I did look at the link and conclude its nothing more than stating
the obvious weather related events that contributed to the lack of fringe ice formation.
Not exact matches
People here and abroad have gotten engaged where climate trends become
obvious like in the Arctic, and when
weather events occur that either they believe are to some degree
related to the ghg [greenhouse gas] buildup directly, or serve as images of the futures.
«Joseph Stromberg reports at the Smithsonian that if there's one group has an
obvious and immediate financial stake in climate change, it's the insurance industry and in recent years, insurance industry researchers who attempt to determine the annual odds of catastrophic
weather -
related disasters say they're seeing something new.
If there's one group has an
obvious and immediate financial stake in climate change, it's the insurance industry and in recent years, insurance industry researchers who attempt to determine the annual odds of catastrophic
weather -
related disasters say they're seeing something new.
The Australian research by Crompton and McAneney makes the same conclusion: «Once the
weather -
related insured losses are normalised, they exhibit no
obvious trend over time that might be attributed to other factors, including human - induced climate change».