Sentences with phrase «n't about future climate change»

This isn't about future climate change.

Not exact matches

«As I've said before, if we don't do anything about climate change now, in 50 years» time we will be toasted, roasted and grilled,» Christine Lagarde said during a panel discussion Tuesday at the Future Investment Initiative in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

«We aren't just curious about whether climate change had an impact on an event — we're also asking what can this tell us about the likelihood and magnitude of events in future.»

It's about climate change and sea level rise, but it's also about the way that our economic system doesn't allow us to afford a decent future.

Sax, who studies amphibian responses to climate change, says, «There are a lot of species you wouldn't normally be concerned about that might be in trouble in the future» because a barrier stands between their current habitat and one they might need to occupy in coming decades.

The focus of the debate on CO2 is not wholly predicated on its attribution to past forcing (since concern about CO2 emissions was raised long before human - caused climate change had been clearly detected, let alone attributed), but on its potential for causing large future growth in forcings.

Anyone concerned about our planet's future shouldn't miss this Q&A with environmental activist Bill McKibben, who posits in his latest book, Eaarth, that climate change has already happened.

The discussions about the past millennium are not discussions about whether humans are changing climate; neither do they affect our projections for the future.

All in all the science of hurricanes does appear to be much more fun and interesting than the average climate change issue, as there is a debate, a «fight» between different hypothesis, predictions compared to near - future observations, and all that does not always get pre-eminence in the exchanges about models.

I've not seen a single one mention concerns about climate change as being relevant to the future of fracking, oil sands, etc — it's not just Fidelity.

The fact that certain analytical conclusions about observed climate change, attribution to human causes, in particular the energy system and deforestation, projected greater climate change in the future, observed impacts of climate change on natural and human systems, and projected very disruptive consequences in the future given our current trajectory, is not due to «group think» but rather to a generally shared analysis based on evidence.

Not to mention raising questions about the confidence that we should place in the IPCC's projections of future climate change.

Government climate models that had predicted climatic changes haven't at all fit the facts of how the climate has changed, but the government still wants to use what they say about future climate to make today's policy.

A new commentary by Edward Maibach, Teresa Myers and Anthony Leiserowitz in Earth's Future notes that most people don't know there is a scientific consensus about human - caused climate change, which undermines public engagement on the subject.

Rapidly declining costs of wind and solar energy technologies, increasing concerns about the environmental and climate change impacts of fossil fuels, and sustained investment in renewable energy projects all point to a not - so - distant future in which renewable energy plays a pivotal role in the electric power system of the 21st century.

During the record - breaking spring temperatures in Australia in 2013, Abbott said ``... the thing is that at some point in the future, every record will be broken, but that doesn't prove anything about climate change.

Join us on a journey to learn why the story of climate change isn't just about melting glaciers or disappearing polar bears, and not just about a more dangerous world for far - off future generations.

It's true that as the ocean warms, it can't absorb as much CO2, but that is a reason to be more worried about climate change, since it means global warming may well speed up in the future.

-LSB-...] What matters about climate change is not whether we can predict the future with some desired level of certainty and accuracy; it is whether we have sufficient foresight, supported by wisdom, to allow our perspective about the future, and our responsibility for it, to be altered.»

The advocates have expressed their displeasure with the economic results (IIRC you had it posted here about advocates wanting to change the future value to something unrealistic to make the window 100 to years compared to the 30 to 50 years in current analysis), and are proposing political solutions in the flavor of stopping CO2, not controlling the effects of climate change.

«Humans are too stupid to prevent climate change...», ``... a virus called Homo sapiens...», «Homo rapiens is only one of very many species, and not obiously worth preserving», are not statements about something that is going to happen in the future; they are statements about the moral value of humanity.

Those of us involved in that research are motivated entirely by concern over the suffering of humans and non-humans alike due to climate change, and we think there is sufficient cause for alarm about the future to do the research into the idea of putting something like sulfate (not a significant part of aircraft exhaust) into the stratosphere (higher than the airplanes you see making contrails).

For example, first work on preventing catastrophic climate change, and use the research from that to address the more general problem of getting shaved monkeys to worry about threats they can't see that will kill them in the impossibly far distant future (viz, later than next fiscal quarter).

As the interpretation of infinity in economic climate models is essentially a debate about how to deal with the threat of extinction, Mr Weitzman's argument depends heavily on a judgement about the value of life... A lack of reliable data exacerbates the profound methodological and philosophical difficulties faced by climate change economists... The United Nations conference in Paris this December offers a chance to take appropriate steps to protect future generations from this risk... http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2015/07/climate-change (MOST COMMENTING ARE NOT AT ALL IMPRESSED)

Summary: The expert consensus was wrong about global warming; the AGW hypothesis is without empirical evidence merit; climate science is not settled, nor will it be in near future; and climate change will continue regardless of CO2 emissions.

While the body of scientific knowledge about climate change and its impacts has grown tremendously, future conditions can not be predicted with absolute certainty.

«In terms of how we should think about climate change prediction in the future, reducing emissions and so on, it really wouldn't make much of a difference.»

Students aren't exactly doing it because they care about the environment, they are doing it because they have been taught in classes that this is one of the biggest threats, climate change, to their future, and they know what the causes are.

Clearly, though, the participation of climate change deniers in debates about Israel's energy future surely does not help shift the conversation.

In spite of his own errors, May is deeply suspicious of any attempt to subject claims about the future of the world's climate to scientific scrutiny, and he steps further outside the realm of material fact to speculate that those guilty of not respecting the facts belong to an «active and well - funded «denial lobby»» that is «misinforming the public about the science of climate change».

You can't know the inputs you need until you know the end result... so if it doesn't expand our knowledge or help us to understand the «how,» and it also doesn't help to predict future climate change, then what is the value (except to convince simple people that this explains everything, and so they don't have to think about it anymore)?

Question 4, not surprisingly, entails yet more assumptions about how humans will react to future changes in the climate at both global and regional levels.

Until we do, we can not make good predictions about future climate change.»

«Climate change and weather extremes are not about a distant future,» she wrote in a comment for the Guardian last week.

Until we do, we can not make good predictions about future climate change... Over the last several hundred thousand years, climate change has come mainly in discrete jumps that appear to be related to changes in the mode of thermohaline circulation.»

It is intellectually dishonest to devote several pages to cherry - picking studies that disagree with the IPCC consensus on net health effects because you don't like its scientific conclusion, while then devoting several pages to hiding behind [a misstatement of] the U.N. consensus on sea level rise because you know a lot reasonable people think the U.N. wildly underestimated the upper end of the range and you want to attack Al Gore for worrying about 20 - foot sea level rise.On this blog, I have tried to be clear what I believe with my earlier three - part series: Since sea level, arctic ice, and most other climate change indicators have been changing faster than most IPCC models projected and since the IPCC neglects key amplifying carbon cycle feedbacks, the IPCC reports almost certainly underestimate future climate impacts.

«Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia... Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.»

You have painted them all with a convenient brush for your theory, but that doesn't work with any knowledge of the many individuals in this 97 % who only want to talk about the science, and the explanations of past and current climate and how it can change in the future.

Moreover, most of the uncertainty in the ECS value results from climate model speculation about climate changes that might occur far into the future, not in the next 300 years!

The real theme of George's column is that climate scientists do not understand enough to make predictions about future climate change, and therefore their warnings are primarily merely ploys («unsubstantiated by fact», to quote George) to increase their own research funding.

Note: This analysis of the empirical data from January 1979 through 2018 is about the past, and it should not be interpreted as a future prediction of climate change / response.

Burkeman's claim is the one that we are familiar with: individuals are not competent to make decisions about their own future when faced with a problem such as climate change:

climate sensitivities, it shouldn't ultimately matter whether dangerous climate change occurs in 2200, 2300 or 2400 because of our actions now; surely we should care about what we leave for future generations?

The other egregious error is to argue that because climate has changed continually in the past, one shouldn't worry about it in the future.

They are protesting the palm oil plantations not the grounds of climate change and carbon emissions like many of us around the globe who are concerned about them, but on the very immediate grounds that the river which the Penan depend on are being polluted and with the dwindling amount of forest area, the future of their food supplies is in jeopardy.

It seems clear to me that the sentence is about responses to a shift from one climate regime, the recent past and present day, to another, with less precipitation, in the future (it is the IPCC climate change impacts report after all, and they do say `... not necessarily producing gradual changes between the current and the future situation»).