Sentences with phrase «like climate on earth»

You think it is OK for us to re-create a Cretaceous - like climate on Earth, just so we can all be a few percent richer?

Not exact matches

So what are scientists to make of emerging data showing rapid climate change on earth 55 million years ago that looks just like what's happening today?

I would like to share with you the work of our senior economist Marc Lee, who heads up our Climate Justice Project, as well as the work of one of our research associates, veteran earth scientist David Hughes (who spent 32 years working for the Geological Survey of Canada, where he focused on unconventional gas, coal and oil research).

Left - leaning blogs and sites like ThinkProgress and Huffington Post jumped on Rubio's comments, with the Zack Beauchamp from ThingProgress writing, «To suggest we can't know how old the Earth is, then, is to deny the validity of these scientific methods altogether — a maneuver familiar to Rubio, who also denies the reality of anthropogenic climate change.»

«The result is not a surprise, but if you look at the global climate models that have been used to analyze what the planet looked like 20,000 years ago — the same models used to predict global warming in the future — they are doing, on average, a very good job reproducing how cold it was in Antarctica,» said first author Kurt Cuffey, a glaciologist at the University of California, Berkeley, and professor of geography and of earth and planetary sciences.

New research shows the vital role of oceans in moderating climate on Earth - like planets.

Until now, computer simulations of habitable climates on Earth - like planets have focused on their atmospheres.

New research published today in the journal Astrobiology shows the vital role of oceans in moderating climate on Earth - like planets.

So if you think of going in [a] warming direction of 2 degrees C compared to a cooling direction of 5 degrees C, one can say that we might be changing the Earth, you know, like 40 percent of the kind of change that went on between the Ice Age; and now are going back in time and so a 2 - degree change, which is about 4 degrees F on a global average, is going to be very significant in terms of change in the distribution of vegetation, change in the kind of climate zones in certain areas, wind patterns can change, so where rainfall happens is going to shift.

Eberle and Kim said the early - middle Eocene greenhouse period from 53 to 38 million years ago is used as a deep - time analog by climate scientists for what could happen on Earth if CO2 and other greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere continue to rise, and what a «runaway» greenhouse effect potentially could look like.

Wet tropical forests, like this one on the Osa Peninsula in southwestern Costa Rica, are among the most productive ecosystems on earth, and new research points to the importance of both temperature and rainfall on future plant growth as the climate changes.

Venus is like a greenhouse effect on steroids; by studying what happened to the planet's climate in the past, scientists hope to better understand climate change on Earth.

«On some level, watching these milestones be passed is a lot like watching paint dry,» Jason Smerdon, a climate researcher at Columbia University's Lamont - Doherty Earth Observatory, told Climate Central in anclimate researcher at Columbia University's Lamont - Doherty Earth Observatory, told Climate Central in anClimate Central in an email.

It's something of an abstract concept, but with real world implications, and the universality of such physical models, based on things like radiative balance, atmospheric composition and density, distance from the local Sun, etc., is a very strong argument in favor of general acceptance of the results of climate models and observations on Earth.

Once again, I'd like to think that these groups» conclusions on the science, along with the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, can help bound, at least a little, the comments on Dot Earth on climate science and its implicClimate Change, can help bound, at least a little, the comments on Dot Earth on climate science and its implicclimate science and its implications.

It is not surprising that you find such conspiracy theories on Anthony Watts» sectarian blog WUWT, a place where climate science amateurs present earth - shattering insights to their echo chamber like: The CO2 increase is not due to burning fossil fuels, but to insects!

Although all indications like sunspot (group) number, sun cycle length, TSI, AA index, GCR, 10Be, 14C all have a good correlations with each other on long term, short term differences make it rather difficult to decide what is the best indication for the sun - earth climate connection.

Its not like solar flux is being ignored; far from it, as many of the realclimate authors have written about the effects of solar radiative changes on the earth's climate in the peer reviewed literature.

What about the feedbacks that are not normally well represented by ECS and normally fall into the Earth System Climate Sensitivity, stuff like the Arctic Ice cover, which now has trends over decades closer to what was seen on centuries in paleoclimate:

From Victor's blog: «While climate change has always been an important factor in the saga of life on Earth, over the last several years the phrase has become a slogan for a worldwide movement looking more and more like a classic doomsday cult.»

Many of us do our best to stay up to date on emerging topics like climate change, soil depletion and the exploitation of the earth's greatest aquifers.

And then there is his latest doomsday scenario of human CO2 emission causing global warming so hot that humanity on Earth is wiped out by a Venus - like climate of 250 degrees.

Well it depends on whether you are talking about Climate Sensitivity (Charney sensitivity... which is modelled) or Earth System Sensitivity (where things like ice sheet extent, vegetation cover etc are regarded as able to respond quickly to warming).

Sounds like you put some weight on what the sun is up to and I agree, have always felt climatologists in general are stuck on a self - importance mindset thinking the sun can be ignored and that the Earth controls it's own climate, I also think not so.

«We found that several vulnerable elements in Earth's climate system — like the Amazon and other big rain forests, like the great ice sheets that have so much sea level locked up in their ice — could be pushed toward abrupt or irreversible change if we go on toward 2100 with our business - as - usual increase in emissions of greenhouse gases,» he said.

Now Eli, to be sure, really doesn't know what is going on between Richard Muller and Judy Curry, but this he does know, Judy is listed as an author on all of the five Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature papers, and the papers have been submitted for review (given some of the comments at places like Tamino and Real Climate, they are going to be improved before published).

Today, when scientists run complex climate models on powerful computers to simulate immeasurably more complex natural systems like the earth's climate, we must not forget our commitment to truth or that «key to science.»

So while the consensus that CO2 is a «greenhouse» gas, meaning that like water vapor and methane it absorbs and radiates solar energy in known quanta, there is no consensus on the effect or «sensitivity» Earth's climate has to increases or decreases in it.

Science - minded Climate Etc readers will enjoy too this week's arxiv special Increased insolation threshold for runaway greenhouse processes on Earth like planets.

Is the Earth's climate so chaotic to render a prediction 10 years out on something like global temperature nonsense?

As developed countries have fled the Kyoto Protocol like rats from a sinking ship, climate financing continues to be central among the issues on the table at the UNFCCC COP18 negotiations taking place right now in Doha, Qatar (as Friends of the Earth's Karen Orenstein notes here).

The above statement is about like saying that we can be «somewhat confident» that the climate of the earth without God would be different than the climate of the earth with God.Your observation is only a statement of faith - based ideology, totally unscientific, and arbitrarily a priori on your part.

True, true, instead of the economic transformation for which Minister Al Gore opines — a unified Earth under a centralized European - style secular socialist government, as he blames the practice of capitalism by a wasteful and over-consuming free people as the cause of, climate change and extreme poverty and disease — the success of America should be a source of pride hope and an example to be emulated: Gore should have, like George Bush, supported with America with his whole heart on behalf of those everywhere who long for individual liberty.

i think that's inaccurate shx, the scientists did their work, and from what i could gather tried very hard not to overstate their case, the media did the scare - mongering and the media have then turned like the whores they are in the other direction, al gore's film upped the tempo and although it seemed like a good thing at the time, i think with hindsight it was a poisoned chalice, but lets be clear, doing research in multiple areas and having the results point to potentially catastrophic climate change and asking for changes to be made to avert this is not scare - mongering, its common sense, accepting that their is margin for error but erring on the side of caution since the stakes are life on earth as we know it is not scare - mongering, it is the application of the precautionary principle and common sense

Since 2009, the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change's goal has been to make sure the Earth doesn't get warmer than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.1 That sounds like a small number, but because it's a global average, it contains all sorts of fluctuations — for the whole planet to get warmer by that amount means that some places are getting much hotter.

Like Mars, climate changes on Earth are natural.

On blogs like Dr. Curry's I continually see learned, and heated, arguments over the meaning of fluctuations in the «annual temperature of the earth» in the hundredths of a degree range (sometimes thousandths), with data plotted over hundreds or thousands of years, while noticing that there doesn't seem to be a DEFINITION of the «Annual Temperature of the Earth» and that the climate science community, collectively, would be hard pressed to provide me with an «Annual Temperature of Bob's House» with a credible and defensible resolution and precision of + / -.01 degree, using an instrumentation system of their chearth» in the hundredths of a degree range (sometimes thousandths), with data plotted over hundreds or thousands of years, while noticing that there doesn't seem to be a DEFINITION of the «Annual Temperature of the Earth» and that the climate science community, collectively, would be hard pressed to provide me with an «Annual Temperature of Bob's House» with a credible and defensible resolution and precision of + / -.01 degree, using an instrumentation system of their chEarth» and that the climate science community, collectively, would be hard pressed to provide me with an «Annual Temperature of Bob's House» with a credible and defensible resolution and precision of + / -.01 degree, using an instrumentation system of their choice.

The organizations that have responded so far, like Friends of the Earth and the National Resource Defense Council, largely have previously - stated positions on climate engineering.

The fact that climate change deniers can not agree who to pin their consipracy theories on demonstrates how much they are like those who insisted the Earth is flat; then insisted it is only 6000 yrs old; then insisted that it is orbited by the Sun.

They also include models for things like: entry into and exit from Ice Ages, the effect of the Earth's orbit on climate, the earth's climate history on scales of thousands to millions of years, ocean - atmosphere couplings (e.g. heat transfer, CO2 sinks), decadal phenomena such as ENSO and theEarth's orbit on climate, the earth's climate history on scales of thousands to millions of years, ocean - atmosphere couplings (e.g. heat transfer, CO2 sinks), decadal phenomena such as ENSO and theearth's climate history on scales of thousands to millions of years, ocean - atmosphere couplings (e.g. heat transfer, CO2 sinks), decadal phenomena such as ENSO and the PDO.

While actual scientists are trying to piece together every little part of an otherwise almost un-piecable long term chaotic and variable system in response now to a massive increase in net lower atmospheric energy absorption and re radiation, Curry is busy — much like most of the comments on this site most of the time — trying to come up with or re-post every possible argument under the sun to all but argue against the basic concept that radically altering the atmosphere on a multi million year basis is going to affect the net energy balance of earth, which over time is going to translate into a very different climate (and ocean level) than the one we've comfortably come to rely on.

In other words, the claims should be heard, along with the relevant context, and not just the one sided claims in a vacuum, or «balanced» by non balancing he said / she said statements like; «climate scientists on the other hand say the earth is slowly warming and is likely to increasingly do so in the future.»

What I'd like to know is how the sun drives the oscillations, and what a sun whose spots are disappearing before our eyes is going to wreak on Climate Earth.

And like Pharrell, Legend's commitment to the cause also is far from new — he performed during The Climate Rally on the National Mall in Washington, DC all the way back in April 2010 in honor of the 40th anniversary of Earth Day.

It can be argued that there are no deleterious effects on earth and climate because earth really does not have feelings like humans, but it is having effects.

There is no reasonalbe explanation for why anyone would deny Earth's climate is the result of the holistic process we call nature and certainly no non-political explanation other than superstition or ignorance why and federal climatist would believe that a monophysical element like CO2 with properties as we observe on Earth could ever possible explain global warming — especially when we know that the Sun is the only independent variable that nominally explains both global warming and cooling.

Hansen began his career studying Venus, which was once a very Earth - like planet with plenty of life - supporting water before runaway climate change rapidly transformed it into an arid and uninhabitable sphere enveloped in an unbreathable gas; he switched to studying our planet by 30, wondering why he should be squinting across the solar system to explore rapid environmental change when he could see it all around him on the planet he was standing on.

«Its ten pages of text are filled with gems of junk science, which are summed up in this ridiculous pontification: «Long - term changes in climate will produce more extreme weather events and put greater stress on critical Earth systems like oceans, freshwater, and biodiversity.

Rules agreed a meeting of fund's board described by Friends of the Earth as «like a torture convention that does not forbid torture» The UN fund to help developing countries fight climate change can be spent on coal - fired power plants — the most polluting form of electricity generation — under rules agreed at a board meeting.

I am assuming Scafetta has not analyzed the forces from Jupiter and Saturn to see what effect they might have on Earth low frequency (climate) ocean up / downwelling cycles or anything like that.