Sentences with phrase «global warming science which»

Not exact matches

It's a science - driven company focused on solving problems like world hunger and global warming with, for instance, drought - resistance seeds, which have been gaining market share from competitors but had to be developed over years.

That representation matches the public discourse around global warming, in which previous studies have shown that media characterize climate change as unsettled science with high levels of scientific uncertainty.

I think your discussion about anthropogenic global warming is a little «off topic» in this blog entry, which is about due diligence in climate science, but with the permission of those running the blog, I'd like to explore it a little further.

Re # 4 Naomi Oreskes wrote an article in Science which reported on the papers about global warming published between 1993 and 2003.

«This will cause carbon loss from the soil which means an increase in carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere, which will further worsen global warming,» said Takeshi Ise from the Japan Agency for Marine - Earth Science and Technology.

We talk to Alexander Payne (Election, Sideways), director of the underrated science fiction comedy - drama Downsizing, starring Matt Damon, in which people choose to be shrunk down to live in miniaturized cities as a way to help with global warming and overpopulation.

Almost as quickly, some longtime critics of the Clintons and global warming science noticed that Mr. Tapper's post included the full text of the climate portion of Mr. Clinton's speech, which clearly showed the offending line had been taken out of context.

Unfortunately for policymakers and the public, while the basic science pointing to a rising human influence on climate is clear, many of the most important questions will remain surrounded by deep complexity and uncertainty for a long time to come: the pace at which seas will rise, the extent of warming from a certain buildup of greenhouse gases (climate sensitivity), the impact on hurricanes, the particular effects in particular places (what global warming means for Addis Ababa or Atlanta).

Re # 8 (and to expand on # 13): I also think that a basic strategy of the global warming deniers is to focus on one aspect of the science over which there is some combination of real and manufactured dispute and then try to make people think that this is the one crucial piece of evidence on which the whole theory of anthropogenic warming rests... and thus that the dispute over this aspect throws the whole theory into question.

People interested in a scientific analysis of the probabilities given in the IPCC TAR should see the analysis performed by Thomas Wigley and Sarah Raper, which was published in Science magazine in 2001 («Interpretations of High Projections for Global - Mean Warming»).

Global warming is driven by greenhouse gases, which is a long - standing consensus in science.

In contrast to RealClimate and Skeptical Science, which are focused tightly on science questions, this initiative appears to be trying to both clarify the state of the science on global warming and, in the same breath, promote policies that could curb emissions of greenhouseScience, which are focused tightly on science questions, this initiative appears to be trying to both clarify the state of the science on global warming and, in the same breath, promote policies that could curb emissions of greenhousescience questions, this initiative appears to be trying to both clarify the state of the science on global warming and, in the same breath, promote policies that could curb emissions of greenhousescience on global warming and, in the same breath, promote policies that could curb emissions of greenhouse gases.

There is very little science behind the claim that a doubling of CO2 will cause one degree C. of warming — which even if true, adds up to a mere one degree C. of global warming in about 200 years, assuming CO2 levels increase 2 ppm per year, and the hypothesis is correct.

Despite a long string of years in which Republican leaders and candidates bashed global warming science, the platform adopted on July 18 has no section characterizing — one way or the other — the party's view of risks from an unabated buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Please post a list of the supposed benefits of global warming (GW which you also defend does not exist)-- it is so much fun to debunk junk science.

Bill McKibben writes on body of science pointing to a very low «safe» long - term threshold for carbon dioxide concentrations — 350 parts per million — which was hit and passed in 1988, around the time McKibben and I began writing on global warming.

To me, it conveys how environmental campaigners, in trying to engage a public for which global warming has little salience, may be helping sustain the still - common view that greenhouse - driven warming remains uncertain science.

The Skeptical Science site refers to a paper by Flanner in 2009, a summary of which can be found here http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/tss/ahf/, that shows the direct heat from burning fossil fuels is just 1 % of the effect of the CO2 produced by this burning on the absorption of heat by the atmosphere from the sun, i.e. global warming.

The positivist scientism that you call natural science and contrast with my devotion to dialectical materialism is not magical enough to convert me to the article of faith that is the theory of global warming, which is incompatible with current knowledge.

If Mann had wanted to point to an opposite end to the spectrum of ways in which scientists can contribute to public discourse on global warming science and risks, a better choice (in my view) would have been Susan Solomon's handling of the rollout of the 2007 science report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

It might be interesting to some readers of this site to know that Crichton's comparison of global climate change theory to eugenics in Appendix I of his novel was adapted without attribution from an essay by Richard Lindzen, «Science and Politics: Global Warming and Eugenics,» which appeared in R.W. Hahn, Ed., Risks, Costs, and Lives Saved, (American Enterprise Institute, global climate change theory to eugenics in Appendix I of his novel was adapted without attribution from an essay by Richard Lindzen, «Science and Politics: Global Warming and Eugenics,» which appeared in R.W. Hahn, Ed., Risks, Costs, and Lives Saved, (American Enterprise Institute, Global Warming and Eugenics,» which appeared in R.W. Hahn, Ed., Risks, Costs, and Lives Saved, (American Enterprise Institute, 1996).

Climate campaigners seem to think they have a winner with this takedown of elected officials who reject global warming science, in which fake news reports talk of the turmoil and tragedy created by Hurricane Marco Rubio, Hurricane James Inhofe, Hurricane John Boehner and more.

A plan: See: http://climateprogress.org/2010/11/28/winning-climate-messages-combine-dire-scientific-threat-with-solutions-for-a-just-world/ «New psychological research finds that dire messages about the threat of global warming will strengthen people's acceptance of climate science when combined with solutions, which is the approach taken by leading climate activists.

Re # 4 Naomi Oreskes wrote an article in Science which reported on the papers about global warming published between 1993 and 2003.

But the newly obtained documents show that Dr. Carlin's highly skeptical views on global warming, which have been known for more than a decade within the small unit where he works, have been repeatedly challenged by scientists inside and outside the E.P.A.; that he holds a doctorate in economics, not in atmospheric science or climatology; that he has never been assigned to work on climate change; and that his comments on the endangerment finding were a product of rushed and at times shoddy scholarship, as he acknowledged Thursday in an interview.

Sadly, in recent years we have become accustomed to a ritual in which the publication of each new result on anthropogenic climate change is greeted by a flurry of activity from industry - funded lobby groups, think tanks and PR professionals, who try to discredit the science and confuse the public about global warming.

Like I say, you see a richness of behaviour in the models including in some occasions behaviour that at first sight looks not dissimilar to that highlighted in the observations by the Thompson paper and this on top of the «external control» as we called it in our 2000 paper in Science of the external forcings in a particular model which drives much of the multi-decadal hemispheric response in these models and which, in terms of the overall global warming response, is dominated by greenhouse gases.

I think that policymakers would want to see the science of global warming stated as clearly and explicitly as possible, irrespective of the technical level at which it is presented.

And the new Yale / George Mason poll, which is the first I have seen to prove the views of Tea Partiers, shows that Tea Party members (12 % of the public) feel they are very well informed about climate science and more than half think global warming will never hurt anyone.

You seem to have steered clear of the questions in which science intersects with policy (global warming is happening but it's not calamitous; the costs estimated for cutting emissions exceed the overinflated costs of adaptation, etc...).

Indeed, throughout the Science Bulletin paper on Why models run hot, it is self - evident not only that I and my co-authors, including Dr Soon, accept that our returning some CO2 to the atmosphere from which it originally came will cause some global warming, but also that we are thoroughly familiar with the scientific reasons why — all other things being equal — more CO2 in the atmosphere will cause some warming.

It's certainly true that the global warming problem has meant more funding for climate science, but there's only so much in the budget, and much of this money has come at the expense of other fields which are no longer given priority status.

Failing to stop a so - called global warming crisis which has increasing credibility problems with its underlying science assessments, or breaking the 9th Commandment in order to be sure [skeptic] scientists» criticisms aren't taken seriously?

It was a political effort which established the IPCC, and gave it the task of evaluating the science on global warming.

But he later contacted Guardian Australia to say that he accepts the science of global warming which in his view does not present any consensus that human beings contribute to global warming.

If the Authors «want to examine... loci at which scientific knowledge is made,» Why not just say what we already know as «virtually certain»: the ipcc's method is almost exclusively «computer - simulated climate science» = gigo; «Expertly» guided by demonizing CO2 and disasterizing Global Warming and spurred onward always by the ethical maxim that «We «mainstream» Climate Scientists are all gonna die from Green Back Starvation Syndrome if we don't gin up some more demonizing and disasterizing «Climate Science» before it's too late!&science» = gigo; «Expertly» guided by demonizing CO2 and disasterizing Global Warming and spurred onward always by the ethical maxim that «We «mainstream» Climate Scientists are all gonna die from Green Back Starvation Syndrome if we don't gin up some more demonizing and disasterizing «Climate Science» before it's too late!&Science» before it's too late!»?

In 1991, it was nothing more than a suggestion to invite science - based rebuttal back into an issue Al Gore and his friends hijacked with assertions that catastrophic man - caused global warming was settled science; a suggestion which came out of a leaked non-profit coal association's public relations test market campaign which was so obscure that practically no one ever saw or heard about it.

After 25 years of close to a trillion dollars of treasure being expended, thousands of avoidable deaths from hypothermia related health problems amongst the elderly, the destruction of entire industries and large parts of some national economies, science, very expensive science at that has been sent down an innumerable number of dead end paths and rabbit holes in pursuit of the unpredictable non existent global warming and it's totally failed predictions of catastrophes always still to come but which never do.

This is consistent with the latest science, which says global emissions should be between 40 and 70 % below 2010 levels in 2050, reaching net - zero between 2080 and 2100, if warming is to be limited to two degrees above pre-industrial temperatures.

The crux of Bates» claim is that NOAA, the federal government's top agency in charge of climate science, published a poorly - researched but widely praised study with the political goal of disproving the controversial global warming hiatus theory, which suggests that global warming slowed down from 1998 until 2012 with little change in globally - averaged surface temperatures — a direct contrast to global warming advocates» claim that the earth's temperature has been constantly increasing.

Global warming is caused by the Sun, especially its radiation over the past century plus or minus a half century which is dominantly absorbed and stored in the ocean because the ocean is dark and because it has a high heat capacity (inertia in some Earth sciences).

John Cook's study shows there were 121 science papers that year which blamed humans for global warming.

The study — «Possible Artifacts of Data Biases in the Recent Global Surface Warming Hiatus» — was published by Science magazine in June 2015 and pushed back against assertions from other research groups that found a pause in rising global temperatures from 1998 to 2012, which goes against climate change advocates» insistence that the earth's temperature has been on a steady incline for deGlobal Surface Warming Hiatus» — was published by Science magazine in June 2015 and pushed back against assertions from other research groups that found a pause in rising global temperatures from 1998 to 2012, which goes against climate change advocates» insistence that the earth's temperature has been on a steady incline for deglobal temperatures from 1998 to 2012, which goes against climate change advocates» insistence that the earth's temperature has been on a steady incline for decades.

Interestingly, the paper «Climate Trends and Global food production since 1980» (Lobell, Schlenker, Costa - Roberts, in Sciencexpress, 5 May, Science 1204531) confirms my finding of the absence of climate change in the USA: «A notable exception to the [global] warming pattern is the United States, which produces c. 40 % of global maize and soybean and experienced a slight cooling over the period... the country with largest overall share of crop production (United States) showed no [adverse] effect due to the lack of significant climate trends&rGlobal food production since 1980» (Lobell, Schlenker, Costa - Roberts, in Sciencexpress, 5 May, Science 1204531) confirms my finding of the absence of climate change in the USA: «A notable exception to the [global] warming pattern is the United States, which produces c. 40 % of global maize and soybean and experienced a slight cooling over the period... the country with largest overall share of crop production (United States) showed no [adverse] effect due to the lack of significant climate trends&rglobal] warming pattern is the United States, which produces c. 40 % of global maize and soybean and experienced a slight cooling over the period... the country with largest overall share of crop production (United States) showed no [adverse] effect due to the lack of significant climate trends&rglobal maize and soybean and experienced a slight cooling over the period... the country with largest overall share of crop production (United States) showed no [adverse] effect due to the lack of significant climate trends».

The director of ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, Andy Pitman, said global warming meant warmer winters, which would create vegetation conditions suitable for fires.

The scientists also put paid to claims that global warming has «stopped» because global temperatures in the past 15 years have not continued the strong upward march of the preceding years, which is a key argument put forward by sceptics to cast doubt on climate science.

Heartland's position on climate change is controversial only in the mainstream media (which has decided to treat global warming the way liberal environmental groups tell them to, as a matter of settled science) and in the view of far - left organizations such as «Forecast the Facts.»

154 Australian scientists demand climate policy that matches the science «While the Paris Agreement remains unbinding and global warming has received minimal attention in the recent elections, governments worldwide are presiding over a large - scale demise of the planetary ecosystems, which threatens to leave large parts of Earth uninhabitable.

Nigel Lawson describes the GWPF as an «all - party and non-party think - tank and a registered educational charity which, while open - minded on the contested science of global warming, is deeply concerned about the costs and other implications of many of the policies currently being advocated.»

An overarching framework for right - wing and fossil fuel opposition to climate science and climate risk management can be found at Greenpeace's website ExxonSecrets, which documents «Exxon Foundation and corporate funding to a series of institutions who have worked to undermine solutions to global warming and climate change.»