Sentences with phrase «magnitude of climate change as»

But along with emissions - reduction mitigation to reduce the rate and magnitude of climate change as expeditiously as possible, a comprehensive risk - management climate policy will necessarily require a strategic and multifaceted effort at preparedness to limit vulnerabilities and increase resilience to impacts that can't be avoided.

Not exact matches

As the Climate Science Special Report states, the magnitude of future climate change depends significantly on «remaining uncertainty in the sensitivity of Earth's climate to [greenhouse gas] emissions,»» White House spokesperson Raj Shah said Friday in a staClimate Science Special Report states, the magnitude of future climate change depends significantly on «remaining uncertainty in the sensitivity of Earth's climate to [greenhouse gas] emissions,»» White House spokesperson Raj Shah said Friday in a staclimate change depends significantly on «remaining uncertainty in the sensitivity of Earth's climate to [greenhouse gas] emissions,»» White House spokesperson Raj Shah said Friday in a staclimate to [greenhouse gas] emissions,»» White House spokesperson Raj Shah said Friday in a statement.

Human activity and human - caused climate change have changed the magnitude of these fluxes, however, as well as added new categories of biogenic fluxes such as those resulting from sewage, cattle, and fertilizer use.

And since mitigation reduces the rate as well as the magnitude of warming, it also increases the time available for adaptation to a particular level of climate change, potentially by several decades.

The chance of major global crop failures of this magnitude will increase with climate change, as drought, flooding, and heat waves strike fields more often.

Climate change is expected to increase the frequency and magnitude of events such as heat waves and drought.

The history of these observations is quite long (volunteers started to collect this data in the 1950s as indicated in their Nature Scientific Data publication) and their uses are various: from supporting the planning and execution of various agronomical practices, to studying the magnitude and direction of climate change at continental scales.

As part of the World Weather Attribution (WWA) team CPDN scientists have looked at observational data and model simulations, including weather@home to identify whether and to what extend human - induced climate change influenced the likelihood and magnitude of this extreme event.

Changes in the frequency and magnitude of climate extremes, of both moisture and temperature, are affected by climate trends as well as changing variability.

The report provides transportation professionals with an overview of the scientific consensus on current and future climate changes of particular relevance to U.S. transportation, including the limitations of present scientific understanding as to their precise timing, magnitude, and geographic location; identifies potential impacts on U.S. transportation and adaptation options; and, offers recommendations for both research and actions that can be taken to prepare for climate change.

The problem with the Pielke / McIntyre predictions is not so much their magnitude as it is the implication that the 1950 - 200X trend is somehow a uniquely relevant measure of climate change.

However, as will be discussed below, it is still not possible to accurately predict the magnitude (if any), timing or impact of climate change as a result of the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.

From the point of view of climate modelling the all - gone moment isn't as important as the magnitude of the change in albedo — particularly in the spring, summer and autumn.

Given the potentially exponential growth in the magnitude and intensity of environmental challenges such as Climate Change, putting one's faith in continued solid economic growth and sufficient technological innovation seems foolhardy to say the least.

In many cases, it is now often possible to make and defend quantitative statements about the extent to which human - induced climate change (or another causal factor, such as a specific mode of natural variability) has influenced either the magnitude or the probability of occurrence of specific types of events or event classes.»

As for the «cash spigot», the pot of money and prestige available to research supporting extreme climate change scenarios is orders of magnitude larger than the pot available to research supporting moderate scenarios.

Most authors identify government practices as being far more influential drivers than climate variability, noting also that similar changes in climate did not stimulate conflicts of the same magnitude in neighboring regions, and that in the past people in Darfur were able to cope with climate variability in ways that avoided large scale violence.

Disputes within climate science concern the nature and magnitude of feedback processes involving clouds and water vapor, uncertainties about the rate at which the oceans take up heat and carbon dioxide, the effects of air pollution, and the nature and importance of climate change effects such as rising sea level, increasing acidity of the ocean, and the incidence of weather hazards such as floods, droughts, storms, and heat waves.

Scientists have devoted considerable effort to understanding what magnitude of emissions reductions are necessary to limit warming to this level, as the world faces increasingly dangerous climate change impacts with every degree of warming (see Box 1).

«But globally over the 21st century, the magnitude and severity of negative impacts are projected to increasingly outweigh positive impacts,» as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded in its comprehensive 2014 literature review on «Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability.»

Given the magnitude of potential harms from climate change, those who make skeptical arguments against the mainstream scientific view on climate change have a duty to submit skeptical arguments to peer - review, acknowledge what is not in dispute about climate change science and not only focus on what is unknown, refrain from making specious claims about mainstream science of climate change such as the entire scientific basis for climate change has been completely debunked, and assume the burden of proof to show that emissions of greenhouse gases are benign.

While this is certainly a true statement, it does not follow that we should increase the frequency and magnitude of water resource stress by increasing evaporation, drought frequency, water loss from plants, etc., as the USGCRP report notes will occur as human - induced climate change increases.

Opinion polls show that the public is becoming more and more sceptical as regards the magnitude of the threat of climate change.

On p601, they state that «Models continue to have significant limitations, such as in their representation of clouds, which lead to uncertainties in the magnitude and timing, as well as regional details, of predicted climate change.»

Importantly, the changes in cereal yield projected for the 2020s and 2080s are driven by GHG - induced climate change and likely do not fully capture interannual precipitation variability which can result in large yield reductions during dry periods, as the IPCC (Christensen et al., 2007) states: ``... there is less confidence in the ability of the AOGCMs (atmosphere - ocean general circulation models) to generate interannual variability in the SSTs (sea surface temperatures) of the type known to affect African rainfall, as evidenced by the fact that very few AOGCMs produce droughts comparable in magnitude to the Sahel droughts of the 1970s and 1980s.»

Whereas the detection of climate change impacts addresses the question only of whether or not a system has changed as a result of climate change, attribution addresses the magnitude of the contribution of climate change to such changes.

One of the problems with irradiance as a driver for climate change is that though the changes seem to be fairly well correlated with the temperature anomaly, many scientists think the magnitude is too small to totally account for temperature changes.

Given the growing urgency of the need to rapidly reduce global greenhouse gas emissions and the hard - to - imagine magnitude of global emissions reductions needed to stabilize atmospheric concentrations at reasonably safe levels, the failure of many engaged in climate change controversies to see the practical significance of understanding climate change as an ethical problem must be seen as a huge human tragedy.

In previous entries, Ethicsandclimate.org examined the failure of the US media to communicate about: (a) the nature of the strong scientific consensus about human - induced climate change, (b) the magnitude of greenhouse gas emissions reductions necessary to prevent catastrophic climate change, (c) the practical significance for policy that follows from understanding climate change as essentially an ethical problem, (e) the consistent barrier that the United States has been to finding a global solution to climate change in international climate negotiations, and (f) the failure of the US media to help educate US citizens about the well - financed, well - organized climate change disinformation campaign.

Given the magnitude of potential harms from climate change, those who make skeptical arguments against the mainstream scientific view on climate change have a duty to submit skeptical arguments to peer - review, acknowledge what is not in dispute about climate change science and not only focus on what is unknown, refrain from making specious claims about the mainstream science of climate change such as the entire scientific basis for climate change that has been completely debunked, and assume the burden of proof to show that emissions of greenhouse gases are benign.

Because it has been scientifically well established that there is a great risk of catastrophic harm from human - induced change (even though it is acknowledged that there are remaining uncertainties about timing and magnitude of climate change impacts), no high - emitting nation, sub-national government, organization, business, or individual of greenhouse gases may use some remaining scientific uncertainty about climate change impacts as an excuse for not reducing its emissions to its fair share of safe global greenhouse gas emission on the basis of scientific uncertainty.

He says low values of climate sensitivity will still affect global temperatures as CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere rise, but increases in temperature may be of similar magnitude to naturally driven temperature cycles, a scenario that has strong implications for how we manage causes and consequences of climate change.

And the time constants for paleo are so many orders of magnitude different from modern climate change as to be totally irrelevant to our current circumstances.

Changes in the frequency and magnitude of climate extremes, of both moisture and temperature, are affected by climate trends as well as changing variability.

As the planet enters a phase of human - induced climate change of unprecedented speed and magnitude, however, previously locally - adapted populations are rendered less suitable for new conditions, and «natural» biotic and abiotic disturbances are taken outside their historic distribution, frequency and intensity ranges.

I simply suggest that on a scale of hazard and commensurate risk climate change is something of a magnitude requiring more than business as usual when it comes to demands made by society for responsible communications.

Although it is important to reduce the remaining climate uncertainties, such as the magnitude of the impacts of short - lived pollutants, it does not change the fact that CO2 is very likely the driving force behind the current global warming, or that if we double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from pre-industrial levels, the planet will likely warm in the range of 2 to 4.5 °C.

There are too many unknowns and the phasing of the items that control the climate need to be known as well as the duration of time of the phasing and the degree / direction of magnitude change of the items that are phasing that control the climate undertake.

[T] hey can change their pattern of energy production and usage in order to limit emissions of greenhouse gases and hence the magnitude of climate changes; they can wait for changes to occur and accept the losses, damage and suffering that arise; they can adapt to actual and expected changes as much as possible; or they can seek as yet unproven «geoengineering» solutions to counteract some of the climate changes that would otherwise occur.

At best, changes of such magnitude would trigger dramatic re-organization of ecosystems across the globe that would play out over the next few centuries; at worst, extinction rates would elevate considerably for the many species adapted to pre-global warming conditions, via mechanisms described above (inability to disperse or evolve fast enough to keep pace with the extremely rapid rate of climate change, and disruption of ecological interactions within communities as species respond individualistically).

While it has long been known that cost - effective energy efficiency measures are beneficial to economic welfare and therefore worth pursuing on grounds other than climate change mitigation, the magnitude of rebound effects and their implications for the utility of energy efficiency as a climate change mitigation strategy remain contested.

He says, «Furthermore, as pointed out in the 1 August 2013 issue of Science, in the near term Earth's climate will change orders of magnitude faster than at any time during the last 65 million years.

So while the jury is still out for this drought, there are droughts in the recent past, such as the Texas drought in 2011, where it was found that conditions, as a result of climate change, made it 20 times more likely for a drought of that magnitude to occur today as opposed to, say, the 1960s.

Despite these impacts, the magnitude of additional glacier retreat has been underappreciated by scientists, policymakers and the public, says Prof Gerard Roe from the University of Washington, who led a study in 2016 that identified shrinking glaciers as «categorical evidence» of human - caused climate change.

In the face of a rapidly changing climate today, we can turn to the landscapes around us as well as their historical archives to give us the best possible hints of the magnitude and rapidity of past climate shifts, and their relevance for our future.

As part of the World Weather Attribution (WWA) team CPDN scientists have looked at observational data and model simulations, including weather@home to identify whether and to what extend human - induced climate change influenced the likelihood and magnitude of this extreme event.

If the first order human climate forcings (e.g., agriculture & deforestation changes in methane emissions, albedo, and aerosols) other than CO2 emissions are positive and the same order of magnitude as CO2, then the CO2 sensitivity must be lower.

The researchers emphasize that there are numerous uncertainties about the magnitude of future climate change, such as energy feedbacks from clouds and the carbon cycle.

The models heavily relied upon by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had not projected this multidecadal stasis in «global warming»; nor (until trained ex post facto) the fall in TS from 1940 - 1975; nor 50 years» cooling in Antarctica (Doran et al., 2002) and the Arctic (Soon, 2005); nor the absence of ocean warming since 2003 (Lyman et al., 2006; Gouretski & Koltermann, 2007); nor the onset, duration, or intensity of the Madden - Julian intraseasonal oscillation, the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation in the tropical stratosphere, El Nino / La Nina oscillations, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, or the Pacific Decadal Oscillation that has recently transited from its warming to its cooling phase (oceanic oscillations which, on their own, may account for all of the observed warmings and coolings over the past half - century: Tsoniset al., 2007); nor the magnitude nor duration of multi-century events such as the Mediaeval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age; nor the cessation since 2000 of the previously - observed growth in atmospheric methane concentration (IPCC, 2007); nor the active 2004 hurricane season; nor the inactive subsequent seasons; nor the UK flooding of 2007 (the Met Office had forecast a summer of prolonged droughts only six weeks previously); nor the solar Grand Maximum of the past 70 years, during which the Sun was more active, for longer, than at almost any similar period in the past 11,400 years (Hathaway, 2004; Solankiet al., 2005); nor the consequent surface «global warming» on Mars, Jupiter, Neptune's largest moon, and even distant Pluto; nor the eerily - continuing 2006 solar minimum; nor the consequent, precipitate decline of ~ 0.8 °C in TS from January 2007 to May 2008 that has canceled out almost all of the observed warming of the 20th century.