Sentences with phrase «on the basic science pointing»

There are other important questions about the path forward, related to how to handle reasoned minority views on particular science and policy questions, how to deal speedily with errors and how to break down barriers among the three main «working groups» — on the basic science pointing to warming, the range of impacts and possible responses.

Not exact matches

This series on M.D. / Ph.D. careers is intended as a starting point for people who wish to explore a career that brings together medicine and basic science.

Unfortunately for policymakers and the public, while the basic science pointing to a rising human influence on climate is clear, many of the most important questions will remain surrounded by deep complexity and uncertainty for a long time to come: the pace at which seas will rise, the extent of warming from a certain buildup of greenhouse gases (climate sensitivity), the impact on hurricanes, the particular effects in particular places (what global warming means for Addis Ababa or Atlanta).

Another, of course, is that the science illuminating the extent of the human influence on climate is not «settled» for many specific, and important, points, even though the basic case for rising risks from rising concentrations of greenhouse gases is robust enough to merit a strong response, according to a host of experts (even if you take the intergovernmental panel's findings with a grain of salt).

Many of those promoting stasis in the face of a clear need for a global energy quest have used this saga as a kind of «blackwash» that will long linger like a cloud, tainting public appreciation of even the undisputed basics of science pointing to a rising human influence on climate.

Finally, this all points to another reality — that if you care about blunting the buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, you'd better start hoping for a lot more basic science on how to capture that gas cheaply and stash it away for safekeeping.

Many readers with varied views have rightly criticized the prolonged debates about basic points in climate science that frequently spring up on Dot Earth posts where science is not the main point of discussion.

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.»

However, if you read many of the posts here or indeed essays on sites like WUWT it is very clear that the basic science is not understood and many points made which we both know are simply wrong.

We have pointed out that a geneticist, even a Nobel Prize winning one, can be (and was) wrong about the basics of climate science, and that he was wrong to take the word of a glaciologist on a point on which he was not expert.

It's not so much a case of the science moving on, but of the IPCC authors failing to take on board basic and standard instruction in the application of Bayesian analysis, even when it was pointed out to them in Annan's review comments.

Obviously, climatology is an incomplete science but we can all agree the basics as a new starting point to build on — Climatology II, if you will.

As coby has pointed out on other sections of his blog, the confluence of science from a wide variety of areas that has led to almost every real scientist in fields related to climate science (and especially those in climate science itself) accepting the basic tenets of anthropenically induced global climate change.