Sentences with phrase «human influence on climate from»

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.

However, the main contributor to warming over the last 150 years is human influence on climate from increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Not exact matches

But the most recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — the evidence of 600 climate researchers in 32 countries reporting changes to Earth's atmosphere, ice and seas — in 2013 stated «human influence on the climate system is clear.Climate Change — the evidence of 600 climate researchers in 32 countries reporting changes to Earth's atmosphere, ice and seas — in 2013 stated «human influence on the climate system is clear.climate researchers in 32 countries reporting changes to Earth's atmosphere, ice and seas — in 2013 stated «human influence on the climate system is clear.climate system is clear.»

A report in 2014 from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration pointed to human - caused climate change as a significant influence on some extreme weather events in 2013 — notably heat waves in Europe, Asia and Australia.

In the GRL study, researchers used a statistical model based on historical climate data to separate how much of the extreme rainfall from Hurricane Harvey was due to natural influences and how much was due to human influences.

But the paper «Political influences on greenhouse gas emissions from U.S. states» adds what the MSU researchers say is an important layer to understanding human impact on climate change.

Human influences on the climate (largely the accumulation of CO2 from fossil fuel combustion) are a physically small (1 %) effect on a complex, chaotic, multicomponent and multiscale system.

In a study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, researchers compared sea level and storm surge heights from 850 to 1800, before significant human influences on the climate, to the period from 1970 to 2005.

Speechless takes its cue from current discourse on the Anthropocene, described by writer Robert Macfarlane as «the new epoch of geological time in which human activity is considered such a powerful influence on the environment, climate and ecology of the planet that it will leave a long - term signature in the strata record.»

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).

Walking through the frozen - food section, I was reminded just how far this country is from being engaged in the «energy quest» that'd be needed not only to wean ourselves from oil but also to limit the human influence on the planet's climate system.

At the Paris meeting, nearly 2,000 participants, from countries on all continents and at all levels of development, flowed through dozens of sessions examining an array of policies and actions at all scales that could limit our influence on the atmosphere and oceans and limit risks that changes in the climate will derail human progress.

Dr. Depledge described signs of a shift in the oil kingdom's stance, including its endorsement of science pointing to big impacts from a building human influence on climate and commitment of money to pursue technologies for capturing carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels and other new energy options.

In the end, such fights can distract from the clarity of the long - term picture of a world in flux for centuries to come under a building human influence on climate (and biology, oceans, and landscapes).

[ANDY REVKIN says: He was indeed expressing this view at the meeting, but got significant pushback from some participants, while others were clearly invited because they shared his skeptical views — mainly on the certainty of the conclusions, less on whether humans are exerting an influence on climate.

Another, of course, is that the science illuminating the extent of the human influence on climate is not «settled» for many specific, and important, points, even though the basic case for rising risks from rising concentrations of greenhouse gases is robust enough to merit a strong response, according to a host of experts (even if you take the intergovernmental panel's findings with a grain of salt).

To get a sense of how the views of Arctic experts have coalesced around a rising human influence on the region's climate, you can scan previous stories from 2001, 2005, and 2007 on ice trends and possible causes.

Hundreds of private e-mails and documents hacked from a computer server at a British university are causing a stir among global warming skeptics, who say they show that climate scientists conspired to overstate the case for a human influence on climate change.

From Cape Cod's coast to South Asia's Sunderbans, communities are grappling with an unnerving consequence of trying to build a «good» Anthropocene, the term increasingly applied to Earth's age of humans, in which we've become a powerful influence on everything from the climate system to evolutFrom Cape Cod's coast to South Asia's Sunderbans, communities are grappling with an unnerving consequence of trying to build a «good» Anthropocene, the term increasingly applied to Earth's age of humans, in which we've become a powerful influence on everything from the climate system to evolutfrom the climate system to evolution.

The IPCC process is a major effort to provide a comprehensive overview of the state of climate science, though as is evident even from the Summary — which, due to the necessity for brevity, tends to downplay uncertainties — there are still many difficult obstacles and uncertainties to overcome in determining the influence of human activities on the climate.»

The lines of evidence and analysis supporting the mainstream position on climate change are diverse and robust — embracing a huge body of direct measurements by a variety of methods in a wealth of locations on the Earth's surface and from space, solid understanding of the basic physics governing how energy flow in the atmosphere interacts with greenhouse gases, insights derived from the reconstruction of causes and consequences of millions of years of natural climatic variations, and the results of computer models that are increasingly capable of reproducing the main features of Earth's climate with and without human influences.

The take - home message, directly in sync with the core findings of the last two assessments from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, can be distilled to a fairly straightforward statement: Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide will result in long - lasting warming that will progressively produce more harmful impacts on conditions and systems that influence human wellbeing.

Everything laid out above tends to draw attention away from the broad and deep body of work pointing to a growing and long - lasting human influence on the climate system.

The latest reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change make clear some very inconvenient realities about the growing human influence on cClimate Change make clear some very inconvenient realities about the growing human influence on climateclimate.

Here's the second (and final) installment from Andrew A. Lacis of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies providing more detail on his view of the evidence showing a human warming influence on the climate.

There have been a lot of attempts to categorize the varied assemblage of people with strongly held positions on the scope of, and threat from, the building human influence on the climate system.

So far, all of the criteria air pollutants under the agency's purview — substances from lead to sulfur dioxide — have a direct impact on human health and welfare, while risks from the carbon dioxide's buildup remain indirect, through the rising influence on climate.

The guests in the series ranged from Joe Romm, «America's fiercest climate blogger,» to Richard Lindzen, the climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who has been variously lionized and pilloried for his arguments against science pointing to a dangerous human influence on climate.

And let me give you my take on Kuhn's ideas as they relate to AGW — AGW was the paradigm - shift away from the idea that climate was on too massive a scale to be influenced by human activity.

From most of the comments so far, it seems that it would be an unenviable assignment to defend the proposition that the null hypothesis that should be retained is one of zero human influence on climate.

So, given that the climate varies due to both natural and human influences (I don't think anybody disputes that), isn't it on Trenberth to prove the human influences outweight the natural, before we switch the null from natural to human influenced?

Our ability to quantify the human influence on global climate is currently limited because the expected signal is still emerging from the noise of natural variability, and because there are uncertainties in key factors.

On the question of hurricanes, the theoretical arguments that more energy and water vapor in the atmosphere should lead to stronger storms are really sound (after all, storm intensity increases going from pole toward equator), but determining precisely how human influences (so including GHGs [greenhouse gases] and aerosols, and land cover change) should be changing hurricanes in a system where there are natural external (solar and volcanoes) and internal (e.g., ENSO, NAO [El Nino - Southern Oscillation, North Atlantic Oscillation]-RRB- influences is quite problematic — our climate models are just not good enough yet to carry out the types of sensitivity tests that have been done using limited area hurricane models run for relatively short times.

«It was only when the IPCC was threatened with alienation from the climate treaty process that it suddenly concluded «a discernible human influence on global climate,» the GWPF press release reads.

The most recent report of the International Panel on Climate Change says it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of this warming which is driven by the build up of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion, cement production, and land use changes.

Final Text: The headline message to this section states that human influence on the climate system is clear as it is evident from the increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and understanding of the climate system.

Two to, say, 5 generations from now, it's quite possible to mitigate OUR human influence on climate...

In fact, they state that the data «clearly show» that «strong natural variability has been characteristic of the Arctic at all time scales considered,» and they reiterate that the data suggest «that the human influence on rate and size of climate change thus far does not stand out strongly from other causes of climate change.»»

According to the BBC, «The panel states that it is 95 percent certain that the «human influence on climate caused more than half the observed increase in global average surface temperatures from 1951 - 2010.»»

From all appearances, the effects of the human influence on climate is still teeming with inconsistencies and contradictions.

And when the energy - short 1970s turned into the energy surplus of the 1980s, RFF's angst shifted to issues surrounding a human influence on global climate, primarily from carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas.

Meanwhile, climate researchers and modelers from Nebraska, Penn State, Great Britain and other «learned institutions» continue to focus on alleged human influences on Earth's climate.

Based on temperature records from 1864 to 2002, the odds of such a heatwave occurring are about 1 in 10 million.4 An event like the 2003 heatwave becomes much more likely after factoring in the observed warming of 2 °F over Europe and increased weather variability.5 In addition, comparing computer models of climate with and without human contribution shows that human influence has roughly quadrupled the odds of a European summer as hot as or hotter than the summer of 2003.6

To quote again from Rial et al 2004 — it «is imperative that the Earth's climate system research community embraces this nonlinear paradigm if we are to move forward in the assessment of the human influence on climate.»

The human influence on climate, arising mostly from the changing composition of the atmosphere, affects energy flows.

«It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 − 2010.»

«There is evidence of an emerging pattern of climate response to forcing by greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosols... from the geographical, seasonal and vertical patterns of temperature change... These results point toward a human influence on global climate.»

«The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the internationally accepted authority on the subject, concludes that the climate system has warmed dramatically since the 1950s, and that scientists are 95 percent to 100 percent sure human influence has been the dominantClimate Change, the internationally accepted authority on the subject, concludes that the climate system has warmed dramatically since the 1950s, and that scientists are 95 percent to 100 percent sure human influence has been the dominantclimate system has warmed dramatically since the 1950s, and that scientists are 95 percent to 100 percent sure human influence has been the dominant cause.

Obviously, climate models whose hindcasts differ in sign from what is observed (Zhang et al., 2007), or which indicate that human influences are indistinguishable from natural changes (Sarojini et al., 2012) possess no skill in identifying a human - induced climate signal on observed precipitation across the U.S. and therefore should not be used to make future projections.

He recalled that in its last major statement on this topic, the IPCC noted that «our ability to quantify the human influence on global climate is currently limited because the expected signal is still emerging from the noise of natural variability and because there are uncertainties in key factors.»