Sentences with phrase «really understand the climate»

Why is it that the people who understand Law and Order work behind bar, the people who understand politics spend their time driving cabs and the people who really understand climate science write papers about nmr spectroscopy in the far, far future?

To really understand the climate cycles, you must understand the polar ice cycles.

It's way too early to assume we really understand climate change, including warming.

So colour me unconvinced that you really understand this climate system.

Not exact matches

What made him shift his focus to climate issues was the state of global climate: «I think it's really important for us to understand how serious the stakes are now given we've made no progress on this for the last 20 years.

«While it's easy to assume Millennials are willing to job hop because they're less loyal to their employers than previous generations, you have to really look at the current economic climate to understand why that attitude has shifted over time,» said Lydia Frank, Editorial Director, PayScale.

It affords readers with the history required to really understand the present climate and contains the struggles of both the Catholic and the Reformed traditions.

The fact that nobody really knows or understands the complex factors that are involved in climate change.

«That's something we really need to be able to understand and replicate in climate models.

«Nobody can really understand why a person becomes a terrorist,» said Andrew Holland, senior fellow for energy and climate at American Security Project.

«We're really interested in understanding how these systems will change as we experience global warming or climate change,» Medvigy said.

We are all hopeful that there will be some really significant common lessons learned, and that at a minimum, we may draw some common understanding about what climate - sensitive parameters in fragile states might mean,» said Cynthia Brady, a senior conflict adviser at USAID.

«In many of the specifics of the way people view climate change — for instance, seeing it as a moral issue and understanding that climate change is going to hurt people in developing countries and the world's poor the most — we saw really large shifts.»

Friedman: Absolutely, because without it, if we aren't Noah and we don't build the ark, we could — and I think this is so important for our Scientific American's audience to really understand, because I know they appreciate it — and that is that we could actually save the climate and kill the planet.

«But we really don't understand what would happen to the climate if we started making more clouds.»

Cutting congressional staff, especially those with technical backgrounds, could weaken lawmakers already poor ability to understand and grapple with difficult topics, such as financial markets and climate policy, says William Hooke, director of policy programs with the American Meteorological Society in Washington, D.C. «This is a really negative thing,» he says.

So understanding why you would have this brief hiatus in sea - level rise is really key to our understanding of the climate system and being able to monitor the system,» he said.

It's just amazing that, you know, you could capture that much information and it's interesting in the scientific perspective because what we are finding right now with issues like climate change and conservation is that we really need fine - grained samples from very large geographic areas to really understand the dynamics of species range movements and how fragmentation is occurring and many biogeographic questions, and literally, the only way we can do this is through voluntary networks like this because it would cost billions and billions to send professionals out at that finer scale to understand it.

«The Mammoth steppe is an environment that we don't really understand because it no longer exists due to climate change and megafauna extinction.

«Understanding the global carbon cycle is really important, especially when talking about climate change,» says Catherine Drennan, an MIT professor of chemistry and biology and Howard Hughes Medical Institute Investigator.

«This is a really tangible way for people to understand the impact of climate change,» says Rashid Sumaila, one of the study's authors who has been working with the UBC's fisheries research unit for over 20 years.

The Silurian hypothesis is interesting and really worth discussing, not just as a thought experiment but also because it gets us to think a bit more about our own rather wonderful planet and climate system and how much we really understand about it.

The mechanisms for global warming are among the most well understood in climate research and are really not all that difficult to grasp.

I would say that as far as advancing our ability to really look at the issue of climate change, I think one of the things we really need to do is to make our models interact more between the physical sciences and the social economics, and to really understand the link a little more closely between climate change and the drivers and impacts of climate change.

Absent understanding of cloud feedback processes, the best you can really do is mesh it into the definition of the emergent climate sensitivity, but I think probing (at least some of) the uncertainties in effects like this is one of the whole points of these ensemble - based studies.

Obviously it isn't worth much since a decade isn't really long enough to look for climate trends, but I don't understand what Tierney and Pielke Jr's logic is.

This extract from «Go Green: Having the Energy» gives a clear, illustrated explanation of what climate change is in terms that young readers will really understand.

«I'm working with trainers in Australia, which means that it's people on the land, people who understand the climate and the culture, and elders who really have got this embedded knowledge.»

The big standouts are the three dials that control the climate system, which are easy to understand but look outdated — not to mention they feel really cheap when you turn them.

pat - «Similarly many environmental activists believe that man's influence is a form of sin and nature (Gaea) will soon strike back...» You can phrase the position of a fictitious group any way you want of course, without rebuttal, because they don't really exist, though there are people who fit the description — especially if by «many» you mean more than three — but the more accurate reality is most of the human beings you would lump under the rubric «environmentalist» would more accurately be described as believing that short - sighted and greedy human attempts at total control and domination and complete disregard for the healthof the environment have gotten us out of balance with what was an interlocking web of balanced and dynamic systems, and would appear to have unbalanced many of those systems as well, including the still poorly understood cycles of climate; or weather, as we laymen call it.

For this reason, a European project was estaqblished in 2011, COST - action TOSCA (Towards a more complete assessment of the impact of solar variability on the Earth's climate), whose objective is to provide a better understanding of the «hotly debated role of the Sun in climate change» (not really in the scientific fora, but more in the general public discourse).

I really think that this could be an exciting development in understanding expert opinion on climate issues.

Please note: Anyone who reads the above as a direct «criticism» or «put down» of M Mann or any agw / cc climate scientist or any supporter of that science is simply not understanding what's been written here and what it really means.

It is interesting that while the Higgs is «new physics», and demands experimental confirmation, climate change prediction and explication is the application of really well understood physics, by experiment, theory, and in engineering, albeit to complicated systems.

You seem unable or unwilling to grasp what climate scientists already have, that the climate is a complex system with many feedbacks that are poorly understood, and so only long term trends can really tell us anything.

This is one of the best understood aspects in the entire science of climate change, and it really is not that complicated!

And once we're on that positive feedback track for good, it's just a matter of time (which climate sensitivity can help us understand, but only in part) before it gets really really bad.

But even with that in mind, it's really hard to understand how President Dilma Rousseff of Brazil, who has repeatedly pressed for strong global action to curb climate change, could possibly justify her choice of Aldo Rebelo as her new minister of science, technology and innovation.

I know that modelling always plays an important role in science and global climate change, such a vast phenomenon needs all the relevant research that is available, for the blind men (people in general) to understand the elephant:) The models are a necessary component, and interestingly some of these assumptions are based upon physics and chemsitry just the same, otherwise the models would be really far off.

Do you really think that if the ideas of the dissenters had merit that they would not find a publication outlet — Nature, Science, JGR, PRL, EOS... Remember that what drives climate scientists — and what advances their careers — is a desire to understand climate.

The two of us, along with Tom Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center, undertook a literature review to try to move beyond the anecdotes and understand what scientists were really saying at the time regarding the various forces shaping climate on time human time scales.

And now some number crunchers with dubious models and no real understanding yet as to how the climate really works are telling us what the climate will be like in a 100 years?

It follows from both of these fundamentally economic insights that proposing delay for decades is an irresponsible option that is offered by those who (1) really do not understand climate science and, (2) perhaps more importantly, really completely misrepresent the economics of the problem.

As we began to untangle what these data were telling us, it did lead us inescapably to a conclusion that did have implications for climate change, but it really wasn't what we had set out to try to understand.

I really don't understand what kind of point Roger Pielke Jr. was trying to make, but it appears to be a subtle attempt to slander coverage of climate change.

It's just that we do not know what the sensitivity really is, because we do not understand all the many factors (natural as well as man - made) that influence our planet's climate.

The Consensus Climate Scientists tell us they really don't understand what has happened and the Consensus Climate Scientists tell us they really don't understand what is happening, but they tell us they are 97 % sure they do understand what will happen next.

I agree on very many issues with you, but I can not avoid the impression that the animosity in both ways between you and some of the other climate scientists is due to unwillingness to understand, what the other side is really saying.

But I am not really an atheist on the issue, because I don't know that anyone understands the complex, chaotic climate well enough to say for sure either way.

It doesn't take long looking at climate to work out that it's really complicated, and probably not that well understood.