Sentences with phrase «larger than climate scientists»

Not exact matches

These trends suggest that large - scale climate changes, rather than local factors, could be driving increases in fire activity, the scientists report.

In the world's first large - scale investigation of how climate affects the composition of coral reefs, an international team of marine scientists concludes that the picture is far more complicated than previously thought — but that total reef losses due to climate change are unlikely.

«The key finding of the study is that they get a larger amount of sulfur and a smaller amount of carbon dioxide ejected than in other studies,» said Georg Feulner, a climate scientist at the Postdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Gclimate scientist at the Postdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in GClimate Impact Research in Germany.

If, for example, scientists had somehow underestimated the climate change between Medieval times and the Little Ice Age, or other natural climate changes, without corresponding errors in the estimated size of the causes of the changes, that would suggest stronger amplifying feedbacks and larger future warming from rising greenhouse gases than originally estimated.

Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man - made greenhouse gases.

He said that the large majority of governments at the Second Meeting of the conference of Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (held in Geneva in June 1996), «while recognizing uncertainties, believe that we know enough to take some actions now,» and that this position was supported by more than 2000 independent scientists in a letter to President Clinton several weeks ago.

From the gist of what I have read, the «Climate Scientists» think the range of the GCM estimates is larger than the actual climate varClimate Scientists» think the range of the GCM estimates is larger than the actual climate varclimate variation.

And in addition, think about all the wasted energy the «climate community» spent mitigating the impact of «deniers,» when «skeptics» could have helped out by listening more carefully to the «climate community,» and trying to understand «the climate community's» arguments, and adding to progress on increasing our understanding of the causes of climate variability and change — rather than apologizing or ignoring the input from scientists like Fred Singer — who deliberately lifts a conditional clause from a larger sentence, divorces it completely from context, and creates a fraudulent quotation in order to deliberately deceive, or Ross McKitrick who slanders other scientists on purely speculative conclusions about their motivations, or guest - posters at WUWT who call BEST «media whores,» or the long line of denizens at Climate Etc. who falsely claim that the «climate community» ignores all uncertainties towards the goal of serving a socialist, eco-Nazi agenda to destroy capiclimate community» spent mitigating the impact of «deniers,» when «skeptics» could have helped out by listening more carefully to the «climate community,» and trying to understand «the climate community's» arguments, and adding to progress on increasing our understanding of the causes of climate variability and change — rather than apologizing or ignoring the input from scientists like Fred Singer — who deliberately lifts a conditional clause from a larger sentence, divorces it completely from context, and creates a fraudulent quotation in order to deliberately deceive, or Ross McKitrick who slanders other scientists on purely speculative conclusions about their motivations, or guest - posters at WUWT who call BEST «media whores,» or the long line of denizens at Climate Etc. who falsely claim that the «climate community» ignores all uncertainties towards the goal of serving a socialist, eco-Nazi agenda to destroy capiclimate community,» and trying to understand «the climate community's» arguments, and adding to progress on increasing our understanding of the causes of climate variability and change — rather than apologizing or ignoring the input from scientists like Fred Singer — who deliberately lifts a conditional clause from a larger sentence, divorces it completely from context, and creates a fraudulent quotation in order to deliberately deceive, or Ross McKitrick who slanders other scientists on purely speculative conclusions about their motivations, or guest - posters at WUWT who call BEST «media whores,» or the long line of denizens at Climate Etc. who falsely claim that the «climate community» ignores all uncertainties towards the goal of serving a socialist, eco-Nazi agenda to destroy capiclimate community's» arguments, and adding to progress on increasing our understanding of the causes of climate variability and change — rather than apologizing or ignoring the input from scientists like Fred Singer — who deliberately lifts a conditional clause from a larger sentence, divorces it completely from context, and creates a fraudulent quotation in order to deliberately deceive, or Ross McKitrick who slanders other scientists on purely speculative conclusions about their motivations, or guest - posters at WUWT who call BEST «media whores,» or the long line of denizens at Climate Etc. who falsely claim that the «climate community» ignores all uncertainties towards the goal of serving a socialist, eco-Nazi agenda to destroy capiclimate variability and change — rather than apologizing or ignoring the input from scientists like Fred Singer — who deliberately lifts a conditional clause from a larger sentence, divorces it completely from context, and creates a fraudulent quotation in order to deliberately deceive, or Ross McKitrick who slanders other scientists on purely speculative conclusions about their motivations, or guest - posters at WUWT who call BEST «media whores,» or the long line of denizens at Climate Etc. who falsely claim that the «climate community» ignores all uncertainties towards the goal of serving a socialist, eco-Nazi agenda to destroy capiClimate Etc. who falsely claim that the «climate community» ignores all uncertainties towards the goal of serving a socialist, eco-Nazi agenda to destroy capiclimate community» ignores all uncertainties towards the goal of serving a socialist, eco-Nazi agenda to destroy capitalism.

However, because climate scientists at the time believed a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would cause a larger global heat imbalance than today's estimates, the actual climate sensitivities were approximatly 18 % lower (for example, the «Best» model sensitivity was actually closer to 2.1 °C for doubled CO2).

However, as in the FAR, because climate scientists at the time believed a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would cause a larger global heat imbalance than current estimates, the actual «best estimate» model sensitivity was closer to 2.1 °C for doubled CO2.

«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.

This particular story has, in my opinion, larger implications than the Met Office, «climate scientists» or «climate change» lobby groups are aware of:

In fact, it is currently about 10 percent larger than it was nearly a century ago, and scientists suggest that climate change is partly responsible.

What we know about the climate comes from the largest and most rigorously peer - reviewed scientific collaboration in history — the findings of more than 2,000 scientists from 100 countries reporting to the United Nations as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate climate comes from the largest and most rigorously peer - reviewed scientific collaboration in history — the findings of more than 2,000 scientists from 100 countries reporting to the United Nations as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Climate Change.

Are you saying that the very large majority of climate scientists who accept AGW are promoting «misinformation» rather than actual science?

Lazar, trust me, the body of climate scientists is much larger than the people you are exposed to in the blogosphere.

I don't know, I'm not part of that conspiracy, and I see a lot of assertions on here and elsewhere by people who imply they are smart, or at least smart enough to know more on this issue than the climate scientists who actually professionally study it, who throw around large highfalutin science terms, but that repeatedly misconstrue the basic climate change issue itself, conflate the process of science with Climate Change refutation, seem to have an extensively poor understanding of the issue, and take small select bits of data as part of the ongoing total picture of increasing overall corroboration, to falsely equate that with a flaw in Climate Change theory itself, or as a referendumclimate scientists who actually professionally study it, who throw around large highfalutin science terms, but that repeatedly misconstrue the basic climate change issue itself, conflate the process of science with Climate Change refutation, seem to have an extensively poor understanding of the issue, and take small select bits of data as part of the ongoing total picture of increasing overall corroboration, to falsely equate that with a flaw in Climate Change theory itself, or as a referendumclimate change issue itself, conflate the process of science with Climate Change refutation, seem to have an extensively poor understanding of the issue, and take small select bits of data as part of the ongoing total picture of increasing overall corroboration, to falsely equate that with a flaw in Climate Change theory itself, or as a referendumClimate Change refutation, seem to have an extensively poor understanding of the issue, and take small select bits of data as part of the ongoing total picture of increasing overall corroboration, to falsely equate that with a flaw in Climate Change theory itself, or as a referendumClimate Change theory itself, or as a referendum on it.

However, because climate scientists at the time believed a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would cause a larger global heat imbalance than is currently believed, the actual climate sensitivities were approximatly 18 % lower (for example, the «Best» model sensitivity was actually closer to 2.1 °C for doubled CO2).

A large injection of the gas - which is 21 times more potent as an atmospheric heat trap than carbon dioxide - has long been cited by climate scientists as the potential trigger for runaway global warming.

More than 4,000 scientists, educators, broadcast meteorologists and other professionals attended the largest yearly gathering for the weather, water and climate community to exchange ideas and learn about recent developments in their respective environmental fields.

Unfortunately, Power Africa appears to emphasize large, centralized natural gas projects — a dirty fossil fuel that some scientists believe is worse for the climate than coal.

I would note that because the issue of politics is a large one on the topic, a great deal of scientists (addressed with the drama effect discussion a little) might studiously avoid quantification, or even mentioning «global warming» or «global climate change» so as not to get dragged into defending their paper on a political, rather than scientific basis.

Global warming has been stuck in neutral for more than a decade and a half, scientists are increasingly suggesting that future climate change projections are overblown, and now, arguably the greatest threat from global warming — a large and rapid sea level rise (SLR)-- has been shown overly lurid (SOL; what did you think I meant?).

She has probably got a very much larger range of contacts with those outside of science and academia through this, her blog than has just about any other climate scientists that currently has a high profile such as Judith rightly has.

According to a 2014 study by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and the Rocky Mountain Climate Organization (RMCO), the region experienced nearly four times as many wildfires larger than 1,000 acres between 1987 and 2003 than between 1970 and 1986.

Brulle, who has conducted research on the funding behind the climate change contrarian movement, suggests that climate scientists consider ways they might break into large audiences rather than attempt to convert individuals one by one by showering them with evidence.