Sentences with phrase «understand climate why»

You finish by saying that you don't believe that we can understand climate why you lack belief that science can be used to study climate.

Not exact matches

What CEO's, CMO's, and CSO's can begin to ascertain is how buyers are making decisions (i.e. their buying processes)-- what is even more important in today's business climate is to understand why buyer decision models are transforming and to adapt accordingly.

«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.

«Though why all these people from hot desert climates wan na face Michigan winters, I'll never understand!

I don't understand why California would sign an agreement with China specifically on the matter, when they have already joined the US Climate Alliance?

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

«If we don't understand the switch, then we can not claim to understand why we have the climate we have today,» says Eric Wolff of the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge, UK.

«In order to understand why species are where they are, we need to think about the current climate and land connections between areas,» Economo said.

It's important for climate scientists to understand why sea levels, which have been steadily rising, might periodically fall, or rise at faster rates, said Fasullo.

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.

The team's results «help us understand why Earth didn't warm as much as expected by climate models in the past decade or so.»

Clarification of the causes for such an environment will provide us with clues to understand why the Earth has become a peaceful and lively planet unlike Venus as well as to help understand climate change on Earth.

Why it matters: Understanding the likely direction and magnitude of future climate changes and impacts is essential for managing the risks — and exploiting the opportunities — of climate change.

Why It Matters: To understand convective clouds in climate models, the tall and turbulent storm clouds promising rain, scientists need to describe the strong forces within them.

I don't understand why in these semi-technical forums people seem adverse to handling descriptions of ECS up to the details of Professor Ray Pierrehumbert's Section 3.4.2 (PRINCIPLES OF PLANETARY CLIMATE, page 163ff).

What exactly is the focus of your committee, what's your understanding of school climate and why it's important, and what are your plans?»

This book from Paula Jorde Bloom, Ann Hentschel and Jill Bella helps leaders understand why organizational climate is important and their role in setting the tone for success.

And as this knowledge is disseminated and better understood, eventually we'll have better models, and can achieve more widespread adoption of them - if the solar / cosmic ray / cloud mechanism is significant it could explain why temperatures in neither hemisphere are proceeding upwards lock - step with IPCC forecasts - and opening the door for a more accurate and widespread acknowledgement of CO2 effects on temperature and climate.

Chris, I asked about 1931 because I haven't been able to understand why that year was so warm at and dry at so many climate stations especially in the Midwest.

You don't seem to understand that, with a less than half - baked understanding of climate science, you've stumbled into a discussion with some extremely knowledgeable people, and then wonder why they don't buy into your «equal time for opposing views» viewpoint.

However, we still have some way to go before we fully understand how the climate reacts to this forcing, and in particular why 100,000 yrs has dominated for the last 8 cycles, but before that it was more like 40,000 years.

In the current issue of Rolling Stone, Jeff Goodell has a great report on why Jason Box's radical approach to climate science is changing our understanding of the unprecedented rate of glacier melt in Greenland.

My presentation is designed to give a lay audience a good understanding of how greenhouse gasses work, and why we know the value of climate sensitivity.

What is more, you need posit no dark conspiracies — political or otherwise — to understand why contrarian climate science doesn't prosper.

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).

Once again, the right understands this reality very well, which is why the Heartland crowd likes to claim that climate change is a socialist conspiracy to redistribute wealth.

If, indeed, climate scientists predicted a coming ice age, it is worthwhile to take the next step and understand why they thought this, and what relevance it might have to today's science - politics - policy discussions about climate change.

They often have no background in climate science, so they can not understand the culture of the field or how and why it has developed in the way it has.

For these reasons, I can understand why some climate campaigners, writers and scientists don't want to focus on any science hinting that there might be a bit more time to make this profound energy transition.

I guess I don't understand why the «bet they are wrong, but they won't bet so that proves they are wrong» has any place in serious discussions of Climate modeling.

Why not do some climate science and get it published in the literature rather than poking at studies online, having the blogosphere amplify or distort your findings in a kind of short circuit that may not help push forward understanding?

I'd like to understand why the perfect has become the enemy of the good and why Mr. Hansen's credentials as a climate scientist extend him credibility in other areas which are not his field of study.

Why waste time discussing with someone who clearly don't understand climate, science and are even less interested in the facts?

«Why is there a need for the media to understand the South Asian perspective on climate change?»

I now understand now why some skeptics are complaining about fraudulent behavior among climate scientists.»

I'm not a climate scientist, and I don't understand why you're not able to answer my questions unless I state my position on climate - science issues about which I don't know very much.

Instead of pronouncing doom and gloom about climate change, they emphasize how we need to understand a number of issues more clearly and then proceed to enumerate those issues, what needs to be understood, and why they are so important.

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?

Anyone who has ever flown long distance over the earth during daylight hours can, using a macro-approach, easily understand, I believe, why climate alarmists are the ultimate in ego driven scientists.

That's an argument than even deeply non-technical non-scientists of the general public (and Congress / Senate) can understand - part of their «figuring out who knows what about science» mental toolkit that Dan so admires - which is probably why climate science communicators on the sceptic side are so keen to communicate it.

Studies with climate models have noted that the ITCZ width depends on interactions between radiation and clouds (Voigt & Shaw 2015) and how the model represents sub-grid scale convection (Kang et al. 2009), but a physical understanding of why the ITCZ width is affected by these processes is lacking.

If we're going to mobilize Americans to address climate change, we first have to understand what they're thinking and why, and then help them change their minds.

However, it is difficult for me to understand why the military would put the same effort into beneficial climate change as it would put into harmful climate change.

Being able to reconstruct ancient climate change is a critical part of understanding why the climate behaves the way it does.

If Lewandowsky was genuinely interested in why people take a different view on climate change, he wouldn't attempt to understand them through bullshit and easily manipulated surveys on the internet, on sites hosted by his colleagues and comrades.

Nobody has yet quoted RP's key summary of what this shows: «These extracts from the Greenwire article illustrate why the climate system is not yet well understood.

In contrast to Dr. Happer's view that the science of climate change is like a house of cards (i.e., find one flaw and the whole sense of understanding will fall), I have tried to give a sense of why, as Professor Henry Pollack of the University of Michigan has put it, the science of climate change is like a rope hammock (i.e., with lots of interconnections and linkages, such that weaknesses or failure of any particular detailed finding does not weaken the overall strength of scientific understanding).

Given all this, one can understand why climate science has fallen into such a sorry state.

AGW climate modelers can not understand why and where their «warming» went.

I'm not a climate scientist and I can only go so far in criticizing their work, but when I read someone like Dr. Trenberth speaking of things I do understand and doing so in such a biased, faulty way, I must ask why is he to be trusted at all?