Sentences with phrase «outcomes of a warmer climate»

The one has not been proven to cause the other, and the outcomes of a warmer climate could as easily be beneficial as otherwise.

Not exact matches

To date, concerns about climate change's impact on agriculture have focused on drought — another likely outcome of warming world.

It may be that many of the changes have limited predictability, which means that we should be prepared for a range of climate outcomes associated with global warming,» said Clement.

Beyond preparing for the inevitable, the report also calls for climate mitigation, including implementing the 2015 Paris Agreement in order to have «any hope of avoiding catastrophic effects from sea - level rise and other outcomes of global warming.»

-- 7) Forest models for Montana that account for changes in both climate and resulting vegetation distribution and patterns; 8) Models that account for interactions and feedbacks in climate - related impacts to forests (e.g., changes in mortality from both direct increases in warming and increased fire risk as a result of warming); 9) Systems thinking and modeling regarding climate effects on understory vegetation and interactions with forest trees; 10) Discussion of climate effects on urban forests and impacts to cityscapes and livability; 11) Monitoring and time - series data to inform adaptive management efforts (i.e., to determine outcome of a management action and, based on that outcome, chart future course of action); 12) Detailed decision support systems to provide guidance for managing for adaptation.

Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are presently increasing every year at an accelerating rate, and it is extremely unlikely that humanity will collectively do what is necessary to not only stop that growth in CO2 emissions, but reverse it, and then reduce emissions by 80 percent or more within 5 to 10 years, which is what mainstream climate scientists say is needed to avoid the worst outcomes of anthropogenic global warming.

However, in (a) blueprints smacks more of engineering solutions than scientific ones making me very uncomfortable with that choice and (b) since the challenge of global warming and climate change is the equivalent of fighting many battles in a virtual war with very unpredictable outcomes, chaos is the more likely outcome.

Many seasoned participants in nearly two decades of treaty negotiations aimed at blunting global warming had predicted this outcome, despite a pledge by negotiators at climate talks in Bali, Indonesia, in 2007 to seal a deal in Denmark this December.

Back in 1988, this was a core message of James Hansen of NASA, who compared the impact of global warming on year - to - year conditions to the progressive loading of a pair of climate «dice» toward hot outcomes.

But while plenty of other climate scientists hold firm to the idea that the full range of possible outcomes, including a disruptively dangerous warming of more than 4.5 degrees C. (8 degrees F.), remain in play, it's getting harder to see why the high - end projections are given much weight.

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.

As I've written before, while 20 years of intensifying inquiry has greatly reinforced confidence that humans are influencing climate in ways that could profoundly disrupt human and natural affairs, it has not substantially clarified climate outcomes that matter most: how fast and far temperatures and seas will rise in the next 100 years, how hurricanes will respond to warming, how regional conditions will change.

The unequivocal and indisputable climate research clearly demonstrates that climate change is constant; and when combined with historical accounts and anecdotal evidence, warmer climates tend to favor prosperity and peace outcomes while cooler periods provide more of the opposite.

Just to add the appropriate emphasis to what the past 164 years of empirical science tell us, the «C3» estimator replica above also reveals what would happen to «global warming» if the entire U.S. economy shuts down for one year, eliminating some 5.8 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion - again, it's a nothing - significant outcome for the climate.

The outcome of this «scientific» art has been the reduction of public belief in global warming and climate change «crisis.»

Clearly, however, far more than a super majority of climate scientists consider global warming to be potentially a very serious threat; and among those who disagree, few (1.16 %) would consider such an outcome to be unrealistic.

The proponents of global warming CO2 climate change science has mutated to a sickness as this hidden report verifies where not allowing factual science air insults human advancement and exposes the intents of the political correct and their miscreants desire to produce outcomes which lie behind reason.

The Talanoa dialogue, an important outcome from this COP, switches on the ambition ratchet mechanism of the Paris Agreement and sets into motion the climate pact that governments promised to abide by two years ago to keep warming below 1.5 °C.

This strategy is why climate contrarians are sometimes referred to as «delayers», because they argue that we should delay action until we can be more certain of the human - caused global warming outcome.

As Robert Pindyck demonstrates, the climate models projecting future warming and associated environmental impacts are crippled by what we don't know about a host of things, including — most importantly — the feedback loops that might produce catastrophic outcomes.

FWIW it is my prejudice that the AR4 claim «very likely» «most of the warming» etc. is sufficiently weak to be safe against arguments that do not rely on very high sensitivities e.g. a random walk, with the possible exceptions of some unappreciated dominant forcing or that old standby that «the climate is chaotic to a degree that permits all possible outcomes».

More striking, California's Global Warming Solutions Act (Assembly Bill 32, or AB 32) will likely lead to the creation of a very ambitious set of climate initiatives, including a statewide cap ‑ and ‑ trade system (unless it's stopped by ballot initiative — Proposition 23 — or a new Governor, depending on the outcome of the November 2010 elections).

Just because great climate flips can happen in response to global warming doesn't mean that they are the most probable outcome of our current situation, what one might «forecast» (that's one of the reasons why I've been careful not to «predict» a cooling in the next century).

The reasons for that are many: the timid language of scientific probabilities, which the climatologist James Hansen once called «scientific reticence» in a paper chastising scientists for editing their own observations so conscientiously that they failed to communicate how dire the threat really was; the fact that the country is dominated by a group of technocrats who believe any problem can be solved and an opposing culture that doesn't even see warming as a problem worth addressing; the way that climate denialism has made scientists even more cautious in offering speculative warnings; the simple speed of change and, also, its slowness, such that we are only seeing effects now of warming from decades past; our uncertainty about uncertainty, which the climate writer Naomi Oreskes in particular has suggested stops us from preparing as though anything worse than a median outcome were even possible; the way we assume climate change will hit hardest elsewhere, not everywhere; the smallness (two degrees) and largeness (1.8 trillion tons) and abstractness (400 parts per million) of the numbers; the discomfort of considering a problem that is very difficult, if not impossible, to solve; the altogether incomprehensible scale of that problem, which amounts to the prospect of our own annihilation; simple fear.

«Sea - level rise is a potentially disastrous outcome of climate change,» says Horton, «as rising temperatures melt land - based ice, and warm ocean waters.»

Even with a long - term record stretching across 12 centuries decades, the scientists were unable to find any validation of expert and climate model predictions that CO2 greenhouse gas warming produces an outcome of increased severe flooding.

The report says that the world is ill - prepared to manage the risks from a changing climate, and that if warming proceeds along the high end of the possible range of outcomes, climate change may overwhelm even the most well - prepared and wealthy nations.

In response to the demonstration that the climate models make specific predictions about the behaviour of the tropical troposphere that run counter to the conventional data sets, the modelers» defence was: but we all know the models are actually so uncertain and tunable that they could generate any outcome, therefore they can not conflict with the data, so there's no need to doubt the hypothesis of strong CO2 warming.

The study of climate - induced changes in key ecosystem processes (Scholze et al., 2005) considers the distribution of outcomes within three sets of model runs grouped according to the amount of global warming they simulate: < 2 °C, 2 - 3 °C and > 3 °C.