Sentences with phrase «if climate change means»

During the discussion about returning home, her 10 year - old daughter remarked, «There is no point going home if climate change means this will happen all over again!».

If climate change means a few more tornados, I say «so?»

Not exact matches

This means it is willing to admit that some of its fossil fuel assets — possibly including the spanking $ 13 billion Kearl tar sands project in Northern Alberta — could be wiped off its books if governments start taking action on climate change.»

Snow has wreaked havoc over the past few days but what if it's just the start and the global warming, sorry, climate change means we're all facing months, years or decades in freezing conditions?

But «let's try not to make it so» is also a good idea, if those who do want a consensus to address climate change could challenge that trend: David Cameron has done so in making it a high profile issue and taking a clear line - but he has tended to tell us that this proves his party has changed, which means he underestimates how far he seems to be from convincing a rather large chunk of it.

If you mean scientifically, we are also past the point were we can seriously debate human involvement in climate change.

If you can then show that humans don't cause climate change, then only # 2 (and possibly # 4, which has the same conclusion) is left, and it means that we have no obligation to try and do anything about it.

Kadribasic: That's basically [what] I tried to do, to see if there has been any change, if there has been any change in these factors, which could mean that there is a change in climate, which could then finally mean that there has been a change in tornado numbers.

If you don't do anything about those, then you are in trouble in all the others: more people, means more greenhouse gases, which means more rapid climate change.»

Thus, the warmer springs predicted by climate change would mean an earlier firefly peak, but only if rainfall remains the same.

That does not mean that scientists can say with certainty if an individual weather event is or is not due to climate change, notes Karl Braganza, manager of the BOM Climate Monitoring Sclimate change, notes Karl Braganza, manager of the BOM Climate Monitoring SClimate Monitoring Section.

The World Energy Outlook suggests that unambitious pledges made at last year's United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change conference in Copenhagen will mean that much tougher action is needed after 2020 if the world is to meet the goal of limiting atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) to 450 parts per million (p.p.m.).

Climate change «threatens our planet, our only hope,» said Thomas Stocker, co-chair of Working Group I. And that means, according to IPCC Chair Rajendra Pachauri, that «there is a need for us to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases if we really want to stabilize climate.Climate change «threatens our planet, our only hope,» said Thomas Stocker, co-chair of Working Group I. And that means, according to IPCC Chair Rajendra Pachauri, that «there is a need for us to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases if we really want to stabilize climate.climate.»

«If climate change leads to increased winds and upwelling as some predict, then that means more unused phytoplankton production, more sedimentation and greater anoxia»: perfect conditions for the bearded goby.

Now, if by impacts, he means the impacts to ecosystems, etc., it seems unlikely that climate scientists jockeying for funding would be trying to change the topic of interest from climate science to these other fields (which I guess gets back to your point that funding self - interest would dictate continuing to emphasize uncertainty).

In other words, if climate sensitivity is toward the low end, 2 K is more dangerous than we currently give it credit for, and arguments for low risk because of low sensitivity are less valid because that means that more ecological changes occur for a given temperature change than currently thought.

Based on regional studies, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimated that 20 — 30 % of the world's species are likely to be at increasingly high risk of extinction from climate change impacts within this century if global mean temperatures exceed 2 — 3 °C above pre-industrial levels [6], while Thomas et al. [5] predicted that 15 — 37 % of species could be «committed to extinction» due to climate change bClimate Change (IPCC) estimated that 20 — 30 % of the world's species are likely to be at increasingly high risk of extinction from climate change impacts within this century if global mean temperatures exceed 2 — 3 °C above pre-industrial levels [6], while Thomas et al. [5] predicted that 15 — 37 % of species could be «committed to extinction» due to climate change byChange (IPCC) estimated that 20 — 30 % of the world's species are likely to be at increasingly high risk of extinction from climate change impacts within this century if global mean temperatures exceed 2 — 3 °C above pre-industrial levels [6], while Thomas et al. [5] predicted that 15 — 37 % of species could be «committed to extinction» due to climate change bclimate change impacts within this century if global mean temperatures exceed 2 — 3 °C above pre-industrial levels [6], while Thomas et al. [5] predicted that 15 — 37 % of species could be «committed to extinction» due to climate change bychange impacts within this century if global mean temperatures exceed 2 — 3 °C above pre-industrial levels [6], while Thomas et al. [5] predicted that 15 — 37 % of species could be «committed to extinction» due to climate change bclimate change bychange by 2050.

Climate system inertia also means that, if large - scale climate change is allowed to occur, it will be exceedingly long - lived, lasting for many cenClimate system inertia also means that, if large - scale climate change is allowed to occur, it will be exceedingly long - lived, lasting for many cenclimate change is allowed to occur, it will be exceedingly long - lived, lasting for many centuries.

Climate analysis requires absolute accuracy as a means of ensuring long term data quality if technology changes are to be made.

... Polar amplification explains in part why Greenland Ice Sheet and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet appear to be highly sensitive to relatively small increases in CO2 concentration and global mean temperature... Polar amplification occurs if the magnitude of zonally averaged surface temperature change at high latitudes exceeds the globally averaged temperature change, in response to climate forcings and on time scales greater than the annual cycle.

In short, if the main problem were the mean temperature of the earth, this might work, but if the main problem is accelerating climate change in various places, it really doesn't.

What's really meant in a comment like «if one's goal is to limit climate change, one would always be better off spending the money on immediate reduction of CO2 emissions» is «if one's goal is limiting LONG - TERM climate change».

• If global civilization can not continue to adjust to these climate changes in an evolutionary manner, then revolutionary means (economic depression, famine, mass migration, unilateral seizure of resources, unilateral efforts at geo - engineering) leave us and our descendants vulnerable to perpetual warfare, with ever - increasing chances of unrestrained nuclear exchanges.

I suspect that the twin threats of climate change and peak oil, amplified by the population overshoot we are in, will mean that we have just one shot at getting our energy systems right and there is little if any margin of error in making the right choices.

This is the problem with what are often called «curve - fitting» standardisation methods — they remove differences in mean growth rate between tree cores even if the difference arises from climate changes that we are trying to reconstruct.

In the end, it appears that climate change is outrunning a ponderous, if well - meaning, international process.

In other words, if climate sensitivity is toward the low end, 2 K is more dangerous than we currently give it credit for, and arguments for low risk because of low sensitivity are less valid because that means that more ecological changes occur for a given temperature change than currently thought.

And climate change is like a symptom of the story of our time, meaning our energy choices right now come with a lot of emissions of greenhouse gases and if we don't have a lot of new [choices] we're going to have a lot of warming.

If a moral framing resonates with values people already hold dear — protecting future generations, for example — it may shift people's perceptions of the meaning and importance of the threat posed by climate change.»

The leading experts in climate change, and I mean those with 20 + years studying, unanimously agree that we need WWII style mobilization to fight climate change, meaning actually * reducing * our CO2 * level * from 385 ppm to 350 ppm over the next two three decades if we want to avoid the worst effects of GW (yes, pun intended).

(Gavin said: ``... if there are aspects of climate change that are chaotic...») What does that actually mean?

If President Obama meant what he said in his recent speech about urgent action needed to stop climate change, then he must block Keystone XL and its massive climate - disrupting pollution.

The issue with the Mauritsen and Stevens piece is that it tries to go well beyond a «what if» modeling experiment, and attempts to make contact with a lot of other issues related to historical climate change (the hiatus, changes in the hydrologic cycle, observed tropical lapse rate «hotspot» stuff, changes in the atmsopheric circulation, etc) by means of what the «iris» should look like in other climate signals.

As you can see in the National Climatic Data Center records for March, a cool (or hot) spring in one place and year has little meaning if your concerns are with long - term climate change, so let's not get into that in the comments here, please.

«Even if an area remains wet doesn't mean that it will be protected from the other aspects of climate change: rising and far more erratic air temperatures, higher rates of evaporation (evapotranspiration), and the rising concentration of CO2,» he said in an e-mail message.

And, on the heels of a recent report about the global droughts to be expected due to climate change — one can only wonder if such scenes will become more common elsewhere.Throughout the affected state of Amazonia, rivers provide the only means of access to the outside world for families residing in the regions around the capital of Manaus.

That means exposure to [deep, implicit] climate hazards will greatly increase in many places even if climate patterns don't change at all.

If the nomination comes from a developing country, it could mean that the UN is throwing its weight behind countries most at risk from climate change's impacts.

This means that an already difficult challenge for resident populations and those who care about them (for whatever reason, including moral, humanitarian or national security) will be likely be made more challenging by human climate change if the greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced significantly.

If we don't deploy carbon removal solutions swiftly, the «sticky» nature of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will mean that we will be stuck with climate change for a very long time.

Accordingly, let's look at the relative changes in SCC between low and high climate sensitivity to see what it would mean if we really live in a low - sensitivity world.

Because if we don't deploy these carbon removal solutions swiftly, the «sticky» nature of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will mean that we will be stuck with climate change for a very long time.

Note - this list is by no means comprehensive so feel free to post comments with links to other quotes from Abbott on climate change (you get extra kudos if you transcribe the actual quote from interviews, saving us some legwork).

If this was a scientific imperative and if means of addressing climate change had anything whatsoever to do with true ecological sustainability we would be carefully implementing strategies that are known to work and environmental concerns / ecological balance would be foremost in our decision making procesIf this was a scientific imperative and if means of addressing climate change had anything whatsoever to do with true ecological sustainability we would be carefully implementing strategies that are known to work and environmental concerns / ecological balance would be foremost in our decision making procesif means of addressing climate change had anything whatsoever to do with true ecological sustainability we would be carefully implementing strategies that are known to work and environmental concerns / ecological balance would be foremost in our decision making process.

My point was that, if we accept this basic story (it's too simple, even as an account of how cultural cognition works; but that's in the nature of «models» & should give us pause only when the simplification detracts from rather than enhances our ability to predict and manage the dynamics of the phenomenon in question), then there's no reason to view the valences of the cultural meanings attached to crediting climate change risk as fixed or immutable.

Even if you convince me that climate change is real, we have the time and means to mitigate it's damage.

If it turned out it was erroneous and past climate change was greater than currently thought, this would mean climate is more sensitive than we currently think.

There is a 67 % probability that the mean rise in the San Francisco Bay could fall in a range between one and 2.4 feet if action is taken to slow climate change, and 1.6 - 3.4 feet if none is taken, the report says.

[R] educing the complexity of climate change (as if a single outcome were known) into the soundbite of «climate change means more extreme weather» is a massive oversimplification — if not misstatement — of the true state of the science.

• If the international community embraces geoengineering as a means for addressing climate change, who will fund, direct and provide oversight for research, development and implementation?