Sentences with phrase «knows climatology»

It is irrelevant how well a president knows climatology and the tenets of so - called global warming.

I know Climatology is not that simple but it does give a ballpark science based number that can be either substansiated or disproven.

So to find temperature for the whole US, you average anomaly, and add it to locally known climatology.

Not exact matches

Scientists who study climatology are known as climatologists.

This would generally be considered absurd since he is way ahead of me in climatology, but of course you will know what works for you.

Readers might wish to click the link to discover that this David Evans clearly knows (essentially) nothing about climatology.

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.

Excuse me if my questions seem a bit silly, everything I know about Meteorology and Climatology have been from learning and reading online (at the most credible places I can find, this being on of them)

No, bender, just understanding computer modeling doesn't mean you understand climatology as well, any more than someone who can program a runge - kutta differential equation solver but never took an astronomy course can do solar modeling.

But the newly obtained documents show that Dr. Carlin's highly skeptical views on global warming, which have been known for more than a decade within the small unit where he works, have been repeatedly challenged by scientists inside and outside the E.P.A.; that he holds a doctorate in economics, not in atmospheric science or climatology; that he has never been assigned to work on climate change; and that his comments on the endangerment finding were a product of rushed and at times shoddy scholarship, as he acknowledged Thursday in an interview.

4) believe that selective, short - term statistics tell them everything, when any trader or investor, who is PUNISHED when he fails to correctly forecast oscillations in a complex system (unlike the cardinals of climatology), knows how impossible this is to forecast, beyond more than a precious few years.

This network, known as the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (U.S. HCN), and the resulting data set were initially documented by Quinlan et al. (1987) and made available free of charge through the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC).

... If Gavin and the «group» care to stand by their findings, they should submit the paper for peer review or send it to the Journal of Climatology where the study was published... Who knows, perhaps they will send a letter to that journal.

And if it did that, it would revert to its constituent parts of climatology, paleontology, physics, etc, and no longer be climate science as such — so it isn't going to happen.

These derive from the record known as the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN), run by the US government's...

The main dataset is known as the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN), but a large component of this dataset is also available as a separate dataset called the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN).

I do not see people in the field of climatology stepping up to the plate and swinging at these transparently invalid methods, although a lot has changed in climate science since the blog started, so who knows what will happen.

The truth is no different when blogged or published, but the medicine tastes better swallowed from a GRL or Journal of Statistical Climatology spoon.

One of the limits of climatology is that we only have about a hundred years of scientifically gathered weather data, and we know that they don't give us the full story.

PS: Other cautionary considerations science ignored were the numerous unanticipated side - effects within the climate system, the scantiness of known facts about climate, the unreliability of many of the supposedly known facts, the bias of many of the curators of those facts, and the vested professional interest in alarmism (i.e., CAWG elevates climatology out of the academic backwater).

Stations ranked as «poor» in a survey by Anthony Watts and his team of the most important temperature recording stations in the U.S., (known as the USHCN — the US Historical Climatology Network), showed the same pattern of global warming as stations ranked «OK.»

She doesn't have the time to censor, doesn't have the inclination to ban, is a moderate who attracts both warmists and skeptics, and is a well known expert in the field of climatology and atmospheric physics.

And yet we know that they do not work in climatology.

There seems to be a dominant mindset in climatology that they «know» it's catastrophic and they just have to prove it «before it's too late».

Probably most readers know economics is as untrustworthy today as climatology, as the value of their dollar declines in value daily.

No tittering, it's so puerileâ $» every professor of climatology knows that the thickest ice ever is a clear sign of thin ice, because as the oceans warm, glaciers break off the Himalayas and are carried by the El Ninja down the Gore Stream past the Cape of Good Horn where they merge into the melting ice sheet, named after the awareness - raising rapper Ice Sheet...

We now know that the International Journal of Climatology is not a scientific journal but a propaganda sheet.

Until a systematic assessment like the Surface Stations project is carried out for the Global Historical Climatology Network, we can't know for sure.

We do know that the various models run at different temperatures (not tested here) so they are unreliable on that score, but if the GISS model is internally consistent then this suggests something wrong with NOAA's base hidden climatologies.

Lindzen has published a couple of hundred papers in climatology, so I think we can assume he knows that the statement «there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995» means nothing more than «given the variability in the data, we need at least 15 observations to reject the null hypothesis at 95 per cent confidence», a fact so trite as not to be worth mentioning.

To prove it he cites a single «well - known» result — the DALR — from a single textbook on climatology, and claims that it describes static thermal equilibrium.

Marsh, Nigel, Galactic cosmic ray and El Niño — Southern Oscillation trends in International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project D2 low - cloud properties, J. Geophysical Research, V. 108, No.

Well then, thank you Dr. Caballero, and incidentally, thank you very much for your fine online book — I'm using it teach myself at least a decent amount of physical climatology (where I can focus on the climatology parts per se, as most of the basic physics I already know pretty well).

I think I'll take my money out of Exxon and put into the climatology business cuz Dan knows best.

NCDC is transitioning from its traditional climate divisional dataset to a new divisional dataset, known as nClimDiv, which is based on Global Historical Climatology Network — Daily (GHCN - D) observations using a 5 - km gridded approach.

They knew how to do this in climatology because it is precisely how they organized and orchestrated the IPCC.

Do you know which of the eight different definitions above from climatology comes closest to the original?

Surely you know by now that such things are strictly discouraged in climatology.

Fortunately the answers are well known by those familiar with climatology - but for those who are not... well, NOAA needs to do better with State of the Climate 2013.

If it were to continue for another 5 or 6 years it would no longer be considered a «short break» (according to the wizards of climatology), but would become a «statistically significant trend».

~ As attentive viewers and listeners will know, I've been trying to plant the phrase «cartoon climatology» out there on the book - plug circuit this week.

Please spend time away from academe, then return and let us know if you still see it all through your rose - tinted glasses and with your wide - eyed awe of the climatology gods.

His opinions are not scientific, they are mostly narrowly scoped, poorly researched perspectives from a weatherman that apparently knows little about climatology.

No tittering, it's so puerile — every professor of climatology knows that the thickest ice ever is a clear sign of thin ice, because as the oceans warm, glaciers break off the Himalayas and are carried by the El Ninja down the Gore Stream past the Cape of Good Horn where they merge into the melting ice sheet, named after the awareness - raising rapper Ice Sheet...

You think that during 2 years of your research you now know enough about climatology to refute decades of independent research by thousands of climate scientists?

So then there's climatology - I'm not an academic and don't know about harassment problems in this area, but there's way too many people involved for it not to happen, and the harassment finding against the former head of the IPCC isn't encouraging, even considering that Pachauri wasn't a climatologist.

Few people even knew what climatology was and so it avoided any political influence or exploitation.

Do we know for which element (steric or water transfer from ice) and in which proportion climate models tend to underestimate the historical SLR, when their results are compared to climatologies?

We may wish to know what the future holds for us but we should not let Western school teachers take advantage of our fears and limitations to confuse real science with climatology that outside the West is likened to the ancient science of astrology.

Maybe — and I truly don't know — Messrs. Beenstock and Reingewertz and others of that time series inclination are simply doing for climatology what Box and Jenkins did for macroeconomics.