Sentences with phrase «of human influence on global climate»

And they conclude: «When we take these into consideration, what we are left with from the apparent hiatus is not inconsistent with the understanding of human influence on global climate.

Not exact matches

These fluctuations superimpose the general global warming trend since the beginning of industrialization and thus complicate the accurate determination of human influence on the climate.

At this point, the Earth is probably on the threshold of an entirely new epoch in which the global climate and the distribution of life will be strongly influenced by a single species: humans.

In the 1995 second assessment report (SAR) the IPCC made the widely quoted statement that «The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate».

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.»

Unfortunately for policymakers and the public, while the basic science pointing to a rising human influence on climate is clear, many of the most important questions will remain surrounded by deep complexity and uncertainty for a long time to come: the pace at which seas will rise, the extent of warming from a certain buildup of greenhouse gases (climate sensitivity), the impact on hurricanes, the particular effects in particular places (what global warming means for Addis Ababa or Atlanta).

It is extremely likely that more than half of the global mean temperature increase since 1951 was caused by human influence on climate (high confidence).

* 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.

The famous conclusion of the IPCC, «The balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate», does not depend on any reconstruction for the past millennium.

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.

Weart is best known to Dot Earth regulars as the author of the essential guide to 100 years of research pointing to a human influence on climate, «The Discovery of Global Warming» (here's my 2003 review of that book for The Times).

The journal Science has published a letter signed by 255 members of the National Academy of Sciences, including 11 Nobel laureates, that pushes back sharply after months of assaults on evidence pointing to a growing and disruptive human influence on the climate and some of the researchers who've done important work on global warming.

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.

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.

Almost all the experts I've talked to in 20 years of exploring the entwined climate and energy challenges agree that satisfying global energy demand while limiting human influence on climate will require revolutionary advances in both policy and technology.

The small batch of rich and fast - growing countries that dominate the global economy — and the human influence on the global atmosphere — are convening again under an effort initiated by the United States and aimed at creating partnerships and programs on climate and energy.

Many of those promoting stasis in the face of a clear need for a global energy quest have used this saga as a kind of «blackwash» that will long linger like a cloud, tainting public appreciation of even the undisputed basics of science pointing to a rising human influence on climate.

For a long time there's been a strong perception among those of us tracking research on human - caused global warming that meteorologists are more apt to doubt that humans could dangerously disrupt climate than the much smaller community of climatologists studying the overall climate system and what influences its patterns.

Most, if not all, of these human influences on regional and global climate will continue to be of concern during the coming decades.»

Trenberth argues that since science / physics has already established the human influence on climate, oceans, etc. (and Curry would not say otherwise) it makes more sense for Curry to have to show that there is no influence on water vapor and precipitation (i.e., intensification of storm activity / heavy precipitation) than to show that there is, because of basic physics / physical systems / physical relationships that constitute the global climate cycle.

Contrary to Stewart's claim that the world was united by scientific evidence in the early 1990s, even by 1995, there was still only the «suggestion», on the «balance of evidence», that there had been a «discernible human influence on global climate» — and that's in the Summary for Policymakers document, which has consistently been far more alarmist than the more technical parts of the report.

Our ability to quantify the human influence on global climate is currently limited because the expected signal is still emerging from the noise of natural variability, and because there are uncertainties in key factors.

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.

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.

The second IPCC report, published in 1995, invoked the «sulfate - aerosol effect» and produced the memorable but essentially meaningless phrase that «the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.»

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.

Most, if not all, of these human influences on regional and global climate will continue to be of con - cern during the coming decades.

The models, in important ways that were once claimed to be proof of ``... a discernible human influence on global climate», are now shown to be FUBAR.

While natural sources of climate variability are significant, multiple lines of evidence indicate that human influences have had an increasingly dominant effect on global climate warming observed since the mid-twentieth century.

But, for the 2nd Assessment Report, the authors claimed there was a «discernable human influence on global climate», which is similar to a score of 6 («more likely than not»).

«Ben was famously responsible for the IPCC 1995 Report's landmark statement that there was a «discernible human influence on global climate», a message now strongly reinforced by a further 12 years of scientific research,» says Professor Barry Brook, Director of RIsCCS at the University of Adelaide.

But by the mid-1990s, thousands of lines of independent inquiry supported the conclusion summarized in the 1995 IPCC report: «The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.»

When combining all this very obvious evidence, one can fairly surmise that either global warming is not very «global» or that human CO2 emissions are not a very powerful influence on the Earth's climate or institutional, orthodoxy climate science has failed, badly - or maybe it's a lot of all three.

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

Interesting that they state: Peter Stott, Head of Climate Attribution at the Met Office, said: «Our research shows current global average temperatures are highly unlikely in a world without human influence on the cClimate Attribution at the Met Office, said: «Our research shows current global average temperatures are highly unlikely in a world without human influence on the climateclimate.

And when the energy - short 1970s turned into the energy surplus of the 1980s, RFF's angst shifted to issues surrounding a human influence on global climate, primarily from carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas.

«It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 − 2010.»

«There is evidence of an emerging pattern of climate response to forcing by greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosols... from the geographical, seasonal and vertical patterns of temperature change... These results point toward a human influence on global climate.»

The word «discernible» was substituted for «detectable» after long debate in Madrid, but the uncertain and possibly false claim of «detectable» human influence on global climate remained.

A friend told me there was a global conspiracy involving nearly all of the world's governments, most of the world's scientists and the media to convince the public that there is a major human influence on climate when they were well aware there was no evidence for this.

He recalled that in its last major statement on this topic, the IPCC noted that «our ability to quantify the human influence on global climate is currently limited because the expected signal is still emerging from the noise of natural variability and because there are uncertainties in key factors.»

Nonetheless, the IPCC concluded that «the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate.»

It is unlikely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 - 2010.

Because no tool is available to test the supposition of human - induced climate change and the range of natural variability is so great, there is no discernible human influence on global climate at this time».

Benjamin D. Santer, a climate scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory whose work for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was challenged by the Global Climate Coalition and allied groups, said the coalition was «engaging in a full - court press at the time, trying to cast doubt on the bottom - line conclusion of the I.P.C.C.» That panel concluded in 1995 that «the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.climate scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory whose work for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was challenged by the Global Climate Coalition and allied groups, said the coalition was «engaging in a full - court press at the time, trying to cast doubt on the bottom - line conclusion of the I.P.C.C.» That panel concluded in 1995 that «the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.Climate Change was challenged by the Global Climate Coalition and allied groups, said the coalition was «engaging in a full - court press at the time, trying to cast doubt on the bottom - line conclusion of the I.P.C.C.» That panel concluded in 1995 that «the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.&Global Climate Coalition and allied groups, said the coalition was «engaging in a full - court press at the time, trying to cast doubt on the bottom - line conclusion of the I.P.C.C.» That panel concluded in 1995 that «the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.Climate Coalition and allied groups, said the coalition was «engaging in a full - court press at the time, trying to cast doubt on the bottom - line conclusion of the I.P.C.C.» That panel concluded in 1995 that «the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.&global climate.climate.»

Although Pielke accepts that the evidence for human influence on the climate system is robust, he stresses that the goal of cutting global carbon emissions is incompatible with economic growth for the world's poorest 1.5 billion people.

lolwot: Does the Otto et al constraint of 0.9 to 2.0 °C TCS not support the IPCC statement «It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 - 2010.»?

It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 - 2010.

«The balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate» Intergovernmental Panel.