Because weather science doggedly, and without any great fanfare, «tamed» (not conquered) the weather.
Not exact matches
Laboratory
science has its usual pitfalls, and now add these: low temperature and high wind, reagents that never made it to Antarctica, unpredictable
weather conditions that delay or cut short trips to your test site
because it's dangerous to fly a helicopter in a snowstorm, Weddell seals that won't let you fish in your fishing hole, the unavoidable distraction presented by a troop of curious penguins, and... well, you get the picture.
There's been a lot of noise about extreme
weather the past few months, and it frustrates me,
because I think that too much jumping up and down about it does a disservice to the
science, and to future expectations of immediate, in - your - face evidence of climate change.
Focusing on the influence of greenhouse - driven climate change on
weather extremes (except for rainfall and heat) takes the debate into terrain that favors those trying to exploit uncertainty
because, for extremes that matter most to society, the
science is murky, at best.
Also See: Watch Now: Climate Depot's Morano on Fox News Mocking «Climate Astrology»: «This is now akin to the predictions of Nostradamus or the Mayan calendar» — Morano: «There is no way anyone can falsify the global warming theory now
because any
weather event that happens «proves» their case... Man - made global warming has ceased to be a
science, it is now the level of your daily horoscope» — Gore [in 2006 film] did not warn us of extreme blizzards and record cold winters coming»
Bob Ward, policy and communications Director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the environment at the London School of Economics and Political
Science, claims the link between extreme
weather events and climate change is clear, and that criticisms about the evidence for an increase in disaster losses is nothing new and is merely a repetition of criticisms that date back to 2006
because the IPCC's procedures for reviewing scientific work is currently under the spotlight.
Experts who had been invited by the CDC felt the conference should definitely go forward
because the
science shows increasing direct impacts of warming temperatures and more extreme
weather on public health.
SB: So, it's true that the UK is really strong at
weather and climate
science and the whole UK academic community and the Met Office, partly
because we use all the same modelling tools, we really punch above our weight.
Statistics is also at the very heart of climate
science, in large part
because of the discipline's focus on the statistical properties of
weather, including extremes, and how they change over time.
Unfortunately, most are repeating the false
science of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) who incorrectly predicted severe
weather increases
because of warming.
He notes that Gavin Schmidt, the director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space
Science, offers evidence contrary to Morano's claims:» There's different kinds of extreme
weather, some of which is increasing
because of climate change, some of which is decreasing, some of which we're not quite sure what the impacts are,» Schmidt said.
Climate Depot's Morano on Fox News Mocking Gore's «Climate Astrology»: «This is now akin to the predictions of Nostradamus or the Mayan calendar» — Morano: «There is no way anyone can falsify the global warming theory now
because any
weather event that happens «proves» their case... Man - made global warming has ceased to be a
science, it is now the level of your daily horoscope» — Gore [in 2006 film] did not warn us of extreme blizzards and record cold winters coming»
John Christy, the scientist and interviewee on whose work this latter claim is based, seems to have forgotten that he had written in a US Climate Change
Science Program report: «This significant discrepancy [between lower and upper atmosphere warming] no longer exists
because errors in the satellite and radiosonde [
weather balloon instrument] data have been identified and corrected.
Warm = snowfall is a dolts attempt to explain a fallacy with something only Cooper or Couric could repeat with a straight face
because they have never takes a physics class, much less 7th grade
weather science.