Sentences with phrase «evidence human carbon»

By 1979, the evidence human carbon dioxide emissions were serious threat was strong enough that the National Academy of Sciences published Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment, with this statement, «A wait and see policy may mean waiting until it is too late.»

Not exact matches

Decades of scientific investigation across multiple lines of evidence corroborate a powerful yet inconvenient truth: Human - caused global warming and climate change is real, and it's briskly accelerating as we dump more carbon into the atmosphere.

A study provides the first evidence that pollen production is significantly stimulated by elevated carbon dioxide in a grass species as a result of climate change, which may have significant impact on human health.

«The evidence suggests that human activities in coastal zones will continue to have an important impact on global carbon cycling,» Bauer said.

Since then, however, evidence has grown that humans were in the Americas before the rise of the Clovis culture, prompting Waters and Gustafson to reanalyse the remains with the latest carbon - dating technology.

Developed for the Commonwealth Marine Science Event 2018, this publication is an initiative by UK scientists and international partners, led by Plymouth Marine Laboratory, providing evidence - based science for policy making on the impacts of increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases on the ocean and human systems.

Accordingly, all of this is within natural variables, to be expected, etc... The only difference now is that we are well - populated with AGW «enthusiasts» who have such a stake in this movement or theology that everything that happens anywhere must be blamed upon carbon emitted by humans, even absent any evidence to support this.

Additionally, 32,000 American scientists have signed onto a petition that states, «There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate...» http://www.petitionproject.org/index.html

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.

But the evidence is robust that the buildup of carbon dioxide since the 1800s is due to human activities, and that the risk is cumulative.

But Field has also not explained why he signed a petition stating * that there was «no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the earth's atmosphere and disruption of the earth's climate.»

The petition read: «There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the earth's atmosphere and disruption of the earth's climate.

What is clearly needed is an immediate «feedback» of quick reductions of human carbon emissions, but that does not seem much in evidence after the latest farce in Warsaw.

There is strong evidence that human - produced greenhouse gases — like carbon dioxide and methane — are changing the Earth's climate.

HERE is a line of empirical evidence: (human / industry CO2 emissions are causing global warming) * Climate Myth The Skeptic - Denier position: There's no empirical evidence «There is no actual evidence that carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warming.

And returning to the subject of rising CO2 levels, Plimer provides several pages of quality exposition on the different types of carbon atom (called isotopes), explaining the multiple lines of evidence indicating that humans are responsible for the rise in CO2.

(through drastic slashing of manufacturing technologies, draconian cap and trade taxation, repossession of private property, and a whole host of other proceedures of questionable value), and on the other, you have the alternative medicine quack that says «The pain is all in your mind» (EG, the non-scientists that say that human released carbon dioxide has no impact on the environment whatsoever, in spite of the fact that this is not supported by even the slightest bit of chemical evidence.)

The problems any of these individual surveys can and do present are minuscule compared to the laughable counterpoints Bast and Spencer throw at them: a 2012 survey, for example, which found a strong showing of climate denial among members of the American Meteorological Society, and a petition, signed by 31,000 scientists asserting that «there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of... carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.»

«There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.

Scientists complained that the programme makers distorted evidence, and made elementary mistakes such as claiming that volcanoes produce more carbon dioxide than human activities, when in fact they produce less than 2 % of that caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

It examines the evidence (climate change research) and decides whether or not human - produced carbon dioxide emissions are interfering in a dangerous way with normal background climate.

«Science is never settled, but the current state of «climate change» science is quite clear: There is essentially zero evidence that carbon dioxide from human activities is causing catastrophic climate change.»

Do you yourself believe that a statement like» The entire framing of the IPCC was designed around identifying sufficient evidence so that the human - induced greenhouse warming could be declared unequivocal, and so providing the rationale for developing the political will to implement and enforce carbon stabilization targets» is self - evident and does not need any support to back it up?

In your original post you stated: «The entire framing of the IPCC was designed around identifying sufficient evidence so that the human - induced greenhouse warming could be declared unequivocal, and so providing the rationale for developing the political will to implement and enforce carbon stabilization targets.»

«There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate,» the petition states.

This evidence includes multiple finger - print and attribution studies, strong correlations between fossil fuel use and increases in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, carbon isotope evidence that is supports that elevated carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere are from fossil sources, and model predictions that best fit actual observed greenhouse gas concentrations that support human activities as the source of atmospheric concentrations.

However, I think the evidence favours a significant climate impact due to human carbon emissions and therefore some response is required.

If you don't accept the evidence on human - driven climate change and its likely harmful consequences, there is no need to support «comprehensive» legislation that would put a price on carbon through some framework to drive reductions in emissions.

Ice core research has already provided convincing evidence of human - caused climate change by demonstrating a carbon dioxide - climate link.

Indeed, strong observational evidence and results from modeling studies indicate that, at least over the last 50 years, human activities are a major contributor to climate change.Direct human impact is through changes in the concentration of certain trace gases such as carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and water vapor, known collectively as greenhouse gases.

An industry of denial, abetted by news media and «info - tainment» broadcasters more interested in selling controversy than presenting facts, has duped half the American public into rejecting the facts of climate science — an overwhelming body of rigorously vetted scientific evidence showing that human - caused, carbon - based emissions are linked to warming the Earth.

, asks well - known scientist Art Robinson, who spearheaded The Petition Project which to date has gathered the signatures of 31,487 scientists who agree that there is «no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.»

The belief that warming is principally caused by human carbon emissions is completely unwarranted based on the evidence available.

The Petition Project features over 31,000 scientists signing the petition stating «There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere...»

The claim is often made that climate realists (a.k.a. skeptics) can not point to peer - reviewed papers to support their position that there is no evidence of «dangerous global warming:» caused by human emissions of so - called «greenhouse» gases, including carbon dioxide.

The new target: Naomi Oreskes who last week found her research used as a foil by some lawmakers in the U.S. House of Representatives to try and discredit the widely - accepted and growing view that there is a broad scientific consensus on the evidence of human - caused global warming caused by rising carbon dioxide emissions.

I'm talking about statements like... «The entire framing of the IPCC was designed around identifying sufficient evidence so that the human - induced greenhouse warming could be declared unequivocal, and so providing the rationale for political will to implement and enforce carbon stabilization targets.»

Do you really think that's the same as saying «The entire framing of the IPCC was designed around identifying sufficient evidence so that the human - induced greenhouse warming could be declared unequivocal, and so providing the rationale for developing the political will to implement and enforce carbon stabilization targets?»

This position does not appear to be supported by any observational evidence, much like the highly exaggerated claims concerning the effects of human carbon dioxide emissions on climate.

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.

«There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.

Where are the hard facts or the direct evidence that we humans are at fault especially when natural carbon dioxide only makes up 0.0387 % of all trace gases.

The Petition reads in part: «There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.

Many lines of evidence now confirm our planet is warming because of carbon pollution released when humans burn fossil fuels like oil and coal.

Although Pielke accepts that the evidence for human influence on the climate system is robust, he stresses that the goal of cutting global carbon emissions is incompatible with economic growth for the world's poorest 1.5 billion people.

Curry also notes there's evidence the Earth has been warming for the past 200 years — a period that began before human carbon dioxide emissions would have been a factor.

In reality, the correlation between global mean temperature and carbon dioxide over the 20th century forms an important, but very small part of the evidence for a human role in climate change.

The 2010 drought is still under study; some evidence suggests that the 2005 drought was linked to high Atlantic Ocean temperatures that may in turn be linked to human emissions of carbon dioxide.

Multiple lines of scientific evidence overwhelmingly show that human greenhouse gas emissions are the dominant cause of the current global warming, that the consequences of that warming will on the whole be bad, and that there are cost - effective solutions to the problem, of which carbon pricing systems are a critical component.

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-...]