Sentences with phrase «years thinking about climate change»

Environmental scientist Bill McKibben has spent the last 20 years thinking about climate change.

Not exact matches

I confess that I have become somewhat blasé about the range of exciting — I think revolutionary is probably more accurate — technologies that we are rolling out today: our work in genomics and its translation into varieties that are reaching poor farmers today; our innovative integration of long — term and multilocation trials with crop models and modern IT and communications technology to reach farmers in ways we never even imagined five years ago; our vision to create a C4 rice and see to it that Golden Rice reaches poor and hungry children; maintaining productivity gains in the face of dynamic pests and pathogens; understanding the nature of the rice grain and what makes for good quality; our many efforts to change the way rice is grown to meet the challenges of changing rural economies, changing societies, and a changing climate; and, our extraordinary array of partnerships that has placed us at the forefront of the CGIAR change process through the Global Rice Science Partnership.

A group of researchers at the University of California, Davis, surveyed 162 farmers in Yolo County, Calif., comparing what growers thought about climate change, their willingness to participate in government - led climate programs and their takes on four different environmental regulations passed in the last 25 years.

About 30 percent say they think there will be many more «deaths and injuries» from floods and hurricanes over the next 20 years if nothing is done to address climate change.

Kolbert thinks we're not acting enough: She describes at length the fate of the Mesopotamian civilization of Akkad, which apparently collapsed in the wake of climate change about 4,200 years ago.

The Paleocene - Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM)- an ancient warming event that occurred about 56 million years ago - is often thought of as a potential framework for future climate change.

As somebody who has given over 70 presentations about climate change to public audiences over the last several years (and who shared lessons from this experience at AGU in 2015), I think these principles are excellent guidance.

Over the last two years, I've developed quite a bit of expertise on the thinking of the common man in the U.S. about climate change (sparked by my posting of «The Most Terrifying Video.»)

«Researching Don't Even Think About It, which I see as the most important book published on climate change in the past few years, George Marshall discovered that there has not been a single proposal, debate or even position paper on limiting fossil fuel production put forward during international climate negotiations.

Sadly, in recent years we have become accustomed to a ritual in which the publication of each new result on anthropogenic climate change is greeted by a flurry of activity from industry - funded lobby groups, think tanks and PR professionals, who try to discredit the science and confuse the public about global warming.

This year the theme of Earth Hour is based around what you will do when the lights go back on, so essentially getting people to think about the longer term changes they as individuals can make to their own lives to help halt climate change.

Your «dangerous climate change» speaks about 2C differences for a climate which has changed up and down throughout history, and your personal history only amounts to about 20 years of that 65,000,000 years — hardly worth thinking about but a demonstration of some men's supercilious self - deceit.

«What's really been exciting to me about this last 10 - year period is that it has made people think about decadal variability much more carefully than they probably have before,» said Susan Solomon, an atmospheric chemist and former lead author of the United Nations» climate change report, during a recent visit to MIT.

However, even a smaller figure (I had calculated about 0.17 W / m ^ 2 based on your inflated figure for total planetary albedo, but you can check it out) is still significant when compared with the total flux imbalance, which I think is a more informative comparison than an arbitrarily selected change in cloud cover, because it compares the sea ice reduction with the effects of all climate variations that have been operating in recent years..

Oceans are usually thought to take much longer to change (it takes six years for ocean currents to get from Labrador to Bermuda), so those who worry about abrupt climate change tend to look at potential cell reorganizations in the atmosphere with considerable interest.

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.

So anyone who thinks a climate forecast can't be done can benefit from thinking about what is behind the changes happening at this time of year.

I asked him for his thoughts about climate change, after noting that we'd been through a year of record global temperatures, floods, and the Paris climate accord.

In a letter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch last year, 20 climate scientists urged her to use federal racketeering laws to prosecute corporations and think tanks that have «deceived the American people about the risks of climate change.»

... when you hear scientists say that we have about eight years left in order to really tackle climate change, I don't think what the public actually want is cautiousness, what they want is real leadership, and that is what the EU is promising to give, and yet that's what we're failing to do here.

Here is an example of what I'm getting at: * Climate change is a myth or conspiracy - The temperature record is phony - the consensus is just politics * Climate change is unproven - The models are wrong - One hundred years isn't enough evidence * It's not our fault - Volcano's emit way more CO2 - It could be natural variation * A warmer climate is nothing to worry about - It was warmer in the middle ages - A warmer climate is a good thing * Mitigation will destroy the economy - We don't know enough to act - Reducing fossil fuel will destroy us * It's too late or someone else's problem - Kyoto is too little too late - The US absorbs more CO2 than it emits This is very rough example, but if you think it is headed in the right direction, I'd be happy to go through your guide in more detail and come up with something concrete - just give me thClimate change is a myth or conspiracy - The temperature record is phony - the consensus is just politics * Climate change is unproven - The models are wrong - One hundred years isn't enough evidence * It's not our fault - Volcano's emit way more CO2 - It could be natural variation * A warmer climate is nothing to worry about - It was warmer in the middle ages - A warmer climate is a good thing * Mitigation will destroy the economy - We don't know enough to act - Reducing fossil fuel will destroy us * It's too late or someone else's problem - Kyoto is too little too late - The US absorbs more CO2 than it emits This is very rough example, but if you think it is headed in the right direction, I'd be happy to go through your guide in more detail and come up with something concrete - just give me thClimate change is unproven - The models are wrong - One hundred years isn't enough evidence * It's not our fault - Volcano's emit way more CO2 - It could be natural variation * A warmer climate is nothing to worry about - It was warmer in the middle ages - A warmer climate is a good thing * Mitigation will destroy the economy - We don't know enough to act - Reducing fossil fuel will destroy us * It's too late or someone else's problem - Kyoto is too little too late - The US absorbs more CO2 than it emits This is very rough example, but if you think it is headed in the right direction, I'd be happy to go through your guide in more detail and come up with something concrete - just give me thclimate is nothing to worry about - It was warmer in the middle ages - A warmer climate is a good thing * Mitigation will destroy the economy - We don't know enough to act - Reducing fossil fuel will destroy us * It's too late or someone else's problem - Kyoto is too little too late - The US absorbs more CO2 than it emits This is very rough example, but if you think it is headed in the right direction, I'd be happy to go through your guide in more detail and come up with something concrete - just give me thclimate is a good thing * Mitigation will destroy the economy - We don't know enough to act - Reducing fossil fuel will destroy us * It's too late or someone else's problem - Kyoto is too little too late - The US absorbs more CO2 than it emits This is very rough example, but if you think it is headed in the right direction, I'd be happy to go through your guide in more detail and come up with something concrete - just give me the word.

I don't believe climate scientists know any where near as much as they think they do about «global average temperature,» let alone the tenths of a degree change per year they claim to detect.

UNDER TRUMP, FEWER REPUBLICANS THINK GLOBAL WARMING IS CAUSED BY HUMANS BY TIM MARCIN ON 3/28/18 AT 2:06 PM More than a full year into the Donald Trump experience, Republicans have grown more skeptical about climate change compared with the...

I think the other point — you mentioned that not all the reserves are controlled by private corporations from which we can divest — that is really the other issue that Ben alluded to, which is that for a lot of these companies (you mentioned Exxon specifically), we have data to prove that as little as about 2 years ago, Exxon was actively funding climate change deniers about a mile and a half from where I am sitting here at MIT.

Since to me (and many scientists, although some wanted a lot more corroborative evidence, which they've also gotten) it makes absolutely no sense to presume that the earth would just go about its merry way and keep the climate nice and relatively stable for us (though this rare actual climate scientist pseudo skeptic seems to think it would, based upon some non scientific belief — see second half of this piece), when the earth changes climate easily as it is, climate is ultimately an expression of energy, it is stabilized (right now) by the oceans and ice sheets, and increasing the number of long term thermal radiation / heat energy absorbing and re radiating molecules to levels not seen on earth in several million years would add an enormous influx of energy to the lower atmosphere earth system, which would mildly warm the air and increasingly transfer energy to the earth over time, which in turn would start to alter those stabilizing systems (and which, with increasing ocean energy retention and accelerating polar ice sheet melting at both ends of the globe, is exactly what we've been seeing) and start to reinforce the same process until a new stases would be reached well after the atmospheric levels of ghg has stabilized.

Our last post got us thinking a bit more about the WHO's attribution of 150,000 deaths a year to climate change, now superseded by the GHF's 300,000.

Well, when you hear scientists say that we have about eight years left in order to really tackle climate change, I don't think what the public actually want is cautiousness...

«Well I'm sitting like a rose between two thorns here and I have to take practical decisions - erm - the climate's always been changing - er - Peter mentioned the Arctic and I think in the Holocene the Arctic melted completely and you can see there were beaches there - when Greenland was occupied, you know, people growing crops - we then had a little ice age, we had a middle age warming - the climate's been going up and down - but the real question which I think everyone's trying to address is - is this influenced by manmade activity in recent years and James is actually correct - the climate has not changed - the temperature has not changed in the last seventeen years and what I think we've got to be careful of is that there is almost certainly - bound to be - some influence by manmade activity but I think we've just got to be rational (audience laughter)- rational people - and make sure the measures that we take to counter it don't actually cause more damage - and I think we're about to get -»

With so much buying power behind these treats, especially around holidays, it is no wonder that the US is the biggest importer of cocoa beans and the second - biggest exporter of chocolate candy While this time of year offers plenty of sugar rushes, it also offers a chance to think about where our favorite chocolate treats come from, how climate change affects cocoa, and what we can do to make a difference.

Well, when you hear scientists say that we have about eight years left in order to really tackle climate change, I don't think what the public actually want is cautiousness, what they want is real leadership, and that is what the EU is promising to give, and yet that's what we're failing to do here.

As a science journalist who first wrote about climate change 23 years ago, in The Economist, I think Judith is right to identify the hockey stick as a seminal icon whose debunking is therefore also seminal.

Do you think people today are more informed or less informed about climate change, compared to, say, five years ago?

One Meter Sea Level Rise by 2100 Likely We think about this now because our knowledge of global sea level rise as a result of human - caused climate change has grown rapidly in recent years.