Sentences with phrase «predicted under climate change»

In a collaborative project with scientists from the King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST) in Saudi Arabia, the researchers examined how the fish's genes responded after several generations living at higher temperatures predicted under climate change.

«Our work shows this will be a key variable that we will have to predict under climate change.»

Not exact matches

«Putting numbers on the threshold points at which reefs either recover or degrade helps predict reef futures under climate change,» Dr Graham says.

Co-author Matthew Spencer, who conducted the study while a sabbatical visitor at NIMBioS, said that the findings are not only important for predicting reef futures under climate change but could also be applied to other ecosystems.

Writing in Current Climate Change Reports, they conclude that, the most urgent course of action is to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, but concurrently there is also a need to consider novel management techniques and previously over-looked reef areas for protective actions under predicted climate change iClimate Change Reports, they conclude that, the most urgent course of action is to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, but concurrently there is also a need to consider novel management techniques and previously over-looked reef areas for protective actions under predicted climate change imChange Reports, they conclude that, the most urgent course of action is to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, but concurrently there is also a need to consider novel management techniques and previously over-looked reef areas for protective actions under predicted climate change iclimate change imchange impacts.

Most current models of forests under climate change can not predict when or where forests might die from temperature and drought stress.

«In addition, safeguarded farmland will continue providing healthy local produce and mitigating climate - change impacts of transporting food around the globe, while conserved wetlands improve the quality of our air and water and serve as buffers from potentially catastrophic storm surges predicted under current climate - change scenarios,» he added.

Further shifts to the north are predicted in the future under climate change, she says, noting that there may be other impacts on food availability that are far less straight - forward to predict.

Owing to their imperfections and the need for better models, models that predict weather, seasonal climate, and longer climate change are under continued development and evaluation.

These activities can be grouped under the following areas: improve our knowledge of Earth's past and present climate variability and change; improve our understanding of natural and human forces of climate change; improve our capability to model and predict future conditions and impacts; assess the Nation's vulnerability to current and anticipated impacts of climate change; and improve the Nation's ability to respond to climate change by providing climate information and decision support tools that are useful to policy makers and the general public.»

• The readiness of the nation to predict and avoid public and occupational health problems caused by heat waves and severe storms • Characterization and quantification of relationships between climate variability, health outcomes, and the main determinants of vulnerability within and between populations • Development of reliable methods to connect climate - related changes in food systems and water supplies to health under different conditions • Prediction of future risks in response to climate change scenarios and of reductions in the baseline level of morbidity, mortality, or vulnerability • Identification of the available resources, limitations of, and potential actions by the current U.S. health care system to prevent, prepare for, and respond to climate - related health hazards and to build adaptive capacity among vulnerable segments of the U.S. population

Choice 1: How much money do we want to spend today on reducing carbon dioxide emission without having a reasonable idea of: a) how much climate will change under business as usual, b) what the impacts of those changes will be, c) the cost of those impacts, d) how much it will cost to significantly change the future, e) whether that cost will exceed the benefits of reducing climate change, f) whether we can trust the scientists charged with developing answers to these questions, who have abandoned the ethic of telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but, with all the doubts, caveats, ifs, ands and buts; and who instead seek lots of publicity by telling scary stories, making simplified dramatic statements and making little mention of their doubts, g) whether other countries will negate our efforts, h) the meaning of the word hubris, when we think we are wise enough to predict what society will need a half - century or more in the future?

Every time the evidentiary basis of AGW is knocked out from under it, its proponents simply change the name (e.g.: «Global Warming» becomes «Climate Change») or the predicted effects of AGW («the earth's temperature will rise by X degrees» becomes «the earth's temperature will maybe rise or fall by X degrees&rachange the name (e.g.: «Global Warming» becomes «Climate Change») or the predicted effects of AGW («the earth's temperature will rise by X degrees» becomes «the earth's temperature will maybe rise or fall by X degrees&raChange») or the predicted effects of AGW («the earth's temperature will rise by X degrees» becomes «the earth's temperature will maybe rise or fall by X degrees»).

My position is the following: 1) the extent of past human interference with global climate is likely somewhat exaggerated, 2) the dangers of future human - induced climate change are greatly exaggerated (for example, I heard Ira Flatow a couple of weeks ago talking about the East coast being under water in 50 years — which is complete piffle), 3) the numerical global climate do a poor job of past reconstruction and are unlikely to be very reliable in predicting the consequences of future human activity.

Evidently, it is critically important to include endogenous forces such as competition in assessing and predicting forest changes under the current and future climates.

«This study shows that fires are already degrading large areas of forests in Southern Amazonia,» Brando said, «and highlights the need to include interactions between extreme weather events and fire when attempting to predict the future of Amazonian forests under a changing climate.»

«It is important to understand these changes because most climate models predict tropical forests may be under stress due to increasing severe water shortages in a warmer and drier 21st century climate,» said Liming Zhou, of Albany State University of New York.

Some have predicted that a 6 ppm increase in atmospheric methane concentrations could induce abrupt climate change — Semiletov says that would require the release of only 1 - 2 % of the methane stored under the East Siberian Arctic Shelf.

The difficulty of predicting the future of forests under a rapidly changing climate means it is hard to know what to make of the current signs of distress.

The latest report by the IPCC, the international organization tasked with assessing the science of climate change and its impacts, predicts that in order to keep the increase in average global surface temperature under 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius), total future CO2 emissions can not exceed 1 trillion tons.

All of the models predict that the globe will warm as the result of the unrestrained emission of heat trapping gases, but different temperatures are obtained under the same conditions and both modest and catastrophic climate changes are foreseen.

If the United States miraculously institutes a carbon tax tomorrow, all the models that predict climate - change costs under «business as usual» scenarios will be immediately obsolete.

It also predicts that the green policies the government already has in place will see the economy «significantly exceed» the 34 per cent target set for 2020 under the Climate Change Act.

In addition to preserving important wildlife habitat, protected wetlands will mitigate ecological and property damage from sea - level rises and storm surges under predicted climate - change scenarios.

And now, right on cue, comes this article from Isabel Hilton on Guardian Environment http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2010/jan/20/real-scandal-himalayas in which she states, among other things, that: «Kyrgyzstan, scientists predict, will lose 80 % of its water supply» [from glacier depletion] which provokes the following comment from the excellent MrEugenides: «This figure comes from an article Isabel herself wrote on 6 October 2009, quoting a local bureaucrat as saying that water supplies were under pressure from a variety of factors from river diversion and increased water usage to climate change.

The study, which will be published on May 7 in Nature Climate Change, predicts that under the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 emissions scenario, better known as the «business as usual scenario,» Marine Protected Areas will warm by 2.8 degrees Celsius (or 5 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100.