Sentences with phrase «just in climate science»

This is what makes the adamant defense of peer - review processes (and not just in climate science) such a counterproductive activity.

Second I've had my view reinforced that a greater appreciation of statistics is needed not just in climate science but apparently even in physics (and I say that as a non-statistician).

My experience is that many field people will not release their data, and not just in climate science.

And not just in climate science.

In general, what passes for science these days is usually questionable, not just in climate science but in many other fields.

I also found myself working with high powered statisticians who had deep doubts about the way non-statistically trained scientist used statistics (not just in climate science).

This is a weakness in our science, not just in climate science.

Not exact matches

Do you seriously think for even one millisecond that the religiously driven anti-intellectual climate in America is not largely due to adults telling kids that evolution isn't true, that climate change is just a big liberal conspiracy, or that generally speaking nobody really needs to be good at math or science anymore?

On the issue of Republicans and Democrats in New York State hiding behind the old «waiting for the science to come in» line that politicians have used to not answer questions on everything from climate change to Pebble Mine, Hawkins did give the Democrats a bit of a pass... «The Republicans want to repeal the enlightenment — the Democrats just want to repeal the New Deal.»

Flooded farmland has already forced thousands of Bangladeshis to higher ground, but that's just the tip of the iceberg, so to speak, of the numbers of people who will need to move because of climate change in the coming decade, according to a report released by the Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN) at Columbia University, the United Nations University and CARE International today.

The team, which has just completed its 2016 season, includes students from Puerto Rico and the UK carrying out dissertations in Climate Science, Archaeology, and History.

«This administration clearly has an anti-science agenda, and within that it has a very energized anti-climate-science agenda that's very visible in the cuts that are being prioritized,» she said, adding, «Climate science requires these satellites; not just NOAA scientists but scientists around the world depend on the data that NOAA generates.»

And plenty of scientist - citizens joined the inaugural Women's March on Washington in January and the annual People's Climate March (the 2017 one is scheduled for April 29, just a week after the March for Science).

«Disasters are a tempting image for advocacy, but the science is just not there to support strong claims,» says Roger Pielke Jr, a climate - policy researcher at the University of Colorado in Boulder.

According to new research published in Science magazine, just the opposite is likely the case in the northern Pacific Ocean, with its anoxic zone expected to shrink in coming decades because of climate change.

The Trump administration is «not just going after the climate science in the agency, but going after the scientists... that do fundamental air and water and land work,» says Gina McCarthy, the last EPA administrator under former President Barack Obama.

For most scientists, moving to France is easier said than done, says Michael Halpern, deputy director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington, D.C. «It's not as if you can just pick up a NASA climate satellite and just reassign it to France,» Halpern says.

The findings, which have just been published in three separate scientific journals — Earth System Science Data, Environmental Research Letters and Nature Climate Change — will also be presented today at the U.N. climate conference in Bonn, GClimate Change — will also be presented today at the U.N. climate conference in Bonn, Gclimate conference in Bonn, Germany.

Titanic international projects that are just kicking off, including the National Science Foundation - funded Ocean Observatories Initiative and Southern Ocean Carbon and Climate Observations and Modeling project, promise to pile on reams of new data and knowledge in the coming years — not all of it expected to be postcard pretty.

«By identifying climate change as the most critical issue for coming generations, the President is calling out not just science denial, but Republican attempts to undermine his specific domestic and international climate policies,» Bledsoe said in an email after the speech.

Just by taking photos and observing spiders, citizen scientists can help the Explorit Science Center in Davis, Calif., learn about which climates certain spiders live in and track the distribution of spiders over time.

The first assessment report was released just recently, and reflects the current science of climate change in Wisconsin.

The «significant gap in GCMs» is not because «clearly the science isn't yet well understood»; it just corresponds to the fact that Global Climate Models are not Regional Climate Models.

There are legitimate questions here, just as there are in climate science.

I suppose in the abstract this would be dull as doornails if not unhelpful, and so probably it's best to explain it with examples and in the context of climate modeling, but I wanted to describe it in the abstract, just because I think what keeps a lot of people from appreciating climate science (or even why it's hard to appreciate) has to do with very basic ideas about not just «the scientific process» but with the narrower or perhaps more easily describable process of modeling.

But this is why J Cook is important, because he promotes awareness of how deceitful climate denialists are, rather than just talking only about the science flaws in what they say.

That this whole climate science thing is just a hoax, a nefarious scheme to cheat us all out of tax dollars in order to support the lifestyle of gaudy luxury that we all know scientists wallow in?

One of the key remaining puzzles in the science of climate change therefore involves figuring out just how El Nino itself might change in the future, a topic we're certain to discuss here again in the future.

but all that is generally on the margins for a website like real climate that is about climate science, so I just plunk the broader perspective in occasionally in a throw - away line.

The possibilities that political leaders will soon agree to effective climate policies seem to be close to zero, they are, as James Lovelock noted in «The Revenge of Gaia», only seeking just as Chamberlain 1938 to gain time, and they are not very interested in the realm, because most or all of them subscribe to the by far leading religion of our times: the neoclassical so - called economic «science», which is based on a lot of completely unrealistic assumptions, see fx.

http://www.great-lakes.net/envt/pollution/toxic.html#gen There was a lot about contamination; in many cases that is not related to climate science, just one of the many hazards of overexploitation in an interconnected world.

Yet, the SPIEGEL alleges in the latest piece that he represents the climate science and that the insurer has just financial motivation to raise rates.

However, there are plenty of science articles that are just interesting, reporting events and explorations in the Arctic and elsewhere that give a fascinating view into how early scientists were coming to an understanding about climate change and processes.

Who knows, maybe in another 10 years or so, the WSJ editorial page will be claiming that they were never really against actions to deal with climate change but they just felt the science needed to be more certain first.

In terms of the gold that a climate science denier might find in the paper, at the very least, they could argue that the fact that the troposphere isn't warming more quickly than the surface shows that the climate models are unreliable — even though the models predict just the pattern of warming that we see — with the troposphere warming more quickly than the surface over the ocean but less quickly than the surface over lanIn terms of the gold that a climate science denier might find in the paper, at the very least, they could argue that the fact that the troposphere isn't warming more quickly than the surface shows that the climate models are unreliable — even though the models predict just the pattern of warming that we see — with the troposphere warming more quickly than the surface over the ocean but less quickly than the surface over lanin the paper, at the very least, they could argue that the fact that the troposphere isn't warming more quickly than the surface shows that the climate models are unreliable — even though the models predict just the pattern of warming that we see — with the troposphere warming more quickly than the surface over the ocean but less quickly than the surface over land.

«Overplaying natural variations in the weather as climate change is just as much a distortion of the science as underplaying them to claim that climate change has stopped or is not happening,» Dr. Pope wrote.

G&T managed to get their work out there; publishing it in Nature or Science would not have changed the fact that they're arguments just don't hold any water (they didn't do any new science, they just took what was already known, and then tried to use that to argue against what is already known — a search for logical inconsistency, which might have been worthwhile if they'd known what they were doing and if they'd gone after contrarian «theory»)-- unless it were edited, removing all the errors and non-sequitors, after which it would be no different than a physics book such as the kind a climate scientist wouldScience would not have changed the fact that they're arguments just don't hold any water (they didn't do any new science, they just took what was already known, and then tried to use that to argue against what is already known — a search for logical inconsistency, which might have been worthwhile if they'd known what they were doing and if they'd gone after contrarian «theory»)-- unless it were edited, removing all the errors and non-sequitors, after which it would be no different than a physics book such as the kind a climate scientist wouldscience, they just took what was already known, and then tried to use that to argue against what is already known — a search for logical inconsistency, which might have been worthwhile if they'd known what they were doing and if they'd gone after contrarian «theory»)-- unless it were edited, removing all the errors and non-sequitors, after which it would be no different than a physics book such as the kind a climate scientist would use...

I know nothing about climate science, but just reading your post I wonder if it is possible that the decrease in measured ocean heat content is mostly a factor of having better tools (the ARGO floating profilers)?

It raises other questions above; what should we really be doing in the sciences (broadly, not just climate and physics) and in society, at this late point?

Just as it is vital for climate scientists and communicators to base messages about climate change on rigorous empirical evidence from the physical sciences, statements on the use of emotion in communication strategies must also be firmly grounded in evidence from affective science.»

While climate science promotes the narrative of cooperation for stopping the use of fossil fuels, one just need to look to how much money is spent in national defence budgets to see that the world is still fiercely competing to control the remaining economically viable resources of fossil fuels.

Those who rail against the media for including too many voices of doubt in some stories on global warming science and policy might want to step back a minute and review the chart below, from last December, showing just how invisible coverage of climate is compared to the stories that make the cut each day.

I know that modelling always plays an important role in science and global climate change, such a vast phenomenon needs all the relevant research that is available, for the blind men (people in general) to understand the elephant:) The models are a necessary component, and interestingly some of these assumptions are based upon physics and chemsitry just the same, otherwise the models would be really far off.

In just 12 lectures, there were 142 errors or misrepresentations of climate science.

There's been a growing effort to convey the science and significance of climate change in imagery, not just words.

Overplaying natural variations in the weather as climate change is just as much a distortion of the science as underplaying them to claim that climate change has stopped or is not happening.

These science / environment stories compete for attention with stories not just in science but across other political and social issues: the Holland / Webster study came out at comparatively less crowded time for climate issues than the Vecchi / Soden study.

In a few years, as we get to understand this more, skeptics will move on (just like they dropped arguments about the hockey stick and about the surface station record) to their next reason not to believe climate science.

I think Spencer is helpful by suggesting there is a much bigger story happening in the world of science, knowledge and cultural authority of which the climate change incidents of this moment are just part.

Ropeik's piece essentially says industry is still caught in the same mindset that has gripped many climate scientists and campaigners for so many years — just convey the basic science more clearly and fight disinformation campaigns and folks will drop ideological or emotion - based resistance to reality.