Sentences with phrase «of human influence on climate change»

The Identification of a Human Influence on Climate Change» purports to deal with the evidence for AGW which we are discussing.

One characterisation of the IPCC is that it is politically motivated to exaggerate the dangers of global warming and the level of human influence on climate change.

Over the past few years, several US states and local school boards have introduced measures that would mean teachers must include the views of those who are sceptical of a human influence on climate change in science lessons.

Not exact matches

The potential consequences of climate change are great and the policies of the next few decades will determine human influences on the climate for centuries.»

He said scientists need about a century's worth of good data to start making sophisticated predictions about the influence of human - caused climate change on hurricane frequency.

But the most recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — the evidence of 600 climate researchers in 32 countries reporting changes to Earth's atmosphere, ice and seas — in 2013 stated «human influence on the climate system is clear.Climate Change — the evidence of 600 climate researchers in 32 countries reporting changes to Earth's atmosphere, ice and seas — in 2013 stated «human influence on the climate system is clear.climate researchers in 32 countries reporting changes to Earth's atmosphere, ice and seas — in 2013 stated «human influence on the climate system is clear.climate system is clear.»

Since about 2.5 billion years ago, the mantle has been cooling — a phenomenon that doesn't influence the climate on the surface of the Earth and has nothing to do with the issue of short - term human - made climate change.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) holds that climate change is unequivocal and that humans influence climate, while the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is skeptical of the human impact on climate Climate Change (IPCC) holds that climate change is unequivocal and that humans influence climate, while the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is skeptical of the human impact on climate cChange (IPCC) holds that climate change is unequivocal and that humans influence climate, while the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is skeptical of the human impact on climate climate change is unequivocal and that humans influence climate, while the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is skeptical of the human impact on climate cchange is unequivocal and that humans influence climate, while the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is skeptical of the human impact on climate climate, while the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is skeptical of the human impact on climate Climate Change (NIPCC) is skeptical of the human impact on climate cChange (NIPCC) is skeptical of the human impact on climate climate changechange.

«This quantitative attribution of human and natural climate influences on the IPWP expansion increases our confidence in the understanding of the causes of past changes as well as for projections of future changes under further greenhouse warming,» commented Seung - Ki Min, a professor with POSTECH's School of Environmental Science and Engineering.

There is increasing concern that extreme events may be changing in frequency and intensity as a result of human influences on climate.

It coordinates some of the world's most exciting research projects, tackling major issues such as climate change, food security, environmental influences on human health, the genetic make - up of life on earth, and much more.

This is despite the fact that in 1995 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said «the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.Climate Change (IPCC) said «the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.climate.»

His research focuses on how human and natural influences on climate contribute to observed climate change and risks of extreme weather and in quantifying their implications for long - range climate forecasts.

While Pollard's research focuses on understanding the microbiome through bioinformatics and modeling, other projects study human disorders such as diabetes and asthma, the impact of the ocean and soil on climate change, and the influence of plants, animals, and water on food production.

«The coupling of these two models is predicated on the assertion that climate change drives changes in extreme events, extreme events interact with human perception of risk to influence emissions behaviors and emissions behaviors then feed back into climate change, leading to a fully interacting model.»

Five impressively researched sections frame our Anthropocene impacts (with considerable focus on climate change); discuss the innovations that might ameliorate those impacts; enumerate man's interaction with (read: manipulation of) and influence upon nature; outline the intersection of our technological advances and nature; and explore our mind - boggling tinkering with the human body and psyche.

but it's a scary and valid point about climate change and it's influence on mosquito borne diseases - there are also quite a lot of human diseases carried by these suckers.

Human progress (and the resulting climate change, destruction of ecosystems, loss of biodiversity etc.) seems to be operating on its own momentum and our ability to exert influence on the outcome of the situation is debatable at best and only realistic in the long - term.

Over the weekend, I posted and alerted senior members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change when an errant description of the panel's 2007 conclusion on the human climate influence found its way into an important draft document listing «elements of an outcome» for long - term action on climate — essentially a draft of what may emerge here when negotiations end on Climate Change when an errant description of the panel's 2007 conclusion on the human climate influence found its way into an important draft document listing «elements of an outcome» for long - term action on climate — essentially a draft of what may emerge here when negotiations end on climate influence found its way into an important draft document listing «elements of an outcome» for long - term action on climate — essentially a draft of what may emerge here when negotiations end on climate — essentially a draft of what may emerge here when negotiations end on Friday.

This would be an unfortunate position, since it is quite evident that climate did indeed change before humans came on the scene, let alone before humans had any means of influencing climate.

In the case of climate change, a clear consensus exists among mainstream researchers that human influences on climate are already detectable, and that potentially far more substantial changes are likely to take place in the future if we continue to burn fossil fuels at current rates.

At the Paris meeting, nearly 2,000 participants, from countries on all continents and at all levels of development, flowed through dozens of sessions examining an array of policies and actions at all scales that could limit our influence on the atmosphere and oceans and limit risks that changes in the climate will derail human progress.

It doesn't have any influence on the attribution of current climate changes to human forcings, it doesn't impact the radiative properties of CO2, so really, why do you care so much that you are willing to just make up stuff?

Limiting Human Influences on Future Climate We can't stop climate changing, but we can reduce our many influences on it through our use of energy, land and Influences on Future Climate We can't stop climate changing, but we can reduce our many influences on it through our use of energy, land and cheClimate We can't stop climate changing, but we can reduce our many influences on it through our use of energy, land and checlimate changing, but we can reduce our many influences on it through our use of energy, land and influences on it through our use of energy, land and chemicals.

* The role of the US in global efforts to address pollutants that are broadly dispersed across national borders, such as greenhouse gasses, persistent organic pollutants, ozone, etc...; * How they view a president's ability to influence national science policy in a way that will persist beyond their term (s), as would be necessary for example to address global climate change or enhancement of science education nationwide; * Their perspective on the relative roles that scientific knowledge, ethics, economics, and faith should play in resolving debates over embryonic stem cell research, evolution education, human population growth, etc... * What specific steps they would take to prevent the introduction of political or economic bias in the dissemination and use of scientific knowledge; * (and many more...)

Global Warming vs Climate Change,» an interesting new study of Americans» perceptions of the two dominant shorthand phrases used to describe the building human influence on the climate Climate Change,» an interesting new study of Americans» perceptions of the two dominant shorthand phrases used to describe the building human influence on the climate climate system.

I've been criticized by some environmentalists in recent years for writing that the long - term picture (more CO2 = warmer world = less ice = higher seas and lots of climatic and ecological changes) is the only aspect of human - caused global warming that is solidly established, and that efforts to link dramatic weather - related events to the human influence on climate could backfire should nature wiggle the other way for awhile.

This result would be strongly dependent on the exact dynamic response of the Greenland ice sheet to surface meltwater, which is modeled poorly in todays global models.Yes human influence on the climate is real and we might even now be able to document changes in the behavior of weather phenomena related to disasters (e.g., Emanuel 2005), but we certainly haven't yet seen it in the impact record (i.e., economic losses) of extreme events.

Yes human influence on the climate is real and we might even now be able to document changes in the behavior of weather phenomena related to disasters (e.g., Emanuel 2005), but we certainly haven't yet seen it in the impact record (i.e., economic losses) of extreme events.

Hundreds of private e-mails and documents hacked from a computer server at a British university are causing a stir among global warming skeptics, who say they show that climate scientists conspired to overstate the case for a human influence on climate change.

How one sees the answer boils down to an important difference in perspective on how to best deal with climate change: Do we (a) try to influence the course of future human development using carbon pricing as the main policy tool?

The lines of evidence and analysis supporting the mainstream position on climate change are diverse and robust — embracing a huge body of direct measurements by a variety of methods in a wealth of locations on the Earth's surface and from space, solid understanding of the basic physics governing how energy flow in the atmosphere interacts with greenhouse gases, insights derived from the reconstruction of causes and consequences of millions of years of natural climatic variations, and the results of computer models that are increasingly capable of reproducing the main features of Earth's climate with and without human influences.

The take - home message, directly in sync with the core findings of the last two assessments from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, can be distilled to a fairly straightforward statement: Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide will result in long - lasting warming that will progressively produce more harmful impacts on conditions and systems that influence human wellbeing.

In both the film and at the meeting, they displayed widely varied views on the causes of climate change but with one common thread: that any human influence, if it exists, is inconsequential.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (big pdf file) and other climate - research groups have largely rejected the hypothesis that variations in the sun's behavior could have played a big role in warming since 1950 (the period in which the panel and the vast majority of climate specialists see abundant evidence that a human - caused buildup of greenhouse gases is the main inflClimate Change (big pdf file) and other climate - research groups have largely rejected the hypothesis that variations in the sun's behavior could have played a big role in warming since 1950 (the period in which the panel and the vast majority of climate specialists see abundant evidence that a human - caused buildup of greenhouse gases is the main inflclimate - research groups have largely rejected the hypothesis that variations in the sun's behavior could have played a big role in warming since 1950 (the period in which the panel and the vast majority of climate specialists see abundant evidence that a human - caused buildup of greenhouse gases is the main inflclimate specialists see abundant evidence that a human - caused buildup of greenhouse gases is the main influence).

In 2002, the National Academy of Sciences published «Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises,» a valuable report examining whether and how the building human influence on the climate system might lead to disruptiveClimate Change: Inevitable Surprises,» a valuable report examining whether and how the building human influence on the climate system might lead to disruptiveclimate system might lead to disruptive jolts.

On the question of hurricanes, the theoretical arguments that more energy and water vapor in the atmosphere should lead to stronger storms are really sound (after all, storm intensity increases going from pole toward equator), but determining precisely how human influences (so including GHGs [greenhouse gases] and aerosols, and land cover change) should be changing hurricanes in a system where there are natural external (solar and volcanoes) and internal (e.g., ENSO, NAO [El Nino - Southern Oscillation, North Atlantic Oscillation]-RRB- influences is quite problematic — our climate models are just not good enough yet to carry out the types of sensitivity tests that have been done using limited area hurricane models run for relatively short times.

We're not offering a «counter-claim» about the science, because our position is that even the concrete, incontrovertible, unassailable fact of human influence on global warming and climate change does not, by itself, make a case for action.

The most recent report of the International Panel on Climate Change says it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of this warming which is driven by the build up of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion, cement production, and land use changes.

Our current research focuses on how changes in emissions of these compounds or their precursors influence climate, how changes in climate influence both emissions and atmospheric lifetimes of these compounds, and how changes in their abundance in the atmosphere influences society by affecting human health and ecosystem productivity.

According to DeSmog research, Mont Pelerin members have ties to a wide range of conservative think tanks, many which have consistently denied the human influence on climate change.

More specifically, the article implicitly attributes many weather events to human - induced climate change, while the influence of human activity on these events is not always supported by science, or is at the frontier of scientific knowledge and still debated.

«But more than 15 sections in Chapter 8 of the report — the key chapter setting out the scientific evidence for and against a human influence over the climate — were changed or deleted after the scientist charged with examining this question had accepted the supposedly final text...» — Dr. Frederick Seitz commenting on the IPCC Second Assessment Report, The Wall Street Journal, June 12, 1996

By your admission, your interest in the technology came before much of your «education on Global Warming;» and I think this reinforces the point many have brought out in this thread: Cars like the Volt are very much worthwhile regardless of whether or not humans are influencing climate change.

It especially explores links between climate change and hydrology, including impacts of climate change on: ecosystems and biodiversity, agriculture and food security, urbanization, land use and forestry, water supply and sanitation, health, infrastructure, and energy security which, in addition to climate, are strongly influenced by human interventions and actions.

Several of the temperature changes are suggestive of human influences on climate.

This does not mean that climate stabilization policies do not make sense or that policy makers should ignore influences of human - caused climate change on tropical cyclone behavior.

In fact, they state that the data «clearly show» that «strong natural variability has been characteristic of the Arctic at all time scales considered,» and they reiterate that the data suggest «that the human influence on rate and size of climate change thus far does not stand out strongly from other causes of climate change.»»

The potential consequences of climate change are great and the actions taken over the next few decades will determine human influences on the climate for centuries.

2 «The balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate» Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (United Nations), Second Assessment Reporclimate» Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (United Nations), Second Assessment ReporClimate Change (United Nations), Second Assessment Report, 1996