Sentences with phrase «about atmospheric science»

Even you might admit that he knows a little bit more about atmospheric science than you do... and you might even believe him since he agrees with your ideologically - driven point - of - view on AGW in general.

November 19, 1979 memo from Exxon's Henry Shaw to H.N. Weinberg on research about atmospheric science and the «potential greenhouse effect.»

He added, «The vast majority of people who know about atmospheric science know the scientific evidence suggests that skeptics are wrong.»

I actually have never been convinced that Curry knows very much about atmospheric science, frankly.

Not exact matches

«People have thought about how forest loss matters for an ecosystem, and maybe for local temperatures, but they haven't thought about how that interacts with the global climate,» said co-author Abigail Swann, a UW assistant professor of atmospheric sciences and of biology.

What a group of physicists think about climate change matters greatly because climate science is, after all, a branch of physics, and most atmospheric scientists are based in physics departments.

► In a story about the animal species that are winning and losing as the Arctic warms, in this week's Science, Eli Kintisch offers a peek into the extreme working and living conditions of some of the biologists, zoologists, geoscientists, oceanographers, and atmospheric scientists conducting this research.

Schneider coauthored a 1971 article in the journal Science about atmospheric aerosols — floating particles of soil dust, volcanic ash, and human - made pollutants.

«Scientists have talked about Arctic melting and albedo decrease for nearly 50 years,» said Ramanathan, a distinguished professor of climate and atmospheric sciences at Scripps who has previously conducted similar research on the global dimming effects of aerosols.

«We can do something about this,» said Donald Wuebbles, a co-author and professor of atmospheric science at the University of Illinois.

The Institute's collaboration brings together researchers from fields as far apart as astrophysics, engineering, earth and atmospheric science, geology and biology to tackle questions as diverse as those about the astronomical context of the emergence of life on Earth.

During his stay at the station, he will be in regular communication with Belgian students to help them learn about the technical aspects of the station, as well as the variety of the different scientific projects (glaciology, atmospheric sciences and Earth sciences) taking place at the station.

For the past few years, Houze has filled a valued role as a collaborator with PNNL staff scientists, advancing the science of clouds and sharing his legacy of transformative research influencing how meteorologists and climatologists think about atmospheric convection.

«In stark contrast to Lindzen's letter, ours was signed only by those who know something about the climate system,» said Kerry Emanuel, an MIT professor of atmospheric sciences who signed the letter opposing Lindzen.

«What virtually every major science organization is warning us about is worrisome,» said Marshall Shepherd, a past - president of the American Meteorological Society and professor of atmospheric science at the University of Georgia.

(I've had some very long discussions about these subtleties with Susan Solomon, the federal atmospheric scientist who was co-leader of the group that wrote the science summary for the 2007 report.

Mike's work, like that of previous award winners, is diverse, and includes pioneering and highly cited work in time series analysis (an elegant use of Thomson's multitaper spectral analysis approach to detect spatiotemporal oscillations in the climate record and methods for smoothing temporal data), decadal climate variability (the term «Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation» or «AMO» was coined by Mike in an interview with Science's Richard Kerr about a paper he had published with Tom Delworth of GFDL showing evidence in both climate model simulations and observational data for a 50 - 70 year oscillation in the climate system; significantly Mike also published work with Kerry Emanuel in 2006 showing that the AMO concept has been overstated as regards its role in 20th century tropical Atlantic SST changes, a finding recently reaffirmed by a study published in Nature), in showing how changes in radiative forcing from volcanoes can affect ENSO, in examining the role of solar variations in explaining the pattern of the Medieval Climate Anomaly and Little Ice Age, the relationship between the climate changes of past centuries and phenomena such as Atlantic tropical cyclones and global sea level, and even a bit of work in atmospheric chemistry (an analysis of beryllium - 7 measurements).

And come to conclude that we really ought to listen to, and learn from, all the things that professionals of the natural sciences are telling the world about the negative atmospheric effects of our insistence on burning fossil fuels.

Here's my uneducated question — while I respect Gavin's comments about not abusing the science, it seems to me that many measurable indicators of climate change are (to the extent I can tell) occurring / progressing / worsening faster than predicted by most models, whether we're talking about atmospheric CO2 levels, arctic ice melting, glacial retreat, etc..

ER1: «The derivation of size the of the greenhouse effect is very simple, and takes about half a page in an atmospheric science text.»

The derivation of size the of the greenhouse effect is very simple, and takes about half a page in an atmospheric science text.

I have extensive articles about CO2 and the ice ages if you are interested in understanding the science of atmospheric CO2 levels.

I can absolutely assure you that there is NO SUCH THING as «settled science», never has been and never will be and that the CO2 the greenies go on and on about is a natural part of the atmospheric balance that makes life on earth possible at all, never mind the byproduct of all animal respiration.

It was much sourer about the few in the atmospheric science community still running interference for in activism.

Do you recall when climate «experts» told us it's was all about physics... that increasing CO2 atmospheric CO2 levels would absolutely produce perilous, breakneck accelerating climate temps... they said it was all «consensus» science and, btw, it's the physics, stupid... ooops, those pesky and stubborn facts strike again...

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.»

-- Susan Solomon, Nature The Long Thaw is written for anyone who wishes to know what cutting - edge science tells us about the modern issue of global warming and its effects on the pathways of atmospheric chemistry, as well as global and regional temperatures, rainfall, sea level, Arctic sea - ice coverage, melting of the continental ice sheets, cyclonic storm frequency and intensity and ocean acidification.

«For the southwestern U.S., I'm not optimistic about avoiding real megadroughts,» said Toby Ault, Cornell assistant professor of earth and atmospheric sciences and lead author of the paper.

Despite EEI's 1989 pledge to reduce atmospheric emissions, annual CO2 emissions from the electricity sector remained higher in 2016 than they were when McCollum testified in 1989, due in large part to ongoing efforts by some in the industry to sow doubt about climate science and block legal limits on CO2 emissions from power plants.

The current state of knowledge of atmospheric science leaves us with uncertainty about the future.

The anthropogenic influence on atmospheric CO2 is about as solid as science gets, supported by multiple lines of evidence — simple accounting, ocean acidification, ocean CO2 increasing at the surface (by Salby it would have to be decreasing), decreasing atmospheric O2, isotopic balances, etc..

The duration and strength of hurricanes have increased by about 50 percent over the last three decades, according to study author Kerry Emanuel, a professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge.

One of these, reported in Earth and Planetary Science Letters, coincided with a spell between the Ice Ages, more than 115,000 years ago, when the Earth's average atmospheric temperatures rose by about 4 °C hotter than the 20th - century average.

I then started reading the atmospheric science literature about precipitation trends.

«While the UK media, including the BBC, has some of the best science and environment correspondents in the world, who provide insightful and factual reporting about climate change, too many editors are willing to publish or broadcast inaccurate and misleading information, seemingly on the grounds that atmospheric physics should be treated as just a matter of opinion,» Mr Ward said.

There is nothing especially esoteric about climate science — it is just a blend of Earth sciences, physics, fluid dynamics (particular non-linear dynamics) atmospheric sciences, ocean studies, etc..

In this regard, here is the webpage of a retired atmospheric science professor who is sort of stickler for describing the greenhouse effect correctly: http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/Bad/BadGreenhouse.html He is a bit militant in what the correct pedagogy is for my taste, but I think he does have a valid point that thinking about it in the wrong way can lead people astray.

... and kind of started a long conversation about that organized effort that I had discovered in my atmospheric science history research... 2:40 point:... then, probably 2006... she discovered the same folks who had been involved in kind of organizing climate change denial in the Unites States had also been involved in the tobacco lobby... and then we knew we had a story to tell.

We've listened to scientists who know their way around the debate within the atmospheric science and climatological communities and they're concerned that publicity about global warming is driving energy and environmental policy instead of good science.

«If we cause large sea - level rise, that dominates future risks, but if we could prevent sea - level rise and just have the storm surge to worry about, our projections show little change in coastal risk from today during most years,» said Michael Mann, distinguished professor of meteorology and atmospheric science and director of Penn State's Earth System Science Centre, and one of the ascience and director of Penn State's Earth System Science Centre, and one of the aScience Centre, and one of the authors.

As someone who's starting a doctoral program in atmospheric science this coming fall and interested in climate change research I am concerned about what Dr. Mann and others have had to endure.

I am very curious about another glaring error in the making, which is the continuance of MSU graphs not showing 2005 as the warmest year in history at all, if there is a scandal in atmospheric science that's the biggest one I know of at this time.

Well I'm just an atmospheric chemist by training so what do I know about «climate science», but it seems to me that doing the work that can be done with statistical methods that are generally agreed to be «correct» rather than flaky, describing the methods used in detail so that others can follow the arguments and criticise where needed woudl be A Good Thing.

And that's illustrated if you compare how «science - based» and «science - denier» blogs discuss right about any climate - related topic, from actual atmospheric temperature development to its physical manifestations, like sea level rise (see the chart in the middle of this piece) and social and ecological consequences of climate change — including at some point the fate of iconic mammal species that use sea ice as hunting grounds.

Dr. Barron said that over the last five years more than 110 positions at the center, of about 1,000 supported by the science foundation, had been cut from other programs as varied as solar physics, atmospheric chemistry and social science.

What was once the realm of scary science fiction and conspiracy theory is now entering the mainstream of atmospheric study — only those now conducting the experiments are clear about the risks.

It is clear that Gilbert has never actually read any elementary textbook on atmospheric physics or climate science or he would be aware that the argument about adiabatic lapse rate that he presents is not new to anyone in the field... It is discussed in all of these books.

The goal is to get people to think about these things, so that we have the time, the science and the technology to develop atmospheric drawdown and sequestration systems and indeed, the technology to eliminate fossil fuel combustion in the open atmosphere entirely.

... But the AMS, which is a scientific society comprised of about 12,000 atmospheric scientists who mainly specialize in weather and have disparate views of climate science, erred in honoring such a lightning rod of controversy, despite the tremendous value his research has been to the scientific community.

(I'll acknowledge that I know very little about biology, but I do have a master's degree in atmospheric science, for what it's worth...)