Sentences with phrase «tell whether climate change»

If we could see ahead to 2111, when the temperature (anomaly) is 3º C instead of 0ºC and the CO2 concentration is approaching 600 ppm, when the ice caps are gone and Greenland is called whatever might be the Chinese word for breadbasket, we couldn't tell whether the climate change was natural or anthropogenic.

Not exact matches

«With the unpredictability of the changing climate, farmers have no means of telling whether or not their farms will be affected.

It remains too soon to tell exactly how this climate system will work under changed conditions and other environmental factors — such as whether the cooling effect of the soot generated by industry and burning forests outweighs the warming effect of greenhouse gases — which may play large roles.

«We aren't just curious about whether climate change had an impact on an event — we're also asking what can this tell us about the likelihood and magnitude of events in future.»

Talking Points Memo confirmed that «The Interior Department is «reviewing» whether a government climate change expert held over from the Bush administration received improper payments from an institution known for its opposition to environmental regulation, a spokesman tells TPM.»

One can't say from the story whether this is definitely related to climate change in any way — I can't even tell from this link whether it is attributable to precipitation (though the timing is certainly suggestive).

Here's my uneducated question — while I respect Gavin's comments about not abusing the science, it seems to me that many measurable indicators of climate change are (to the extent I can tell) occurring / progressing / worsening faster than predicted by most models, whether we're talking about atmospheric CO2 levels, arctic ice melting, glacial retreat, etc..

I suspect one of the reasons that he brought it up is that the general public, when told there is no debate amongst experts as to whether warming is occurring, are also told that the hundreds of scientists they hear about in the news dismissing warming (or saying that there is a debate) are not climate change experts and therefore shouldn't be believed.

So, we can only tell for sure with hindsight whether the high number of tropical cyclones are an indication of a climate change (let's hope it's not!).

But we are supposed to think that that's irrelevant because immediately after experimenters told them «97 % of scientists accept climate change,» a group of study subjects, while not changing their own positions on whether climate change is happening, increased by a very small amount their expressed estimate of the percentage of scientists who believe in climate change?

As for the EU, they have other things to worry about than picking a drawn out fight with America over climate change as many countries, especially east European ones, are fairly indifferent to it and the UK now has other fish to fry.I think it's high point of alarmism has been reached, whether that is merely a temporary lull or more permanent, the next few years will tell.

Can someone tell me where online I might find a good, succinct, & ideally evidence - based writeup about why / whether a focus on «complexity» when communicating climate change & policy tends to nudge the reader toward paralysis?

Whether it's a deliberate con or hoax whatever, common sense should tell everyone that the climate will not be changed 20 (or 100 years) years after Copenhagen anymore than it changed after Kyoto.

Tell me, too, how someone who sees things as you do — all built into Bayesianism; no need to address whether the problem is different priors or different sources of information relevant to truth - seeking likelihood ratios vs. a form of biased perception that opportunisitcally bends whatever evidence is presented to fit a preconception; no need apparently either for empirical study on any of this — can straighten out someone who says the key to dispelling public conflict over climate change is just to disseminate study findings on scientific consensus.

In short, it's too early to tell whether or not the increase in storms and precipitation is due to climate change or not.

In one breath we're told that the climate is changing so rapidly — although, these days, most climate alarmists don't seem prepared to lay a bet on whether things are getting hotter or colder — that carpeting the world in wind turbines and solar panels — which cultists believe will solve the -LSB-...]

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?

We humans tell stories and make arguments, and eventually the truest of them — whether it's a sun - centric solar system or a round earth or evolution or anthropogenic climate change — becomes the one we all tell.

Although there is at present no means by which to tell whether this particular storm was due to human induced global warming, the devastation it has caused is consistent with the projections generated by climate change models that suggest such storms will become more severe as the world warms up.

Completely lost in Muller's selective quotation is any nuance or context in what I had said, let alone the bottom line in what I stated: It is in fact too early to tell whether global warming is influencing tornado activity, but we can discuss the processes through which climate change might influence future trends.

Rubio — who expressed deep skepticism about whether man - made activity has played a role in the Earth's changing climate — told Karl he doesn't believe there is action that could be taken right now that would have an impact on what's occurring with our climate.

It may be too soon to tell whether Clark's findings are unique to forests in the eastern U.S., or if tree species across the planet will find climate change similarly difficult to cope with.

This makes it hard to tell whether a trend is caused by natural variations or climate change.

They can tell us whether fossil fuel companies are also taking the climate change threat into serious consideration in their budgets.