Sentences with phrase «much warming humans»

But science doesn't know how exactly much warming a human - enhanced GH effect will result in, or what our best policy options are for dealing with the anticipated impacts, though many excellent suggestions are being made.

Not exact matches

I am very much less disposed to believe today that the tightening of the human mass will of itself suffice to warm the human heart.

The White House approved a report that found the earth is experiencing the warmest period in the history of civilization and humans are to blame, despite the fact that it directly contradicts much of the Trump administration's position on climate change.

, who chairs the Senate Appropriations subcommittee responsible for funding the Defense Department and who does not believe that warming is human - induced, has long complained that too much of DOE's budget is frittered away on programs to boost energy efficiency or alternative fuels — which he says have little to do with the military's mission.

Scientists can measure how much energy greenhouse gases now add (roughly three watts per square meter), but what eludes precise definition is how much other factors — the response of clouds to warming, the cooling role of aerosols, the heat and gas absorbed by oceans, human transformation of the landscape, even the natural variability of solar strength — diminish or strengthen that effect.

This is happening because humans have been producing carbon dioxide (for example, by running cars on gasoline) faster than plants can absorb it, which makes the Earth warmer — and much faster than has happened naturally in the past.

The BBC team used clever analogies and appealing graphics to discuss three key numbers that help clarify important questions about climate change: 0.85 degrees Celsius — how much the Earth has warmed since the 1880s; 95 % — how sure scientists are that human activity is the major cause of Earth's recent warming; and one trillion tons — the best estimate of the amount of carbon that can be burned before risking dangerous climate change.

The rate at which carbon emissions warmed Earth's climate almost 56 million years ago resembles modern, human - caused global warming much more than previously believed, but involved two pulses of carbon to the atmosphere, University of Utah researchers and their colleagues found.

Although the earth has experienced exceptional warming over the past century, to estimate how much more will occur we need to know how temperature will respond to the ongoing human - caused rise in atmospheric greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide.

«Warming greater than 2 degrees Celsius above 19th - century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity and — if sustained over centuries — melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea levels of several meters,» the AGU declares in its first statement in four years on «Human Impacts on Climate.»

«Human influence is so dominant now,» Baker asserts, «that whatever is going to go on in the tropics has much less to do with sea surface temperatures and the earth's orbital parameters and much more to do with deforestation, increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide and global warming.»

If you listen to global warming deniers, or even much of the public, it seems like there is some stack of scientific studies somewhere that refute anthropogenic — human - caused — climate change.

Human - caused global warming may prevent or stall the next ice age, although no one knows how much of a factor this will be.

Curbing these emissions would help reduce warming, but scientists have found it difficult to determine exactly how much methane comes from human sources.

It is very much the mainstream view in the climate research community that you can not explain the warming of the past few decades without anthropogenic and human influences on climate.

Then after much damage from a human (and animal & plant) perspective is done, the warming will level out (stabilize) and eventually come back down again over eons.

And hey, since you have SO much love to give (and maybe more than one adult human can handle), getting a pet can be a great outlet for some of your warm - fuzzy TLC.

The issue of human - induced global warming was of concern even back then — although the public didn't pay much attention.

For humans, that means better beach days and much needed vacations, but for your animals, the warmer weather can be dangerous.

I have a roommate with a smaller dog that hasn't been socialised well with humans but I think she warms up to dogs much faster.

They don't tune in to see good things happen like the locals who will give you a place to stay and a warm meal because those are human moments and human moments are much harder to capture.

Therefore, IMHO, it would be closer to the truth to call WUWT a «skeptic» site that calls into question exactly how much the mean temperature has increased since the advent of the thermometer record in the late 1880's, how much of that is due to human activities and how much to natural cycles not under our control, what dangers rising temperatures may pose to human life and civilization, and what technologically and politically doable actions may be taken to reduce human - caused warming, and our dependence on foreign sources of fossil energy.

[1] CO2 absorbs IR, is the main GHG, human emissions are increasing its concentration in the atmosphere, raising temperatures globally; the second GHG, water vapor, exists in equilibrium with water / ice, would precipitate out if not for the CO2, so acts as a feedback; since the oceans cover so much of the planet, water is a large positive feedback; melting snow and ice as the atmosphere warms decreases albedo, another positive feedback, biased toward the poles, which gives larger polar warming than the global average; decreasing the temperature gradient from the equator to the poles is reducing the driving forces for the jetstream; the jetstream's meanders are increasing in amplitude and slowing, just like the lower Missippi River where its driving gradient decreases; the larger slower meanders increase the amplitude and duration of blocking highs, increasing drought and extreme temperatures — and 30,000 + Europeans and 5,000 plus Russians die, and the US corn crop, Russian wheat crop, and Aussie wildland fire protection fails — or extreme rainfall floods the US, France, Pakistan, Thailand (driving up prices for disk drives — hows that for unexpected adverse impacts from AGW?)

The news on climate change seemed bad enough in 2007, when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) announced in their fourth assessment report that «warming of the climate system is unequivocal,» that humans were «very likely» to blame, and that if we keep pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, climate will «very likely» change much more than it did in the 20th century.

The bottom line is that multiple studies indicate with very strong confidence that human activity is the dominant component in the warming of the last 50 to 60 years, and that our best estimates are that pretty much all of the rise is anthropogenic.

So we can't even say we have warming today, much less that it is caused by humans.

Why don't you give as much attention to the over 19000 American Scientists who have signed a petition which very much doubts the effect of human activity on global warming.

Human activities are to blame for much of the warming to date.

I was definitely more ambitious and I go into more detail than Gavin, Andrew and Oliver on how attribution works, partly because that's what I do, but also because just telling the judge «the IPCC says the warming is pretty much all human - induced and 80 % of that is CO2» would have been a bit circular, having been involved myself in those IPCC assessments since the 1990s.

The evidence that global warming is occurring, and furthermore is due in large part to human influences (though perhaps other factors also play a role), is much stronger than the evidence I have personally seen that Inhofe exists.

President Obama spent too much political energy backing the traditional environmental stance that human - driven global warming was a conventional pollution problem that could be cleaned up like sewage or smog through regulation.

Yes, like global warming, we emited too much greenhouse gas into atmospere then nature happened many bad phonominon: glaceris, sea ice melting, bees died and so on to punish our human.

Much of what they said meshed with the overall theme of the meeting, which organizers said was aimed at proving that the recent consensus on dangerous human - caused global warming was shaped more by politics and passion than data.

One theory as to why avian flu hasn't spread as much from chickens to humans in West Africa is that Nigeria and neighbors are warmer and there's more space, so people don't have to keep their chickens in their houses — meaning they breathe less chicken feces and dander, etc..

This new analysis was not directly aimed at determining how much warming was human - driven, but I asked Muller and Rohde whether the findings bolstered or challenged their personal views on greenhouse - driven change.

In the study scientists at Scripps and their colleagues «have produced the first clear evidence of human - produced warming in the world's oceans, a finding they say removes much of the uncertainty associated with debates about global warming».

On Monday, I asked him, in essence, if the shape of the 20th - century temperature curve were to shift much as a result of some of the issues that have come up in the disclosed e-mail messages and files, would that erode confidence in the keystone climate question (the high confidence expressed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007 that most warming since 1950 is driven by human activities)?

The AR5 chart (measuring human contribution to warming from 1950 - 2010) shows a much smaller aerosol offset, ie.

For those out there seeing any talk of a human warming influence as a hoax, it's also useful to note that this intellectual tussle over climate sensitivity is over how much human - produced greenhouse gases will warm the world, not if they can do so.

How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects?

Global warming from the ongoing buildup of human - generated greenhouse gases is almost certainly contributing to the ice retreats, a host of Arctic experts now agree, although they hold a range of views on how much of the recent big ice retreats is due to human activities.

So, instead of the counterproductive rhetoric and posturing about postulated changes such as «global warming» now or «nuclear winter» of the 1980s, would it not be much more in line with time - tested human traditions to trust our ability to turn whatever situation may occur to our advantage?

-- How much can humans warm the planet?

«If current policy continues to fail — along the lines of the «agree and ignore» scenario — then 50 % to 80 % of all species on earth could be driven to extinction by the magnitude and rapidity of warming, and much of the planet's surface left uninhabitable to humans.

Much of the public's misunderstanding of human - induced global warming centers on storm surges and sea levels, and yet this has hardly been the central focus of climate science research over the past 20 years.

In future decades for example as humans clean up their pollution act how much warmer will it be?

We aren't warming slowly by paleoclimate standards, and human life was not around in a much warmer world.

In fact, there is no scientific proof of the projections of global warming, much less that it is occurring because of human action and not because of natural phenomena.

The piece, «The Nerd Loop: Why I'm Losing Interest in Communicating Climate Change,» is a long disquisition on why there's too much thumb sucking and circular analysis and not enough experimentation among institutions concerned about public indifference to risks posed by human - driven global warming.

I've written an essay for Wednesday's Op - Ed page offering a short look at extreme weather in a warming world and the two prongs of the climate challenge — the need to limit human vulnerability to the worst the climate system can throw at us and to curb emissions that are steadily raising the odds of unwelcome outcomes, particularly extreme heat and either too much, or too little, water.