Sentences with phrase «basics on climate science»

Not exact matches

The massive projects needed now — such as devising a model of climate change detailed enough to be truly predictive or batteries efficient enough to compete with gasoline — can not wait or depend on chancy funding, he believes.He added that a strong national commitment to goal - centered basic science could help solve other important problems by drawing America's talented young people into scientific work and providing them with better opportunities for aspiring researchers to build careers with a realistic chance of making both a significant scientific contribution and a decent living.

Until now, the climate debate has focused on the basic science and the costs and benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Basic research lays the groundwork for future scientific and technological development and it often addresses society's largest challenges such as mitigating climate change, curbing antibiotic resistance or preventing terrorism, said Maria Zuber, chair of the National Science Board and the E. A. Griswold Professor of Geophysics and vice president for research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, during a monthly colloquium lecture on Wednesday at AAAS headquarters.

If one does climate science, one has to be up on all the contributing disciplines at least to the extent that one knows the basics, the real experts, and could at least review a paper for general interest in the field.

Given that the writers are on strike anyhow (but even if they weren't), perhaps the TV media should give us a «time out» from their normal entertainments and cover basic statistics, risk assessment, climate science, and related matters for the public good?

Unfortunately for policymakers and the public, while the basic science pointing to a rising human influence on climate is clear, many of the most important questions will remain surrounded by deep complexity and uncertainty for a long time to come: the pace at which seas will rise, the extent of warming from a certain buildup of greenhouse gases (climate sensitivity), the impact on hurricanes, the particular effects in particular places (what global warming means for Addis Ababa or Atlanta).

For his part, Mr. Monckton says there is no need to exploit such events because he and others have exposed fatal weaknesses in the mainstream view that a strong warming effect is due to rising concentrations of carbon dioxide — regardless of the peer - reviewed, Nobel Prize - winning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the conclusions of various national academies of science and 100 years of growing accord on the basics.

Both projects have gaps — echoing the «reality gap» in the Paris climate agreement — including scant focus on the world's continuing underinvestment in basic energy sciences and the role of nuclear energy in helping fill a post-carbon clean - energy portfolio.

In a packed room, Chu gave his trademark illustrated tutorial, leading from basic climate science through the disturbing implications of global energy trends and efforts by the Obama administration to stimulate energy innovation with research hubs and dozens of grants for work on the frontiers of energy sciences that might produce breakthroughs.

, Heartland claims, the basic science of GHGs (yes people still believe it is false), plus all the «fronts» misrepresenting themselves as «Climate Institute this and that» were they run Blogs open to the public, and so on.

It's an important moment for this message to sink in, because the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, meeting this week in Bangkok, is getting ready to dive in on a special report on the benefits of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above Earth's temperature a century or more ago and emissions paths to accomplish that (to learn what this murky number means in relation to the more familiar 2 - degree limit click here for a quick sketch, basic science, deep dive).

Yesterday, 375 members of the National Academy of Sciences, including 30 Nobel Prize winners, posted an open letter reviewing the basics of established climate science, decrying claims of hoax and hype spouted by Republicans during the presidential campaign and warning against the United States pulling out of the Paris Agreement on climate change.

A few weeks ago, I had an unusual — and challenging — assignment: providing a one - hour «tutorial» on the basic science of human - induced climate change to a Federal District Court in San Francisco.

One can see a number of basic flaws here; the complete lack of appreciation of the importance of natural variability on short time scales, the common but erroneous belief that any attribution of past climate change to solar or other forcing means that CO2 has no radiative effect, and a hopeless lack of familiarity of the basic science of detection and attribution.

Dr. Lacis, who wrote the comment in November 2005, was referring to the executive summary of the chapter in the Working Group 1 report on the basic science of human - driven global warming entitled Understanding and Attributing Climate Change.

He focuses on the basics of the science, with a dollop of economics, and leaves off the super wicked questions related to satisfying the energy needs of humanity through its current growth spurt without overheating climate.

Gell - Mann repeatedly wondered why the media and others communicating science had failed to counter attacks on climate science based on the recent lack of warming by laying out the basic reality of the building greenhouse effect.

The leaders of the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change review of the basic science on climate change and its causes have weighed in with a strong defense both of their findings and the individual scientists involved in the hacked e-mail messages andClimate Change review of the basic science on climate change and its causes have weighed in with a strong defense both of their findings and the individual scientists involved in the hacked e-mail messages andclimate change and its causes have weighed in with a strong defense both of their findings and the individual scientists involved in the hacked e-mail messages and files.

It would be more constructive to concentrate on showing a causal link and proof of specific theories of climate science to establish some basic knowns.

[Dec. 11, 1:21 p.m. Updated The comment thread on this post is to become an open discussion of developments in basic climate science, as described in a new piece aimed at keeping other discussions here on target.]

The declaration being released at the Vatican has sections on the basics of climate change science, global economic trends and the Sustainable Development Goals that are being finalized this year in United Nations discussions.

Another, of course, is that the science illuminating the extent of the human influence on climate is not «settled» for many specific, and important, points, even though the basic case for rising risks from rising concentrations of greenhouse gases is robust enough to merit a strong response, according to a host of experts (even if you take the intergovernmental panel's findings with a grain of salt).

But somehow or other, the subcommittee on energy and the environment of the House Committee on Science and Technology today pulled off a (relatively) civil hearing on basic questions related to climate science and policy oScience and Technology today pulled off a (relatively) civil hearing on basic questions related to climate science and policy oscience and policy options.

Finally, we returned to the science, and I addressed a theme that's come up on this blog, and that I think contributes substantially to making the human response to climate change (or global warming) a particularly vexing problem — the reality that while the basics of the science are clear, the science on questions that matter most to society is not.

That's why investigations like «The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change» (Science, Dec. 2004) are important to show that most of the basic disagreements are nothing more than manufactured media spin.

The documents were posted Thursday at Stopgreensuicide.com, a Web site launched by Alec Rawls, a passionate foe of restrictions on greenhouse gases (with a very quirky pedigree) who signed up — like almost anyone could — to be one of 800 reviewers offering more than 30,000 comments on this draft report, which focuses on the basic science examining the extent of the human influence on the climate system.

Dave Slade had tried to add social sciences to the Department of Energy global change budget in 1980, but the incoming DOE secretary for the Reagan Administration (president of a dentistry school from South Carolina, as I recall) stopped that (why would DOE be studying the potato famine in Ireland as an analog for the impacts of climate change on countries)-RRB- and shifted responsibility for the climate change research effort away from Dave Slade and the Office of Health and Environmental Research to the Office of Basic Energy Sciences — so focus on the hard sciences was the lesson.

Many of those promoting stasis in the face of a clear need for a global energy quest have used this saga as a kind of «blackwash» that will long linger like a cloud, tainting public appreciation of even the undisputed basics of science pointing to a rising human influence on climate.

Prolonged exchanges on questions of climate science should take place on the «Back to Basics on Climate and Energy» comment climate science should take place on the «Back to Basics on Climate and Energy» comment Climate and Energy» comment string.

[Dr. Carling has] the complete lack of appreciation of the importance of natural variability on short time scales, the -LSB-...] erroneous belief that any attribution of past climate change to -LSB-...] other [than CO2] forcing means that CO2 has no radiative effect, and a hopeless lack of familiarity of the basic science of detection and attribution.

That leaves ever fewer columns for basic science or research on looming risks like climate change.

Many readers with varied views have rightly criticized the prolonged debates about basic points in climate science that frequently spring up on Dot Earth posts where science is not the main point of discussion.

They quickly established their views as the prevailing «truth» through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) by deliberately misusing climate science, but also misusing basic sClimate Change (IPCC) by deliberately misusing climate science, but also misusing basic sclimate science, but also misusing basic science.

Please say a special prayer for the survival of science as a process of «truthing» on this last day of the Lisbon Workshop to try to reconcile dishonest climate predictions with basic principles of science.

Trenberth argues that since science / physics has already established the human influence on climate, oceans, etc. (and Curry would not say otherwise) it makes more sense for Curry to have to show that there is no influence on water vapor and precipitation (i.e., intensification of storm activity / heavy precipitation) than to show that there is, because of basic physics / physical systems / physical relationships that constitute the global climate cycle.

As for your statement that there is only «consensus around the basics»; please enlighten me as to what that consensus is because after following the climate debate (and learning the science) for almost ten years, I haven't seen ANY consensus on anything I would call BASIC.

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.»

With every assessment the group publishes four technical reports, each thousands of pages long — one on the basic science, and others on climate impacts and how to adapt to them, ways to curb emissions, and a synthesis of all the findings — as well as a 20 - page summary for policymakers that covers the material most relevant to world leaders and the public.

According to Benny Peiser, director of the GWPF, «We are certainly not taking a critical stance on the basic science of the greenhouse effect or the fact that CO2 emissions in the atmosphere are having an effect on the climate.»

Well, it's a rather basic term in climate science, that anyone who doesn't wish to look profoundly stupid would do well to know before forming an opinion on climate science issues.

A deep cut would be both dangerous and unjustified, given the basics of both climate science and economics, said Gernot Wagner, a Harvard economist focused on climate risk and policy.

He writes basic level rebuttals and occasional blog posts for Skeptical Science, motivated in part by a concern for the environment, and partly as a counter-reaction to the demagoguery and disinformation that pervades the public discourse on climate sScience, motivated in part by a concern for the environment, and partly as a counter-reaction to the demagoguery and disinformation that pervades the public discourse on climate sciencescience.

Some day I'll figure out why the climate science community insists on using abstract forms of sea surface temperature data as indices, like the PDO, when detrending the sea surface temperatures of the KOE (which dominate the North Pacific) would provide the same basic information (only inverted) and would be less confusing for most persons.

Basic physical science considerations, exploratory climate modeling, and the impacts of volcanic aerosols on climate all suggest that SWCE could partially compensate for some effects — particularly net global warming — of increased atmospheric CO2.

Yet FoS states that Barry Cooper's research fund is «directed towards debate of climate science» and to «encourage debate on basic climate science.»

They are a good place for discussing details, once agreement on the basic foundation of modern climate science is achieved.

In this paper, af - ter a brief tutorial on the basics of climate nonlinearity, we provide a number of illustrative examples and highlight key mechanisms that give rise to nonlinear behavior, address scale and methodological issues, suggest a robust alternative to prediction that is based on using integrated assessments within the framework of vulnerability studies and, lastly, recommend a number of research priorities and the establishment of education programs in Earth Systems Science.

Even though we have known and understood for decades the basic science of the terrestrial greenhouse effect, and water vapor feedback effects, in the current climate (politically speaking) of the frequently expressed irrational thinking, there is unfortunately a clear and pressing need to keep on repeating and explaining the most basic of global climate concepts.

Climate science gives us the basic framework: We need to end our dependency on fossil fuels by 2050.

I'd suggest that both are almost certainly untrue in general, even though there may well be some climate science that is bullshit and some climate scientists that are idiots, and in any event, getting the basic physics you're trying to call them on wrong simply destroys your own credibility as a reasoning participant in the debate.