Sentences with phrase «warming science just»

Global Warming Science Just Because It's Snowing Out Doesn't Mean Global Warming is Fake, Say It With Me People Just 57 % of US Residents See Evidence of Global Warming & 23 % Know About Cap - and - Trade Global Warming Changes to Snowmelt Patterns in Western US Could Have Larger Impact Than Previously Thought

Warmer Science just gets better and better.

Not exact matches

Just as every Easter long - falsified stories about Jesus are warmed up by journalists to increase the print - run of their magazines, so similar nonsense is brought forth whenever issues of science and religion are covered in the media.

They can say «Hey look, one of you smart people decided to come back to our ideology of «ignorance is bliss» where we don't need to worry about global warming, or sharing what we have with the poor or any science and wellfare stuff at all because God will just take care of it...»

But since 2001 there has been less water vapor in a narrow, lower band of the stratosphere thanks to cooler temperatures in the tropopause, and that may just be holding back global warming at ground level, according to new research published online in Science on January 28.

«The northward movement of the southern pine beetle is just one example of how climate warming is permitting rapid range expansions,» said Matthew Ayres, a professor of biological sciences at Dartmouth.

And the question of how science on the fringe should be dealt with remains open: some observers say that Meldrum, who has been lambasted by colleagues and passed over for promotion twice, should just be left alone to do his thing; others counter that in this era of creationism, global warming denial, and widespread antiscience sentiment and scientific illiteracy, it is particularly imperative that bad science be soundly scrutinized and exposed.

If it were just global warming, I'd roll my eyes at the quaintly outdated science, just like swamp Venus.

Nature Journal of Science, ranked as the world's most cited scientific periodical, has just published the definitive study on Global Warming that proves the dominant controller of temperatures in the Earth's atmosphere is due to galactic cosmic rays and the sun, rather than by man.

The science community today has impeccable settled science, despite what you have just heard, that demonstrates the reality of global warming and its primary origin in human activities.

The politics of global warming just won't go away and you must find it very hard to keep to the science and refrain from obvious comment.

There was another twist to the hurricanes / global warming issue in Science Express on Friday where a new paper from the Webster / Curry team just appeared.

Similarly, just because the CO2 theory is based on valid science, it may not correctly explain the cause of the recent warming.

It is a small signal that is not easy to detect amongst the natural variability; most of the anthropogenic warming is still to come (the point of conducting science is to give an early warning, rather than just wait until the facts are obvious to everyone).

We have those who say that this just gives more ammo to the denialists, who will (correctly) point out that our own science is telling us that we can't prevent the warming (of course, more warming is even worse, but that would be the NEXT conversation after this one); we have philosophers telling us that the planet has a fever and we are the infection which caused it; we have many, many more who continue to insist that maybe NOW we will finally undertake drastic emissions reductions.

But that's just it, Paul, within the scientific community anthropogenic causation of increasing greenhouse gases, greenhouse gas - induced warming, and potential climate effects and impacts of increased warming are accepted science.

Getting sidetracked about discussions concerning how far they can swim is just sick obfuscation being propagated by deniers who want to discredit any global warming science.

«We can't blame the existence of a single hurricane on global warming, just like a die weighted to roll sixes can't be blamed for any single roll of a six,» said Michael Mann, a physicist and the director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University.

The Skeptical Science site refers to a paper by Flanner in 2009, a summary of which can be found here http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/tss/ahf/, that shows the direct heat from burning fossil fuels is just 1 % of the effect of the CO2 produced by this burning on the absorption of heat by the atmosphere from the sun, i.e. global warming.

In terms of the gold that a climate science denier might find in the paper, at the very least, they could argue that the fact that the troposphere isn't warming more quickly than the surface shows that the climate models are unreliable — even though the models predict just the pattern of warming that we see — with the troposphere warming more quickly than the surface over the ocean but less quickly than the surface over land.

[Response: Unfortunately, you seem to have conveniently forgotten that Keigwin (and Pickart) published a paper in Science just a few years later in 1999 pointing that the appparent cooling (actually, the oxygen isotopic signal in question isn't entirely temperature, it is salinity as well, so the quantative 1 deg cooling estimate you cite is not actually reliable) in the Sargasso Sea is diametrically opposed by a substantial warming at the same time in the Laurentian Fan region of the North Atlantic off the coast of Newfoundland.

I am just a reader, no competence in the science, don't know if the magnitudes are at all comparable for mixing and warming / cooling.

I've met many people who think global warming is junk science and even more that just don't seem to care at all.

I'm all for conservation and alternative fuels but to spin it in the realm of global warming just means you are out of touch with reality AND science!

Those who rail against the media for including too many voices of doubt in some stories on global warming science and policy might want to step back a minute and review the chart below, from last December, showing just how invisible coverage of climate is compared to the stories that make the cut each day.

The science pointing to a rising human influence on the climate system is simply delineating the boundaries of the problem — and they are still very fuzzy boundaries on many important points (the extent of warming and pace of sea level rise, just for starters).

When such people are influential in policy and science, and they do the kinds of things that people in the «Global Warming Swindle» or similar videos have done, it's just criminal.

Just two weeks ago in Nature, a science journal I never would have associated with comedy, I saw an article no doubt published by the top scientists in the world who say global warming will continue to year 3000 in best case scenarios.

Just as missing data in some areas of climate science does nt prevent us from making rational statements about global warming, so to the fact of missing mails does not prevent us from describing clearly what we do know about the mails.

In other words for him, as for many in the green movement, global warming science is just one of a number of interlinked puzzle pieces.

If the Authors «want to examine... loci at which scientific knowledge is made,» Why not just say what we already know as «virtually certain»: the ipcc's method is almost exclusively «computer - simulated climate science» = gigo; «Expertly» guided by demonizing CO2 and disasterizing Global Warming and spurred onward always by the ethical maxim that «We «mainstream» Climate Scientists are all gonna die from Green Back Starvation Syndrome if we don't gin up some more demonizing and disasterizing «Climate Science» before it's too late!&science» = gigo; «Expertly» guided by demonizing CO2 and disasterizing Global Warming and spurred onward always by the ethical maxim that «We «mainstream» Climate Scientists are all gonna die from Green Back Starvation Syndrome if we don't gin up some more demonizing and disasterizing «Climate Science» before it's too late!&Science» before it's too late!»?

It's not necessary — and it's certainly not political science — to remind students that «equal rights for gay people» are a good thing, just as it's not necessary, and it's not political science, to remind students constantly that «global warming is a fact».

Just face reality and admit that peer reviewed science empriically shows that during the late 20th century warming there was an increase of 2.7 W / m ² to 6.8 W / m ² more solar radiation reaching the earth's surface, which was ~ 10 times greater than the increase in CO2 forcing.

«Ben Santer [federal climatologist] just published a pal - reviewed paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science loudly proclaiming that the dreaded man - made global warming signal has emerged from our naturally chaotic climate... pretty much what he wrote in Naturefor the UN's 1996 edition of this conference, 16 years ago.

John Cook's study finds that in 1998 there were just three peer reviewed science papers rejecting the evidence that humans were the main cause of global warming.

And yes, nowadays, expert scientist John Holdren (Obama's former science Czar), just like his comrade Professor Stephen Schneider, fears not man - made Global Cooling but Global Warming:

Just to add the appropriate emphasis to what the past 164 years of empirical science tell us, the «C3» estimator replica above also reveals what would happen to «global warming» if the entire U.S. economy shuts down for one year, eliminating some 5.8 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion - again, it's a nothing - significant outcome for the climate.

John Carter August 8, 2014 at 12:58 am chooses to state his position on the greenhouse effect in the following 134 word sentence: «But given the [1] basics of the greenhouse effect, the fact that with just a very small percentage of greenhouse gas molecules in the air this effect keeps the earth about 55 - 60 degrees warmer than it would otherwise be, and the fact that through easily recognizable if [2] inadvertent growing patterns we have at this point probably at least [3] doubled the total collective amount in heat absorption and re-radiation capacity of long lived atmospheric greenhouse gases (nearly doubling total that of the [4] leading one, carbon dioxide, in the modern era), to [5] levels not collectively seen on earth in several million years — levels that well predated the present ice age and extensive earth surface ice conditions — it goes [6] against basic physics and basic geologic science to not be «predisposed» to the idea that this would ultimately impact climate.»

As to the «scientific consensus», Mann and his hockey stick have been called «scanty», «sloppy», «sh*tty», «rubbish», «a disgrace to the profession», «dubious», «invalidated» and «just bad science» by his fellow scientists, including the climatologist who came up with the term «global warming» back in the Seventies.

Of course it is worth knowing that 97 % of research papers and / or their authors attribute global warming to humans but as the video says, it's the science behind it that counts, and just because the papers are peer reviewed in itself proves nothing about whether the scientific proposal / theory is necessarily right.

Just a snippet to give a flavour: At the present time, in its anti-global warming stance, a stance based on twisted science, America is alone — and also the largest producer of greenhouse gas emissions»

The main point for everyone reading this (without getting too emersed in science detail) is that we still see JUST a whole ONE DEGREE CENTIGRADE warming between around 1910 and 2008.

We're winning the information war, but the «Church of Global Warming» isn't giving up the ghost just yet and we need to keep countering the junk science and hysteria with facts and reason.

Nearly everyone I have encountered who dismisses AGW is either pretty ignorant about doing science (that's fine, I am sure they are good at other things - it's unrealistic to believe scientific literacy could be universal), or are just plainly unable to contemplate or accept the changes required in the organisation of human affairs (even though these changes would also happen in the absence of global warming), or are just full of anti-environmental politics for various delusional reasons of their won.

«I can't teach you climate science...» Seems to me you do nt know climate science either, most of your advice is to just watch pro-global warming, pro-environmentalism videos.

Whether you are working on the front lines of the climate issue, immersed in the science, trying to make policy or educate the public, or just an average person trying to make sense of the cognitive dissonance or grapple with frustration over this looming issue, What We Think About When We Try Not To Think About Global Warming moves beyond the psychological barriers that block progress and opens new doorways to social and personal transformation.

Soon and Baliunas just showed there was a mountain of evidence for the medieval warm period and other natural climate variability in history — a very good paper that is now accepted by climate science as more indicative of what actually occured in climate history.....

«Even with just a further 3C of warming — well within the range to which the UN climate science panel expects temperatures to rise by the end of the century — nearly one - fifth of the planet's 720 world heritage sites will affected as ice sheets melt and warming oceans expand.»

In his talks on the topic, Gelbspan doesn't restrict himself to just the «certainty» about the science of man - caused global warming, or the «certainty» that skeptic climate scientists are industry - paid shills.

The announcement came just days before the launch of Climate Week NYC 2013 and the September 30 release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)'s fifth climate science assessment, which will reportedly make it clear that the planet is warming due to human activities, according to the IPCC.