Sentences with phrase «comes as climate scientists»

The Nature article comes as climate scientists published what they said today was the «best ever» collection of evidence for global warming, including temperature over land, at sea and in the higher atmosphere, along with records of humidity, sea - level rise, and melting ice.

Not exact matches

Apparently there are two thoughts as to how devistation will come to us in the near future: Apocalyptic disaster brought forth by the grace of God, or climate data which has been continually compiled and interpreted by climate scientists since the 1960s.

As society comes to terms with the scientific consensus on climate change, climate scientists are being called on to go beyond a mere understanding of the phenomenon, says climatologist Gregg Garfin, deputy director for science translation and outreach at the Institute of the Environment at the University of Arizona, Tucson.

Others called Gleick a hero for his deception, noting that no one has yet come forward to acknowledge a role in the 2009 theft of climate scientist emails in an incident now widely referred to as «Climategate.»

But the arguments are changing as scientists see more evidence of the coming impact of climate change on the Atlantic fisheries.

Thus, to get an accurate picture of what the climate might be like in coming years, scientists will have to continue back even farther in history to a period known as the Eocene.

«Because of Arctic amplification, the cold air coming south is not as cold as it used to be,» said Geert Jan van Oldenborgh, a Dutch climate scientist involved in the World Weather Attribution analysis.

The data they gather will set scientists up with a solid baseline to monitor future changes and predict what comes next as Antarctica's floating ice shelves retreat and even collapse due to climate change.

Scientists recognized that climate change is rapidly altering the landscape in Antarctica, particularly when it comes to glacier retreat and ice shelf collapse, so they made a pact for how they would approach research as huge chunks of ice broke off.

Over the long term, however, scientists agree: As climate change messes with weather patterns, California will likely experience longer and more severe droughts in the coming decades, threatening the sustainability of the state's main water supply system.

«No one likes to say «I told you so», but these figures come as no surprise to climate scientists.

73: Maybe not the climate scientists directly, but such advocation is put forward as suggestions to lower ones personal carbon footprint, the advocation of lowering the carbon footprint coming from the results of the climate scientists.

Imagine a man or woman being so arrogant, and selfish, that they'd take a job driving a CO2 belching truck, or dig for coal in a mine, or fish for salmon in the ocean, or fly a CO2 belching airliner, or flip beef patties that came from CH4 exhausting cows, or teaching a classroom of students all of whom belch CO2 and exhaust CH4 and whom will have offspring that produces even more of those evil gases, or working as a climate scientist in an office heated by CO2 belching FFs and occasionally traveling around the world by CO2 belching airliner — all the while using computers made from FFs and powered by CO2 belching FF power plants, or working as a Senator from Tennessee who was President of the USA for a few hours and who travels all over the world in CO2 belching airliners, or one of the millions of people who mine, process, manufacture and transport every product you have ever seen in your life and all the ones you haven't seen as well.

I'll be posting reactions here from other climate scientists, representing a variety of views, as they come in.

I had a bit of an «a-ha» moment reading this paper by the excellent Australian political scientist Clive Hamilton, in which he argues that a great many American conservatives have come to see climate science as a threat to their core ideological identity.

As I was interviewing as many scientists and other experts as I could find, I came to realize that the science around biomass's climate impacts is much less murky than it's made to seeAs I was interviewing as many scientists and other experts as I could find, I came to realize that the science around biomass's climate impacts is much less murky than it's made to seeas many scientists and other experts as I could find, I came to realize that the science around biomass's climate impacts is much less murky than it's made to seeas I could find, I came to realize that the science around biomass's climate impacts is much less murky than it's made to seem.

Despite their appeal, such steps are almost meaningless when considering the grand challenge of limiting warming even as human numbers and energy appetites crest in coming decades, an array of climate scientists warn.

In a culture too often dominated by expediency and self - interest, I came to view climate scientists as visionaries and altruists, flawed and flummoxed like all such people who are suddenly called by forces outside themselves to excel themselves, fighting not just their own reluctance to become publicly involved, and their own ill - adaption to public and activist lives, but, ultimately, fighting for the truth in the face of falsehood, not just because truth matters in some abstract or even in moral terms, but because the fate of the Earth itself, and all who live here, is ever more obviously at stake.

When I Google that expression I get an awful lot of denialist sites come up; nobody on the first page of hits looks like a climate scientist — unless for example you're counting Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, whose scientific qualifications end at O - level (if he even got an O - level); or perhaps Joanne Nova, who has more scientific qualification, but isn't a climate scientist unless a bachelor's degree in microbiology qualifies her as such?

A «consensus view» amongst climate scientists holds that the Northern Hemisphere will be warming this month, as spring is coming.

As a climate scientist, I see many changes coming that worry me, but I also try not to confuse my feelings about them with the full complexity of reality, and I do see some rays of hope amid the storm.

In the 1970s, climate scientists believed an ice age is coming, just as they believe now that an ice age is coming.

Last week, in writing about James Hansen's essay on why he became a climate campaigner after decades working as a NASA climate scientist, I promised to post a lecture I gave in 2005 at Willamette University explaining how I reconciled personal passions with the professional detachment that comes with life as a journalist.

«INDIA»S ECONOMIC PROGRESS IN A CHANGING CLIMATE: BENEFITS OF GLOBAL WARMING As a weather & climate scientist, what impressed me was the fact that India's strong economic progress has come about in an increasingly warmer world of the last forty years or so, completely defying the projections of deleterious impact of Global Warming by IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change, a United Nations Group of Scientists) and its supporters.CLIMATE: BENEFITS OF GLOBAL WARMING As a weather & climate scientist, what impressed me was the fact that India's strong economic progress has come about in an increasingly warmer world of the last forty years or so, completely defying the projections of deleterious impact of Global Warming by IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change, a United Nations Group of Scientists) and its supporters.CLIMATE: BENEFITS OF GLOBAL WARMING As a weather & climate scientist, what impressed me was the fact that India's strong economic progress has come about in an increasingly warmer world of the last forty years or so, completely defying the projections of deleterious impact of Global Warming by IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change, a United Nations Group of Scientists) and its supporters.climate scientist, what impressed me was the fact that India's strong economic progress has come about in an increasingly warmer world of the last forty years or so, completely defying the projections of deleterious impact of Global Warming by IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change, a United Nations Group of Scientists) and its supporters.climate scientist, what impressed me was the fact that India's strong economic progress has come about in an increasingly warmer world of the last forty years or so, completely defying the projections of deleterious impact of Global Warming by IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change, a United Nations Group of Scientists) and its supporters.Climate Change, a United Nations Group of Scientists) and its supporters.Climate Change, a United Nations Group of Scientists) and its supporters.»

The study comes as scientists have predicted proliferation of these blooms as the climate changes, and amid increasing attention by the news media and local politicians to the worst cases.

The climate study isn't surprising, as past research has come away with similar findings: a study in 2010 questioned nearly 1,000 scientists and found that 97.5 percent agreed that climate change is being caused by human activities.

I could be very wrong here but didn't this whole process come about through the intervention of climate scientists in the politic process either publicly or privately as advisors and / or lobbyists.

As scientists, policymakers, diplomats and environmentalists begin to converge on Copenhagen for climate talks, the integrity of leading climate change researchers has come under attack; a release of some 1,000 hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia in Britain has created a stir, with some suggesting the e-mails demonstrate hoarding of and manipulation of data by climate researchers.

The new report — the first of three comprehensive studies to come out this year — makes one of the strongest claims yet in support of the hypothesis that human activity, namely the relentless pumping of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, is what's behind climate change — an effect climate scientists refer to as anthropogenic global warming.

This senseless name calling of the scientists on both sides of the political fence, and infighting over the details of the amount of the sensitivity of the climate will soon come to an end, as the experiment on the Earth is continued with out any possible controls by the IPCC policy makers, who only want it to proceed as is, with ADDITIONAL FUNDS taken from taxes paid by the developed world, to hasten to transfer of wealth to the third world, while weakening the Western government systems through self imposed bankruptcy.

I think part of this comes from scientists, both those working in that specific area of climate science and particularly those from outside that area, speaking not as scientists with their inherent tendency not to claim something conclusive without a good deal of statistically tested certainty, but speaking as someone who has been imposed upon or volunteered to give a scientific best guess without bothering the public with the details of uncertainties.

2) As above, advocacy is inevitably to be found in some (most) scientists when it comes to defending their ideas and intellectual work (although in most areas of science, the knock - on of this advocacy [in terms of policy decisions] is much less than is the case presently in climate science).

Likewise headlines such as ««U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming,» «Washington Post», July 9, 1971 (the scientist in question being a colleague of Dr. Hansen) or Holdren in 1971 predicting an ice age (http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=873), (although, to be fair, in the same book he simultaneously predicted global warming), or books from 1977 quoting the CIA: «The studies conclude that the world is entering a difficult period during which major climate change (further cooling) is likely to occuScientist Sees New Ice Age Coming,» «Washington Post», July 9, 1971 (the scientist in question being a colleague of Dr. Hansen) or Holdren in 1971 predicting an ice age (http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=873), (although, to be fair, in the same book he simultaneously predicted global warming), or books from 1977 quoting the CIA: «The studies conclude that the world is entering a difficult period during which major climate change (further cooling) is likely to occuscientist in question being a colleague of Dr. Hansen) or Holdren in 1971 predicting an ice age (http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=873), (although, to be fair, in the same book he simultaneously predicted global warming), or books from 1977 quoting the CIA: «The studies conclude that the world is entering a difficult period during which major climate change (further cooling) is likely to occur.»

I think the attempt to couch this climate issue as a «science - policy interface», with the scientists coming up short, IPCC failing, environmentalists as warriors etc., is a waste of time.

Powell argues that if there were a small percentage of dissenting scientists, even as low as 3 %, the public perception would be that those scientists could turn out to be a group heralding a coming paradigm shift in climate science.

Scientists, climate change scientists, would be held in higher esteem, their findings not viewed as political maneuvering, if we hadn't come to see what some of them do when they thing we aren'Scientists, climate change scientists, would be held in higher esteem, their findings not viewed as political maneuvering, if we hadn't come to see what some of them do when they thing we aren'scientists, would be held in higher esteem, their findings not viewed as political maneuvering, if we hadn't come to see what some of them do when they thing we aren't looking.

As we now know, saying that in the 1970s all climate scientists believed an ice age was coming is about as ridiculous as wearing a disco outfit to a serious Toastmasters speecAs we now know, saying that in the 1970s all climate scientists believed an ice age was coming is about as ridiculous as wearing a disco outfit to a serious Toastmasters speecas ridiculous as wearing a disco outfit to a serious Toastmasters speecas wearing a disco outfit to a serious Toastmasters speech.

That is name - calling and imho is a form of academic bullying, coming as it did from a climate scientist of some repute.

More than 95 percent of funding for conventional climate research comes from federal agencies such as the National Science Foundation, NASA, NOAA and the Environmental Protection Agency, according to climate scientist Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

The 97 percent figure, as Bast and Spencer acknowledge, comes from a series of independent surveys aimed at quantifying the numbers of scientists who believe: a) that climate change is happening; and b) that human activity is to blame.

If our climate continues to warm at today's rate, scientists expect North Sea plankton that respond to temperature cues to bloom even earlier in the coming decades.7 With a growing mismatch in life cycles among various species of plankton, as well as further climate - induced shifts in their abundance and distribution, effects on the North Sea ecosystem — including cod — are projected to be considerable.7, 8

Signs of activity as the «climate silence» from the President and Congress come to an end: On February 13 Senate Environment Committee chair Barbara Boxer (D - CA) held a «Briefing on the Latest Climate Science» featuring scientists Jim McCarthy, Don Wuebbles,... Continue reclimate silence» from the President and Congress come to an end: On February 13 Senate Environment Committee chair Barbara Boxer (D - CA) held a «Briefing on the Latest Climate Science» featuring scientists Jim McCarthy, Don Wuebbles,... Continue reClimate Science» featuring scientists Jim McCarthy, Don Wuebbles,... Continue reading →

What amazes me is how can someone who says things such as «The heat is still coming in, but it appears to have gone into the deep ocean and, frustratingly, we do not have the instruments to measure there» call himself a (climate) scientist.

The clown that came up with that incredible CYA is Kevin Trenberth, a «climate scientist» famously quoted in the Climategate emails as calling it a «travesty» that they couldn't find the missing heat.

The statement by Mike McPhaden, President of the AGU, comes down pretty hard on Peter Gleick for having «betrayed the principles of scientific integrity» and thereby «compromised AGU's credibility as a scientific society, weakened the public's trust in scientists, and produced fresh fuel for the unproductive and seemingly endless ideological firestorm surrounding the reality of the Earth's changing climate.»

In fact, here's an article discussing the process that scientists went through in the 20th century as they came to grips with the evidence of abrupt climate change.

The idea that a group of climate scientists would allow themselves to come across as a bunch of nutty conspiracy theorists in order to do that shows they must fear any and all competition to their work in the market place of ideas.

Loomborg presumes that the IPCC forecast will be realized, but I see the AGW as more or less a hoax and believe what many scientists think today, that we will have a cool climate the coming decades and maybe a little ice age.

The attacks on scientists who have said that climate change is with a high probability happening, and anthropogenic have come from many long discredited sources, and the sources which are less easily identifiable as being based on unsound scientific principles have a great deal of cross-over with those which are.

Extreme weather will strike as climate change takes hold, IPCC warns Heavier rainfall, storms and droughts could wipe billions off economies and destroy lives, says report by 220 scientists Heavier rainfall, fiercer storms and intensifying droughts are likely to strike the world in the coming decades as climate change takes effect, the world's leading climate scientists said on Friday.