Sentences with phrase «very dangerous climate»

There has also been a fairly wide - spread understanding that the international community will not avoid very dangerous climate change unless nations increase their national commitments to levels required of them based upon equity while working with other nations to keep atmospheric concentrations of ghg from exceeding dangerous levels.

As we have seen above, the commitments made according to the Copenhagen Accord and Cancun agreements that have been ratified by the Cancun agreements leave at the very minimum a 5Gt gap between emissions levels that will be achieved if there is full compliance with the voluntary emissions reductions and what is necessary to prevent 2 °C rise, a warming amount that most scientists believe could cause very dangerous climate change.

The Paris Agreement created a framework for solving the climate problem, yet the post-Paris media has poorly covered the implications for nations of what sufficient ambition and fairness should be required of nations when they formulate national climate policies if very dangerous climate change is to be avoided.

As a result there is a huge gap between national commitments to reduce greenhouse gas (ghg) emissions that have been made thus far under the UNFCCC and global ghg emissions reductions that are necessary to limit warming to 2 oC, a warming limit that has been agreed to by the international community as necessary to prevent very dangerous climate change.

Not exact matches

The costs of technology are usually beyond their reach, and the frequency of crop failure due to unpredictable climate makes any additional risk very dangerous.

Not very well, according to the latest estimate of the carbon cuts promised by rich nations, which shows that the pledges made so far fall short of what is needed to avoid dangerous climate change.

Curbing dangerous climate change requires very deep cuts in emissions, as well as the use of alternatives to fossil fuels worldwide.

If our suspicion is correct, then that gradual approach is itself very dangerous, because of the climate system's inertia.

The smallest warming / sea level rise in TAR figure 5 will place a wide range of human and natural systems under very considerable pressure (and based on estimates of the melt - down point for greenland place us teetering on the edge of dangerous climate change).

Of course climate changes (by its very nature) but linking current trends to AGW appears very tenuous (even by your research) and bearing in mind the uncertainties and the media and political need for the correlation to stick, its very dangerous ground to attribute anything.

An important point in the article, I felt, was: «the very real and dangerous increases in recent Atlantic hurricane activity will no doubt continue to provide a heightened sense of purpose to research addressing how hurricane behavior might change in our changing climate...»

Dorothy Atwood, one of the course participants, notes that «the reality of increasingly dangerous climate change — the rising temperatures and sea levels; the droughts, floods and stronger storms; the acidic oceans; the increasing forest fires; the expanding health dangers; the economic costs of floods, drought, hurricanes and sunken coastal cities — are very real to us and demand our personal and group response because it makes both environmental and economic sense to change the way we live and solve these problems.»

An important point in the article, I felt, was: «the very real and dangerous increases in recent Atlantic hurricane activity will no doubt continue to provide a heightened sense of purpose to research addressing how hurricane behavior might change in our changing climate...» so «give us more money!!!».

(3) From the supporting perspective article: «All this would be very bad news if avoiding dangerous anthropogenic interference in the climate system required us to specify today a stabilization concentration of carbon dioxide (or equivalent) for which the risk of dangerous warming is acceptably low.

There is no need to issue a correction for the use of the word «dangerous» because, if we do not take action, climate change is very dangerous.

In all, 78.9 % of respondents are convinced that at least on balance of probabilities, «climate change poses a very serious and dangerous threat to humanity» (response of 5 +).

Sixteen retired US admirals and generals then warned that droughts and other climate disruptions were about to make the world a very dangerous place.

That compares to just 9.3 % who think that on balance of probabilities, «climate change [does not pose] a very serious and dangerous threat to humanity» (response of 3 --RRB-.

[A] voiding dangerous climate change now requires some very difficult choices.

Though the science of climate change is clear, certain American conservatives deny the validity of the science and describe its conclusions as a political scam, a confusion of science and politics which could prove very dangerous... No American would deny the science of ballistics, but some deny climate science.

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?

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?

«Climate Change Reconsidered, the 2009 report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), is a comprehensive 880 - page tome that rigorously analyses the IPCC's claim that dangerous global warming has «very likely» been caused by human greenhouse emissions.

The analogy of skeptics to reckless drivers overtaking on a bend requires a further analogy doesn't it, Vaughan, the analogy that climate change is as to a dangerous, narrow highway bend where collision is very likely just around the corner?

We make the transition to a low carbon economy, and it turns out that climate change is very dangerous.

In the conclusion to his «Plan B» chapter (p 228), Bob Carter writes: «It is therefore time to move away from stale «he - says - she - says» arguments about whether human carbon dioxide emissions are causing dangerous warming, and on to designing effective policies of hazard management for all climate change, based on adaptation responses that are tailored for individual countries or regions... By their very nature, strategies that can cope with the dangers and vagaries of natural climate change will readily cope with human - caused change too should it ever become manifest.»

Per the IPCC's global warming hypothesis, at the very top of the troposphere, above the equator region, is the location (12 km, 200hPa @ 20 ° N - 20 ° S) that triggers a positive climate feedback, which produces the mythical runaway, tipping point of accelerated, dangerous global warming, which of course is unequivocal and irrefutable, except when it isn't.

Over the past five years a wealth of analyses have described very different responses to what, at first sight, appears to be the same question: What emission - reduction profiles are compatible with avoiding «dangerous» climate change?

Looking only at a very narrow window of the Earth's climate history, many climatologists and politicians claim the recent period of warming is evidence of a dangerous human - induced warming.

Yet, since the world averages 6.5 CO2 tons of per capita emissions while countries like the United States are emitting 19 tons per capita, and the world must reduce per capita emissions to perhaps less than 2.0 tons per capita to prevent dangerous climate change, it is very unlikely that many groups or people in developed countries can make a respectable argument that they are already below their fair share of safe global emissions.

If we are truly to assess the risk of climate change being dangerous, then impact and adaptation studies need scenarios that span a very substantial part of the possible range of future climates (Pittock, 1993; Parry et al., 1996; Risbey, 1998; Jones, 1999; Hulme and Carter, 2000).

The IPCC, which reflects the findings of more than 2,000 scientists from over 100 countries, recently stated that it is «very unlikely» that we will avoid the coming era of «dangerous climate change.»

In short, all lines of evidence point to a climate sensitivity of close to 3 °C for doubled CO2, which in turn points to a very dangerous amount of global warming if we continue on a business - as - usual path.

Instead, «climate - smart» agriculture provides a dangerous platform for corporations to implement the very activities we oppose.

With the usual irrationnal resistance of people towards any change, most of these unexpected things will be perceived as bad and dangerous However taking action with regard to a supposed qualitative impact of some climate variable on the final state afer a certain time would make sense only if the specific costs / inconvenients of the action were near to 0 or if the time horizont was very short.

I continue to be very concerned about the contribution that the Keystone XL pipeline would make to dangerous climate change.»

I think it is great that others are acknowledging the solar effects on climate, something which has been poo pooed since the global warming bandwagon got supercharged in the very early 1990s, a little more than a decade after the scientists fretted over dangerous cooling.

I think that the Carbon Tracker work is very valuable for: a) Debunking the idea, still held by some, that Peak Fossil Fuels will somehow protect us from causing dangerous climate change and; b) Reinforcing the mantra «leave the carbon in the ground».

We all know climate change is a very real and very dangerous fact of life, and many people are changing their lives in an attempt to stop it.

I believe it is very dangerous to discuss climate change as a social issue or a social cause or to associate it with the purely human, social issues you describe above.

The track record until recently on climate change shows policy inaction is both dangerous and can be very costly [168,193,219].

Curbing dangerous climate change requires very deep cuts in emissions, as well as the use of alternatives to fossil fuels worldwide.

Even more troubling for the fake «skeptics», however, is that 78.92 % of climate scientists are significantly convinced (> 4 reponse) that»... climate change poses a very serious and dangerous threat to humanity» (question 22).

For Dr. Kevin Trenberth to suggest that sceptics of «dangerous anthropogenic climate change or otherwise should play along with this psychodrama is an insult to a lot of very intelligent people.

The idea that carbon dioxide emissions will trigger dangerous global warming is at the very heart of the climate crisis.

While the tropical climate draws many visitors, the rainfall makes the roads very dangerous during the wet season.