Sentences with phrase «reduce human warming»

We can reduce human warming impacts most rapidly by tackling emissions from these sectors.

Not exact matches

Another supporter is Al Gore who stated that initiatives like Meat Free Monday «represent a responsible and welcome component of a comprehensive strategy for reducing global warming pollution and simultaneously improving human health.»

«Our results indicate that a wide range of POPs have been remobilized into the Arctic atmosphere over the past two decades as a result of climate change, confirming that Arctic warming could undermine global efforts to reduce environmental and human exposure to these toxic chemicals,» write the scientists, whose analysis was published yesterday in the journal Nature Climate Change.

Singer, founder of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, concludes that since global warming would raise maximum summer temperatures modestly while raising winter minimum temperatures significantly, it «should help reduce human death rates.»

«Warming greater than 2 degrees Celsius above 19th - century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity and — if sustained over centuries — melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea levels of several meters,» the AGU declares in its first statement in four years on «Human Impacts on Climate.»

In their new Conservation Genetics paper, the researchers say, «Past gene flow also suggests that human - assisted gene flow is necessary to conserve the ecosystem services associated with predation, since climate warming has reduced the frequency of ice bridges and with it the only opportunity for unassisted gene flow.

At least two studies published since 2010 — one report from the United Nations Environment Programme in 2011 and a follow - up published in Science last year — suggested that significantly reducing the emissions of soot and methane could trim human - caused warming by at least 0.5 °C (0.9 ° F) by 2050, compared with an increase of about 1 °C if those emissions continued unabated.

Environment: The Conservative Party accepts human - induced global warming is a threat to the planet's life and pledges to reduce Britain's carbon emissions by 80 % by 2050.

Curbing these emissions would help reduce warming, but scientists have found it difficult to determine exactly how much methane comes from human sources.

The Neanderthal nose has been a matter of befuddlement for anthropologists, who point out that modern cold - adapted humans have narrow noses to moisten and warm air as it enters the lung, and reduce water and heat loss during exhalation.

It's unlikely that the fossil fuel companies will deny in court what is widely accepted by authoritative scientific bodies around the world: that human emissions have already begun to warm the planet, that the harm is already being felt, that the risks of future harm are significant, and that to head them off emissions have to be rapidly reduced.

Hence, the projected regional warming and consequent increase in wildfire activity in the western United States is likely to magnify the threats to human communities and ecosystems, and substantially increase the management challenges in restoring forests and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Massage prior to running or other physical activity can boost performance and reduce injury in competition, similar to the effect warming up has for humans.

These studies lend greater confidence to the detection of human - induced global warming and they serve to reduce the level of uncertainty inherent in estimates of the rate of warming.»

Therefore, IMHO, it would be closer to the truth to call WUWT a «skeptic» site that calls into question exactly how much the mean temperature has increased since the advent of the thermometer record in the late 1880's, how much of that is due to human activities and how much to natural cycles not under our control, what dangers rising temperatures may pose to human life and civilization, and what technologically and politically doable actions may be taken to reduce human - caused warming, and our dependence on foreign sources of fossil energy.

[1] CO2 absorbs IR, is the main GHG, human emissions are increasing its concentration in the atmosphere, raising temperatures globally; the second GHG, water vapor, exists in equilibrium with water / ice, would precipitate out if not for the CO2, so acts as a feedback; since the oceans cover so much of the planet, water is a large positive feedback; melting snow and ice as the atmosphere warms decreases albedo, another positive feedback, biased toward the poles, which gives larger polar warming than the global average; decreasing the temperature gradient from the equator to the poles is reducing the driving forces for the jetstream; the jetstream's meanders are increasing in amplitude and slowing, just like the lower Missippi River where its driving gradient decreases; the larger slower meanders increase the amplitude and duration of blocking highs, increasing drought and extreme temperatures — and 30,000 + Europeans and 5,000 plus Russians die, and the US corn crop, Russian wheat crop, and Aussie wildland fire protection fails — or extreme rainfall floods the US, France, Pakistan, Thailand (driving up prices for disk drives — hows that for unexpected adverse impacts from AGW?)

«Their unceasing drum - beat for Anthropogenic Global Warming will ultimately discredit their otherwise worthwhile and necessary programs to reduce human pollution as a result of unrestricted human population and economic growth.»

Since it appears it is we humans who are contributing to the global warming phenomina, why not reduce the number of humans in order to control the issue.

By the way, I'd just like to mention that I am far happier to be arguing about the comparative benefits of nuclear power, wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, conservation, efficiency, reforestation, organic agriculture, etc. for quickly reducing CO2 emissions and concentrations, than to be engaged in yet another argument with someone who doesn't believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or that human activities are not causing warming, or that the Earth is cooling, or thinks that AGW is a «liberal» conspiracy to destroy capitalism, etc..

If your goal is to enable the long - time survival of the human race, and to reduce potentially devastating environmental risks to society (drought, floods, famine, heat waves, sea level rise, etc) then focusing on global warming mitigation would make more sense.

Reliance on global CCS into deep wells to reduce GHG emissions into the atmosphere and effectively addressing the human - induced sources and consequences of global warming and climate change is pure «Greenwash.»

At the same time it will help mitigate and solve catastrophic consequences of human - induced global warming and climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere.

(2) Prudence requires us to mitigate global warming, even if we are not sure it is being caused by human emissions (and we are sure, and this new skeptical study does not reduce that high level of certainty).

As I explained earlier this week, questions related to any impact of human - driven global warming on tornadoes, while important, have almost no bearing on the challenge of reducing human vulnerability to these killer storms.

* global warming is not significantly affected by human activity but governments expend resources and disrupt social order and economies to reduce human impact but make no provisions for dealing with the effects of warming.

The fact that Christy and Pielke Sr. are scientists allows their skeptical positions on rapid GHG driven global warming to be even harder to deal with when I attempt to inform people that rapid GHG driven global warming is happening and that humans need to act quickly to reduce GHG emissions in order to delay and to reduce the catastrophe that lies ahead due to global warming.

If we accept that humans are at the root of global warming then dealing with the problem at its root would seem to suggest the most efficient way to reduce humanity's carbon footprint would be to reduce humanity.

Montford republished a quote in which I discussed reducing the public misperception about the scientific consensus on human - caused global warming.

Biofuel is widely considered a way to reduce greenhouse gases from fossil fuel use and thereby reduce human - caused global warming.

This warming is offset by anthropogenic aerosols, reducing the total human caused warming to 1.6 Wm - 2.

Thus, in the case of O3, the best way to reduce or remove the threat that warming - enhanced O3 poses to human health — its climate change risk — is almost certainly via the mitigation of nitrogen pollution.

A new grand solar minimum would not trigger another LIA; in fact, the maximum 0.3 °C cooling would barely make a dent in the human - caused global warming over the next century, likely between 1 and 5 °C, depending on how much we manage to reduce our fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.

The summary, released on Friday in Paris, was the first from the group to pinpoint with greater than 90 percent certainty that humans had become the main force driving warming and that centuries of increasing temperatures and seas could be blunted only if emissions of heat - trapping gases were promptly reduced.

For policy - makers, the speed of climate change over the coming decades matters as much as the total long - term change, since this rate of change will determine whether human societies and natural ecosystems will be able to adapt fast enough to survive.New results indicate a warming rate of about 2.5 C per century over the coming decades (assuming no attempt is made to reduce GHG emissions).

... then we have reduced effect of human influence to just a tiny fraction of what is normally considered by Global warming people.

Hence, the projected regional warming and consequent increase in wildfire activity in the western United States is likely to magnify the threats to human communities and ecosystems, and substantially increase the management challenges in restoring forests and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

«To reduce the interpretation of the causality of all kinds of climate changes and of global warming to one variable, CO2, or to a small proportion of one variable — human - induced CO2 — is impossible to accept.

Several studies have demonstrated that preventinh the release of black carbon can reduce near - term global warming and improve human health.

Even reducing certainty to whatever reasonable percentage of warming Dr. Curry attributes to human emissions, it seems like policy action aimed at this level of reduction is at least rational.

Earthjustice is representing the Arctic Athabaskan Council before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to reduce black carbon pollution, slow Arctic warming and protect Athabaskans» homeland.

The link between adverse impacts such as more wildfires, ecosystem changes, extreme weather events etc. and their mitigation by reducing greenhouse gas emissions hinges on detecting unusual events for at least the past century and then actually attributing them to human caused warming.

«Efforts to reduce human - induced warming are even more urgent in order to minimise this type of feedback of natural greenhouse gas emissions»

In this book, ecologists, conservationists, lawyers, and atmospheric scientists detail the benefits of alternative market - based systems for reducing and sequestering the carbon emissions currently threatening the planet with global warming and the destruction of animal and human habitat.

«This means that efforts to reduce human - induced warming are even more urgent in order to minimise this type of feedback of natural greenhouse gas emissions,» says a co-author of the study, David Bastviken, senior lecturer in environmental change at Linköping University.

According to AMEG, here's how climate change in the Arctic has changed weather patterns: Over the past three decades, snow cover has been reduced by 17 - 18 % per decade and sea ice is declining fast because of human - induced global warming.

If you concede that climate skeptics have not proven in peer - reviewed journals that human - induced warming is not a very serious threat to human health and ecological systems, given that human - induced warming could create catastrophic warming the longer the human community waits to respond to reduce the threat of climate change and the more difficult it will be to prevent dangerous warming, do you agree that those nations most responsible for rising atmospheric ghg concentrations have a duty to demonstrate that their ghg emissions are safe?

It's clear that human activity is warming our planet, and we must act to reduce our contribution to the problem.

If you concede that climate skeptics have not proven in peer - reviewed journals that human - induced warming is not a very serious threat to human health and ecological systems, given that human - induced warming could create catastrophic warming the longer the human community waits to respond to reduce the threat of climate change and the more difficult it will be to prevent dangerous warming, do you agree that those responsible for rising atmospheric ghg concentrations have a duty to demonstrate that their ghg emissions are safe?

Given the importance of the scientific consensus on human - caused global warming in peoples» decisions whether to support action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and the public lack of awareness of the consensus, we need to make people aware of these results.

Secondly, human CFCs were destroying ozone thus reducing its warming power in the stratosphere when the sun became more active.