Sentences with phrase «not about climatology»

Not exact matches

Nationally (U.S.) syndicated columnists George Will and Charles Krauthammer both had op - ed essays published during the past week, in which they continued to advance their skepticism about AGW — they clearly are not getting their «facts» from the peer - reviewed climatology literature, and they are clearly not reading RC.

What has always concerned me about the majority of the climate models are reliance on prior climatology and not looking for new patterns.

I have the feeling that in raising some of those arguments here he might well become unstuck when faced with correspondents whose day job is in climatology and atmospheric physics... pretty much like an atmospheric physicist would feel, I would imagine, in commenting on the merits of something like, say, â Polyclonal antibodies raised to phycocyanins contain components specific for the red - absorbing form of phytochromeâ Planta 176, 391â 398 (not that there appears to be much to argue about there, not that I'm qualified to express an opinion on it anyway).

I have a hard time understanding how students in climatology could not wonder about the physical and statistical basis underlying these claims.

««If that message gets out, then I think there would be less back and forth arguing about these short - term temperature trends because it doesn't really matter that much scientifically,» explained Patrick Brown, a doctoral student in climatology at Duke University's Nicholas School of the Environment.»

Isn't it about time that historical climatology and science - that currently likes to discount observations as «anecdotal» but cheerfully uses other proxies - cooperated more closely so we can gain a more reliable climatic picture of the last 1000 - 2000 years?

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.

Applying the Discombobulating Principle to Global Warming: Nothing explains the level of certainty about AGW theory in the field of climatology that ultimately, is not cosmological.

Given that climatology is embryonic and the scientists obviously haven't got a clue about clouds, solar effects or just about anything else, what a totally unscientific and preposterous basis for policy decisions.

If a consensus of respected mathematicians and scientists from outside the field of climatology and with no preconceived views on climate change tell me that the basis of the IPCC TAR is valid (not possibly or probably valid), I will start to worry about climate change.

It would be a brave — or foolhardy — politician who doesn't then ask himself the big question about the IPCC in particular and climatology in general....»

However much you learn about climatology it won't be enough to draw the conclusions you seek (because of Rumsfeld's «unknown unknowns»).

The wide range of studies conducted with the ISCCP datasets and the changing environment for accessing datasets over the Internet suggested the need for the Web site to provide: 1) a larger variety of information about the project and its data products for a much wider variety of users [e.g., people who may not use a particular ISCCP data product but could use some ancillary information (such as the map grid definition, topography, snow and ice cover)-RSB-; 2) more information about the main data products in several different forms (e.g., illustrations of the cloud analysis method) and more flexible access to the full documentation; 3) access to more data summaries and diagnostic statistics to illustrate research possibilities for students, for classroom use by educators, or for users with «simple» climatology questions (e.g., annual and seasonal means); and 4) direct access to the complete data products (e.g., the whole monthly mean cloud dataset is now available online).

Sorry Mr Steele, but you don't have the qualifications to talk seriously about climatology with any amount of authority.

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

Unless you want to believe that a disgruntled UEA worker had somehow befriended a script - kiddie dabbling in climatology who, for the heck of it, decided to break into RC... (yes folks, we're talking about people ready to commit cyber crimes not even for getting at information but just for dramatic effect — why would they not crack the CRU site.

If you want to learn about climate, then look for climatology, not meteorology.

It is the International Journal of Modern Physics, B, not a journal of geophysics, climatology or meteorology but a journal that publishes articles about condensed matter, high temperature superconductors, and statistical and applied physics.

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.

At a minimum you won't be confused about the state and nature of climatology.

Don't be upset about funding for Climatology; There are plenty of broke teachers, nurses and other researchers who do apparently unimportant work and can't get paid more than enough for subsistence and an extra apple on their birthday.

The main story might have to do with something about the goose that laid the golden egg (you don't tell your funding sources that developing a TLT temperature climatology is a «bridge too far»).