Sentences with phrase «as climate scientists about»

In the interview, Figueres discussed the need for the United States to finally sign on to a global climate treaty, the inevitability of world economies making the transition to a low - carbon future, and the need for politicians to feel the same urgency as climate scientists about the threats posed by global warming.

Not exact matches

I think my question to those of you who couple atheism with evolution and climate change is: how can we as scientists even start trying to inform you about the details of what you are arguing against if you automatically presume everything we say is a blasphemous lie?

Understanding the climate is a fantastically complicated problem, about which I know only as much as the average scientist, which is to say: not....

I think my question to those of you who couple evil atheism with evolution, the big bang, and climate change is: how can we as scientists even start trying to inform you about the details of what you are arguing against if you automatically presume everything we say is a blasphemous lie?

As he explained to the Financial Times: «[Granata and I] were both very concerned by climate change and we wanted to do something about it, so we started meeting scientists at the Polytechnic University of Milan and started research to develop that technology.»

An Ipsos Mori poll found many do not think climate change is as big a threat as scientists and politicians warn and are more concerned about terrorism, crime, graffiti and even dog mess.

Leading U.S. scientists have complained about threatening communications and abusive e-mails as a result of their research on the climate impact of heat - trapping gases from human activity.

The surprise findings tell scientists something about past extinctions and Earth's future prospects as climate change, habitat destruction and pollution set us up for Earth's sixth mass extinction.

Synthesizing about 1000 scientific studies and reports, the scientists were now able to give a balanced report on the changes in all 14 ecosystem functions, including gas and climate regulation, water regulation and supply, moderation of extreme events, provision of food and raw materials, as well as medicinal resources.

The scientist and futurist talks about self - regulating Gaia, climate change and peer review, as an exhibition featuring him opens April 9 in London

James McCarthy, Alexander Agassiz professor of biological oceanography at Harvard, talks about climate science and testifying before Congress, and the collaborations between climate scientists and the national security community as well as with evangelicals.

Gabriel Vecchi, head of the climate variations and predictability group at NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Lab and another author on the paper, says decades of weather prediction data show that forecasts have improved — and will improve — as scientists learn more about hurricanes.

But talking about 2020 is crucial to climate scientists, who see quick emission cuts as important as the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in four decades.

But the two men's estimates of soot's impact are about twice as high as the consensus reached by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its 2007 report, which many scientists (including Shindell) still endorse.

Writer Mooney and marine scientist Kirshenbaum argue persuasively for scientists to step up engagement with the public, in order to dispel misinformation and foster meaningful civic participation in decisions about issues such as nuclear power, climate change, and public health.

Watch Energy Secretary Ernie Moniz — part scientist, part politician — as he deftly answers a question about mankind's role in climate change without stepping on political landmines.

Climate scientists were often uneasy about discussing it, fearful that any concession would be misunderstood by the public and seen as an admission that climate sceptics areClimate scientists were often uneasy about discussing it, fearful that any concession would be misunderstood by the public and seen as an admission that climate sceptics areclimate sceptics are right.

As for the paper's conclusion that removing atmospheric carbon is necessary in order to achieve the 2 ˚C target, climate scientist Richard Moss of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory's Joint Global Change Research Institute in College Park, Maryland, says that's a nearly impossible goal «with what we know about today.»

Solutions: Smart talking and media mastery Surveys show that most people want more information about climate science, Schmidt said, so scientists should engage in public forums such as blogs, question - and - answer sessions and public talks, provided they are not simply stacked with angry debaters.

«Of course not — and yet scientists have the same level of certainty about human - caused climate change as they do that cigarettes harm your health.»

Or, as his co-chair climate scientist Qin Dahe of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, put it via a translator in answer to a question about consumption in China: «If every Chinese has two or three cars like in the U.S., it will be a disaster for China as well as for the world.»

Scientists were the first to raise concerns about climate change, and the IPCC's fourth assessment has served as the foundation for the negotiations.

Man - made climate change has been a global concern for several years, but as industrial emissions of some greenhouse and ozone - depleting gases drop, scientists are finding new sources to worry about.

Human activities emit about two times as much sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere, according to co-author Vitali Fioletov, an atmospheric scientist at Environment and Climate Change Canada in Toronto, Ontario.

Humanity's failure to reduce global nuclear arsenals as well as climate change prompted the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists to advance their warning about our proximity to a potentially civilization - ending catastrophe

As for the long - running political controversy about climate change, especially about the degree to which human activity causes it, the scientists said it tends to become relevant mainly when they are dealing with long time frames — say 30 years or more — and mostly at the top echelons of the political hierarchy.

Oppenheimer and his co-authors use a technique known as «structured expert judgment» to put an actual value on the uncertainty that scientists studying climate change have about a particular model's prediction of future events such as sea - level rise.

With no insight into how climate projections are judged, the public could take away from situations such as the IPCC's uncertain conclusion about Antarctica in 2007 that the problems of climate change are inconsequential or that scientists do not know enough to justify the effort (and possible expense) of a public - policy response, he said.

Nine years later, his name appeared on a list of scientists proposed to the Environmental Protection Agency as arbiters of climate science for a national debate meant to provide Americans «true, legitimate, peer - reviewed, objective, transparent discussion about CO ₂.»

Perceptions of where the scientific community stands on climate change have fluctuated from a low of 44 % in 2010 who said that scientists agree about human activity as the main cause of warming temperatures to a high of 57 % saying this today.19

Let me get this off my chest — I sometimes get frustrated at climate scientists as they love to talk about uncertainties!

As with perceptions of scientific consensus on other topics, public perceptions that scientists tend to agree about climate change tend to vary by education and age.

Just as there is consensus about the human role in climate change, the perception that our species is now piloting the planet has led scientists to declare a new geological epoch, the Anthropocene or the Human Age.

And that climate scientists waiting for peer review articles as a way to cautiously respond to criticism is froth with weakness exploitable by those who could not care less about it.

As Gary traveled the world as a photojournalist, he often photographed and wrote about scientists unlocking mysteries of the natural world and he began seeing a pattern: across disciplines, scientists were realizing that Earth's climate was changing and affecting the organisms and ecosystems that they were studyinAs Gary traveled the world as a photojournalist, he often photographed and wrote about scientists unlocking mysteries of the natural world and he began seeing a pattern: across disciplines, scientists were realizing that Earth's climate was changing and affecting the organisms and ecosystems that they were studyinas a photojournalist, he often photographed and wrote about scientists unlocking mysteries of the natural world and he began seeing a pattern: across disciplines, scientists were realizing that Earth's climate was changing and affecting the organisms and ecosystems that they were studying.

Let me get this off my chest — I sometimes get frustrated at climate scientists as they love to talk about uncertainties!

As a professional airline pilot, I wonder how he'd react if a climate scientist without so much as a private pilot's license were to barge into the cockpit during a landing approach and shove Simon aside proclaiming «I know more about flying than you, I'm going to land this airplane with its 300 passengers!»As a professional airline pilot, I wonder how he'd react if a climate scientist without so much as a private pilot's license were to barge into the cockpit during a landing approach and shove Simon aside proclaiming «I know more about flying than you, I'm going to land this airplane with its 300 passengers!»as a private pilot's license were to barge into the cockpit during a landing approach and shove Simon aside proclaiming «I know more about flying than you, I'm going to land this airplane with its 300 passengers!»?

My job, to steal a phrase from a climate scientist I quoted in the tipping points story, is to be «caustically honest» about such murkiness where it's real, and to be similarly probing when someone is trying to manufacture murkiness — as has happened a lot in recent years in the climate fight.

However, as a climate scientist I remain much more concerned about the fossil fuel industry than I am about Arctic methane.

Scientists do not get to decide what to do about it, nor how to go about making any changes in society as a result of the Impacts of a changing climate.

As you point out other studies agree with the MBH study so I would have thought what amounts to a sudden global climate shift would be of major interest to climate scientists everywhere yet one sees relatively little written about it.

Climate sensitivity is something that we (as scientists) get excited about because it is a relatively well - posed question (none of that messy economic analysis or human behaviour include).

RC and the other climate scientists can not say definitively whether Hansen is «right» about 350; rather, I imagine, they're working as hard as they can to refine the science and the models, and they will be for years.

We will likely seek foundation support for the non-litigation activities of the defense fund, such as educating climate scientists about their legal rights and responsibilities and assisting university counsel in responding to vacuum cleaner information requests.

How about this as a way to encourage scientists and the media to get to the point: Ask a list of top climate researchers to predict the average global temperature and the consequent effects on current species» ability to survive in the year 2100.

It looks to me like the usual rhetoric is a weak defense for the failure of responsibility of climate scientists, the IPCC etc, the elected politicians hold as a collective to of what they knew, when they new it, and what they did about it.

It's a superb examination of what's known, and unknown, about what James Hansen, Susan Solomon and other climate scientists have described as a pause or hiatus in warming.

I'm pretty sure this is the scientist I heard on local KQED radio today, who started to talk about climate change — he got as far as saying he'd been teaching his students about climate change including this for years, and the fire problem is going to get much worse — and then the radio host cut him off.

It's useful to think of this as an example of Bayesian priors in action — given that 99 % of the criticisms we hear about climate science are bogus or based on deep confusions about what modeling is for, scepticism is an appropriate first response, but because we are actually scientists, not shills, we are happy to correct real errors — sometimes they will matter, and sometimes they won't.

(For a 2009 post, I talked with the climate scientist Ken Caldeira about this is / ought divide, as laid out long ago by the philosopher David Hume.)