Sentences with phrase «high confidence scientists»

My take is that the tug of war over what's causing today's telegenic heat waves, floods, tempests — and even Arctic sea - ice retreats — distracts from the high confidence scientists have in the long - term (but less sexy) picture: that more CO2 will lead to centuries of climate and coastal changes with big consequences for a growing human population (for better and worse in the short run, and likely mostly for the worse in the long run).

Not exact matches

The fellowship trains 15 mid-career scientists each year to lead high - impact science communication and engagement, increase confidence in their skills, develop relationships with policymakers and other audiences, and build capacity for more scientists to engage with public audiences.

This method allows the scientists to measure very subtle effects with very high confidence, while eliminating the effect of any genetic or epigenetic modifications and cell culture related variations that could occur during the experiment.

It is absolutely true that climate scientists are extremely cautious about attributing any event to anthropogenic climate change, but an increasing number of such attributions are being made with high confidence in the scientific literature now.

Once the women landed faculty positions, they expressed high levels of confidence in their abilities, value and contributions — especially in educating the next generation of scientists and engineers.

However, reams of peer - reviewed research, basic physics, the ability to track the specific chemical fingerprint of fossil fuel - driven carbon, and the fact that no models can replicate this century's warming without pumping up carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere give scientists confidence that human carbon emissions are driving the globe's temperature higher.

The scientists got a very similar result when they repeated their analysis with a different set of models (those used in the Weather@Home project), strengthening confidence in their conclusion that the record high temperatures were highly unlikely in the absence of climate change.

Does this prediction and the confidence with which it is made «The quasi-regularity of some natural climate forcing mechanisms, combined with knowledge of human - made forcings, allows projection of near - term global temperature trends with reasonably high confidence», reflect the consensus of climate scientists, in your opinion?

Finally, Montford asks the question as to why the scientists and the IPCC promoted the hockey stick at such a high confidence level so prematurely, and why such extraordinary efforts were made to defend it when it arguably isn't a critical piece of the climate puzzle, rather than to learn from outside statisticians and do a credible error analysis on the data and the inferences.

Scientists now have high confidence that the patient has the disease.

Today scientists have very high confidence about human - caused global average surface temperature increase — a key climate indicator.

Maybe too much confidence in their own knowledge and ability to judge (particularly since most scientists by definition were the «clever» ones in high school and college, always been praised for being the best and thereby rarely exposed to criticism).

The «very high confidence» the IPCC expresses in the global warming thesis is the strongest statement any reputable scientist would make about his area of study.

They point to this uncertainty, while ignoring the very high degree of confidence scientists have that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, currently warming the planet, causing sea level rise and ocean acidification.

The scientists used two independent methods in this analysis, allowing for high confidence in the results.

Everything I've read on the subject leads me to accept that the high level of confidence expressed by the IPCC on the broad questions of whether AGW is real and likely to be a threat is representative of the view of the large majority of climate scientists and of the underlying science itself.

For you to have such high confidence in your CO2 sequestration theory you must certainly have looked at the 800 year coincedence i highlight above and no doubt have a plausible theory to explain (as any good scientist would have).

Her butterfly study got her a spot on the UN climate panel, where she got «a quick and hard lesson on the politics» when policy makers killed the words «high confidence» in the crucial passage that said scientists had high confidence species were responding to climate change.

Scientists have high confidence about global temperature trends over recent decades because those observations are based on a massive amount of data.

climate science is very well established and has been very extensively studied, analyzed and reported on which is why people can have a relatively high degree of confidence in the «official story (from scientists, both governmental and independent)».

He and other climate scientists insist there's still no way to point to any particular meteorological calamity and firmly finger human - caused global warming, despite high confidence that such warming is already well under way.

Scientists have high confidence that global temperatures will continue to rise for decades to come, largely due to greenhouse gases produced by human activities.

By comparison, in the IPCC's last report, published in 2007, the scientists said they had a «very high confidence» — 90 percent sure — humans were principally responsible for causing the planet to warm, the paper added.

Such solecisms throughout the IPCC's assessment reports (including the insertion, after the scientists had completed their final draft, of a table in which four decimal points had been right - shifted so as to multiply tenfold the observed contribution of ice - sheets and glaciers to sea - level rise), combined with a heavy reliance upon computer models unskilled even in short - term projection, with initial values of key variables unmeasurable and unknown, with advancement of multiple, untestable, non-Popper-falsifiable theories, with a quantitative assignment of unduly high statistical confidence levels to non-quantitative statements that are ineluctably subject to very large uncertainties, and, above all, with the now - prolonged failure of TS to rise as predicted (Figures 1, 2), raise questions about the reliability and hence policy - relevance of the IPCC's central projections.

This gives scientists high confidence in interannual trends at a given time of year.

However, the importance of identifying those areas where climate scientists had high confidence was recognised in the Policymakers Summary.

After polling 1,093 Americans over the phone, researchers found that high levels of confidence in scientists resulted in a decreased sense of responsibility for global warming.

Scientists using the articles published in the journal have a high confidence level in its contents; 7.