Sentences with phrase «forces as an explanation»

Not exact matches

The explanation of how to become obsessed is basic: force yourself, learn as much as you can, don't make excuses.

The disclosures forced Facebook into crisis mode as regulators and lawmakers clamored for an explanation and users started a #DeleteFacebook campaign.

In spite of the fact that the purposes behind the late rally are misty, investigators point to an upsurge in bitcoin exchanging in China as one explanation behind the developing force, saying the surge may reflect endeavors to move cash out of the nation as the economy moderates and monetary markets vacillate.

(As a historical explanation it may be pointed out that the consciousness industry in Russia at the time of the October Revolution was extraordinarily backward; their productive capacity has grown enormously since then, but the productive relationships have been artificially preserved, often by force.

@KatMat: your analogy would begin approaching realism if: — during the pledge of allegiance kids were forced to say «one nation under The Orioles» — our nation's currency said «In Dallas Cowboys We Trust» — if millions were slaughtered, tortured and burned to death because they weren't fans of The Pittsburgh Penguins — if NASCAR fans endlessly attempted to have Intelligent Car Driving taught beside Evolution in science class as a possible explanation for how mankind developed — if «the 5 D's» of Dodgeball (Dodge, Duck, Dip, Dive, Dodge) were constantly attempted to be made into law so everyone would live by the same ridiculous notions, even if those notions knowingly discriminate — if nutters constantly claimed America was founded on the principles of Darts, even though our country SPECIFICALLY calls for a separation between Darts and State because the founders knew the inherent dangers of Darts becoming government instead of staying in the realm of sport where it belongs

(google pascals wager) A true christian job / duty on this earth is NOT to FORCE his / her religion / beliefs on anyone else... as Paul said «You must be able to give an explanation for the JOY you have and the HOPE You have, and the FAITH you have to others» the rest is up to God the Holy Ghost and the person you are talking to, to believe, or not..

If we assume that only one explanatory slot is available for everybody we will be forced to take as ultimate explanation whatever we can squeeze into that solitary aperture.

Bernstein gives a number of examples of the source of this failure, as explanations of his general belief «that the authors have admitted into the book concepts and principles based on considerations not sufficiently convincing — concepts and principles based on views opposed to those forced on mathematicians by the work of Peano, Pieri, Hilbert, Veblen, Huntington» (BAMS32: 712).

Also, seeing the Bible as folklore is the simplest explanation, requiring no supernatural forces.

Many processes which we now regard as quite natural and logical were mysteries to medieval man and consequently offered a ready seedbed for all kinds of explanations which depended upon intervention by some supernatural force.

After all, if we «swallow the camel» by not challenging the notion that unplanned natural forces gave rise to all living things, starting from nothing but nonliving chemicals, and «strain out the gnat» of man's consciousness as the sole exception to an otherwise completely natural explanation, are we not allowing religious beliefs to interfere with scientific explanation?

And that law supports and is evidence for the Theory of gravity, which is a larger, umbrella explanation of gravity itself (what it is, what form the force takes — wave or particle, why gravity has that specific strength and not some other, its role as a fundamental force of nature and how it interacts with other forces, etc).

SERAP's Executive Director, Mr Adetokunbo Mumuni, in a letter, which read in part, said: «SERAP is sending you this open letter to seek explanations from you, as former President and Commander - in - Chief of the Nigerian Armed Forces, on what you knew, or had reason to know on the apparent diversion and sharing of the over $ 2 billion meant to purchase arms to empower Nigerian soldiers to fight Boko Haram.

«Just as we look forward to hearing her explanation of supporting Donald Trump, why she supports turning NYPD into a deportation force, and why she voted against marriage equality and raising the minimum wage.»

As the years went by, the explanation for what U.S. forces were doing in Afghanistan shifted from America's raw national security needs to vague notions of nation building and «bringing democracy.»

The letter dated 8 January 2016 and signed by SERAP executive director Adetokunbo Mumuni reads in part: «SERAP is sending you this open letter to seek explanations from you, as former President and Commander - in - Chief of the Nigerian Armed Forces, on what you knew, or had reason to know on the apparent diversion and sharing of the over $ 2 billion meant to purchase arms to empower Nigerian soldiers to fight Boko Haram.»

Several explanations for this widening have been proposed, such as radiative forcing due to greenhouse gas increase and stratospheric ozone depletion.

So far there are few if any wholly satisfactory explanations as to how such an extremely elongated solid object could naturally form, let alone endure the forces of a natural high - speed ejection from a star system — a process thought to involve a wrenching encounter with a giant planet.

One explanation is that the long fractures in the ice crust experience more stress as gravitational tidal forces push and pull on the moon and so open vents at larger distances from Jupiter.

As a scientist, it was comforting to finally have a quantifiable and rational explanation for the ability to sense and use the Force.

The second popular explanation describes it as a consequence of «rotational disruption», a process of launching dust and fragments by spinning so fast, the large centrifugal forces produced exceed the object's own gravity, causing it to break apart.

He says: «However, as far as the mid-19th century is concerned, forcings due to GHG concentrations are insignificant so we are only left with natural forcings (or causes) as an explanation for glacier retreat.»

As the title suggests, this is a humanity - in - peril yarn, and Kane's expedition was an attempt to find some kind of explanation for «The Shimmer», a sort of hungry force field steadily expanding outwards to devour and transform chunks of the planet.

Pencil it in as a landslide for Carter's new show, about people «who are thrown together by mysterious forces and must help each other survive in a violent world that defies explanation.»

As the tension turns deadly, logical explanations begin to dwindle as it appears there is a malevolent force along for the ride, and these sinners are meant to pay for past transgressionAs the tension turns deadly, logical explanations begin to dwindle as it appears there is a malevolent force along for the ride, and these sinners are meant to pay for past transgressionas it appears there is a malevolent force along for the ride, and these sinners are meant to pay for past transgressions.

As the experiment unravels along with their sanity, the rogue PHD students are soon confronted with a terrifying reality: They have triggered an unspeakable force with a power beyond all explanation.

Major William Cage (Cruise) is a cocky, PR flack who has persuaded millions to join the armed forces to fight the aliens who have invaded the planet (they're referred to as «Mimics» without much explanation).

I have used the PowerPoint slides to structure the lesson, specifically slides to prompt / force myself to ask those key questions at the right moments, slides to explain keywords with short and easy explanations, prompts for me the teacher when to use the different activities, games, handouts, articles etc... that make the lesson up as.

Sonic Forces begins with Eggman giving an unexpectedly short villain monologue and then, without further explanation, you're thrown in an exploding city as Sonic, running to stop his nemesis.

Richter embraced the title, Abstract Painting, in 1976, as a generic one for all his subsequent canvases, a move that effectively forced viewers to interpret a given work without explanation provided by the artist.

However, as far as the mid-19th century is concerned, forcings due to GHG concentrations are insignificant so we are only left with natural forcings (or causes) as an explanation for glacier retreat.

He says: «However, as far as the mid-19th century is concerned, forcings due to GHG concentrations are insignificant so we are only left with natural forcings (or causes) as an explanation for glacier retreat.»

It first needs to be emphasized that natural variability and radiatively forced warming are not competing in some no - holds barred scientific smack down as explanations for the behavior of the global mean temperature over the past century.

Given the total irrelevance of volcanic aerosols during the period in question, the only very modest effect of fossil fuel emissions and the many inconsistencies governing the data pertaining to solar irradiance, it seems clear that climate science has no meaningful explanation for the considerable warming trend we see in the earlier part of the 20th century — and if that's the case, then there is no reason to assume that the warming we see in the latter part of that century could not also be due to either some as yet unknown natural force, or perhaps simply random drift.

On the other hand, there is a simple explanation for such a temporary cooling in a model: an artifact known as «coupling shock» (e.g. Rahmstorf 1995), which arises when the ocean is switched over from a forced to a coupled mode of operation, something that has no counterpart in the real world.

As I said, without additional fuzzy explanations the paragigm of «forcings» and «feedbacks» is incoherent.

Science educators, communicators, think tanks, government agencies and foundations have begun to pay attention to a recent study that explains the psychological reasons why people run away from scientific explanations as many people might resist being forced to learn and understand the tax code.

But if we happened to find strong evidence that, say 1K years ago temperatures were as high or higher than the ones predicted for the coming decades (not implausible as yet) we would have at least 2 major problems with the AGW theory: 1) According to the forcings commonly considered (for example in Crowley's data set) there would be no explanation for such a phenomenon.

As noted above, if the planet resists forcing changes (negative feedback) rather than amplifies forcing changes (positive feedback), then the explanation (only physical possible explanation) for cyclic abrupt climate changes is there is a very, very, powerful forcing mechanism.

As noted above however as the earth's temperature does not widely oscillate when there are large temporary forcing changes, the explanation for cyclic abrupt climate change in the paleo record is not that the planet amplifies the forcinAs noted above however as the earth's temperature does not widely oscillate when there are large temporary forcing changes, the explanation for cyclic abrupt climate change in the paleo record is not that the planet amplifies the forcinas the earth's temperature does not widely oscillate when there are large temporary forcing changes, the explanation for cyclic abrupt climate change in the paleo record is not that the planet amplifies the forcing.

Our results suggest an explanation for the behaviour of u when cli - mate is forced by other regionally confined forcing sce - narios such as geo - engineered changes to oceanic clouds.

There are two main explanations for the 1940s to 1970s global temperature stagnation (or slight cooling): aerosol forcing and the negative phase of an ocean cycle known as the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO), with the former contributing more than the latter.

For example, the scientific explanation that temperatures have not risen since 2001 is because an «upward push by anthropogenic forces was temporarily offset by a downward pull as solar activity decreased and the oceans absorbed more heat than usual from the atmosphere (sea water temperatures continued to rise)».

And the post provided an initial explanation as to why and how the global oceans could rise and fall without additional radiative forcings.

It demonstrates there is no reason to invoke a hypothetical «anthropogenic forcing» as an explanation for «the statistically significant temperature increase since the mid 1970ies».

However, it should be noted that making a living from the AGW - scare — as the troll does — requires invoking a claim that such a hypothetical «anthropogenic forcing» is the the explanation of «'' the statistically significant temperature increase since the mid 1970ies».

The best current explanation is the forcing from GHGs such as CO2.

Note that all the explanations mentioned so far act to reduce «climate forcing» — defined as the energy imbalance measured at the top of the atmosphere (TOA)

As for your alternative explanation in a previous post, I am trying to think of a world subject to a warming force due to increased GHGs since the 19th century... this warming didn't materialize around the mid-century due to large quantities of aerosols emitted in the NH... somehow this NH cooling trespassed the equatorial belt and affected the SH, which not only didn't warm but cooled even more than the NH... doesn't sound very plausible, does it?

Radiative forcings due to solar variations, volcanoes, and aerosols have often been invoked as explanations for this non-monotonic variation (4).