Sentences with phrase «understand climate just»

You can't understand climate just looking at pictures of charts.

Not exact matches

maybe you don't understand that Wenger's words are simply an attempt to recover some of the market value that was lost due to the way they have mishandled his contract negotiations, which means that everyone, once again, knows that we have little to no leverage when it comes to negotiating a transfer... much like we did with RVP, when we sold the EPL trophy to ManU for less than $ 25 million... any reputable team with a sporting director would never have allowed this situation to occur again and if they had heads would roll... if handled correctly the worst case scenario would have seen us get a minimum of $ 65 million for a player of his ilk in the present economic climate and we could have used those funds to purchase the best available striker in the early days of the transfer window... just imagine what outsiders must think about the state of our team if all you did was read the headlines... sadly, things might just might be worse than they think

Although it will be incredibly difficult to ever match his contributions on the pitch, it's vitally important for a former club legend, like Henry, to publicly address his concerns regarding the direction of this club... regardless of those who still feel that Henry has some sort of agenda due to the backlash he received following earlier comments he made on air regarding Arsenal, he has an intimate understanding of the game, he knows the fans are being hosed and he feels some sense of obligation, both professionally and personally, to tell it like he sees it... much like I've continually expressed over the last couple months, this team isn't evolving under this current ownership / management team... instead we are currently experiencing a «stagnant» phase in our club's storied history... a fact that can't be hidden by simply changing the formation or bringing in one or two individuals... this team needs fundamental change in the way it conducts business both on and off the pitch or it will continue to slowly devolve into a second tier club... regardless of the euphoria surrounding our escape act on Friday evening, as it stands, this club is more likely to be fighting for a Europa League spot for the foreseeable future than a top 4 finish... we can't hope for the failures of others to secure our place in the top 4, we need to be the manufacturers of our own success by doing whatever is necessary to evolve as an organization... if Wenger, Gazidis and Kroenke can't take the necessary steps following the debacle they manufactured last season, their removal is imperative for our future success... unfortunately, I strongly believe that either they don't know how to proceed in the present economic climate or they are unwilling to do whatever it takes to turn this ship around... just look at the current state of our squad, none of our world class players are under contract beyond this season, we have a ridiculous wage bill considering the results, we can't sell our deadwood because we've mismanaged our personnel decisions and contractual obligations, we haven't properly cultivated our younger talent and we might have become one of the worst clubs ever when it comes to way we handle our transfer business, which under Dein was one of our greatest assets... it's time to get things right!!!

But the topography is just one part of the story — coupling that with vastly improved satellite data as well as a better understanding of glacial processes and oceanographic and climate conditions is «probably what we need to do in all of these places,» Siegert says.

Just as I came to see my research as part of a larger scientific ecosystem, today I understand that scientific advancements are just one part of the needed response to climate chaJust as I came to see my research as part of a larger scientific ecosystem, today I understand that scientific advancements are just one part of the needed response to climate chajust one part of the needed response to climate change.

But maybe a better understanding of how much carbon trees soak up — and how much they don't — will make climate forecasting just a little bit easier.

«We are just beginning to understand the variety of indirect consequences related to climate change.»

«Looking at changes in the number of dry days per year is a new way of understanding how climate change will affect us that goes beyond just annual or seasonal mean precipitation changes, and allows us to better adapt to and mitigate the impacts of local hydrological changes,» said Polade, a postdoctoral researcher who works with Scripps climate scientists Dan Cayan, David Pierce, Alexander Gershunov, and Michael Dettinger, who are co-authors of the study.

«We can say that Enhanced Weathering is not just a crazy idea but could actually help climate policy, yet it is still a challenge to get a precise understanding of the involved processes,» says Amann.

«If you look at the legacy of Claude Lorius, it is just enormous, it is so impactful, it just defines where we are today in terms of our understanding of climate,» he said.

Dr Li said the latest research findings give a better understanding of changes in human - perceived equivalent temperature, and indicate global warming has stronger long - term impacts on human beings under both extreme and non-extreme weather conditions, suggesting that climate change adaptation can not just focus on heat wave events, but should be extended to the whole range of effects of temperature increases.

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.

«We can't just rely on modern climate data to understand the past.

Scientists are still only just beginning to understand the myriad mechanisms that control the seemingly dramatic melting observed in regions of West Antarctica, and how climate change is affecting all the moving parts.

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.

Results: Tiny bits of atmospheric dust and particles called aerosols may play a big role in global climate change, but just how big a role is not well understood.

Their findings stand to complicate the understanding of freshwater systems just as climate change is warming lakes around the planet.

Although I do understand the practicality of # 3 for colder climates (USDA growing zone 7 and lower) since I wouldn't want some poor girl to freeze her legs off just to show off her riding boots.

Pollution, recycling, climate change, health, technology, and energy are just a few examples of scientific topics that can promote civic awareness while fostering a deeper understanding of science and its applications.

While I do understand the urge to do it — there is a kind of bragging right you can wave around for owning a car as special as this one — I just can't do it, especially in the political and economic climate we're in today.

We understand just how difficult it is to save in today's economic climate, and so we have carefully compiled a collection of cheap Bali villas with private pool in popular locations at extremely affordable daily rates.

The «significant gap in GCMs» is not because «clearly the science isn't yet well understood»; it just corresponds to the fact that Global Climate Models are not Regional Climate Models.

In general, I heartily agree — other forcings are important, even essential, for understanding observed climate variability and, as a community, we are only just starting to get to grips with some of the more complicated effects.

Because the physics controlling δ18O is well understood, and we are able to implement δ18O in climate models, we can actually just use δ18O as a proxy for, well, δ18O.

I don't wish to imply that climate scientists have not adequately considered these issues; just that clearer explanations of these points would help those of us outside the community understand the accuracy and limitations of the models better.

So, I do nt» clearly understand why the low range of the ∆ T is not 1 °C (f = 0, so just the ∆ T due to 2xCO2 without feedback) or even less (if f is negative for unknown reasons in our present understanding of climate).

However, there are plenty of science articles that are just interesting, reporting events and explorations in the Arctic and elsewhere that give a fascinating view into how early scientists were coming to an understanding about climate change and processes.

Any layperson will understand that a 1000 - year heat record is more exceptional and less likely to happen just by chance — and thus more likely due to climate change — than a 100 - year record or a 10 - year record.

Unless you understand the severity of the issue motivating these actions, I think it's easy for people to look at climate change protests as just another item on a long list of pet issues of environmentalists.

I think it is a central role of the media to let the public know just how solid the overall scientific understanding of climate science is.

I understand that some may have reservations about passing climate legislation — the idea may seem daunting, especially during a time of great financial crisis — but this is just fighting dirty.

It's about understanding the climate, and anthropogenic warming is just an inevitable consequence of that understanding.

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.

(1) In this case even if they were correct and the models failed to predict or match reality (which, acc to this post has not been adequately established, bec we're still in overlapping data and model confidence intervals), it could just as well mean that AGW stands and the modelers have failed to include some less well understood or unquantifiable earth system variable into the models, or there are other unknowns within our weather / climate / earth systems, or some noise or choas or catastrophe (whose equation has not been found yet) thing.

The approximately 20 - year lag (between atmospheric CO2 concentration change and reaching equilibrium temperature) is an emerging property (just like sensitivity) of the global climate system in the GCM models used in the paper I linked to above, if I understood it correctly.

Is my understanding of climate inertia wrong, or do journalists just rarely mention it?

It's not that they don't believe in climate change, take wrong sides, or don't understand it... they just don't think about it.

I simply pointed out he doesn't seem to understand how CO2 works and remember this: you just said «less than 1 % of adults understand climate change»

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.

Most climate change communication, like Showtime's Years of Living Dangerously and the American Academy for the Advancement of Science's What We Know campaign, websites like Climate Central and Real Climate, or academic programs like Yale's Project on Climate Change Communication and George Mason University's Center for Climate Change Communication, is predicated on the belief that if people know the facts about climate change and finally understand just how serious the problem is, they will surely raise their voices and demand that our governments and business leaders DO SOMclimate change communication, like Showtime's Years of Living Dangerously and the American Academy for the Advancement of Science's What We Know campaign, websites like Climate Central and Real Climate, or academic programs like Yale's Project on Climate Change Communication and George Mason University's Center for Climate Change Communication, is predicated on the belief that if people know the facts about climate change and finally understand just how serious the problem is, they will surely raise their voices and demand that our governments and business leaders DO SOMClimate Central and Real Climate, or academic programs like Yale's Project on Climate Change Communication and George Mason University's Center for Climate Change Communication, is predicated on the belief that if people know the facts about climate change and finally understand just how serious the problem is, they will surely raise their voices and demand that our governments and business leaders DO SOMClimate, or academic programs like Yale's Project on Climate Change Communication and George Mason University's Center for Climate Change Communication, is predicated on the belief that if people know the facts about climate change and finally understand just how serious the problem is, they will surely raise their voices and demand that our governments and business leaders DO SOMClimate Change Communication and George Mason University's Center for Climate Change Communication, is predicated on the belief that if people know the facts about climate change and finally understand just how serious the problem is, they will surely raise their voices and demand that our governments and business leaders DO SOMClimate Change Communication, is predicated on the belief that if people know the facts about climate change and finally understand just how serious the problem is, they will surely raise their voices and demand that our governments and business leaders DO SOMclimate change and finally understand just how serious the problem is, they will surely raise their voices and demand that our governments and business leaders DO SOMETHING!

In a few years, as we get to understand this more, skeptics will move on (just like they dropped arguments about the hockey stick and about the surface station record) to their next reason not to believe climate science.

«The «normal» physicist (or simple «scientist» should be able to understand the climate debate, and should not be silenced or denied voicing his opinions, just because he is not the full blown..»

Public understanding is so «suboptimal» regarding climate change itself, and regarding a need for a «price» of any sort for carbon emissions, that we just have to hope that we'll get either cap - and - trade or carbon tax.

Related The University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, which runs one of the critical hubs for climate analysis, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, has just published «guidance for the next U.S. presidential administration and Congress on the importance of better understanding and predicting weather, water, climate, and other aspects of the Earth system.»

That historical background, I think, is essential to understanding not just the backlash that Obama is facing on climate action, but the generally very poor record that the United States has had on climate action.

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.

Just because you don't understand how climate scientists and other fields of science use proxy information to get accurate estimates of past temperatures doesn't mean it is not possible for them to do so.

It occurs to me; the politicians understand that 97 % of scientists (not just climate scientists) believe global warming is real and manmade.

How many of those who accuse me of bias have ever read and fully understood the statistical issues behind just a single, serious climate paper?

So it should be dead easy for you to identify for me say five of the one million species that have gone extinct from climate change in the last 300 years... I'm not asking for all one million names, you understand, just five will do.