Sentences with phrase «paper by climatologist»

Last month, I wrote about a paper by climatologist Ken Caldeira and tech guru Nathan Myhrvold that came to a stronger conclusion: You Can't Slow Projected Warming With Gas, You Need «Rapid and Massive Deployment» of Zero - Carbon Power.

Not exact matches

More telling, a detailed literature analysis by climatologist Thomas Peterson of NOAA and colleagues shows that, even in the 1970s, the bulk of the climate papers tentatively foresaw a warming trend.

The paper was was written by 17 prominent climate, ice and ocean scientists, led by James E. Hansen, the pioneering climatologist who since 2007 has argued that most of his peers have been too reticent in their projections of the possible pace of sea - level rise in a warming world.

(as usual, existing links to other recent papers that I have missed or recent public statements by other senior climatologists referencing a target figure will be very welcome!)

In April 2005, the paper ran a 169 - word story highlighting a Science authored by well - known climatologist Jim Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

The new paper by the leading climatologist Dr David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected Science and Education journal, now in its 21st year of publication, reveals that Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was «dangerous».

It can be said with great confidence that the vast majority of papers from which the IPCC concocts its pulp fictions, are written by people who not only have no degree in «climatology» but are infinitely less qualified than Lindzen to be called «climatologists».

While some individual scientists are skeptical about the tenets of human - driven climate change, there is a broad consensus among climatologists — 97 percent to 98 percent of them agree that climate change is occurring and that it is driven by human activity, according to a 2010 paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

But when he proposes links between his own historical field and that of climate science he drops all scholarly standards and quotes any old conference paper or telephone conversation he feels like; mad activists and conspiracy theorists like Oreskes and Powell; or Mark Maslin, a professor - cum - company director who combines his job at my old university as palaeontologist or geographer or climatologist (all descriptions of his expertise taken from «the Conversation») with that of director of Rezatec Ltd, a company set up by the Royal Society as a «Leading provider of data - as - a-service geospatial data analytics» to serve those who may be worried to death by forecasts of eco-doom to be found in the books and articles of Mark Maslin.

An as yet unpublished paper by NASA climatologist James Hansen and others makes the case that recent extreme heat events, such as Russia's 2010 deadly heatwave and last year's extreme drought in Texas, are directly linked to our warming planet.

Well; if a statement regarding atmospheric cooling is taking place, and we know from past experience (climate history) that if this cooling continues and the build up of ice continues in Antartica like it is; then it is possible that the planet may very well be headed back into an ice age - and when this «atmospheric cooling» trend is mentioned on the GISS [NASA] Webpage, and by one of the GISS scientists (Kate Marvel, a climatologist at GISS and the paper's lead author) then i would have to conclude that the are embracing the science revealing evidence that such mechanics are, taking place, and I view their statemnt as an endorsement and ot their recognition, of global cooling.

The reasons for that are many: the timid language of scientific probabilities, which the climatologist James Hansen once called «scientific reticence» in a paper chastising scientists for editing their own observations so conscientiously that they failed to communicate how dire the threat really was; the fact that the country is dominated by a group of technocrats who believe any problem can be solved and an opposing culture that doesn't even see warming as a problem worth addressing; the way that climate denialism has made scientists even more cautious in offering speculative warnings; the simple speed of change and, also, its slowness, such that we are only seeing effects now of warming from decades past; our uncertainty about uncertainty, which the climate writer Naomi Oreskes in particular has suggested stops us from preparing as though anything worse than a median outcome were even possible; the way we assume climate change will hit hardest elsewhere, not everywhere; the smallness (two degrees) and largeness (1.8 trillion tons) and abstractness (400 parts per million) of the numbers; the discomfort of considering a problem that is very difficult, if not impossible, to solve; the altogether incomprehensible scale of that problem, which amounts to the prospect of our own annihilation; simple fear.

Shouldn't there be a host of papers written by climatologists on the topic which use very similar methods to what you just described?

The above argument has been been used in reverse to attack climatologists over their lack of statistical expertise especially over the first hockey stick paper by MBH.