Sentences with phrase «really impact our climate»

Not exact matches

And it crosses over all these lines: local environmental impact, there's the climate argument, there's the First Nations rights argument, there's the stewardship argument, so it can really draw from a whole wide sector of civil society in the way that the faceless catastrophe of climate change can't.

I started talking about the children's health impact, and at the end of the day he came up to me and asked, «So climate change is really linked to our children's health and all of those chemicals?»

«We are really impacted by climate change,» Figueroa says.

As no one can really tell when or where the impacts of climate change will hit, aside from identifying climate tolerant varieties farmers are also using nature's strength by relying on diversity.

Doesn't really fit, but here goes: Given methane's harmful impact as a greenhouse gas and the scary reality on climate change, you really should.

Usually asteroid impacts or massive volcanism get the blame, paired with climate change, but it may be the subsequent bloom in toxic algae that really drove death.

«Alaska really is both the poster child for the impact of climate change and a warning for the dramatic changes that are coming to the rest of the United States and the planet,» said Whit Sheard, director of the Ocean Conservancy's International Arctic Program.

Some people feel that any more than that and we'll really start to see the most threatening impacts of climate change.

«Climate change is a persistent global stressor, but the consequences of it appear to be slowly evolving; they're fairly certain to happen — we know that, now — but the impact on individuals seems to be growing really slowly and needs to be taken very seriously,» said Helm, whose co-authors include UA Norton School researchers Melissa Barnett, Melissa Curran and Zelieann Craig, along with UA alumna Amanda Pollitt.

«The only way we can really predict how future climate change is going to impact different groups of animals is by looking at historical fossil records revealed to us.»

«This is a really tangible way for people to understand the impact of climate change,» says Rashid Sumaila, one of the study's authors who has been working with the UBC's fisheries research unit for over 20 years.

Projected impacts of global warming and ocean acidification motivated this action, but as marine biologist Ayana Elizabeth Johnson eloquently writes in a New York Times op - ed: «climate change really is only half the story.»

I would say that as far as advancing our ability to really look at the issue of climate change, I think one of the things we really need to do is to make our models interact more between the physical sciences and the social economics, and to really understand the link a little more closely between climate change and the drivers and impacts of climate change.

It's really no surprise that climate change is bringing heat waves with it, but the research team hopes that their study will inspire other researchers to incorporate social factors as well, such as population change, into studies of climate change impacts.

You've heard it all before but it's true that unless we properly start reducing climate change, our overuse of natural resources and our impact on the natural environment we are really putting ourselves and our planet in a compromised position.

All this multidimensionality and complexity of the real science of climate impacts was really inconvenient for activists who, understandably, were trying to get governments to stop dawdling.

Imagine, say, a bell - shaped curve based on the null hypothesis that climate change is not happening (and not having an impact on increasing extreme weather events), and there is this really long tail out to infinity; and supposing we get an off - the - charts category 7 hurricane in January, we still can not attribute it or its extra intensity or unusual seasonality to climate change, even if there is only a one in kazillion chance it might occur without climate change having an effect — that is, it is way out there in the very tiny tail of this null hypothesis curve that fades out into infinity — the tail that says, afterall, anything's possible.

For this reason, a European project was estaqblished in 2011, COST - action TOSCA (Towards a more complete assessment of the impact of solar variability on the Earth's climate), whose objective is to provide a better understanding of the «hotly debated role of the Sun in climate change» (not really in the scientific fora, but more in the general public discourse).

It's period is relatively long relative to the climate record and theoretically it shouldn't really have that big of an impact on insolation.

The atmospheric components of climate models were never really designed for the study of TCs, but the fact that they can produce features with TC - like character when run at sufficiently high resolutions, gives us increased confidence in the possibility that climate models can be used to analyze climate change impacts on TCs.

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?

Until we have a shift in attitudes in the USA towards the precautionary approach, we will continue to bicker about whether this or that climate impact (be it frogs, salmon, hurricanes, ice sheet collapse, etc.) is REALLY due to climate change or not.

A small upturn, or even one year of warming, is enough to start the now well known clamoring about the disastrous impacts of climate change, yet any movement in a downward direction is always met with cries of derision, or claims that even that is really due to climate change.

Many of the more worrying impacts of climate change really are symptoms of mismanagement and underdevelopment.

«One of Expedia's core Corporate Social Responsibility values is climate action, so there was really no question about whether or not working with COTAP made sense,» said Tony Donohoe, SVP and CTO of Expedia Worldwide Engineering at Expedia, Inc. «Travel is a large contributor to carbon emissions, and given that we are in the business of travel, anything we can do to help alleviate the impact we're on board.

The issue is that we actually need China to do more than its fair share if we're to keep warming from becoming too dangerous (I never know how to phrase this... to avoid run - away climate change is really what I'm most scared about but I don't want to minimise the devastating impacts that will happen before that too).

It has not had real leadership from any president in really speaking frankly on what the climate change problem is about, the likely harmful impacts, and so forth.

«Climate change is a big, vexing issue and it's really difficult to wrap your head around it from a global perspective, but when you can boil the impacts of climate change down to what it might look like in our lifetimes and in our communities, I think that really resonates with people,» OlsoClimate change is a big, vexing issue and it's really difficult to wrap your head around it from a global perspective, but when you can boil the impacts of climate change down to what it might look like in our lifetimes and in our communities, I think that really resonates with people,» Olsoclimate change down to what it might look like in our lifetimes and in our communities, I think that really resonates with people,» Olson said.

The argument of the paper is that this is really a problem, that this actually a source of bias in scientific information; it's an obstacle in communicating clearly about the full range of possible impacts of climate change.

Whether or not you believe in climate change doesn't really matter where insurance is concerned because insurance companies sure do believe, and that belief could impact your ability to insure your investment.

Lately research has pretty much shot down the idea of a really significant role for cosmic rays impacting climate.

In the earlier drafts of the SPM, there was a key message that was new, snappy and relevant: Many of the more worrying impacts of climate change really are symptoms of mismanagement and underdevelopment.

If Mr. Rose really wants to improve his reporting and do a general service of advancing a true understanding of the issue of anthropogenic climate change, he needs to do a comprehensive article about Earth's energy budget, and state quite clearly all the different spheres (all layers of the atmosphere, hyrdosphere, crysosphere, and biosphere) in which the signal of anthropogenic warming is both modeled as impacting and then talk about what is data is actually saying in terms of Earth's energy imbalance in all these spheres.

There was that post on the impacts of climate change in the Arctic, the one by the officer from the Navy's climate change task force, and the «green dragon» stuff in which she really showed no deference at all to the psuedoscientific nonsense.

It would be really interesting to study how people from the Pacific islands are imagining themselves in a wider, global political arena, and how they construct themselves in relation to climate change and its associated impacts.

Each IPCC report, AR5 being the latest, is really three separate reports, on respectively the physical basis, impact, and mitigation of climate change.

The Global Divestment Mobilisation not only connects the dots between investments and impacts, it reinforces the wisdom that is found in realising that all things are connected to everything else, and in a problem as huge as climate change — it does really mean that to change everything we would really need everyone.

We don't really know if mankind is truly impacting the climate, but we DO know these windmills are slaughtering our national treasures of the skies.

The focus on alleged errors with climate impacts is really a recent arrival, beginning in earnest at the end of last year, when questions began to be raised about the IPCC's projections for Himalayan glacier melt.

You really have to be an idiot to think the industrial revolution and our millions of cars didn't have any impact on climate change.

But I do believe that there is still an uncertainty whether or not the laboratory - observed IR absorption mechanism of CO2 (and other GH gases) really translates into a significant forcing of our planet's climate, even excluding the impacts of any short - term or long - term feedbacks.

So, if you are not a fan of climate models, I suspect that you really will not like impact assessment models used by Wadhams et al...

If we did cause the climate to change due to our puny input, mankind can not really live on this planet without making a catastrophic impact on it.

When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards â $» some sort of climate Nuremberg.

To this day have we really seen the developent of a large community of environmental scientists with a well - orchestrated climate change impacts research agenda and taking the lead in pushing for it?

But you start running those scenarios through the climate models and what you realize very quickly when you look at the output is that those modest changes in precipitation really pale in significance compared to the impact of temperature.

Of course if the actual recorded at the time temperature data was released as a full data base with official blessing it would probably only be a matter of quite as short time before it would be decided by the climate interested public and politicals that all that morphed out of reality, adjusted data those scientists were playing with on their play stations wasn't really needed as it bore no resemblance to reality nor had any sort of any perceptible impact or effect on society and their funding should and would consequently cease.

Ever wonder how your tiny carbon footprint really impacts the big picture of climate change?

But, even though Pielke's statement may have been said several times before («same old tired talking points», as you write), it still has validity (i.e. we still don't have enough answers to know what the human impact on climate really is).

The broadcast news discussion of climate change, unfortunately, continues to barely resemble the real - world discussion of climate change, where scientists are hard at work figuring out whether its impacts are going to be bad or really bad.