Sentences with phrase «scientists do in the real world»

This lyrical and accessible picture book gives kids a glimpse of what scientists do in the real world and inspires them to dream of accomplishing BIG things.

Not exact matches

So although scientists now agree that D - wave devices do use quantum phenomena in their calculations, some doubt that they can ever be used to solve real - world problems exponentially faster than classical computers — however many qubits are clubbed together, and whatever their configuration.

«The computer needs to know where you are, what you are doing and what is in the real world,» he told New Scientist.

Working with Paul Kent, a computational materials scientist at ORNL's Center for Nanophase Materials Sciences, the team collaborated with researchers at UCLA and Berkeley Lab's Molecular Foundry to combine world - class experimental data with world - class computing to do something new — simulate magnetism atom by atom in a real nanoparticle.

Ultimately, Fidler's success is a testament to the importance of science internship programs like SULI that provide opportunities for students to work in real - world research labs doing cutting - edge research alongside senior scientists.

In utopia, funding all university scientists certainly would be nice; in the real world, there is not enough money to do thaIn utopia, funding all university scientists certainly would be nice; in the real world, there is not enough money to do thain the real world, there is not enough money to do that!

The Endocrine Society, a group representing more than 18,000 physicians and scientists around the world, doesn't mince words in its fact sheet:» «Adrenal fatigue» is not a real medical condition.

The problem with the film isn't in its placement in the realm of science fiction films as much as its placement in the real world, where the plot necessitates a triple - jump for every leap in logic to get us from point A to Z. For instance, the film pushes forward the notion that scientists don't give any thought or research whatsoever to the ramifications of their inventions before unleashing them on the world at large.

I've always felt there is a much deeper issue to all this, which is that a lot of non-scientists feel that science is something that scientists do in labs wearing lab coats, and doesn't have anything to do with the «real» world.

I am not a scientist nor am I anyone of great interest in the world but I actually do my own homework on this subject and find Climate change is real.

I did not study science in school but am getting a real world education now, and part of my fare for these trips funds the scientists and their science.

Which, as far as I can tell, is (analogously) what Real Scientists actually do in the case of the Real World.

It's great to see scientists finding ways to do leading - edge research that has real - world applicability in this turbulent but promising century.

This is real world bog standard physics necessary to understanding climate, and all climate scientists claiming shortwave and not thermal infrared longwave from the Sun is doing this are required to prove it because the whole of the AGW Greenhouse Effect is based on the claims about the electromagnetic energies from the Sun, of «shortwave in longwave out».

Only in climastrology do scientists claim that computer models trump real world evidence.

As an applied scientist, I do look for their utility in the real - world setting.

I gave up looking and settled for getting lost in the fascinating read following the meticulous thinking of real scientists doing real cutting edge experiments to try and make sense of our world.

I'm sure the author is experiencing some real peer review anguish here; something that many, if not most scientists don't encounter in their world.

That's why climate is generally defined in terms of multiple decades of data, why Santer et al. find that you need at least 17 years of data to compare models and the real world, and why real scientists don't say «OMG GLOBAL WARMING HAS STOPPED!»

This legislative session, we sponsored a successful bill called Climate - Safe Infrastructure bill, which was all about getting state engineers to talk to climate scientists who have been doing groundbreaking work in California so that we can understand impacts better and apply that information to real - world decisions around dams, bridges, highways, buildings.

Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented: There is still hope as we still have a few «real» scientists left in the world that look at data for the truth and don't make the data fit an agenda not related to scienece!

«While it may be theoretically possible to stabilize the climate without nuclear power, in the real world, there is no credible path to climate stabilization that does not include a substantial role for nuclear power,» states the letter from Ken Caldeira (senior scientist, Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution); Kerry Emanuel (atmospheric scientist, MIT); James Hansen (climate scientist, Columbia University Earth Institute); and Tom Wigley (climate scientist, University of Adelaide and the National Center for Atmospheric Research).