Sentences with phrase «climate science in particular»

In the posting I try to tell, how I see science and climate science in particular.

We believe it is vital to public understanding of climate science in particular.

It is the combination of all lines of evidence and tested theory which is the basis for the educated folks (that is, folks educated in climate science in particular) giving useful information on that technical subject, concerning what we do actually know about climate and what it's doing.

See e.g. academic research in general and climate science in particular.

We are encouraged by the number of contacts we have had from students with science backgrounds (earth and climate sciences in particular), particularly as the GSoC programme typically attracts mostly computer science / electrical engineering students.

Not exact matches

Laurence C. Smith, a UCLA earth sciences professor and author of The World in 2050, a 2010 book that examines how demographics, natural resources, globalization and climate change will transfer economic might to the north, says, «In Canada in particular, all four factors line up very powerfully.&raquin 2050, a 2010 book that examines how demographics, natural resources, globalization and climate change will transfer economic might to the north, says, «In Canada in particular, all four factors line up very powerfully.&raquIn Canada in particular, all four factors line up very powerfully.&raquin particular, all four factors line up very powerfully.»

DOE presents a good distillation of the Administration's general approach to science and technology: a particular skepticism of federal technology programs and hostility to climate research; a general interest in scaling back even fundamental science; and a desire to increase investment in defense - related activities.

Another possible issue with attribution science, he says, is that the current generation of simulations simply may not be capable of capturing some of the subtle changes in the climate and oceans — a particular danger when it comes to studies that find no link to human activities.

In a study published September 13 in the journal Science, researchers from the U.S. and Canada suggest that climate velocity — the rate and direction that climate shifts in a particular region or landscape — explains observed shifts in distribution far better than biological or species characteristicIn a study published September 13 in the journal Science, researchers from the U.S. and Canada suggest that climate velocity — the rate and direction that climate shifts in a particular region or landscape — explains observed shifts in distribution far better than biological or species characteristicin the journal Science, researchers from the U.S. and Canada suggest that climate velocity — the rate and direction that climate shifts in a particular region or landscape — explains observed shifts in distribution far better than biological or species characteristicin a particular region or landscape — explains observed shifts in distribution far better than biological or species characteristicin distribution far better than biological or species characteristics.

Focusing on the climate change «controversy», the expert he chose on that particular matter was Climate Communication's Science Director, Richard Somerville, featured in a clip from last year discussing human - induced climate climate change «controversy», the expert he chose on that particular matter was Climate Communication's Science Director, Richard Somerville, featured in a clip from last year discussing human - induced climate Climate Communication's Science Director, Richard Somerville, featured in a clip from last year discussing human - induced climate climate change.

The ads on global warming in particular set out the history of the companies» campaign against both climate action and the science.

In particular, when we speak about targets of 2 degrees, or even 1.5 degrees, we should remember that climate science has yet to uncover a simple deterministic relationship between carbon emissions and the level of future global warming.

The earth sciences field in particular has seen a big shift in how researchers study the climate, with chemists, biologists and ecosystems experts collaborating more closely than in the past.

Sonia tells me the back story of becoming a CLA, the ongoing challenges of quantifying changes in extremes — droughts in particular, and the need to communicate seemingly obvious climate science to a broader audience.

A committee convened by the InterAcademy Council, the association of the world's leading national science academies, delivered a long to - do list to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on Monday, including steps ranging from limiting the term and policy recommendations of its leadership to fostering more transparency in its machinations and being more careful to describe the science determining the strength, or weakness, of particular conclusions.

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).

Scientists respond to intimidation from Rep. Joe Barton (R - TX) RealClimate has the complete scoop on how scientists have responded to efforts to intimidate scientists by Rep. Joe Barton (R - TX) over a particular detail (the now famous hockey stick) in the climate science.

If I read the some of the conclusions in the latest report on Abrupt Climate Change from the US Climate Change Science Program http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap3-4/final-report/default.htm, in particular Chapter 2, it would seem possible to come up with multiple feet of sea level rise due to the understanding of ice dynamics.

«Our investigation found that during the fall of 2004 through early 2006, the NASA Headquarters Office of Public Affairs managed the topic of climate change in a manner that reduced, marginalized, or mischaracterized climate change science made available to the general public through those particular media over which the Office of Public Affairs had control (i.e., news releases and media access).

First of all, this is a climate science site, not a site about energy technologies, and the moderators — who are climate scientists with no particular expertise in energy technology or economics — quite wisely and «maturely» want to keep this «forum» focused on climate science, where they have HUGE value to contribute.

In particular, he basically admitted that his was a minority viewpoint within the climate science community but mumbled various things about Thomas Kuhn and how hard it is to overturn an established paradigm... and something about public choice theory.]

And so it is with lack of knowledge of particular pre-conditions in climate science.

Please re-read the above sentence, in particular «scientists publishing on climate related topics» (i.e. those most likely to be familiar with the current state of the science).

Too often in venues like the climate treaty negotiations, the living nature of climate science is downplayed for the sake of supporting a particular policy.

So this is a national problem — at a time when Earth sciences in general and climate in particular have never been more important, the programs that support these in NSF, NOAA and NASA have been declining.

For months, the stasist blogosphere has been aflame with «Gates of various kinds — attempts to spin one or two errors or overstatements on particular issues, along with various comments in the East Anglia e-mail messages, into the unraveling of the many lines of science pointing to a rising, and risky, human influence on the climate system.

And after you have read Spencer Weart — an actual physicist, why do you then go on to read Montford — who has no particular expertise and no publication record in climate science.

But this does not stand in the way of him criticizing Gray (again rightly so) for his curmudgeonly scorn of current generation scientists, and in particular his somewhat irrational rejection of the science supporting an anthropogenic influence on climate.

Of particular interest, for example, is the possible relationship between climate change and the incidence of summer heat waves [Meehl, G.A. and C. Tebaldi, Science, 305, 994 - 997, 2004] such as those observed in Europe during summer 2003 [see Schaer et al, Nature 427, 332-336 2004; Stott et al, Nature, 432, 610 - 614, 2004].

The Climate Reality Project, a group overseen by Al Gore, is trying to win over public opinion by getting people to spread accurate global warming science in the comment sections of news stories online, where the battle rages with particular ferocity.

Because I write the «Science and the Media» column for Physics Today Online (though I'm speaking only for myself in these RC comments), and because I've always thought that the Wall Street Journal's climate editorials and commentaries merit particular attention precisely because of that paper's influential audience, I've actually done at least four PTOL media reports so far this year on the recent WSJ opinion skirmishes that you mention.

A key site for addressing a wide range of questions raised by climate change «skeptics» is Skeptical Science (www.skepticalscience.com)-- in particular the questions discussed with references to the scientific literature at http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php.

EPA seeks comment on the best available science for purposes of the endangerment discussion, and in particular on the use of the more recent findings of the U.S. Climate Change Science Pscience for purposes of the endangerment discussion, and in particular on the use of the more recent findings of the U.S. Climate Change Science PScience Program.

regulars and those responding to this thread in particular may be interested in the class assignment I presently have underway: students are required to select an environmental issue of interest to them and compare the blogging from three sites that reflect a stasist perspective (command and control, science certainty, centalised government, precautionary principle) with the blogging from three dynamist sites (libertarian, individual responsibility, free market, adaptation over prevention, non-dogma): I expect that several of the students will use climate change as a topic and would expect that climate audit, real climate and prometheus will be prominent in the analysis.

The problem with climate science in general and climate scientists in particular is that CS is small, insular from the other sciences and has a disproportionate impact in public policy.

He singles out Climate Communication Director Susan Hassol, senior science writer of the report, in particular,... Continue reading →

In contrast to Dr. Happer's view that the science of climate change is like a house of cards (i.e., find one flaw and the whole sense of understanding will fall), I have tried to give a sense of why, as Professor Henry Pollack of the University of Michigan has put it, the science of climate change is like a rope hammock (i.e., with lots of interconnections and linkages, such that weaknesses or failure of any particular detailed finding does not weaken the overall strength of scientific understanding).

In any case, I know of no other field where like climate science the leading researchers in the field have taken a strong position on a political policy question that relies on their science turning out a particular waIn any case, I know of no other field where like climate science the leading researchers in the field have taken a strong position on a political policy question that relies on their science turning out a particular wain the field have taken a strong position on a political policy question that relies on their science turning out a particular way.

As I said in my reply to Wegman, ordinarily I would agree with him that science shouldn't be conducted through blogs, but in the case of climate science an opinion about global warming in general, or the validity of multiproxy reconstructions or climate models in particular seems to constitute for some a political viewpoint that must be either trumpeted from the rooftops or suppressed by any means possible regardless of its scientific merit.

The IMPLICATIONS ARE: 1) The integrity of «Climate Science» is in doubt (good work will get washed by this as well) 2) The Integrity of CRU is in tatters; East Anglia and UK research not far behind 3) because these particular scientists have demonstrated that they can't be trusted with such an important task — a) Jones needs to go (minimum), wholesale shake - up and new mgmt (if allowed to continue to run) b) minimum data publication standards need to be defined and audited by Gov» t, and c) there needs to be strong oversight by an independent group of auditors (in somewhat an advesarial relationship) on integrity of data quality.

In particular, his treatment of the methodological underpinnings of science, and the ways in which climate scientists get their scientific endeavours exactly wrong, is developed lucidlIn particular, his treatment of the methodological underpinnings of science, and the ways in which climate scientists get their scientific endeavours exactly wrong, is developed lucidlin which climate scientists get their scientific endeavours exactly wrong, is developed lucidly.

It's just that science and scientists, climate scientists in particular, still haven't caught tup with the fact that a lot of science is now being seen by the public as equally grubby in it's attempts to enhance it's own status as the lawyers and legal fraternity or the big pharma of the medical world or the shenanigans of the financial and accountancy world and all the other grubbiness inherent in any profession that seeks to elevate itself and it's practitioners to a high public, power wielding status by fair means or foul

I do like the «no credibility» aspect of the comment, Adam, but the point is that so much public sentiment is based upon commentaries just such as these — in fact, these particular articles where apparently very influential in turning public opinion against climate science — and now we are seeing retractions.

I wonder why, since there are half a dozen other studies showing a similar agreement, this site in particular and the climate science community in public discourse in general chooses to use a study whose proclaimed findings are so easily attackable.

If they don't like any of the particular options that fit the best available evidence on sea level rise, or don't like the particular ones that they suspect a majority of their fellow citizens might, they can be expected to try to stigmatize the municipal and various private groups engaged in adaptation planning by falsely characterizing them and their ideas in terms that bind them to only one of the partisan cultural styles that is now (sadly and pointlessly, as a result of misadventure, strategic behavior, and ineptitude) associated with engagement with climate change science in national politics.

Jerry Ravetz is of an age where trust in science is more important to him than the advancement of any particular theory, and it is of great credit to him that he was willing to listen to my climate sceptical viewpoint and put himself in the firing line.

... Exxon in particular has paid researchers and front groups to create uncertainties about basic climate change science and used denialist groups to attack well - respected scientists...

The breadth and complexity of climate science is such that although highly reputable scientists have a thorough understanding of their particular field, there is a tacit assumption that their peers in other fields are equally reputable and each will tend to write in the context of man - made global warming being fact.

Though the activists have attempted — falsely and improperly — to convey the impression that it is somehow illegal, immoral or damaging to the planet to vote for the Republican party's candidate in the forthcoming presidential election because he disagrees with the totalitarian position on the climate question that they espouse with such religious fervor and such disregard for science, in truth it is not the business of scientists to abuse the authority of their white lab - coats by collectively suggesting that «Science» demands the voters should or should not cast their vote in any particular dirscience, in truth it is not the business of scientists to abuse the authority of their white lab - coats by collectively suggesting that «Science» demands the voters should or should not cast their vote in any particular dirScience» demands the voters should or should not cast their vote in any particular direction.

The raters were ideologically biased activists who had a particular outcome in mind, and were given the power to create that outcome given that the study was based on their subjective ratings of climate science abstracts (and other random abstracts evidently).