Sentences with phrase «thinks climate analyses»

Titley thinks climate analyses will try to suss out the likelihood of Harvey's track, just as occurred with Sandy.

Not exact matches

Strong arts programs are also linked to improving certain communication and critical - thinking skills, as well as student motivation for learning and school climate, the analysis released last week found.

I think that short commentaries like this on recent climate science papers and reports that are «in the news» are very valuable to your readers, and hopefully don't take as much time and effort as the longer, in - depth analyses of studies that you do so well.

I think that climate scientists are putting too much emphasis in their models (which I would guess involve assumptions that are much more uncertain that cointegration analysis).

In fact, the more I think about it, the more I think that doing the basic analysis is so easy that it ought to be required of anyone who wants to be taken seriously in a discussion of climate in which math, data, and science are involved.

I think we need Tamino to do a statistical analysis of how quickly Judith Curry has a new post on her blog, after Gavin and company do a take down of something she has just written on there, compared with how often she posts on her blog generally... Judging by the comments on both her blog and Real Climate, it appears she had a new post up only three hours after Gavin posted his take down of her!

That said, I think there are two interesting results in this paper, regarding their analysis of 19th century volcanoes and the impact on climate, and also the changes to the diurnal temperature range.

Steve, all praise to you and your work, but you are correct in your assumption about your readers thinking that tree rings and temperatures are a forced marriage with strange offsprigs of little use in climate change analyses.

The fact that certain analytical conclusions about observed climate change, attribution to human causes, in particular the energy system and deforestation, projected greater climate change in the future, observed impacts of climate change on natural and human systems, and projected very disruptive consequences in the future given our current trajectory, is not due to «group think» but rather to a generally shared analysis based on evidence.

In your preferred dataset it is.5, in the GISS analysis it is.45 Re Lindzen's point, what do you think he means by «climate internal variability»?

(For the real climate / math geeks there is a lengthy chapter describing principal component analysis [PCA] but I think many readers might quickly skim over this section.)

Personally I think AGW theory / analysis has a patchwork of flaws, small enough to be individually brushed aside / downplayed, but which collectively tend to add up / multiply in the same direction towards an exaggeration of climate sensitivity (and how much people should be «alarmed»).

fahutex says: January 10, 2016 at 6:10 pm: I think I have read of analyses of some subset of the continental U.S. stations that are of high quality...... Yes, it's called the CRN, Climate Reference Network.

When one thinks about what is reported in this study, it is amazing what scientists can unexpectedly discover from research and analysis when using non-thermometer climate measurements, such as tree rings.

Think Progress has a more detailed analysis of its likely impact and shortcomings — according to climate scientist Michael Mann, it's «simply an exclamation mark on what we already knew.»

Nor do I think that your word «citizen auditor», one of Judy's terms that I don't use myself and rather dislike, does justice to the fact that the «core» statistical commenters at Climate Audit and related blogs (Jean S, UC, Ross McKitrick, Roman Mureika, Hu McCulloch, Nic Lewis, Ryan O'Donnell, Jeff Id, Lucia and myself) to name only a few) are more «credentialed» in statistical analysis than the «scientists» that are being criticized.

Analysis of more than 600 power plants by Carbon Tracker, the climate think - tank, estimates that $ 22bn of losses could be avoided by phasing out coal in the EU by the end of the next decade.

By Fred KruppFollow Thoughts and analysis from EDF's leader of 30 - plus years Published February 10, 2015 in Climate \ Carbon limitsEconomicsEcosystemsEnergy \ Natural gasPartnerships

You would think researchers would welcome opportunities to balance that vast library of one - sided research with an analysis of the natural causes of climate change — so that they can evaluate the relative impact of human activities, more accurately predict future changes, and help ensure that communities, states and nations can plan for, mitigate and adapt to those impacts.

London, New York — 6 February 2018 — The Carbon Tracker Initiative, an independent financial think tank, announced today that its in - depth analysis of the impact of climate change on a company's exposure to carbon transition risk is available through 2 ˚C Scenario Analysis Tool on the Bloomberg App Portal at -LCB- APPS TRACK analysis of the impact of climate change on a company's exposure to carbon transition risk is available through 2 ˚C Scenario Analysis Tool on the Bloomberg App Portal at -LCB- APPS TRACK Analysis Tool on the Bloomberg App Portal at -LCB- APPS TRACK -RCB-.

«For now, if our analysis is correct, I think it is important to correct the climate models so that they include reliable sensitivity to solar activity.

We did not do a great deal with this analysis, but I think it helps to set the scene for what is going into a sceptical judgment about climate change: in part, it is coming from disagreeing with the NEP scale.

He argued that, while these other concerns might well deserve analysis, there are reasons to think that the non-climate catastrophes referenced by the authors of the Cato paper are of a different magnitude and nature than those posed by climate change and thus, not directly comparable.

No, I'm not a fan of «trends» since they are usually simplistic and misleading but since they seem to dominate about 95 % of the discussion about climate I thought a more detailed analysis may help give some insight that the usual attempts to resume any dataset with on straight line fail to do.

Funny, I never got the sense from reading Mann's posts at RC that he saw «uncertainties» in his work or that he thought the hockey stick was misplaced as a central icon of the climate change «debate» — particularly when trying to defend the hockey stick against M&M's analysis.

I think it should be recognized that probably the one site that has done the most damage to the AGW matra is not here, or WUWT or Climate Audit, it is Steven Goddards site real science who has carefully documented all the fraud and lies through data analysis of raw data, adjustments and yes newspaper articles from the past and present time, carefully documenting every statement made by these fraudsters, and of course Paul Homewood, more recently and Mahorasy in Australia..

Over at Real Climate Economics, ACEEE's Director of Economic and Social Analysis, Skip Laitner shares some thoughts about energy intensity and Rio +20:

Mario has experience in energy and emissions modeling and in climate and energy policy analysis in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) and the U.S. Previously, he worked at non-profit organizations and think - tanks on initiatives in biodiversity conservation in LAC, iNDC analysis, energy efficiency in buildings, and post-Maria grid restructuring efforts in Puerto Rico.

This analysis replicated the LOG12 finding of an association between climate science denial and conspiratorial thinking.

Early last year, I accepted the journal's invitation to review Recursive Fury, a narrative analysis of blog posts published by climate deniers * in response to Lewandowsky's earlier work in which he and his colleagues showed that endorsement of free - market economics and a propensity for conspiratorial thinking are contributing factors in the rejection of science.

I think your analysis has demonstrated the pitfall of applying this method to predictors without a clear connection to climate sensitivity.

The final argument of [Shaviv and Veizer, 2003]-- that CO2 has a smaller effect on climate than previously thought — is based on a simple regression analysis of smoothed temperature and CO2 reconstructions.

You wouldn't want the climate scientist to perform the analysis of tolerance stacking, but he / she may well ask questions or have insights that an aerospace engineer may not have thought about.

According to a detailed analysis by the blogger Deep Climate, McIntyre and McKitrick's criticism of the Hockey Stick graph was aggressively promoted and disseminated by an echo chamber of think tanks and blogs, all of which had financial or ideological associations with fossil fuel industry funders.

Their conclusion This difference might be explained by some combination of errors in external forcing, model response and internal climate variability is right on the money IMO, although I don't think their analysis of why the models might be wrong was particularly illuminating.

According to an analysis shared with the Post by the D.C. - based think tank Climate Interactive (based in part on this analysis here), the effect is actually quite substantial.

Carbon Tracker is an independent financial think tank which provides in - depth analysis on the impact of climate change on capital markets and investment in fossil fuels, mapping risk, opportunity and the route to a low carbon future.

Real Climate touted Steig et al «Antarctica is warming» study «falsified» — May 29, 2009 Excerpt: After reading this latest statistical analysis, I think it is fair to conclude that the paper's premise has been falsified.

But you and I differ in that I am willing to «wait and see» to what degree the L&S analysis proves to be right or wrong whereas — if I understand you correctly — you think the matter requires rejection of the L&S conclusion concerning climate sensitivity.

But I don't think any airport site (unless it hasn't changed / expanded over its history) should be used for climate analysis.

It's worth noting that the new NatCen analysis did not look at the extent to which those who think climate change is happening consider it to be natural or manmade.

«Decisions about how to address climate change need to be informed by many factors, but we believe this analysis helps advance the thinking on how to bring health considerations into these decisions.»

Filed Under: Analysis, Blog Tagged With: Andrew Jones, assessment, C - ROADS, Climate Interactive, Climate Scoreboard, climate simulation, COP21, Drew Jones, emissions, INDCs, Mitigation Targets, Paris talks, system dynamics, systems tClimate Interactive, Climate Scoreboard, climate simulation, COP21, Drew Jones, emissions, INDCs, Mitigation Targets, Paris talks, system dynamics, systems tClimate Scoreboard, climate simulation, COP21, Drew Jones, emissions, INDCs, Mitigation Targets, Paris talks, system dynamics, systems tclimate simulation, COP21, Drew Jones, emissions, INDCs, Mitigation Targets, Paris talks, system dynamics, systems thinking

Peter regularly offers hilarious analysis based on a similar kind of thinking as his hilarious theories about the «climate police» reacting to his post.

That poster presents an analysis, which includes elements of Box9.2 Figure 1a, that is a far better way to assess model performance than what is being pushed by Dana Nuccitelli, and shows that, contrary to Dana's claims (which are often unjustified by proper application of the facts), climate models are doing pretty much as bad as you think.

I ask because I'm doing a serious amount of work involving change - point analysis in climate data, the literature is fraught with issues, and I need to do some intense reading and thinking.

Also, where do you think climate is going to take us in the next 50 years or so based upon the best analysis of the trends?

Do you think it humanly possible to engage on a climate website for an extended period and still try to imply or claim seasonal weather equals 30 - year climate analyses?

They come to genuinely believe weather equals climate, and all the usual climate myths, because they think AGW is a giant liberal conspiracy, so none of the data can be trusted and you do nt need to apply logical analysis because its all a conspiracy and fake data and equations anyway.

Kevin Trenberth, the head of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), believes the new study's main finding is accurate, but thinks the effects of some of the environmental factors on hurricane intensity might have been underestimated.