Sentences with phrase «if dangerous warming»

Yet some common themes emerge, suggesting certain actions will be essential if dangerous warming is to be avoided.

What does chriscolose's career path look like, if this dangerous warming story unravels any more than it already has?

Not exact matches

Church is meant to rattle a few pews because God's love is a radiant, passionate, all - consuming, dangerous shockwave to the soul that you may never recover from if it warms your heart and turns you into an uncontrollable explosion that people feel quaking under their feet, just like it did to the saints and revivalists of old.

If the aerosols had been keeping a lid on warming, cleaning up smog could have produced a dangerous surge in warming.

If this approach had been taken a decade ago, perhaps today's policymakers would be delivering measures that cut CO2 in line with a certain probability of avoiding dangerous warming.

If you were to soak the tea bad in warm water not hot enough to get a good bacterial kill initially, there may be enough viable bacteria in the tea leaves to grow during that 5 hour interval such that the next cup may be seriously dangerous (some may divide every 15 minutes, for example).

Especially if they are warm, so dangerous when warm.

Once the muffins have cooled enough for you to touch and handle with your hands, dip the warm muffins in melted butter (I did just the top of the muffins, but you could probably do the whole muffin if you wanted to get dangerous), then dip / roll the muffin in the cinnamon, sugar, brown sugar mix.

But while this technological discovery keeps our devices humming and our bodies warm, it is also very dangerous if it goes unmaintained.

Further, it if could be proven that all those French people died because of global warming, wouldn't most people agree that the dangerous level of warming has been reached?

If environmental groups and their backers want to see concrete progress on limiting the risk that humans will propel dangerous global warming, they may need more than just additional money and better organization, but also a hard look at core strategies and a philosophy that has long cast climate change as primarily a conventional pollution problem, not a technology problem.

(3) From the supporting perspective article: «All this would be very bad news if avoiding dangerous anthropogenic interference in the climate system required us to specify today a stabilization concentration of carbon dioxide (or equivalent) for which the risk of dangerous warming is acceptably low.

The ’10 year» horizon is the point by which serious efforts will need to have started to move the trajectory of concentrations away from business - as - usual towards the alternative scenario if the ultimate warming is to stay below «dangerous levels».

The issue is that we actually need China to do more than its fair share if we're to keep warming from becoming too dangerous (I never know how to phrase this... to avoid run - away climate change is really what I'm most scared about but I don't want to minimise the devastating impacts that will happen before that too).

Over the years, the more I learned, the more sceptical I became, I don't believe at this stage that the massive economic costs incurred by proposed anti-AGW policies can be justified, and that if it is proven to be a serious issue, then dealing with it is better deferred until economic growth and potential technological breakthroughs would make the cost more feasible, if and only if it had been demonstrated that (a) AGW were real; (b) the costs of inaction were enormous; and (c) the costs of action would bring commensurate benefits, e.g. would stop or long defer dangerous warming.

If we surpass this one - trillion - ton threshold, the planet will pass a tipping point and continue to warm, leaving future generations with a deteriorating and dangerous climate system.

In any case, even in a realistic best case scenario, we're not doing enough to decarbonize the economy if we want to avoid dangerous and potentially catastrophic global warming.

Pekka is technically correct if he means the word CAGW only exists in skeptical discourse, as opposed to the thing the word refers to, which is dangerous human caused global warming.

If so, why did the temperature not increase; and how can human emissions be to blame for dangerous levels of warming?»

But it is true that some of the fossil - fuel funded groups that formerly argued that there is no global warming have reacted to criticism by changing their argument to «the climate is always changing,» as if that somehow disproves the scientific consensus that human greenhouse - gas emissions are causing dangerous warming.

It's even got a great graph showing how curbing global emissions affects the odds of preventing dangerous levels of global warming (Figure 14 - 3 if you're still following along).

Either way, I don't think it actually disproves or proves dangerous anthropogenic global warming (after all, CO2 could still have a long term influence even if thunderclouds do act as a regulator of temperature), but a sympathetic criticism would make for more interesting reading.

If those efforts fail, then Zinke may want to check section 14.3, which outlines more risky options if the world nears dangerous levels of warminIf those efforts fail, then Zinke may want to check section 14.3, which outlines more risky options if the world nears dangerous levels of warminif the world nears dangerous levels of warming.

We may have just about 30 years left until the world's carbon budget is spent if we want a likely chance of limiting warming to 2 degrees C. Breaching this limit would put the world at increased risk of forest fires, coral bleaching, higher sea level rise, and other dangerous impacts.

The crucial questions are: will warming resume — we don't know; if so, will the impact be positive or negative — we don't know; if there might be dangerous warming, what policies should we adopt?

Now, all climate advocates should be clear: dangerous warming is coming, if not already here today.

President Donald Trump's decision to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement on Thursday could make it difficult, if not impossible, for the world to stay on track to reach an internationally agreed goal of limiting dangerous global warming, scientists said.

If warming is slow it is much less dangerous isn't it?

Now with the U.S., the world's second largest emitter of greenhouse gas emissions after China, walking away from the accord, other countries would presumably have to ramp up their ambitions still further if they want to avoid the prospect of dangerous warming.

The carbon bubble idea was launched in April 2013 to highlight the $ 674 billion of investments into oil, gas and coal that must stay in the ground if the world is to avoid dangerous levels of warming.

In the mid-1970s, Exxon invested millions of dollars into sophisticated climate research and determined that greenhouse - gas emissions would warm the planet to dangerous levels if left unchecked.

Further, the probabilistic approach reveals a picture startling to even most global - warming pessimists: If we're to avoid precipitating what that U.N. Framework Convention genteelly calls «dangerous anthropogenic interference,» we're going to have to aim at an atmospheric greenhouse - gas concentration target that, by current trends, we'll reach in less than two decades.

If you concede that climate skeptics have not proven in peer - reviewed journals that human - induced warming is not a very serious threat to human health and ecological systems, given that human - induced warming could create catastrophic warming the longer the human community waits to respond to reduce the threat of climate change and the more difficult it will be to prevent dangerous warming, do you agree that those nations most responsible for rising atmospheric ghg concentrations have a duty to demonstrate that their ghg emissions are safe?

If you concede that climate skeptics have not proven in peer - reviewed journals that human - induced warming is not a very serious threat to human health and ecological systems, given that human - induced warming could create catastrophic warming the longer the human community waits to respond to reduce the threat of climate change and the more difficult it will be to prevent dangerous warming, do you agree that those responsible for rising atmospheric ghg concentrations have a duty to demonstrate that their ghg emissions are safe?

Although there is considerable scientific evidence that limiting warming to 1.5 degrees C is necessary to prevent very dangerous warming, a fact implicit in the recent Paris Agreement in which nations agreed to work to keep warming as close as possible from exceeding 1.5 degrees C additional warming, if the international community seeks to limit warming to 2 degrees C it must assure that global emissions do not exceed the number of tons of CO2 emissions that will raise atmospheric concentrations to levels that will cause warming of 2 degrees C.

If 72 % of the world's surface and Earth's atmosphere are not exhibiting accelerating and dangerous warming, then any claim that the entire globe is exhibiting those characteristics is a scientific falsehood, i.e. a blatant lie.

Researcher believe the animals have been lured north by warmer El Niño waters and that this may be dangerous for the species if more follow.

The backup argument that if this not be the case would imply that the sensitivity is larger and hence the prognosis worse seems problematic in that it can be seen to imply that being warmer now than then is dangerous and being warmer then than now is also dangerous, i.e. that the extent of the MCO does not inform us as to the prognosis.

«Dangerous global warming will be impossible to avoid if the conventional coal - fired power plants now on the drawing boards are completed,» said Daniel Lashof, science director of NRDC's Climate Center.

World headed for irreversible climate change in five years, IEA warns If fossil fuel infrastructure is not rapidly changed, the world will «lose for ever» the chance to avoid dangerous climate change The world is likely to build so many fossil - fuelled power stations, energy - guzzling factories and inefficient buildings in the next five years that it will become impossible to hold global warming to safe levels, and the last chance of combating dangerous climate change will be «lost for ever», according to the most thorough analysis yet of world energy infrastructure.

If we put all of our problem solution resources efforts one area, two or three degrees Celsius warming, we choosing to ignore and not deal with a wide range of other real and dangerous problems.

Even if climate sensitivity is on the lower end, if we don't get our emissions under control, we will still see a dangerous amount of global warming (more details on this to come in a future blog post).

As we have seen above, the commitments made according to the Copenhagen Accord and Cancun agreements that have been ratified by the Cancun agreements leave at the very minimum a 5Gt gap between emissions levels that will be achieved if there is full compliance with the voluntary emissions reductions and what is necessary to prevent 2 °C rise, a warming amount that most scientists believe could cause very dangerous climate change.

And if the climate is producing accelerating, abrupt, unequivocal, irreversible, rapid, dangerous, indisputable, irrefutable and incontrovertible global warming (i.e. «planet burning») then the 6 - month change chart on the right would be reality.

If the world is going to avoid dangerous warming then CCS is probably going to play a pretty important role.

«If Trump makes good on his campaign promises and pulls out of the Paris Treaty, it is difficult to see a path forward to keeping warming below dangerous levels.

The connection is an appealing one to advocates of the anthropological global warming theory because, if you believe humans are to blame for dangerous alterations in the climate, eventually the conclusion of less humans = less warming is reached.

Even if extra greenhouse gases just make it a bit warmer at the top of a natural cycle and a bit less cold at the bottom of a natural cycle then the current kerfuffle is pointless, harmful and dangerous.

If all emissions cuts put forward to date are achieved, a big «if», the world would still warm around 3.5 degrees Celsius (6.3 degrees Fahrenheit), a level that most scientists consider dangerouIf all emissions cuts put forward to date are achieved, a big «if», the world would still warm around 3.5 degrees Celsius (6.3 degrees Fahrenheit), a level that most scientists consider dangerouif», the world would still warm around 3.5 degrees Celsius (6.3 degrees Fahrenheit), a level that most scientists consider dangerous.

UMs go down a dangerous strategic path if they lower their estimate of «trend» warming in the past in order to claim a high percentage of that trend for CO2.