Sentences with phrase «warming policy if»

Why does it matter in the context of global warming policy if computer models can not definitively explain the distant past?

You asked: Why does it matter in the context of global warming policy if computer models can not definitively explain the distant past?

Not exact matches

Despite the tensions over policies, the debate ended on a warm note, when Mrs Clinton said the first person she would call would be Mr Sanders, if she won the nomination.

«Global efforts to stay well below 2 degrees [Celsius of warming], and especially 1.5 degrees, will be severely compromised if international aviation and shipping emissions continue to increase,» Mark Lutes, senior global climate policy adviser at the World Wide Fund for Nature's global climate and energy initiative, said by email.

You'll feel a lot warmer if you already have the policies you want.

If and when warming (as measured by some comprehensible benchmark) resumes, there will be more broad - based uptake for policy action.

Even if you reject the policy prescriptions or science interpretations of the Global Warming Policy Forum, the director, Benny Peiser, is an energetic aggregator of climate coverage that you might otherwisepolicy prescriptions or science interpretations of the Global Warming Policy Forum, the director, Benny Peiser, is an energetic aggregator of climate coverage that you might otherwisePolicy Forum, the director, Benny Peiser, is an energetic aggregator of climate coverage that you might otherwise miss.

Because unfortunately, most policy makers, and those in the general public who are informed about the problem, are still behaving as though we have decades in which to gradually reduce emissions if we want to limit warming to 2 °C, and that doing so is sufficient to prevent severe impacts.

Last week I posted a «Your Dot» contribution from Raymond T. Pierrehumbert, a University of Chicago climate scientist concerned that policy makers and the public keep in mind the primacy of carbon dioxide emissions if they are serious about limiting the chances of propelling disruptive human - driven global warming.

If you read anything related to global warming policy solutions, I suggest you read this book.

In Shellenberger's variant, you need to add the words «in China» to any claim about the role of an energy technology or policy in fighting global warming and see if it still holds up.

And if these policies were actually discussed publicly in that way (as being beneficial for many reasons other than mitigating global warming) perhaps we'd get out of the trap that Michael Crichton and his ilk continue to set for us.

«If current policy continues to fail — along the lines of the «agree and ignore» scenario — then 50 % to 80 % of all species on earth could be driven to extinction by the magnitude and rapidity of warming, and much of the planet's surface left uninhabitable to humans.

If we ARE warming (and we are), then the integrity of the model becomes more important (back to the public policy bit above).

In a forthcoming paper for the Harvard Law and Policy review, «Fast Clean Cheap,» we argue that a regulation - centered approach would only achieve 10 — 30 percent emissions reductions in the U.S. by 2050, whereas we need 80 percent emissions reductions in the U.S. and 50 percent emissions reductions worldwide by then if we are to avoid catastrophic global warming.

In other words, if you had used the 1988 paper to predict the next 20 years, you would not have been far out on the temperature trend, though you would not have done so well if e.g. you had based long - term agriculture policy or anything else where you needed to know the exact location of the warming on the paper.

If a policy prescription does not account for the real complexity in the climate system, and real gaps in knowledge about aspects of global warming that matter most, is it likely that the public and lawmakers will pursue a big transformation of lifestyles and economic norms to curb CO2 emissions in a growing world still more than 85 percent dependent on burning fossil fuels to drive economies?

It is my view that policy makers (at least the ones that matter) will actually understand the technical aspects of global warming, and if they don't, they will seek out someone on their staff to explain it to them.

Promoting these policies, if there is truly a causal link, should be a part of controlling global warming.

Likewise, the current policy outlook indicates that warming would still exceed 2 °C in the second part of this century — a result that will be more likely if climate is slightly more sensitive than the lowest credible estimates or if politicians» pledges to reduce emissions do not bear out.

Over the years, the more I learned, the more sceptical I became, I don't believe at this stage that the massive economic costs incurred by proposed anti-AGW policies can be justified, and that if it is proven to be a serious issue, then dealing with it is better deferred until economic growth and potential technological breakthroughs would make the cost more feasible, if and only if it had been demonstrated that (a) AGW were real; (b) the costs of inaction were enormous; and (c) the costs of action would bring commensurate benefits, e.g. would stop or long defer dangerous warming.

I've been waiting for some philoopher of science to point out that, if there are no predictions for warming, there is absolutely no basis for the policies based on predictions.

«I know there are some out there, probably a couple hundred people, who actually believe that the world is coming to an end and man - made global warming is going to cause it, so I just want to give them the assurance that if they're right and we are wrong, [proposed climate policies are] not going to reduce but it will increase CO2 emissions,» he said.

But though we've failed to bring forth meaningful policies that will prevent future warming, I do believe that eventually we will, and we might, if we are lucky, prevent a rise in global temperatures beyond 3C.

«Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.»

It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that schwing, troposphere warming that's missing, «n models» showing 3-fold exaggerated warming, (though no expanded wildfire - flood activity as predicted, instead greater agricultural productivity) a theory that's used for policy determining.

If climate policy exceeds the pathway prescribed by NDCs, and overall energy demand is lower, cost reductions in solar PV and EVs can help limit global warming to between 2.1 °C (50 % probability) and 2.3 °C (66 % probability).

If this budget was unanimously accepted as the guiding principle of global climate policy and stringent action was taken to limit emissions to 1000 GtCO2, could we be reasonably certain that warming would be limited below 2 °C?

If you take all the policy promises that nations proposed at Paris last year (which included reducing HFCs), they still put us on pace for 2.5 °C or 3 °C or more of warming.

The policy question is what if the first of these is just dead set wrong (difficult as is for space cadets to imagine — and remembering that models can't help us here) and the planet resolutely refuses to warm for a decade or three more at least?

If we accept that global warming will be a net negative impact for the global economy and human well - being (I don't accept that, but will proceed on that assumption for the sake of argument here), policies will have to be sustainable for many decades to a century.

The onus is clearly on the alarmists, if they want to argue for high cost mitigation policies, to demonstrate what is the damage cost of warming.

The crucial questions are: will warming resume — we don't know; if so, will the impact be positive or negative — we don't know; if there might be dangerous warming, what policies should we adopt?

To placate them, the White House instituted energy policies that made it appear as if carbon dioxide and global warming were indeed grave threats.

Finally, the policy relevance is probably a lot smaller than Dr. Curry makes it out to be, because even if ECS turns out to be as low as she thinks it is (1.64 degrees C per doubling of CO2), if we continue on a business as usual type pathway, we will still commit ourselves to a warming of over 3 degrees.

If that is the case, here is the problem: existing policy proposals do not, as far as I know, supply even «fuzzy» benefits — something like (don't pick on the numbers — I pulled them out of my nether region as an example only): Best case: RCP8.5, TCS 6.0, estimated reduced warming: 5C GMST by 2100 Worst case: RCP2.0, TCS 1.4, estimated reduced warming: 0.2 C GMST by 2100 Estimated costs per 1C increase in GMST: $ 150B p.a.

RickA October 8, 2012 at 1:24 pm : «If CO2 caused 50 % of the.8 C in warming, that has a very different policy implication than if CO2 caused 80 % or 20 %.&raquIf CO2 caused 50 % of the.8 C in warming, that has a very different policy implication than if CO2 caused 80 % or 20 %.&raquif CO2 caused 80 % or 20 %.»

Clearly that's not a sensible policy; if one has to waste taxpayer money in advertising, it makes sense to at least invest it in advertising that is likely to have the greatest impact on global warming.

The thrust of Mankiw's op - ed, One Answer to Global Warming: A New Tax, is that there is a «broad consensus» among «policy wonks» that «if we want to reduce global emissions of carbon, we need a global carbon tax.

The debate is sort of encapsulated in two quotes: One is Robert Kennedy Jr. saying that if people only had the facts about global warming and understood how urgent this issue was, then they would take action, the right policies would come up and people would support the right candidates.

Our study shows that if corals can adapt to warming that has occurred over the past 40 to 60 years, some coral reefs may persist through the end of this century,» said study lead author Cheryl Logan, Ph.D., an assistant professor in California State University Monterey Bay's Division of Science and Environmental Policy.

Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing — in terms of economic socialism and environmental policy.

Corporations concerned about the policy implications of mainstream conclusions regarding anthropogenic warming have an enormous reservoir of capital, and if I recall correctly, one of them -LRB-?

Moreover, as I've argued here previously, the emphasis, or hope that science can conclusively answer the debate about global warming almost concedes to the alarmist / precautionary perspective that, if «climate change is happening», then so the policies are justified.

Importantly, whether one thinks global warming poses little or no threat or that the planet is on a path toward catastrophe, the cumulative climate effect of these policies, if implemented, would be a change in the earth's temperature almost too small to measure.

To date, the electric utility industry has aided and abetted the climate alarmist cause, if not by actually lobbying for global warming regulation, then at least by its willingness to entertain such regulation as public policy worthy of serious consideration.

Along with many other economists, my view on global warming - associated climate change is that the world is most unlikely to be able to agree and coordinate globally, and then sustain for the centuries required, the growth - denying policies that would be needed if we were to limit human - induced global warming to any material effect beyond the [continue reading...]

The resolutions ask both Exxon and Chevron to explain how resilient their portfolios and strategy would be if policy measures to restrict warming to 2 ˚C, as agreed in Paris in 2015, were successfully enforced.

Even if the warming is, say, 6; then the debate is over policy.

Even if you play devils advocate and accept that humans do cause catastrophic warming and there are too many of us, and if you can skip past the Nazi eugenics connotations of population control and depopulation policies, those methods are fundamentally still not a valid solution to the perceived climate change threat.