Sentences with phrase «not atmospheric science»

It's also worth pointing out that he's an expert in forestry not atmospheric science.

He was never assigned to work on climate change and holds a doctorate in economics, not atmospheric science or climatology, and his comments on the finding were deemed to be the «product of rushed and at times shoddy scholarship,» according to a 2009 analysis by The New York Times.

He was never assigned to work on climate change and holds a doctorate in economics, not atmospheric science or climatology, and his comments on the finding were deemed to be the «product of rushed and at times shoddy scholarship,» according to a

Not exact matches

On Sunday, February 18 at 5:15 p.m., atmospheric scientist Katharine Hayhoe, director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University, will discuss «When Facts Are Not Enough.»

A switch to natural gas won't do Kenneth Caldeira, an atmospheric scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science, said EPA's actions have to be the first step, and the agency needs to take similar steps every two years or so.

«People have thought about how forest loss matters for an ecosystem, and maybe for local temperatures, but they haven't thought about how that interacts with the global climate,» said co-author Abigail Swann, a UW assistant professor of atmospheric sciences and of biology.

I can't tell you what this means for atmospheric dynamics but I'm sure it's important, and I'm sure that once we get this sorted out it will be a real science result.»

What happens when the world moves into a warm, interglacial period isn't certain, but in 2009, a paper published in Science by researchers found that upwelling in the Southern Ocean increased as the last ice age waned, correlated to a rapid rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

«We found high levels of PCBs in a region of the world where we wouldn't expect to find them,» says Rosalinda Gioia, an atmospheric pollution researcher at Lancaster University, UK, and the lead author of the report of the high levels in Environmental Science & Technology.

Paul Dirmeyer, a professor in the department of atmospheric, oceanic and earth sciences at George Mason University who was not involved in the study, notes: «Green et al. put forward an intriguing and exciting new idea, expanding our measures of land - atmospheric feedbacks from mainly a phenomenon of the water and energy cycles to include the biosphere, both as a response to climate forcing and a forcing to climate response.»

«What they've done is identify the chain of events from seeding to precipitation on the ground, which has been sorely needed for the last 80 years,» says William Cotton, a former professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University in Fort Collins who was not involved with the research.

Climate Science Day is not a junket for the atmospheric scientist who works as a contract employee at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center; it is more like science version of speed — Science Day is not a junket for the atmospheric scientist who works as a contract employee at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center; it is more like science version of speed — science version of speed — dating.

Though the list of known toxins released into the air keeps expanding, it doesn't deter the ongoing investigations of Thomas Cahill, a professor of physics and atmospheric sciences at the University of California at Davis.

«Many insects have nests that are up to 3,000 feet away from their food source, which means that scents need to travel long distances before insects can detect them,» said Jose D. Fuentes, professor of meteorology and atmospheric science, Penn State.

Autoregressive models are also found useful in studies of oscillations of the solid earth, but (in my opinion) not so much in atmospheric science.

However, Prof Michael Mann, distinguished professor of atmospheric science at Penn State University, who wasn't involved in the study, says the researchers may have got their conclusion the wrong way around.

Beautifully verdant strings soon give way to the truly frightening string and sampled moss that fuses together with the real science - based reason for the once - human things chasing our frightened scientist family through the woods, terrifically effective horror - action and atmospheric scoring that not only plays eco body horror, but also a beautiful sense of choral tragedy for a clan that really should have listened to locals» warnings to not go into the Emerald Isle's forbidden woods.

It does not take a degree in veterinary medicine or atmospheric science to see that there are several days where your pet would be susceptible to providing a loving home to a flea or contracting a serious tick borne illness during this month.

Here's my uneducated question — while I respect Gavin's comments about not abusing the science, it seems to me that many measurable indicators of climate change are (to the extent I can tell) occurring / progressing / worsening faster than predicted by most models, whether we're talking about atmospheric CO2 levels, arctic ice melting, glacial retreat, etc..

Physical chemistry is a combination of chemistry and physics, it is fine that you derived the equation, but it relates to thermodynamics just the same; chemists make those lasers work, those DVD's play, and I have taken calculus physics, modern physics, (multi variable calculus physics) which means technically I too have a degree in physics, but my focus has been chemistry, biology, and I took a few graduate courses dealing with meteorology, ocean dynamics, geology, atmospheric science and my undergraduate courses were filled with earth science related material and after all the math needed for Pchem engineering mathematics is not difficult nor is graduate physics:) so the derivation you just made is discussed in math classes before, even calculus one, so I am not sure what you are trying to prove.

And the use of detrended data apparently was not a problem for the referees of the journal where the article was published (which by the way has the highest impact factor in the field of meteorology and atmospheric sciences).

Autoregressive models are also found useful in studies of oscillations of the solid earth, but (in my opinion) not so much in atmospheric science.

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.

Dan professes not to be interested in the atmospheric science question, which is fair enough.

Nearly half of meteorologists and atmospheric science experts don't believe that human activities are the driving force behind global warming, according to a survey by the American Meteorological Society.

Australian climate scientist David Karoly, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Melbourne and a review editor of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's fifth assessment report, said he did not believe uncertainty was underplayed in the IPCC assessments.

«Our findings show that if we do not want to melt Antarctica, we can't keep taking fossil fuel carbon out of the ground and just dumping it into the atmosphere as CO2, like we've been doing,» says one of the report's authors, Ken Caldeira, an atmospheric scientist at Stanford University's Carnegie Institution for Science, California.

It's not relevant to the atmospheric science question.

This is not the definition of «greenhouse effect» that is commonly used in climate science, whereby it relates to the atmospheric emission and absorption of infrared radiation.

So you haven't studied the evidence, but you take it at face value that someone who practices «normative science» is correct when he states that the case for atmospheric being a «boon» to calcifying marine life is equal if not more persuasive than the case that it will be harmful?

Personally, I think she has a number of unconventional views (specifically on climate change, not necessarily other atmospheric science subdisciplines), many of which have not been clearly thought out and could do a disservice to a students education.

John Carter August 8, 2014 at 12:58 am chooses to state his position on the greenhouse effect in the following 134 word sentence: «But given the [1] basics of the greenhouse effect, the fact that with just a very small percentage of greenhouse gas molecules in the air this effect keeps the earth about 55 - 60 degrees warmer than it would otherwise be, and the fact that through easily recognizable if [2] inadvertent growing patterns we have at this point probably at least [3] doubled the total collective amount in heat absorption and re-radiation capacity of long lived atmospheric greenhouse gases (nearly doubling total that of the [4] leading one, carbon dioxide, in the modern era), to [5] levels not collectively seen on earth in several million years — levels that well predated the present ice age and extensive earth surface ice conditions — it goes [6] against basic physics and basic geologic science to not be «predisposed» to the idea that this would ultimately impact climate.»

People who wish to claim that increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 is dangerous often wish to minimize the truth that many of their claims / opinions are not supported by science.

You wish to say the exchange became repetitive, but imo what happened is it was shown that science can not really claim that the entire rise in atmospheric CO2 is due to humans.

I don't have strong background in this field, although I think this marriage between climatology and synoptic dynamics is at the frontier of atmospheric science research.

I'm a chemist, not a physicist or atmospheric scientist, so my interest was mainly in the thermodynamics of atmospheric science.

I hadn't gotten around to reading Mark Richardson's «New study by Skeptical Science author finds 100 % of atmospheric CO2 rise is man - made» until this afternoon.

I am curious where this is going as Fred Moolten has said on Climate Etc. that Issac Held thinks anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 may have had a more significant role earlier than current science indicates (hope I haven't botched this.)

As a professional scientist, a physicist with 40 years experience in aerospace and extensive knowledge of atmospheric physics, I can tell you that, indeed, the science is settled, but not the way the AGW extremists would have you believe.

«For the southwestern U.S., I'm not optimistic about avoiding real megadroughts,» said Toby Ault, Cornell assistant professor of earth and atmospheric sciences and lead author of the paper.

As such there is little point in SCIENCE to be made by quoting any reference to «greenhouse effects» (IPCC included) If you notice the plot of atmospheric absorbance within the link (*): - http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/113579/index.php#comments -: you will see that the supposed «greenhouse radiation» is not even seen being surface incident.

You can't go far in the climate movement without hearing the name of Dr. Michael E. Mann, distinguished professor of atmospheric science at Penn State University and author of The Hockey Stick and The Climate Wars and, more recently, The Madhouse Effect.

He didn't intend to specialize in climatology when he stayed at Harvard to pursue a graduate degree, but he won a fellowship in atmospheric and ocean science that allowed him to continue studying his first love: applied mathematics and physics.

«Never forget that climatology is not even a field, much less a science: «Rather, the atmospheric greenhouse mechanism is a conjecture... the radiative component of heat transfer of CO2, though relevant at the temperatures in combustion chambers, can be neglected at atmospheric temperatures.

«I started up my talk saying that the science didn't stop in 2012,» Wuebbles, a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Illinois, told Vox.

«Remote Sensing is a fine journal for geographers, but it does not deal much with atmospheric and climate science, and it is evident that this paper did not get an adequate peer review.

The statement that only 55 % of human CO2 emissions have been removed by the biosphere / biosphere is something you'll have to prove, which is hard because as far as I'm aware human CO2 does not posses an isotopic signature that can be easily differentiated from natural sources — the arguments you often hear on Skeptical Science are measurements in changes of the C12 / C13 / C14 atmospheric mass, not individual CO2 molecules, which can be misleading.

Where the believers in dangerous global warming are so ignorant of the very basics of life and of science at any level they can not even give the atmospheric component they want banned its correct name but use the name of the element which is the basis of ALL life on this planet that of «Carbon» as the item that is to be eliminated from the planet..

«Climate science is not yet able to specify the trajectory of atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases that corresponds precisely to any particular global temperature rise.

Well, a group of four atmospheric scientists of Carnegie Institution for Science and Harvard University have investigated the matter and think a slight decrease in insolation would not be the crops primary concern.