Sentences with phrase «be a human influence»

«It is a reasonable question: is human influence anything to do with this nasty bit of weather we're having?»

The research made use of the weather@home citizen - science project, part of Oxford's climateprediction.net climate modelling experiment, to model possible weather for January 2014 in both the current climate and one in which there was no human influence on the atmosphere.

I am baffled by the following statement: «the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence.»

«Denier» suggests someone sticking his / her head in the sand and ignoring the data in order to justify a pre-conceived irrational notion (there can be no human influence on our climate so no action is required).

To be able to do this world we made use of over 100,000 weather@home simulation of possible weather in January 204 in both the current climate and one in which there was no human influence on the atmosphere.

Is that something that's human influence?

This (Wigley's) result is impressive, and there may indeed be a human influence on climate.

However, the main contributor to warming over the last 150 years is human influence on climate from increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Noah says: Given that global raining is «unequivocal», and the ark is sailing around the world, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence.

My take on his position is that on any climate issue whatsoever — if you can not prove there is no human influence (refute the null hypothesis by showing it is less than 5 % probable or 1 % probable or whatever), then we have to conclude that it (whatever the question is that is being looked at) is caused by human influence.

It espouses a ridiculous position — namely that the null hypothesis is presently that there is NO human influence whatever on climate.

Given that global warming is «unequivocal», and is «very likely» due to human activities to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence.

In the main text of the paper he says «Given that global warming is «unequivocal», and is «very likely» due to human activities to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence.»

«The null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence.»

For the first a systematic disassemble of the paragraph of his speech in which the comment appears and the one following would have him looking a fool (e.g. just read the nonsense about «placing the burden of proof on showing there is no human influence» and try and link that in some way to what scientists do wrt null hypotheses).

In other words H1: = «There is human influence [on X] By inference: H0: =» There is no human influence [on X] X is not directly specified, but X = [Global Warming] we can conclude in context with p > =.95 / sarc

If the as - stated formulation is correct, namely Given that global warming is «unequivocal», to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence.

Judith «my assignment as refuting Trenberth's statement» vis «the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence».

Trenberth's assertion that, in the past, the null hypothesis has been that «there is no human influence on climate» may be an example of such an attempt.

Given that global cooling is «unequivocal», to quote any magic report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence.

Clearly from the Trenberth statement, his implied null hypothesis currently is that there is no human influence on global warming.

«Prior to the 2007 IPCC report, it was appropriate for the null hypothesis to be that «there is no human influence on climate» and the task was to prove that there was.

- Finally I'd address the duplicity (if I may call it that) in Trenberths statement: «Given that global warming is «unequivocal», to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence.

RESOLVED: H0: There is no human influence on Global Warming.

Trenberth's statement — «the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence».

I do not think that «there is no human influence on climate» is a testable hypothesis, because it's too vague.

Fred, I go by what I read: to invite you to develop a reasoned and lightly referenced argument for and against the proposition highlighted in the extract below — «the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence»... Both essays would be written «blind» — i.e., without seeing the others» essay — They do not state what the null hypothesis is.

How big is the human influence on climate?

Any quotation from the report, especially of statements that some bad effect will increase without specifics of how much and whether there is human influence, should be checked against the full text.

The 1995 report said that signals were emerging that there is human influence on the climate.

The Energy Advocate, which Hayden edits, states: «Perhaps there is global warming, and perhaps there is a human influence, and perhaps that is bad.

Are humans influencing that spill?

The only identifiable cause explaining these changes with confidence is human influence and increased greenhouse gas emissions.

In testimony before the US Senate in 2003, he stated: It is the consensus of the climate research community that the anomalous warmth of the late 20th century can not be explained by natural factors, but instead indicates significant anthropogenic, that is human influences... More than a dozen independent research groups have now reconstructed the average temperature of the northern hemisphere in past centuries... The proxy reconstructions, taking into account these uncertainties, indicate that the warming of the northern hemisphere during the late 20th century... is unprecedented over at least the past millennium and it now appears based on peer - reviewed research, probably the past two millennia.

Dr. Bill Ruddiman, on the other hand, thinks that there has been a human influence due to land use changes — subtle, but real — going back thousands of years.

Comments like this from Keith Trenberth: «Given that global warming is «unequivocal», to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence [on the climate].»

«Given that global warming is «unequivocal», to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence.»

There is no human influence on climate» and 2.

Is Trenberth's statement «there is no human influence on climate» useful as a null hypothesis in the context of H1?

Therefore if what is meant by global warming means is earth's average temperature has been rising for more than century, the burden of proof can't be that there is no human influence.

Not exact matches

«What's at risk is our foreign policy, that it will be influenced not by what matters — human rights, civil rights or legitimate economic interests — but by the Philippines» ability to get in the good graces of our president.»

Activist Alberdingk Thijm does groundbreaking work helping activists use smartphone cameras to defend human rights, but her most profound influence is incredibly down - to - earth: classic children's book character Pippi Longstocking

A joint statement from the National Academy of Sciences and Royal Society in Britain said «human - induced increases in CO2 (carbon dioxide) concentrations have been the dominant influence on the long - term global surface temperature increase.»

The idea, which was primarily based on the research of psychologists John Mayer and Peter Salovey, quickly took off — and went on to greatly influence the way we think about emotions and human behavior.

That's why some scientists dedicate their careers to figuring out what influences human behavior.

In any event, Stefan and Gueguen write, the results provide further evidence that «human interaction between two strangers can be influenced by subtle cues of physical appearance.»

The enduring principles Cialdini delivers in Influence are aspects of the human psyche that are hard - wired into us, and aren't going away any time soon.

The idea behind astrology is that stars and planets have some influence on human affairs and terrestrial events.

For black men, though, the challenges of the corporate life are daunting at least in part because they are sometimes hard to pin down — influenced as much by age - old prejudice as by cultural preconceptions, the subtleties of psychology, and the weight of human history (more on that soon).

Meicun Weng, the founder of Chinese community and news site Boxun (which regularly reports on Chinese human - rights abuses and is blocked in China), drives home the point about how the Chinese government wields influence with its economic power.