Sentences with phrase «other atmospheric scientists»

But from an email conversation with Francis, Vavrus, and several other atmospheric scientists this week, it became clear that there may be more questions than answers at this point, given the large amount of natural variability that affects winter weather patterns, and the very short observational record of how the atmosphere responded to extreme losses of sea ice (only five winters of records since 2007).

Research conducted to date with meteorologists and other atmospheric scientists has shown that they are not unanimous in their views of climate change.

Other atmospheric scientists have also proposed this (assuming one agrees that a 0.02 °C change in temperature upon CO2 doubling is the equivalent of a «zero net effect»).

But from an email conversation with Francis, Vavrus, and several other atmospheric scientists this week, it became clear that there may be more questions than answers at this point, given the large amount of natural variability that affects winter weather patterns, and the very short observational record of how the atmosphere responded to extreme losses of sea ice (only five winters of records since 2007).

Not exact matches

In advancing these theories they disregard factors universally admitted by all scientists — that in the initial period of the «birth» of the universe, conditions of temperature, atmospheric pressure, radioactivity, and a host of other catalytic factors were totally different than those existing presently, including the fact that we don't know how single atoms or their components would bind and consolidate, which involved totally unknown processes and variables, as single atoms behave far differently than conglomerations of atoms.

There they are kept until atmospheric scientists, astrophysicists, biologists, and other researchers request samples to help answer many unknowns in the history of our planet.

Freshwater such as lakes, though, receive various sources of carbon dioxide from decomposing organic and inorganic matter swept into them, which makes it hard for scientists to distinguish between the direct effects of rising atmospheric CO2 and these other elements.

The setting gave scientists the rare opportunity to look at the impact of pollution on atmospheric processes in a largely pre-industrial environment and pinpoint the effects of the particles apart from other factors such as temperature and humidity.

Other scientists have criticized the planetary boundaries as too generous (for example, allowing too much human appropriation of freshwater flows) or employing the wrong metric (atmospheric concentrations of CO2 rather than cumulative emissions of greenhouse gases).

But even the first step of modeling the effects of greenhouse gas sources and sinks on future temperatures requires input from atmospheric scientists, oceanographers, ecologists, economists, policy analysts, and others.

To investigate the layers and composition of clouds and tiny airborne particles like dust, smoke and other atmospheric aerosols,, scientists at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland have developed an instrument called the Cloud - Aerosol Transport System, or CATS.

Scientists generally think that global warming, driven mostly by rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, will make some regions wetter and others drier.

Earth's average temperature has remained more or less steady since 2001, despite rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases — a trend that has perplexed most climate scientists.

But a 2001 study led by atmospheric scientist Mark Jacobson of Stanford University in California suggested that if soot is coated with other pollutants, such as sulfuric acid, its effect could be drastically greater.

The body of several thousand atmospheric scientists, climatologists, glaciologists, oceanographers and other scientists, hailing from 154 countries, are more certain than ever that humanity is to blame for global warming, which may be linked to odd events like trees blossoming in the Luxembourg Garden here in the middle of winter.

Although scientists have measured atmospheric CO2 levels for decades, the current network of ground stations, observatories, aircraft and other instruments emerged during an era when researchers were trying to answer questions about the total amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

It also means that scientists and other experts are going to have to monitor measures other than just atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases to catch catastrophic climate change developing.

By analyzing global water vapor and temperature satellite data for the lower atmosphere, Texas A&M University atmospheric scientist Andrew Dessler and his colleagues found that warming driven by carbon dioxide and other gases allowed the air to hold more moisture, increasing the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere.

The Department of Energy's Research Aircraft Facility (DOE - RAF), also located at PNNL, serves atmospheric scientists at DOE and other institutions in carrying out airborne research.

«We found that one property influenced the others,» said Dr. Evgueni Kassianov, PNNL atmospheric scientist and lead author of the article published in Atmosphere.

PNNL's atmospheric scientists and other researchers contributed to several USGCRP climate studies cited in the report.

Among atmospheric scientists, physicists, oceanographers and others who study Earth's energy balance there is virtually no debate on either the existence or the causes of global warming.

«Soot on snow in the northwest plateau causes more warming than all other sources in the area,» said corresponding author Hailong Wang, an atmospheric scientist at PNNL.

Some earth scientists call that atmospheric jolt the great Oxygen Catastrophe, because the buildup of oxygen was toxic to most other species at the time.

In other words, the fundamental reason scientists think atmospheric CO2 strongly affects the global temperature is not climate model output — it's just * basic radiative physics *!

Some other sea ice scientists (Jennifer Francis at Rutgers and Ignatius Rigor at the University of Washington) told me they are not ready to call it a season, noting that atmospheric pressure and some other conditions over the basin could lead to further shrinkage of ice extent in the next week or so.

Some scientists believe that this «Gaian system» self - regulates global temperature, atmospheric content, ocean salinity, and other factors in an «automatic» manner.

This is true because most mainstream scientists have concluded that the world must reduce total global emissions by at the very least 60 to 80 percent below existing levels to stabilize GHG atmospheric concentrations at minimally safe atmospheric GHG concentrations and the United States is a huge emitter both in historical terms and in comparison to current emissions levels of other high emitting nations.

Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric science at Texas A&M University, estimates that the U.S. has as many as 2,000 scientists who study global warming and its effects on the atmosphere, oceans, ecology, and other scientific fields.

An international team of researchers report in Nature Communications that they made a computer model of the planet's atmospheric conditions: they included natural and human - triggered aerosols, volatile organic compounds, greenhouse gases and other factors that influence temperature, one of which is albedo: the scientist's word for the capacity of terrain to absorb or reflect solar radiation.

Scientists say that marine proxy records «place constraints» on determining past atmospheric carbon dioxide levels — in other words, they give us an approximate range, but we can't measure it down to one or two parts per million.

ATMOSPHERIC and other climate - change scientists need to meet regularly to discuss and debate what is known and what remains to be discovered about climate change.

Keeling's record of data from Mauna Loa is considered one of the best and most consistent climate records anywhere, though scientists also use other sources for atmospheric data, including samples of air trapped in polar ice, to analyze CO2 levels in past millennia.

«Mr. Gore's Movie has Claims no Informed Expert Endorses» By Bob Unruh More than 31,000 scientists across the US, «including more than 9,000 PhD.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties, have signed a petition rejecting «global warming,» the assumption that the human production of greenhouse -LSB-...]

More than 31,000 scientists across the US, «including more than 9,000 PhD.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties, have signed a petition rejecting «global warming,» the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth's climate.

Scientists who have focused on WG 1 issues are doing good work in framing boundaries and I think finally we will see saner descriptions of atmospheric sensitivity and attribution of anthropogenic contributions other than CO2e gases.

«For the moment, oceanographers and atmospheric scientists don't see a link to human - caused climate change, but also say what they've seen doesn't match other recognized patterns in ocean conditions.

As we shall see there are certain aspects of atmospheric conditions necessary to produce violent tornadoes that climate change is enhancing while there are other atmospheric conditions necessary to form tornadoes about which scientists are uncertain exactly how a warming world will affect them.

Climate skeptic scientists have long questioned whether the effects of relatively minor (compared to other CO2 sources and sinks) human - caused emissions of CO2 have more than a minor effect on global temperatures and some have even questioned whether the UN and USEPA have even gotten the causation backwards (i.e., because on balance global temperatures affect atmospheric CO2 levels).

Then along came people who referred to themselves as «climate scientists» if only that they studied past weather trends, along with current atmospheric effects, among other things.

Even our best climate scientists still have only a limited grasp of Earth's highly complex and chaotic climate systems, and the many interrelated solar, cosmic, oceanic, atmospheric, terrestrial and other forces that control climate and weather.

There is now widespread agreement among climate scientists that the earth is warming as a result of human activity, primarily due to rising levels of carbon dioxide and other heat trapping atmospheric gases created by burning fossil fuels.

Despite the press releases of James Hansen, Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann and others claiming the debate is over, there are a large number of of scientists who are no less qualified and are more qualified in climate science and the atmospheric sciences who strongly dispute such claims.

Based on documents and other evidence from an eight month investigation, ICN described how Exxon scientists were warning of potentially catastrophic effects of a buildup of atmospheric carbon dioxide from fossil fuels as early as 1977.

But according to the AGU's membership page, the AGU alone has over 60,000 members who are «Earth, atmospheric, oceanic, hydrologic, space, and planetary scientists,» never mind the additional people who are members of the AMS or other scientific organizations.

Signers of the attached petition include the U.S. and international atmospheric scientists, meteorologists, physicists, professors and others taking issue with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [UNFCCC], which was formed in 1992 to combat «dangerous» climate change.

The observed patterns of surface warming, temperature changes through the atmosphere, increases in ocean heat content, increases in atmospheric moisture, sea level rise, and increased melting of land and sea ice also match the patterns scientists expect to see due to rising levels of CO2 and other human - induced changes (see Question 5).

Included are responses from David Deming, University of Oklahoma; Hans Schreudet; James A. Peden, atmospheric physicist; Dr. Brian G. Valentine, U.S. Department of Energy; Michael R. Fox, Ph.D., retired nuclear scientist; and several others.

Other scientists involved in the assessment pointed out that the authors of the summary also included Dr. Mack McFarland, an atmospheric scientist at a division of DuPont, and several other experts approaching the question from the point of view of induOther scientists involved in the assessment pointed out that the authors of the summary also included Dr. Mack McFarland, an atmospheric scientist at a division of DuPont, and several other experts approaching the question from the point of view of induother experts approaching the question from the point of view of industry.

And, there is plenty of empirical data at every level: There is empirical data on the basic absorption lines of the various atmospheric constituents, there is a wealth of empirical data backing up the basic equations of radiative transfer that are applied in calculating the greenhouse effect in just the same way that engineers and scientists use these equations everyday in other calculations, there is empirical spectra looking both up from the surface of the earth and down from satellites.