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.
Not exact matches
In the
last several years, the scientific case that the rising
human influence on climate could become disruptive has become particularly robust.
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.
And there are plenty of important questions to resolve about the
climate of the Holocene — this comfy warm interval
humans have enjoyed since the end of the
last ice age — before the
human influence on the system built in recent decades.
When you look behind dueling posts and columns, it's clear that the building and long -
lasting influence of
humans on the
climate system is progressively tipping the odds toward outcomes that can be bad for agriculture in many struggling places.
However, the main contributor to warming over the
last 150 years is
human influence on climate from increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Sen. Jim Inhofe, the Oklahoma Republican who believes that
human influence on climate change must be a myth because the Bible says so, said in an interview with Family Research Council President Tony Perkins
last night
on «Washington Watch» that
climate change denialists like himself have won the debate.
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.»
Abstract: Over the
last two decades, detection and attribution (D&A) of
climate changes played a central role in assessing the
human influence on climate.
As Bernie Lewin reminds us in one chapter of a fascinating new book of essays called
Climate Change: The Facts (hereafter The Facts), as late as 1995 when the second assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) came out with its last - minute additional claim of a «discernible human influence» on climate, Nature magazine warned scientists against overheating the
Climate Change: The Facts (hereafter The Facts), as late as 1995 when the second assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) came out with its last - minute additional claim of a «discernible human influence» on climate, Nature magazine warned scientists against overheating the
Climate Change (IPCC) came out with its
last - minute additional claim of a «discernible
human influence»
on climate, Nature magazine warned scientists against overheating the
climate, Nature magazine warned scientists against overheating the debate.
As we pointed out in our coverage of the 2012 milestone, the
influence of
human - caused
climate change
on the U.S. temperature history (including
last year's record warmth), while undoubtedly present, is difficult to ascertain.
These scientists have found that, in the absence of any significant CO2 concentration changes or
human influence during the Holocene (i.e., the
last ~ 10,000 years), the deep oceans naturally warmed by more than 2 °C in a span of just 200 years, which is several times the rate in which they are alleged to have warmed in the
last ~ 60 years of the supposedly dominant anthropogenic
influence on climate.