Sentences with phrase «large uncertainty in his science»

Interesting strategy by Mr. Mann: first producing publications, achieving notoriety, obtaining funding, getting tenured professor position, and the last is the admission that there is large uncertainty in his science.

Not exact matches

«This election represented such a large change and threw such uncertainty onto the place of science in American government that we really had to reach out right away to the president - elect,» he says.

The formation and properties of the aerosol cloud that sits above the monsoon are a major unknown in climate science, and their potential future changes represent one of the largest uncertainties in climate predictions.

My goal in creating the image (a larger version is here) was to distinguish elements in the science pointing to greenhouse - driven climate change that are clearcut from those surrounded by deep and enduring uncertainty.

Over the short time scales considered, the model uncertainty is larger than the uncertainty coming from the choice of emission scenario; for sea level it completely dominates the uncertainty (see e.g. the graphs in our Science paper).

Professor Curry has led debate in the science community about the process of reviewing climate change, including giving testimony before the US house subcommittee on environment this year, remarking on the many large uncertainties in forecasting future climate.

I am talking about a consensus of multiple lines of evidence (empirical evidence in addition to modeling, logic etc.) When there is a large degree of uncertainty, as there is in climate science, a consensus of evidence is most definitely very important.

The goal is a more explicit treatment of the processes that mediate low cloud - climate feedback, one of the largest uncertainties in modern climate science.

While climate science can effectively inform us about the range of possible consequences of a warming world, there is a large amount of irresolvable uncertainty inherent in climate forecasting.

And since CG2 I've just been more attuned to the large and deep uncertainties in all of climate science, especially the models.

It is not merely that there are uncertainties, as always with science, but that the uncertainties in climate science are of large enough magnitude that they can not be asserted to be too small to matter.

And above all my book, like Mr Appell, recognizes «the large and deep uncertainties in all of climate science».

The politicization of climate science (due in part to having Gore as the public face for so long) is one of the primary reasons why there is so great public doubt even over the basics (leaving out areas like sensitivity where there are large and real scientific uncertainties).

This is in part because the RMP was the first process to take into account the large levels of uncertainty inevitable in disciplines like cetacean science.

This uncertainty puts a large value on observation systems that could deliver an actionable early warning of an MOC collapse,» Keller said February 17 at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Boston.

How do you reconcile very large uncertainty re climate science in general with apparently very limited uncertainty re ECS and impacts (you seem very sure both are small)?

If these larger uncertainties are not taken into account, the uncertainties in the climate science gain disproportionate importance.

Climate science consists of a very large number of pieces, extending from deep in the understood sections of the puzzle, where they fit perfectly with all of accepted physics, out to regions on the boundary where there is still uncertainty.

Among other things, the authors state that [1] «scientists do not know how large the greenhouse effect is, whether it will lead to a harmful amount of global warming, or (if it will) what should be done about it» (p. 560); [2] that «profound disagreements» about global warming exist within the scientific community (p. 560); [3] that so - called «activist scientists» say that the earth's climate is warming (p. 560); [4] that «science doesn't know whether we are experiencing a dangerous level of global warming or how bad the greenhouse effect Is, if it exists at all» (p. 569); [5] and that global warming is «enmeshed in scientific uncertainty» (p. 573).

The situation as I see it is opposite: Mainstream science acknowledges there is a large uncertainty in the net aerosol forcing, whereas Lindzen picks onevalue at the outer edge of the probability distribution function and builds his entire argument on that (rather improbable) value as if it's highly certain: His argument is implicitly built on high confidence / certainty that aerosol forcing is very low.