPCC - led consensus, contrary to the impression you appear to have.

Figure of 400 ppm calculated using fossil fuel emissions from G. Marland et al., «Global, Regional, and National CO2 Emissions,» in Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change (Oak Ridge, TN: Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 2007), and land use change emissions from R. A. Houghton and J. L. Hackler, «Carbon Flux to the Atmosphere from Land - Use Changes,» in Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change (Oak Ridge, TN: Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 2002), with decay curve cited in J. Hansen et al., «Dangerous Human - Made Interference with Climate: A GISS ModelE Study,» Atmospheric Chemistry and PhysicsChange (Oak Ridge, TN: Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 2007), and land use change emissions from R. A. Houghton and J. L. Hackler, «Carbon Flux to the Atmosphere from Land - Use Changes,» in Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change (Oak Ridge, TN: Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 2002), with decay curve cited in J. Hansen et al., «Dangerous Human - Made Interference with Climate: A GISS ModelE Study,» Atmospheric Chemistry and Physicschange emissions from R. A. Houghton and J. L. Hackler, «Carbon Flux to the Atmosphere from Land - Use Changes,» in Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change (Oak Ridge, TN: Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 2002), with decay curve cited in J. Hansen et al., «Dangerous Human - Made Interference with Climate: A GISS ModelE Study,» Atmospheric Chemistry and PhysicsChange (Oak Ridge, TN: Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 2002), with decay curve cited in J. Hansen et al., «Dangerous Human - Made Interference with Climate: A GISS ModelE Study,» Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, vol.

The coincidence of these global governance milestones in 2015 presents a critical and rare opportunity for global leaders to send the right signals to the wider world at precisely the time when strong signals need to be sent in order avoid dangerous climate change.

While critical for avoiding dangerous climate change, because of the way that gas leaks are currently under - accounted for in the Commonwealth's emissions inventory, fixing them does little to address Global Warming Solutions Act compliance.

The chosen scenario assumes Trump's actions could result in the United States only achieving half of its pledged reduction through 2030 under the Paris Agreement on climate change, the worldwide but voluntary pact aiming to avoid dangerous global warming that entered into force on Nov. 4.

The US obligation to reduce its emissions is terminated only when it is below levels required by fair global allocations that will prevent dangerous climate change although even in this case an argument can be made that any nation that could reduce emissions further should do so to avoid catastrophic harm to others.

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.

Deep cuts in carbon dioxide emissions are urgently needed to prevent dangerous climate change, but they must be complemented by reductions in short - lived climate pollutants, which produce a strong global...

Even as negotiators meet in Marrakech, Morocco to take the next steps to avert dangerous human - caused climate change — and, even as the U.S. decides whether or not to elect a president who is skeptical it is happening — a new study has highlighted the sharp stakes involved, particularly when it comes to the ongoing rise in global sea level and the dramatic but uneven way in which it could affect the world's coastlines.

There is widespread agreement among many observers of international attempts to achieve a global solution to climate change that there is little hope of preventing dangerous climate change unless nations take their equity and justice obligations into account in setting national responses to climate change.

Included here are the climate - change - related costs of extreme weather events such as Hurricanes Irene (which resulted in damages totaling $ 20 billion) and Sandy ($ 65 billion), along with the costs we incur from increasingly dangerous floods, wildfires, and heat waves that are fueled by global warming.

It is astounding that dangerous man - made global warming fanatics like Obama and Prince Charles, in addition to all those climate change charlatans at various academies of science such as The Royal Society, prefer to ignore real word observational data on climate and solar activity, in favour of psuedo - science and climate models that consistently have failed in their scenarios and projections.

The 2009 Copenhagen Accord — the document that emerged from that year's UN Climate Change Conference — enshrined a two - degree rise in global average temperature as the threshold of «dangerous» human interference in the climate Climate Change Conference — enshrined a two - degree rise in global average temperature as the threshold of «dangerous» human interference in the climate climate system.

The identified critical threshold for dangerous climate change saying that the increase in global temperature should be below 2 degrees Celsius seems not to have helped the climate negotiations so far.

Thus the United States, more than any other developed country, has been responsible for the disastrous 30 year delay in formulating a serious global response to climate change, while delays make the problem harder and more expensive to solve and increase the likelihood of triggering dangerous climate change.

First, physical risk: in order to avoid the most dangerous impacts of climate change, scientists have shown that we must limit global warming to 2C, a target now adopted unanimously by governments through the landmark Paris Agreement on climate.

From the administration that brought you «man - caused disaster» and «overseas contingency operation,» another terminology change is in the pipeline.The White House wants the public to start using the term «global climate disruption» in place of «global warming» — fearing the latter term oversimplifies the problem and makes it sound less dangerous than it really is.

But for the past four years, even though negotiators have never arrived at a plan for avoiding dangerous climate change, they have agreed on a goal: limiting the increase in the Earth's global average surface temperature to 2 °C (3.6 °F) above the preindustrial level.

Let's be clear: the actual NOAA empirical evidence, from the global temperature climate instrumental records, does not support the hypothesis that long - term changes in atmospheric CO2 levels produce rapid accelerating, dangerous global temperature changes.

World headed for irreversible climate change in five years, IEA warns If fossil fuel infrastructure is not rapidly changed, the world will «lose for ever» the chance to avoid dangerous climate change The world is likely to build so many fossil - fuelled power stations, energy - guzzling factories and inefficient buildings in the next five years that it will become impossible to hold global warming to safe levels, and the last chance of combating dangerous climate change will be «lost for ever», according to the most thorough analysis yet of world energy infrastructure.

A cabal of climate change alarmists landed in Warsaw, Poland, last weekend, to hammer out terms and rally support for a new binding global agreement to «save the planet» from «dangerous global warming.»

Titled «Why Scientists Disagree about Global Warming,» it suggests that probably the most widely repeated claim in the global warming debate is that 97 percent of scientists agree that climate change is man - made and dangGlobal Warming,» it suggests that probably the most widely repeated claim in the global warming debate is that 97 percent of scientists agree that climate change is man - made and dangglobal warming debate is that 97 percent of scientists agree that climate change is man - made and dangerous.

Because global emissions continue to rise rather than decrease after 20 years since climate change negotiations began, the international community has lost several decades in finding a way to prevent dangerous climate change.

This post will explain that although some hope for a global solution to climate change is still alive due to decisions adopted in Cancun, one must see Cancun in the context of a twenty - year failed attempt to prevent dangerous climate change.

It should be obvious that this discussion has important policy consequences since so many politicians are wedded to the idea that CO2 needs to be controlled in order to avoid «dangerous changes of the global climate.»

That is, it is not sufficient to simply examine what happened in Cancun without seeing Cancun in the context of the twenty - year negotiating history whose goal has been the prevention of dangerous climate change and the harms that each year of delay in agreeing to a global deal exacerbate.

«Impelled by our Catholic faith, we call on you to drastically cut carbon emissions to keep the global temperature rise below the dangerous threshold of 1.5 degrees Celsius [2.7 degrees Fahrenheit], and to aid the world's poorest in coping with climate change impacts,» the online petition reads.

This is so because of the huge differences in per capita emissions between developed and developing countries and the need to reduce total global emissions by 60 to 80 % from global total emissions to prevent dangerous climate change.

Yet, since the world averages 6.5 CO2 tons of per capita emissions while countries like the United States are emitting 19 tons per capita, and the world must reduce per capita emissions to perhaps less than 2.0 tons per capita to prevent dangerous climate change, it is very unlikely that many groups or people in developed countries can make a respectable argument that they are already below their fair share of safe global emissions.

In an article on «the perils of confirmation bias,» published for the Global Warming Policy Foundation (a group firmly opposed to policies that counteract climate change), Ridley suggested that «governments should fund groups that intend to explore alternative hypotheses about the likely future of climate as well as those that explore the dangerous man - made climate change prediction.»

This latest report was made at the conclusion of these negotiations during which almost no progress was made in defining equity under UNFCCC by the Ad Hoc Working Group on Durban Platform For Enhanced Action (ADP), a mechanism under the UNFCCC that seeks to achieve a adequate global climate agreement, despite a growing consensus among most observers of the UNFCCC negotiations that nations need to align their emissions reductions commitments to levels required of them by equity and justice if the world is going to prevent extremely dangerous climate change.

EDITION 12.44 A number of important lessons are coming out in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, but the biggest finally may be recognition of the fact that global warming and its resulting climate change are real and dangerous.

The first is the need to set any target in light of a total global ghg emissions limitation or budget entailed by the need to limit ghg emissions to levels that will not cause dangerous climate change.

Yet because the US projected reductions of 9.5 % below 2005 in 2020 is equal to a 2 % increase above 1990 levels in 2020 at a moment in history when many scientists believe that a reductions of 25 to 4o % below 1990 levels by 2020 are necessary to prevent dangerous climate change, the US projected reductions fall extraordinarily short of any reasonable US fair share of tolerable global emissions.

Overall, the research «provides another example of why defining «dangerous» climate change in terms of global mean temperature targets does not give the full picture», says Prof Mat Collins, joint Met Office chair in climate change at the University of Exeter, who wasn't involved in the study.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) a global temperature rise of great than 2C would result in irreversible damage to society, including «increasingly dangerous forest fires, extreme weather, drought» as well as other compounding climate iClimate Change (IPCC) a global temperature rise of great than 2C would result in irreversible damage to society, including «increasingly dangerous forest fires, extreme weather, drought» as well as other compounding climate iclimate impacts.

First, Dr Rajendra Pachauri - chairman of the official Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)- told a UN conference in Mauritius that the pollution which causes global warming has reached «dangerous» levels.

In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is «settled,» significant new peer - reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human - caused global warming.

Deep cuts in carbon dioxide emissions are urgently needed to prevent dangerous climate change, but they must be complemented by reductions in short - lived climate pollutants, which produce a strong global warming effect but have relatively brief atmospheric lifetimes.

From Fox News From the administration that brought you «man - caused disaster» and «overseas contingency operation,» another terminology change is in the pipeline.The White House wants the public to start using the term «global climate disruption» in place of «global warming» — fearing the latter term oversimplifies the problem and makes it sound less dangerous than -LSB-...]

The Cancun global warming and wealth redistribution summit concluded last week, with little to show for two weeks of talking in 5 - star hotels and restaurants, other than vague promises that countries will try to do something meaningful about the «threat» of «dangerous» climate change.

Indeed, the market conditions and policies necessary to make the tar sands a cost - effective source of energy will almost certainly result in dangerous levels of global warming that will exceed two degrees Celsius, the internationally agreed upon limit that will prevent climate change from destroying the planet.