So, in effect, to pin down the role
of human influence on climate in the winter that has just ended, we need to roll the weather dice again thousands of times.
As The Right Climate Stuff team points out, we can not possibly model or distinguish
human influences on climate change, without first understanding and modeling natural factors.
What's refreshing is that the
building human influence on the climate system is not being portrayed definitively as an unfolding catastrophe, with present - day events cast as the reason for action.
Never mentioned in activist and political propaganda is the growing conviction among scientists that
human influence on climate through the use of fossil fuels is negligible.
For example, in a 1999 paper based on a speech to Exxon's European affiliates, Flannery derided the second IPCC assessment that concluded in 1995 that the scientific evidence suggested «a
discernible human influence on climate.»
Almost all the experts I've talked to in 20 years of exploring the entwined climate and energy challenges agree that satisfying global energy demand while
limiting human influence on climate will require revolutionary advances in both policy and technology.
This is a 1995 analysis by Shell International B.V. scientist Peter Langcake of whether climate change was in fact underway and if, as some scientists were suggesting, a «signal» had been detected
showing human influence on climate from temperature, weather, polar ice melt and other data.
It is utterly amazing to me that some people
deny human influences on climate while others profess that political events influence plate tectonics, i.e. earthquakes.
A friend told me there was a global conspiracy involving nearly all of the world's governments, most of the world's scientists and the media to convince the public that there is a
major human influence on climate when they were well aware there was no evidence for this.
The following figure shows changes in climate «forcings» or factors that have contributed to climate change since 1750,
before human influences on climate were very significant.
Dr. Schlesinger is an atmospheric scientist and engineer at the University of Illinois at Urbana - Champaign who for three decades has been
studying human influence on climate and what to do about it.
The National Academies, fulfilling a congressional request, have issued a trio of invaluable reports affirming the scientific case for a growing and largely
harmful human influence on climate; proposing a path and strategies for curbing American emissions of heat - trapping gases; and urging the country to work to cut risks attending life with no new «normal» climate patterns or coastlines.
In the end, such fights can distract from the clarity of the short - term picture of a world in flux for decades to come under building
catastrophic human influence on climate and its inhabitants (our children, our grandchildren and countless generations to come).»
The journal Science has published a letter signed by 255 members of the National Academy of Sciences, including 11 Nobel laureates, that pushes back sharply after months of assaults on evidence pointing to a growing and
disruptive human influence on the climate and some of the researchers who've done important work on global warming.
This result would be strongly dependent on the exact dynamic response of the Greenland ice sheet to surface meltwater, which is modeled poorly in todays global
models.Yes human influence on the climate is real and we might even now be able to document changes in the behavior of weather phenomena related to disasters (e.g., Emanuel 2005), but we certainly haven't yet seen it in the impact record (i.e., economic losses) of extreme events.
Yes human influence on the climate is real and we might even now be able to document changes in the behavior of weather phenomena related to disasters (e.g., Emanuel 2005), but we certainly haven't yet seen it in the impact record (i.e., economic losses) of extreme events.
Phrases with «human influence on climate»