Sentences with phrase «other climate scientists do»

Do good science, and publicly insist that other climate scientists do good science as well.»

So the other climate scientists do acknowledge the existence of large changes in the Earth's past climate?

Not exact matches

«If the Senate bill in its final form does not allow companies to use international offsets to achieve their targets, then the U.S. as a source of funding for REDD would die,» said Daniel Nepstad, a senior scientist with the Woods Hole Research Center, which is a member of Hurowitz's Tropical Forest and Climate Coalition, meaning other countries might have to fill that gap with their own funding and offset needs.

The vast majority of our interviews on the subject are conducted with climate scientists, but it is important to hear other viewpoints about the extent of climate change and what should be done about it.

But for Elizabeth Austin, the project's chief scientist, there's another thrill: the glider will carry scientific instruments for climate, aerospace and stratospheric research that can not be done using other means.

Extreme weather events like Harvey are expected to become more likely as Earth's climate changes due to greenhouse gas emissions, and scientists don't understand how extreme weather will impact invasive pests, pollinators and other species that affect human well - being.

I think you and others could do more to change attitudes in the U.S. on global warming by joining forces in putting pressure on NOAA administrators and NWS supervisors to educate the 5,500 meteorologists in 120 National Weather Service offices so the NWS scientists can help other government people and other meteorologists who enter people's private living rooms better understand climate change.

Because I don't know enough science to debate contrarians scientifically, I usually fall back on: Suppose the mainstream climate scientists are wrong & the contrarians right, and we act as if the scientists are right, then we have nothing to lose & something to gain in terms of reducing other environmental harms (acid rain, local pollution), resource depletion, and increasing national security (re oil wars & protection), and lots of money to save from energy / resource efficiency & conservation, and increasing from alternative energy.

Since climate scientists certainly don't have a crystal ball, we generally take a range of scenarios or projections of future emissions of CO2 and other important forcings such as methane and aerosols.

«We hope that other scientists will use these data to answer questions such as why, unlike humans, some plants do not deteriorate as they age, why some environments are better for agriculture than others, and how fast plant populations will move in response to climate change,» said Yvonne Buckley, professor of Zoology in Trinity College Dublin's School of Natural Sciences.

When climate scientists discuss the evidence with each other, the questions that matter to them are «Does the evidence show that the Earth's climate is warming, or not?»

Now that the work has been done to combine these airborne measurements, Schroeder said he plans to expand this type analysis to other glaciers, a move that could improve scientists» understanding of the hidden ways climate change is affecting ice.

So what do you do when you have 250 more years» worth of a convenient, cheap fuel in the ground (at current rates of use) and scientists are saying big climate impacts await from continued use here and in China and other countries with vast reserves?

Compare what they and many others do, with this Goal Mission «RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists.»

When climate scientists discuss the evidence with each other, the questions that matter to them are «Does the evidence show that the Earth's climate is warming, or not?»

Why don't scientists and other experts contributing to the fifth assessment by the climate panel self organize and create a public Web portal?

As much as possible when addressing the Public, Climate Scientists and others please do stop speaking in numbers, averages, means, and other kinds of figures.

Watch the first 1 to 2 minutes section of the UP Stream Pt 4 doco / research prject specifically being directed at all Climate Scientists about how important Values are, and why Listening to the community (the target market) is absolutely critical: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyRKTqsXfjM Watch how people (the general public) are treated by others (climate scientists included) on all climate blogs when they indicate they are not yet convinced of AGW or can't work out who to believe is telling the truth and in doing so reference someone else's «opinion»... and try and measure the level of paranoia exhibited by pro-agw folks about such negative comments about the sClimate Scientists about how important Values are, and why Listening to the community (the target market) is absolutely critical: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyRKTqsXfjM Watch how people (the general public) are treated by others (climate scientists included) on all climate blogs when they indicate they are not yet convinced of AGW or can't work out who to believe is telling the truth and in doing so reference someone else's «opinion»... and try and measure the level of paranoia exhibited by pro-agw folks about such negative comments about thScientists about how important Values are, and why Listening to the community (the target market) is absolutely critical: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyRKTqsXfjM Watch how people (the general public) are treated by others (climate scientists included) on all climate blogs when they indicate they are not yet convinced of AGW or can't work out who to believe is telling the truth and in doing so reference someone else's «opinion»... and try and measure the level of paranoia exhibited by pro-agw folks about such negative comments about the sclimate scientists included) on all climate blogs when they indicate they are not yet convinced of AGW or can't work out who to believe is telling the truth and in doing so reference someone else's «opinion»... and try and measure the level of paranoia exhibited by pro-agw folks about such negative comments about thscientists included) on all climate blogs when they indicate they are not yet convinced of AGW or can't work out who to believe is telling the truth and in doing so reference someone else's «opinion»... and try and measure the level of paranoia exhibited by pro-agw folks about such negative comments about the sclimate blogs when they indicate they are not yet convinced of AGW or can't work out who to believe is telling the truth and in doing so reference someone else's «opinion»... and try and measure the level of paranoia exhibited by pro-agw folks about such negative comments about the science.

I think climate scientists know about these, but can't really make definitive claims, so they don't get into peer - reviewed articles much... or else other scientists might attack them with ferocity (even substracting denialists from the equation here).

Even if scientists themselves are not blaming everything on climate change, it still reflects badly on us if others do this.

When climate scientists start acting as advocates for some specific technology, writing letters demanding the nuclear power plants stay open, when many other experts in the energy field have well - developed reasons for closing them and going with wind / solar / storage instead, it doesn't do climate activism any good.

This is presented as a worst - case scenario — what might be expected to happen if a) nothing is done to curb GHG emissions and b) the climate sensitivity is in the higher range Peter Cox and other leading scientists now believe possible.

There is a growing awareness that the danger of substantial, disruptive climate change is of a high enough probability that more and more scientists are beginning to ask themselves and each other what they can do to contribute to a solution.

A national center is appropriate to host major super computers, data centers, instrumented aircraft, radars and other instruments, community weather and climate models, and teams of scientists working together on large problems that are difficult to do in single universities.

Do I trust all climate scientists, research institutions, funding sources, journals and others involved in this arena to convey the full context of findings and to avoid sometimes stepping beyond the data?

What amazes me is the amount of misinformation gets published regarding Climate Change, other science fields / projects (Large Hadron Project etc.), do not suffer from this misinformation so why do they think respectable climate scientists are faiClimate Change, other science fields / projects (Large Hadron Project etc.), do not suffer from this misinformation so why do they think respectable climate scientists are faiclimate scientists are fair game.

It is double speak for a climate scientist to assert (correctly I might add) that natural variability like ENSO will alter the TOA radiative imbalance through changes in clouds, humidity, evaporation, rainfall, ect., but then out of the other side of the mouth imply that natural variability doesn't really matter to the multi-decadal projections.

I have also increasingly become wary of a certain «do gooder» tendency among some climate scientists and others.

But for journalists and others who are not climate scientists, some narrative would help, as inline text and more clarification as footnotes if needed including, cover for example: — being very clear for a graph what was being forecast (people play silly games with Hansen, confusing which was BAU)-- Perhaps showing original graph first «This is what was predicted...» in [clearly a] sidebar THEN annotated / overlayed graph with «And this is how they did...» sidebar — placing the prediction in context of the evolving data and science (e.g. we'd reached 3xx ppm and trajectory was; or «used improved ocean model»; or whatever)-- perhaps a nod to the successive IPCC reports and links to their narrative, so the historical evolution is clear, and also perhaps, how the confidence level has evolved.

Because I don't know enough science to debate contrarians scientifically, I usually fall back on: Suppose the mainstream climate scientists are wrong & the contrarians right, and we act as if the scientists are right, then we have nothing to lose & something to gain in terms of reducing other environmental harms (acid rain, local pollution), resource depletion, and increasing national security (re oil wars & protection), and lots of money to save from energy / resource efficiency & conservation, and increasing from alternative energy.

Mike Roddy, I understand, although I don't share, your «bring it on» attitude regarding the Republican threat to investigate Michael Mann and other climate scientists.

You don't have to be a climate scientist (physicist, or any of the other specialities) to figure this out.

I do see it — along with Facebook, Scientists Without Borders, the Climate Collaboratorium and other such evolving networks — as potentially vastly amplifying a trait that has been a cornerstone of the human habit of innovating its way past resource constraints and risks.

Don't think Happer will come to an NBC programme to get grilled, especially if there's a real climate scientist of stature on the other side of the table.

The open question I have is what has the IPCC or other climate science body publicly done to counteract the falsity about the «science» and about the IPCC itself, and working climate scientists, as expressed by John Howard and others?

«But with the rapidly accelerating rates at which the ice is melting, and in the light of all the other, well - publicized lines of evidence, most scientists would be hard pressed to find mechanisms that do not include human - made climate change,» he added.

And his followers at R&S believe that he's shown the work of Steve and others to be flawed and that climate scientists are just good folks doing good work, but who happen to be targets of some industry funded campaign to smear their good names.

Just because you don't understand how climate scientists and other fields of science use proxy information to get accurate estimates of past temperatures doesn't mean it is not possible for them to do so.

And meanwhile, the other humans, the mainstream AGW climate scientists, mostly kept their eyes pointing anywhere but at the lying and the cheating, so they could honestly say «We didn't know!»

Since that PR campaign does not resemble any sort of sinister plot to manufacture doubt out of thin air, it is little wonder why neither Gore nor any other accuser who quotes from its leaked memos has ever had the courage to directly show those to the public as «smoking gun» proof of skeptic climate scientists» guilt.

Do you think (not only you, but almost all scientists of the world), you can come up with some results that you might be hidden in your team combinatorics which have no true foundation in nature, nor do you know what causes climate change and all other phenomena on the planeDo you think (not only you, but almost all scientists of the world), you can come up with some results that you might be hidden in your team combinatorics which have no true foundation in nature, nor do you know what causes climate change and all other phenomena on the planedo you know what causes climate change and all other phenomena on the planet.

Re M Tobis» musings on climate scientist's special insight / intuition that allows them to discern results denied to other people so the strictures of statistics do not apply to them in their climate work as their intuition allows them to produce valid results without following strict statistical procedures.

Other eminent scientists have recognized that these climate alarmist aren't doing science, they're doing religion, cult religion:

I have extensively read scientist Mike Hulme's presentation of climate change as PNS, but do you know of any other alarmist or sceptic scientists calling it as PNS?

I know climate scientists do things differently to other physical scientists but they shouldn't.

Obviously there is, but as I tried to say before, there are probably a million different ways you could go about calculating a «global temperature» and some climate scientists (with possible financial encouragement from ExxonMobil or others intent on creating uncertainly as a stalling tactic) have apparently found a few of those million ways that don't happen to show much increase in temperature.

The e-mails were written by the «A-team» — members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — and raise questions if the work of other respected scientists may have been disregarded or hampered by a climate change orthodoxy (or «climate oligarchy») that does not value, indeed may discourage, informed debate and dClimate Change — and raise questions if the work of other respected scientists may have been disregarded or hampered by a climate change orthodoxy (or «climate oligarchy») that does not value, indeed may discourage, informed debate and dclimate change orthodoxy (or «climate oligarchy») that does not value, indeed may discourage, informed debate and dclimate oligarchy») that does not value, indeed may discourage, informed debate and dissent.

As a scientist, I can say, we don't know whats going on other than than our climate fluctuates dramatically and sometimes very rapidly in either direction.

Or we might think of climate scientists who are have criticisms of the work of other climate scientists, but legitimately think it is important to note that they don't agree with the basic, likely attribution of climate change to ACO2.

FWIW — many «skeptics» claim that mechanism doesn't explain how most «skeptics» formulate their views on climate change — but they think other mechanisms are explanatory, such as a common sense insight that climate scientists are trying to bamboozle them.