Sentences with phrase «as atmospheric physicist»

In fact, those spreads are more on a the same viewpoint that Miskolczi takes as an atmospheric physicist and it makes hugely more sense, and is in fact, it is the correct viewpoint of what actually occurs.

As atmospheric physicist Veerabhadran Ramanathan of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, said of such efforts to reduce atmospheric soot a few years ago: «If the world pays attention and puts resources to it, we will see an effect immediately.

For their part, though, global warming skeptics such as atmospheric physicist Fred Singer maintain that cold weather snaps are responsible for more human deaths than warm temperatures and heat waves.

Not exact matches

«Given that atmospheric rivers over the Atlantic and Pacific oceans appear as coherent filaments of water vapor lasting for up to a week, and that Lagrangian coherent structures have turned out to explain the formation of other geophysical flows, we wondered whether Lagrangian coherent structures might somehow play a role in the formation of atmospheric rivers,» said study coauthor Vicente Perez - Munuzuri, a physicist at the University of Santiago de Compostela in Spain.

Study lead author Michael Raupach, GCP co-chair and atmospheric physicist at Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, says it will take economic, policy and social changes to reverse the trend, such as capturing the CO2 emitted by coal - fired power plants and increased international cooperation.

Scientifically, the meteorologists, climatologists, and atmospheric physicists, who were responsible for «discovering» the human contribution to the terrestrial greenhouse effect, have been the most consistent champions of its importance, while the solar physics community, and especially those interested in solar - terrestrial relations, have increasingly stressed the possible importance of the long - term variations of the solar constant as the chief cause of climate change.

The trouble is that there remains little empirical evidence to support the idea, as we were surprised to find out when we talked to UC San Diego atmospheric physicist Veerabhadran Ramanathan about his research showing that another type of aerosol — black carbon — had a significant warming effect:

... the Heartland Institute's climate - change summit was forged around a cadre of professional climatologists, atmospheric physicists, and economists who see the effects of a global - warming «hoax» as the death knell for scientific inquiry and the capitalist system of free enterprise.

As a professional scientist, a physicist with 40 years experience in aerospace and extensive knowledge of atmospheric physics, I can tell you that, indeed, the science is settled, but not the way the AGW extremists would have you believe.

Dr. Singer, an atmospheric and space physicist, served as professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville from 1971 to 1994.

The science will continue as climatologists and atmospheric physicists seek to reduce the uncertainty of this effect.

In 1861, English physicist John Tyndall said that certain atmospheric gases, such as carbon monoxide and water vapor, warmed Earth's surface.

As I wrote at 2/20 6:07 am above the 1996 paper has been followed up, verified and published more recently by several other independent atmospheric thermodynamic physicist authors proving Fig. 1 in the top post thought experiment to be non-isothermal, isentropic at equilibrium (they do include for Willis» sake equations with = signs).

The thought experiment of Fig. 1 in top post being isothermal at equilibrium is wrong & shown irrefutably (by many published atmospheric thermodynamic physicists cited) to be non-isothermal, isentropic in equilibrium by the correct algebraic steps to maximize entropy and reasonable experiments as posted above.

entropy, conserving total enthalpy / energy equilibrium of Fig. 1 is irrefutably proven non-isothermal, isentropic by published atmospheric thermodynamic physicists as early as 1996, again in 1998, 2004 and 2010 including experiments validating their results.

As poster Robert Brown implies above, an atmospheric thermodynamic physicist can use 1st year college math to derive the proper «equations with =» proving Fig. 1 non-isothermal, isentropic given the proper outline algebra steps which I posted 2/5 12:27 pm.

Furthermore, the search terms Cook used to aggregate the climate papers exclude research papers from climate «skeptics,» such as MIT atmospheric physicist and former Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) contributor Dr. Richard Lindzen.

If you asked an atmospheric physicist what would happen if the level of greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide) in the atmosphere increased, they would tell you that you will get a warming.

You know the IPCC as a group of atmospheric scientists and physicists, but we all know (including you) that it is a transnatioanal organization devoted to providing evidence for the UNFCCC's mission objectives.

My educated layman's physicist's gut (layman as far as climate science goes, not physics) tells me 2W / m2 out of the ocean seems pretty high given that the temperature difference is generated by a peak forcing of only -3.4 W / m2 - it implies that the ocean response is of the same order as the atmospheric response, which seems unlikely given the «impedance mismatch» between the ocean and atmosphere.

As MIT atmospheric physicist Richard Lindzen explained, «IPCC's emphasis, however, isn't on getting qualified scientists, but on getting representatives from over 100 countries».

Have you read Miskolczi's papers yet as I suggested you do, by an atmospheric physicist, which explains plainly why this is so?

I worked for several years as an editor at a Physics magazine, and countless times, I ran into such prejudices — usually expressed by physicists who worked in nice, clean laboratories and contended that geophysics, oceanography, atmospheric science... (insert your favorite subfield to diss).

The problem that I have met on several occasions is that he presents directly or implies claims of errors in main stream science while the only error is that he is missing some essential points well known to every competent atmospheric scientists and often obvious also to me as a physicist who has learned about atmosphere of own interest after retiring.