Sentences with phrase «understood than global warming»

A note came back from the Apollo 9 astronaut Rusty Schweickart, who has lately been pressing for the United States to intensify efforts to limit a danger both far more concretely understood than global warming and far less in vogue as a serious threat — the reality that a very large rock will inevitably head on a collision course for Earth.

Not exact matches

Because our knowledge of the many delicate balances in the ecology of the planet is still in its infancy, and because what is known is not widely understood, the consequences of what the human race is (in its ignorance) doing to the earth may turn out to be even more serious than global warming.

My grandfather was a minister and educator in the church for over 70 years... but he always believed in science, in global warming, in the work of educated men and women, and understood the Bible better than any man.

«In order to respond to global warming, we need to understand how the climates of the future will be different than the familiar, historical climates that we are adapted to.»

Researchers study tiny fossilized organisms to better understand how global marine life was affected by a rapid warming event more than 55 million years ago.

I can understand that approaching equilibrium takes a long, long time, while TCR gives a better measure of what will happen over the next few decades (and that technology and society may be very different in 200 years time); but on the other hand, I thought nations had agreed to try to limit global warming to less than 2 degrees C overall, and not just to limit it to less than 2 degrees C by 2100.

He will not glean any disunity because the contributors to this forum are by and large scientists who understand the psychics behind global warming as thoroughly and well as; why does ice expand when heated; or why can warm atmosphere hold more water vapour than cold.

However, the thing you have to understand is that what he gets through peer - review is far less threatening to the mainstream picture of anthropogenic global warming than you'd think from the spin he puts on it in press releases, presentations and the blogosphere.

(Don't worry about a conflict of interest here; the book, Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast, has been out of print for more than a decade).

We found that the term global warming is associated with greater public understanding, emotional engagement, and support for personal and national action than the term climate change.

``... an understanding of the behaviour of the marine - based West Antarctic ice sheet (WAIS) during the «warmer - than - present» early - Pliocene epoch (approx5 — 3 Myr ago) is needed to better constrain the possible range of ice - sheet behaviour in the context of future global warming....

After seeing the video of Thomas Friedman completely mis - explaining the basic dynamics of global warming recently on Letterman (although I enjoy Friedman's stance on the importance of the matter), I realize more than ever that not many people may actually have an understanding of what the scientists are saying.

Honestly, anybody who claims that «there has been global cooling or that global warming has halted since 2000 (or whatever)» really does not understand climatic trends nor the difference between a long - term underlying trend vs. short - term fluctuations which have a larger magnitude (in both directions) than the trend.

I'm concerned that little bits of info (e.g., more ice here, less ice there, sick animals here, winter storms there, and etc.) can be much more confusing than illuminating in the absence of a general understanding of the basic dynamics of global warming as (the majority of) scientists see them.

Re Todd at # 1 and CM at # 5: Am I right in understanding that the key point is that it's quite possible for global surface temperatures to decrease even as the globe warms if more than the excess inflow of heat goes into the deep oceans?

School children don't need to be indoctrinated about global warming, a phenomenon that less than 1 % of adults understand, and which no children understand.

But my larger point is this: Scientists understand key aspects of the problem much better than someone who brands the whole thing (global warming) as «uncertain» probably thinks or wants to believe.

Conscious that while our nations lie at the climate frontline and will disproportionately feel the impacts of global warming, in the end climate change will threaten the sustainable development and, ultimately, the survival of all states and peoples — the fate of the most vulnerable will be the fate of the world; and convinced that our acute vulnerability not only allows us to perceive the threat of climate change more clearly than others, but also provides us with the clarity of vision to understand the steps that must be taken to protect the Earth's climate system and the determination to see the job done;

Jaws should feel that coal train is real death train and understand this meaning more than other people then fight for global warming, ban coal power plants.

And, when you consider the dismal (to pick one word) degree of understanding, on average, of global warming among the public, it's hard to arrive at any conclusion other than that the media have dropped (and are dropping) a very big ball.

It seems that the effects of global warming on hurricane intensity are better understood than effects on the El Nino oscillation.

I understand it is because in the last few years the temperature of the Earth has actually cooled so, rather than lose the momentum they had gained to make political inroads to underwrite global measures to control societies» behaviors when it comes to things like use of fossil fuels, proponents decided to cut their losses and change the term so they wouldn't be obviously wrong to the masses as it snowed on various global warming rallies.

One must understand that made Galileo part of a decidedly smaller minority than the 3 % of scientists who don't belong to repeatedly refuted, debunked, and entirely discredited 97 % of scientists who supposedly are rock solid on the theory that humans are causing catastrophic global warming.

My understanding of the viewpoint of the majority of experts in related fields is that analysis shows that relative to 50 years ago, and the LIA, and the MWP, average global temperatures are warmer, and increasing in warmth at an anomalous rate than indicated by the data on previous time periods, including the MWP.

We don't get any closer to science by denying the significant possibility that we are causing significantly adverse changes in climate than we do by the ridiculous assertion that we understand the chaotic complexity of climate well enough to say with certainty how many parts per millions of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will lead to how many degrees of global warming.

He is author of more than 160 peer - reviewed and edited publications, and has published books include Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming in 2008 and The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines in 2012.

You have to be aware that James Hansen's understanding of what global warming is, is much broader than this was just all about some increase in the global surface temperature anomaly.

From a GHG - management perspective, it is crucial to understand the relative role of CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions as CH4 and N2O are more powerful GHGs than CO2 (34 and 298 times the global warming potential on a 100 - year timescale, respectively; Myhre et al. 2013).

It is vital that we understand how climate extremes in Australia might change if we limit global warming to either 1.5 ℃ or 2 ℃, and what the implications might be of pursuing the more lenient target rather than the more ambitious one.

For instance, climate science and climate politics have moved unexpectedly quickly toward a broad understanding that we need to keep total human - caused global warming as far as possible below 2 °C (3.6 °F)-- and ideally to no more than 1.5 °C.

In 2010, the Yale Project on Climate Change released a study claiming that «less than half of Americans (45 percent) understand that carbon dioxide traps heat near the Earth's surface, and a majority think that the hole in the ozone layer contributes to global warming.»

They believe those who work for the government when they say, «we have modeled your future;» and, then the people don't understand when they learn that the, Global warming computer models are confounded as Antarctic... (It's unprecedented: across the globe, there are about one million square kilometers more sea ice than 35 years ago, which is when satellite measurements began).

After all, experienced scientists who have published a lot about climate change have, generally speaking, a good understanding of the anthropogenic causes of global warming, and they often have more peer - reviewed publications than their contrarian colleagues.

«I understand that to the Chinese government, smog is probably more urgent than global warming, which explains their policy [favoring SNG],» Yang said.

More importantly, they argue, when it comes to understanding global warming, the public doesn't need to know anything more than what goes into the air.

In a May 10, 2016, article, Almost Everything You Know About Climate Change Solutions Is Outdated, Part 1, Joe Romm says climate science and climate politics have moved unexpectedly quickly toward a broad understanding that we need to keep total human - caused global warming as far as possible below 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F)-- and ideally to no more than 1.5 degrees C.

I can understand that approaching equilibrium takes a long, long time, while TCR gives a better measure of what will happen over the next few decades (and that technology and society may be very different in 200 years time); but on the other hand, I thought nations had agreed to try to limit global warming to less than 2 degrees C overall, and not just to limit it to less than 2 degrees C by 2100.

I get to understand why Global Warming is not seriously discussed amongst the populace in general, by watching many TV Meteorologists, who utterly confuse the matter, who also seem to be limited by the range of their Doppler radars, seldom explain anything more than the latest extreme Hurricane activity as the result of a «cycle».

The date this piece is September 22, 2006, a bit less than three months after the release of Al Gore's «An Inconvenient Truth» movie, so it would not be much of a stretch to guess that when the writer says he recently came to understand this «false sense of uncertainty» situation, he gleaned it from the movie, where Gore spelled out the «reposition global warming» phrase full screen and then immediately followed it with a reference to the infamous «Doubt is Our Product» leaked memo phrase from the tobacco industry.

Just in case it is not clear, this is the exact statement in the paper that I was basing my understanding on Explicit endorsements were divided into non-quantified (e.g., humans are contributing to global warming without quantifying the contribution) and quantified (e.g., humans are contributing more than 50 % of global warming, consistent with the 2007 IPCC statement that most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations).