Sentences with phrase «from real climate scientists»

Taylor has a history of cherry - picking and distorting results from real climate scientists, and he's doing the same thing here.

This dialogue about him being full of pontifical nonsense flows one way, without a response, this silence is a buffer extending his life span as a legitimate skeptic by default, since he can't stand the heat from real climate scientists left on the way side, crushing legitimate science away from any chance to reach a badly mislead audience, simply because he is more popular in the fringe right wing media world dwelling on sound bites and stupidity.

That's actually a good idea, although our unskilled - and - unaware - of - it friend may not care for the treatment his links receive from Real Climate scientists.

I need help (ideally from a real climate scientist).

Not exact matches

Scientists from the University of Edinburgh analysed real - world historic climate records from 1782 to 2000, comparing them with computerised climate models for the same timescale.

To visualize what rising seas would look like in real life, artist Nikolay Lamm enlisted help from Climate Central scientist Remik Ziemlinski to manipulate images of major cities using the latest science.

His amendment states not only that scientists agree that climate change is real and human - caused, but that society needs to shift from fossil fuels toward cleaner energy.

Scientists say that even though the cooling effect from aerosols is real, the biggest climate challenge from the tar sands is their carbon dioxide emissions.

Because elements of this system are poorly understood and poorly represented in global climate models, collecting real - time, complementary data from a variety of areas will go a long way toward improving scientists ability to use these models for making accurate predictions about Earths climate.

My job, to steal a phrase from a climate scientist I quoted in the tipping points story, is to be «caustically honest» about such murkiness where it's real, and to be similarly probing when someone is trying to manufacture murkiness — as has happened a lot in recent years in the climate fight.

It has been registered time and again that, aside from a few serious climate scientists who make useful points in the real debate, all of the anti-warming people are paid industry hacks.

one particular pro-hoax web site calling itself «Real Climate» which tells us that it is all about «climate science from climate scientists&raquClimate» which tells us that it is all about «climate science from climate scientists&raquclimate science from climate scientists&raquclimate scientists»,....

Steve, aside from the fact that Climatology is not a «debate», so there are not 2 sides, the comment section posts here are NOT «the blog», that consists of the lead articles by the group of scientists known as «Real Climate», for which see the Contributors link, the comments are from folks like you and me, generally non-scientists with varied opinions and sometimes clashing personalities.

I'm no climate scientist, but I know models in all fields are based on clusters of formulae, and these formulae are often derived from real world data partly by trial and error, and adjusting terms until they can reliably predict past and future data.

The point is that most basic science pursues questions generated by basic science and judged by those same scientists, a path - dependent approach that has disconnected itself from the challenges and opportunities — the many small but very real problems associated with developing effective, scalable solutions to climate change.

As the tit - for - tat attacks from the tail ends of the spectrum on climate change continue unabated, what was once presumed influence on the part of these scientists will likely become real influence on public opinion and political decision - making, and these scientists will be partly responsible.

Wouldn't it have been great if Virginians had been able to use those millions of dollars productively to deal with the already very real impacts of climate change rather than to bury their heads in the sands because this attorney general wanted to not only discredit us, but send a message to all scientists in Virginia that... if you too decide to talk about the impacts of climate change then you too can be subject to a subpoena from the attorney general?

UC Berkeley linguist George Lakoff argues that «climate scientists, trying to be precise, have too often shied away from attributing causation of a particular hurricane, drought or fire to global warming... Global warming is real, and it is here.

Christensen also promoted Heartland's climate change reports which he said were from «real climate scientists» and showed «the science is nowhere near to being settled».

«I [witnessed] a parade of some of the most distinguished scientists... from around the world testify that climate change is for real, it has serious and negative consequences, and we damn well better do something about it,» Boehlert said.

But it is far cry from the message by some strident climate scientists who maintain that the models accurately portray the real world — even when the evidence has been strong and growing that they do not.

«A global deterioration of the climate, by order of magnitude larger than any hitherto experienced by civilised mankind, is a very real possibility and indeed may be due very soon,» read a letter to President Nixon in 1972 from two scientists reporting the views of 42 «top» colleagues.

It is a real phenomenon, but it is one climate scientists are well aware of and have taken any required steps to remove its influence from the raw data.

This is real world bog standard physics necessary to understanding climate, and all climate scientists claiming shortwave and not thermal infrared longwave from the Sun is doing this are required to prove it because the whole of the AGW Greenhouse Effect is based on the claims about the electromagnetic energies from the Sun, of «shortwave in longwave out».

Over a period of 97 Hours Of Consensus, his website will be showing cartoon caricatures of climate scientists from around the world, each with little speech bubbles coming out of their cartoon mouths explaining exactly why global warming is more real and dangerous than ever before.

And, how ever Gavin is trying to phrase it, when I look at the climategate, «hide the decline», MM vs. Mann, Steig vs. O'Donnell, the behavior and attitudes at Real Climate and Tamino (the «scientists» blogs), the issues of Nature and WMO report covers (the question, that you did not answer, by the way), I have to say I'm understanding where the perception is coming from... That is not to say that the sceptic blogs are nice and tidy.

The real climate tipping point is right around the corner — the day when a majority of scientists see that Earth weather patterns and climate are ruled by electric and magnetic mechanisms caused by outside forcing from solar, lunar, and cosmic sources.

Peden wrote, «' Real Climate» is a staged and contracted production, which wasn't created by «scientists,» it was actually created by Environmental Media Services, a company which specializes in spreading environmental junk science on behalf of numerous clients who stand to financially benefit from scare tactics through environmental fear mongering.»

Taking a neutral stance at this point on work from «NIPCC» (Fred Singer et al.), suggesting that this kind of effort «competes» with the work of several of the world's climate scientists and a large number of multidisciplinary specialists contributing to IPCC reports combined with the additional scientists and many others who raise real questions that result from reading, reviewing, evaluating and evolving the information in both IPCC summaries and domestic science and discussion of the science, is just not credible, in my humble opinion.

Taking a neutral stance at this point on rehashed work from «NIPCC» (Fred Singer and friends), well known for serial, serious errors in overall interpretation, analysis and communication of the science and transparent but largely unexamined ideological bias at play in their playground «reports» — never mind suggesting that this kind of effort «competes» with the work of the world's climate scientists and the 2,500 multidisciplinary specialists contributing to IPCC reports combined with the tens of thousands of additional scientists and many others who raise real questions that result from reading, reviewing, evaluating and evolving the information in both IPCC summaries and domestic science and discussion of the science, knowledgeably and in good faith and with open identification of the nature of the social and political issues — is just not credible.

Pielke Jr.: «Gavin Schmidt admits to stealing a scientific idea from his arch-nemesis, Steve McIntyre» — February 4, 2009 — Excerpt: This is not a hypothetical example, but a caricature of real goings on with our friends over at Real Climate... Due to an inadvertent release of information, NASA's Gavin Schmidt (a «real scientist» of the Real Climate blog) admits to stealing a scientific idea from his arch-nemesis, Steve McIntyre (not a «real scientist» of the Climate Audit blog) and then representing it as his own idea, and getting credit forreal goings on with our friends over at Real Climate... Due to an inadvertent release of information, NASA's Gavin Schmidt (a «real scientist» of the Real Climate blog) admits to stealing a scientific idea from his arch-nemesis, Steve McIntyre (not a «real scientist» of the Climate Audit blog) and then representing it as his own idea, and getting credit forReal Climate... Due to an inadvertent release of information, NASA's Gavin Schmidt (a «real scientist» of the Real Climate blog) admits to stealing a scientific idea from his arch-nemesis, Steve McIntyre (not a «real scientist» of the Climate Audit blog) and then representing it as his own idea, and getting credit forreal scientist» of the Real Climate blog) admits to stealing a scientific idea from his arch-nemesis, Steve McIntyre (not a «real scientist» of the Climate Audit blog) and then representing it as his own idea, and getting credit forReal Climate blog) admits to stealing a scientific idea from his arch-nemesis, Steve McIntyre (not a «real scientist» of the Climate Audit blog) and then representing it as his own idea, and getting credit forreal scientist» of the Climate Audit blog) and then representing it as his own idea, and getting credit for it.

Excerpt: This is not a hypothetical example, but a caricature of real goings on with our friends over at Real Climate... Due to an inadvertent release of information, NASA's Gavin Schmidt (a «real scientist» of the Real Climate blog) admits to stealing a scientific idea from his arch-nemesis, Steve McIntyre (not a «real scientist» of the Climate Audit blog) and then representing it as his own idea, and getting credit forreal goings on with our friends over at Real Climate... Due to an inadvertent release of information, NASA's Gavin Schmidt (a «real scientist» of the Real Climate blog) admits to stealing a scientific idea from his arch-nemesis, Steve McIntyre (not a «real scientist» of the Climate Audit blog) and then representing it as his own idea, and getting credit forReal Climate... Due to an inadvertent release of information, NASA's Gavin Schmidt (a «real scientist» of the Real Climate blog) admits to stealing a scientific idea from his arch-nemesis, Steve McIntyre (not a «real scientist» of the Climate Audit blog) and then representing it as his own idea, and getting credit forreal scientist» of the Real Climate blog) admits to stealing a scientific idea from his arch-nemesis, Steve McIntyre (not a «real scientist» of the Climate Audit blog) and then representing it as his own idea, and getting credit forReal Climate blog) admits to stealing a scientific idea from his arch-nemesis, Steve McIntyre (not a «real scientist» of the Climate Audit blog) and then representing it as his own idea, and getting credit forreal scientist» of the Climate Audit blog) and then representing it as his own idea, and getting credit for it.

Well all I can say is that if the comments here are a reflection of the confusion currently existing amongst professional scientists then there is no surprise about the media panics arising from virtually all new observations of natural real world changes, not just climate shifts.

While it is certainly important to keep these records from all these stations for local climate purposes, but why try to keep them in the national and global dataset when Real Climate Scientists say that just a few dozen good stations will do jusclimate purposes, but why try to keep them in the national and global dataset when Real Climate Scientists say that just a few dozen good stations will do jusClimate Scientists say that just a few dozen good stations will do just fine?

As long as climate models continue failing, over the next five - plus years there should be some blowback from real scientists and people hurt by hysterical climate policies.

A three - person panel at Penn State reviewed more than 1,000 e-mails that were apparently hacked from a British climate research facility and that have called into question some of the methods of top scientists who support the idea that global warming is real.

Roger Pielke Jr., ever ready to defend McIntyre against real climate scientists exonerated McIntyre, pointing to a belated clarification from McIntyre:

Hear from communicators and designers working with climate change scientists to put a planet's worth of information in your hand via mobile apps, interactive websites, near real - time visualizations, and social media.

For more forecasting work from the UK Met Office and by scientists from the Met Office and 12 other international research centres: «Real - time multi-model decadal climate predictions ``, Doug M. Smith, Climate Dynamics, December 2012 — Red emphasisclimate predictions ``, Doug M. Smith, Climate Dynamics, December 2012 — Red emphasisClimate Dynamics, December 2012 — Red emphasis added.

1) the effect should reasonably be expected to be of the same sign, even if not the same magnitude — do please remember the talk from «real climate scientists» @ RC both pre and post Steig et al on Antarctic temperature was published.

Where's all this denial coming from, if the 97 percent of scientists agree that climate change is real and primarily driven by humans?

January 8, 2014: «Conservative MP Braid must learn from real scientists before speaking out on climate change», by Tom Harris, published in Canada Free Press, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

KIA:» f I were a climate scientist who believed in AGW, I'd try to get a group of skeptics from the T administration together with a group of believers, and see if the believers can convince the skeptics that AGW is a real problem.»

If I were a climate scientist who believed in AGW, I'd try to get a group of skeptics from the T administration together with a group of believers, and see if the believers can convince the skeptics that AGW is a real problem.

Picking up on Pete's point in # 123 that he is troubled by not knowing exactly what climate scientists are trying to tell us about where we currently stand in regard to tipping points and todays ABC article on the acceleration of climate change which includes the comment: «But many experts confide privately what they aren't yet ready to announce publicly: Change is accelerating at a dramatic rate» (URL below) I would find it very helpful if someone from Real Climate could tell us the summary message you want to get across to the public regarding tipping points — is it the «alternative version» I set out in # 75 above or is it a modified version of this, if so it would be great if you could post the modified version up here — I would love to hclimate scientists are trying to tell us about where we currently stand in regard to tipping points and todays ABC article on the acceleration of climate change which includes the comment: «But many experts confide privately what they aren't yet ready to announce publicly: Change is accelerating at a dramatic rate» (URL below) I would find it very helpful if someone from Real Climate could tell us the summary message you want to get across to the public regarding tipping points — is it the «alternative version» I set out in # 75 above or is it a modified version of this, if so it would be great if you could post the modified version up here — I would love to hclimate change which includes the comment: «But many experts confide privately what they aren't yet ready to announce publicly: Change is accelerating at a dramatic rate» (URL below) I would find it very helpful if someone from Real Climate could tell us the summary message you want to get across to the public regarding tipping points — is it the «alternative version» I set out in # 75 above or is it a modified version of this, if so it would be great if you could post the modified version up here — I would love to hClimate could tell us the summary message you want to get across to the public regarding tipping points — is it the «alternative version» I set out in # 75 above or is it a modified version of this, if so it would be great if you could post the modified version up here — I would love to hear it.

As we know from basic quantum mechanics, bosons like a company (as opposed to fermions who obey Pauli exclusion principle) and this means, probably, that there is slightly higher probability for new photon from GHG - s to be radiated upwards (btw I asked this question some 5 years ago at Realclimate, and real climate scientists told me that this should be negligible, I tend to agree).

«While it may be theoretically possible to stabilize the climate without nuclear power, in the real world, there is no credible path to climate stabilization that does not include a substantial role for nuclear power,» states the letter from Ken Caldeira (senior scientist, Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution); Kerry Emanuel (atmospheric scientist, MIT); James Hansen (climate scientist, Columbia University Earth Institute); and Tom Wigley (climate scientist, University of Adelaide and the National Center for Atmospheric Research).

All deniers care about is delaying action on climate change as long as possible, and they do this by preventing members of the Reality Based Community (which includes real scientists and scientist wannabes, like me) from teaching newcomers about the basic facts of AGW.

As coby has pointed out on other sections of his blog, the confluence of science from a wide variety of areas that has led to almost every real scientist in fields related to climate science (and especially those in climate science itself) accepting the basic tenets of anthropenically induced global climate change.

What I mean by this question is that climate change poses a real challenge to social change movements because it is gradual, delayed in its effects, and uneven in its impacts.The message that is coming from climate scientists at present, along with climate - hawkish public figures, is that we still have time to change — that international conferences, evolving public policies, steady but small annual emissions reductions, could still prove sufficient to keep us within the «safe zone».