«The study also showed us how important it is to maintain a comprehensive measurement network and to develop and use scientific methods that help us distinguish the changes from the natural variation in
climate in a reliable way», Laine explains.
Not exact matches
It's maybe one reason why people are so easily misled into
climate change denial when there don't seem to be any definitive and
reliable sources of data that are open to the public where information is presented
in various different
ways that most ordinary people are interested
in.
I've always thought that the
way to make progress on
climate change, especially
in «reluctant» countries like China and even the U.S., is to start by focusing on places where
climate goals overlap with other national priorities — like clearing the air or making energy supplies more
reliable.
that identified the
ways that that extreme weather and
climate change threaten
reliable electricity
in every region of the U.S.
These models are
in some
ways like
climate models, except that we understand electronic components better so our parametrization is more precise and
reliable.
Wind energy is well positioned to meet Canada's future electricity needs
in a clean,
reliable and cost - competitive
way while also helping Canada to address the global
climate change challenge.
But the projections they obtain may not be as
reliable or useful as they appear: Today's gold standard for
climate impact assessments — model intercomparison projects (MIPs)-- fall short
in many
ways.
From there, we can use 17 year smoothing and bounds to produce a 95 %
reliable predictor of
climate, again on the prior belief that we are able to compare the present to the past
in this
way.
The world's
climate is
way too complex... with
way too many significant global and regional variables (e.g., solar, volcanic and geologic activity, variations
in the strength and path of the jet stream and major ocean currents, the seasons created by the tilt of the earth, and the concentration of water vapor
in the atmosphere, which by the
way is many times more effective at holding heat near the surface of the earth than is carbon dioxide, a non-toxic, trace gas that all plant life must have to survive, and that produce the oxygen that WE need to survive) to consider for any so - called
climate model to generate a
reliable and reproducible predictive model.
While historically the competitive benefits of cogeneration have been widely recognized by a large share of industry, which has invested
in CHP to meet energy needs
in a
reliable and cost - effective
way, this was viewed outside the prism of
climate change and more as a
way to reduce costs.
Francis also said it is necessary to create «a social debate»
in which of those involved
in any
way can explain their problems and «have access to adequate and
reliable information
in order to make decisions for the common good,» something rarely seen
in contemporary discussions of
climate change that tend to exclude
climate change skeptics.
Finally, there's consensus that we can not look at
climate forecasts —
in particular, probabilistic forecasts — the same
way we view weather predictions, and none of us would sell
climate - model output, either at face value or after statistical analysis, as a
reliable representation of the complete range of possible futures.
I do wonder though about the thought processes of some of the more alarmist
Climate Scientists — if they were teaching a class and one of their undergraduate students pulled some of the tricks they do
in journal articles («a post hoc rationalisation that the «missing heat» is
in the one part of the system where there are no
reliable measurements, truncation of data part
way through a time series to only show the bits that agree with your hypothesis and not the later data that call it into doubt), the student would be failed