When it is time for you to
think about climatology we will tell you — and tell you exactly what correct thinking is.
Of course following «normal procedure» and having especial regard to some possible hurt feelings about «implied criticisms» must be our overriding consideration when
thinking about climatology.
Continuing a recurrent theme in these posts, I'll describe yet another idealized framework for
thinking about the climatology of tropical cyclone (TC) formation.
Not exact matches
««If that message gets out, then I
think there would be less back and forth arguing
about these short - term temperature trends because it doesn't really matter that much scientifically,» explained Patrick Brown, a doctoral student in
climatology at Duke University's Nicholas School of the Environment.»
I
thought this was an excellent question by Adam because much of the general public is confused
about the difference of
climatology versus meteorology.
You
think that during 2 years of your research you now know enough
about climatology to refute decades of independent research by thousands of climate scientists?
RussR, I
think you are missing an important point
about academic publishing in general and
climatology in particular.
Leaving everything else
about physics
climatology ecology oceanography etc aside, the idea that it is just pure chance / coincidence that we have had such a rapid increase in temperature in last 30 years is the most extreme example of wishful
thinking the world has seen.