Not exact matches
However, this in itself is not enough to define what level of
warming is «
dangerous,» especially since the
projections of actual impacts for any level of
warming are highly uncertain, and depend on further factors such as how quickly these levels are reached (so how long ecosystems and society have had to respond), and what other changes are associated with them (eg: carbon dioxide concentration, since this affects plant photosynthesis and water use efficiency, and ocean acidification).
But while plenty of other climate scientists hold firm to the idea that the full range of possible outcomes, including a disruptively
dangerous warming of more than 4.5 degrees C. (8 degrees F.), remain in play, it's getting harder to see why the high - end
projections are given much weight.
Thus the conclusion of «consistency» is not supportable and accordingly does not validate model - derived
projections of
dangerous anthropogenic global
warming.»
Given the increased levels of certainty regarding human - induced global
warming (from 90 to 95 %), more robust
projections on sea - level rise and data on melting of ice sheets, and the «carbon budget» for staying below the 2 °C target, the WGI conclusions together with other AR5 component reports are likely to put more pressure on the UNFCCC parties to deliver by 2015 an ambitious agreement that is capable of preventing
dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.
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.