Sentences with phrase «weather scientists do»

And weather scientists do see a possible relationship between the weather phenomenon known as La Nina and the tornado outbreak, and some in the weather world are exploring whether climate change is causing a disruption in the El Nino / La Nina cycle.

Not exact matches

Hal Needham, a hurricane scientist at Louisiana State University, wrote in a blog post on the weather site WXshift that a storm's category doesn't fully convey how dangerous rainfall could be and how much damage it could cause.

Scientists and energy experts say that a distributed grid that doesn't rely on a single power plant for energy generation could help vulnerable island regions such as the Caribbean weather strong storms like Irma or Maria.

Prather, a 49 - year - old professor at the University of California, San Diego, is one of a growing number of scientists who suspect this largely unexplored microbial ecosystem might hold the answer to one of the great mysteries of the weather: Why do clouds produce precipitation when they do?

The best scientists can do right now is watch the sun for signs of trouble and monitor space weather — the flow of particles and fields — between the sun and Earth.

While most scientists don't dispute the link between global warming and extreme weather, the once skeptical public is now starting to come around — especially following 2011, when floods, droughts, heat waves and tornadoes took a heavy toll on the U.S..

The challenge lies in the fact that natural variability is always a part of any extreme weather event, so when scientists do attribution exercises, they are trying to discern the human signal out of the noise.

Trenberth says, and some scientists agree, that attribution studies that use climate models do not work well for weather events that are local and dynamic — a flash in the pan.

Extreme weather events like Harvey are expected to become more likely as Earth's climate changes due to greenhouse gas emissions, and scientists don't understand how extreme weather will impact invasive pests, pollinators and other species that affect human well - being.

That does not mean that scientists can say with certainty if an individual weather event is or is not due to climate change, notes Karl Braganza, manager of the BOM Climate Monitoring Section.

That's because scientists have presumed that most of the aerosols from minor eruptions do not rise beyond the troposphere, the layer of Earth's atmosphere where weather occurs and where natural processes quickly clear particles from the atmosphere.

Very recently scientists have begun to more directly link climate change patterns to extreme weather events, which they have typically been reluctant to do.

Nicola Jones catches up with Julia Slingo, chief scientist at the UK Met Office in Exeter, Devon, about how natural disasters and extreme weather events over the past 12 months have changed what Britain's national weather centre does.

Due to the nature of their work, climate scientists know more than the rest of us — but even they don't always agree about the ways in which climate change will affect weather in specific places.

Frigid weather like the two - week cold spell that began around Christmas is 15 times rarer than it was a century ago, according to a team of international scientists who does real - time analyses to see if extreme weather events are natural or more likely to happen because of climate change.

But while the study adds to the weight of evidence that there is a connection between a warm Arctic and mid-latitude weather, it doesn't tackle the «critical question» of whether one causes the other, another scientist tells Carbon Brief.

And they do all of this while immersed in a field - science program that asks them to be multidisciplinary scientists drawing on prior knowledge to interact with a variety of environments, weather, and physical challenges of a mountain environment.

A national center is appropriate to host major super computers, data centers, instrumented aircraft, radars and other instruments, community weather and climate models, and teams of scientists working together on large problems that are difficult to do in single universities.

Climate scientists don't want to get all entangled with day - to - day weather, I understand this.

What he questions is how recent extreme weather (which has always happened and always will) can be so confidently blamed on global warming (which the media and politicised scientists regularly do).

Climate looks at the averages of weather, and climate scientists don't claim to know what will happen in any given time and place in the months and years ahead, just like actuaries don't know what will happen to any individual, but they've studied the average of things like life expectancies among various large groups.

Except that this is not what the weather scientists were doing for many years.

While scientists tend towards a more reductionist approach (what we can't describe we steer clear of, or what we can't describe doesn't exist, in the worst case) everyone can see weather.

I would say the greatest damage to the climate movement has been done not by one person, but the frequency with which single weather events have been attributed by some climate scientists and some journalists to AGW.

On WUWT most of the skeptics do not «deny» AGW, certainly not the scientists or professional weather people (I myself am a physicist) and honestly, most of the non-scientist skeptics have learned better than that.

For instance, extreme weather events occurred with about the same frequency during the 1945 - 77 global cooling period as they do today, yet no climate scientist pointed to human activity as being responsible in the earlier period.

Paul Driessen — September 23, 2013 «The real climate change «deniers» are the alarmists who deny that natural forces still dominate weather and climate events, and refuse to acknowledge that thousands of scientists do not agree with IPCC proclamations and prescriptions.»

If a scientist does not understand how weather changes, he wont understand how climate changes.

Do scientists know enough to separate human factors from the numerous, powerful, interrelated solar, cosmic, oceanic, terrestrial and other forces that have repeatedly caused minor to major climate changes, climate cycles and weather events throughout human and geologic history?

Scientists do not have a good sense of the current trends, because until a few years ago, data came from only a few ground - based weather stations.

For example, weather reporters do not generally have expertise in climate science, and have much less scientific training than climate scientists.

Like many other conference speakers and attendees, Secretary - General Ban cited the recent droughts, floods, and Tropical Storm Sandy as proof of the dire consequences of man - made global warming, even though many studies and scientists (including scientists who usually fall into the climate alarmist category) have stated that there is no evidence to support claims that «extreme weather» has been increasing in frequency and / or magnitude in recent years, or that extreme events (hurricanes, droughts, heat waves, etc.) have anything to do with increased CO2 levels.

Extreme weather causes crop production losses, but until now, scientists «did not know exactly how much global production was lost to extreme weather events and how they varied by different regions of the world,» said Navin Ramankutty, a professor of global food security and sustainability at the Liu Institute for Global Issues at the University of British Columbia, and one of the study authors.

You are permitted to note, as a parenthetical, that no single weather calamity can be ascribed with absolute certainty (roll your eyes here to signal the exasperating fussiness of scientists) to what humans are doing to the atmosphere.

The scientists among you, start finally accepting offers for real debate with «skeptical» scientists on scientific grounds a. (People like Judith, von Storch and a handful others are certainly open for this, although some may consider them «heretic» or even «skeptic» because of their openness or because they don't declare every single bad weather event as proof of AGW).

Additionally, if folks want to play citizen scientist, one thing they can do is help places like NOAA's NCDC work on digitizing the 140,000 boxes of weather records they have in their basement.

says, and some scientists agree, that attribution studies that use climate models do not work well for weather events that are local and dynamic — ...

Meteorologist Dr. Ryan Maue: «Are climate scientists bothered that President's speech on «extreme weather» climate change doesn't jive with the last IPCC SREX report?»

We are brilliant scientists, so trust us, does nt cut it, particularly since we keep seeing how well weather can be predicted with bright scientists and complicated models and uber expensive paraphernalia.

See: Meteorologist Dr. Ryan Maue: «Are climate scientists bothered that President's speech on «extreme weather» climate change doesn't jive with the last IPCC SREX report?»

Despite the MJO's importance to weather across vast scales, scientists still don't fully understand the basic physics of how it forms and propagates.

As for lying, I have observed many scientists seem to have no difficulty with lying when they connect, without a shred of evidence, supportive modeling or any data or often even any theory such things as extreme weather is getting worse or is linked to CO2, wet areas will get wetter and dry areas will get drier, that the ocean swallowed the «missing heat», using a proxy upside down doesn't matter, the models are still adequate for policy even after such a huge divergence from reality, coral die - back is due to manmade warming rather than fishing, all warming must be bad rather than beyond a certain threshold, etc, etc, etc..

Lynne Cherry, co-Author of How We Know What We Know About Our Changing Climate: Scientists and Kids Explore Global Warming When the weather changes daily, how do we really know that Earth's climate is changing?

«It is somewhat embarrassing for me to admit this, but part of the problem is that a small minority of my [scientist] colleagues, people who should know better, are feeding the extreme - weather / climate hype in the mistaken belief that by doing so they can encourage people to do the right thing — lessen their carbon footprint,» wrote Mass in a blog post, which derided attempts to connect the recent frequency of extreme weather events — superstorms, deep droughts, historically bad winters, etc. — to manmade climate change.

Dangerously hot weather is already occuring more frequently than it did 60 years ago — and scientists expect heat waves to become more frequent and severe as global warming intensifies.

California to experience more droughts, wild fires in the future: Here is the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's prognostication re our scheduled future climate here in California: https://www.llnl.gov/news/california-experience-more-droughts-wildfires-future  Anybody here wan na write these brilliant «scientists» a little note to let them know that we in fact do know what's going on, and we know that they know too because they are the ones who cooked up with these programs and have declared themselves The Deciders of our scheduled weather, and have been for quite some time, too?

WASHINGTON (AP)-- Global warming has mostly made the weather more pleasant for Americans over the last 40 years, which may explain why much of the public doesn't rank climate change as big a threat as do scientists and the rest of the world, a new study suggests.

If you want to know how climate change is going to affect us you really need to see what the weather is doing, a leading British climate scientist has told Climate News Network.

Over the past year, scientists more confidently linked climate change to devastating weather and climate events and pinpointed more clearly how the planet will change if the carbon emissions don't rapidly approach zero.

Unfortunately, it's all very possible... Basically, what Levin does here is compile various predictions from a number of climate scientists and writers, cite historical precedents for climate - related migrations in the US (the Dust Bowl), and make some compelling inferences as to what could happen as weather conditions continue to get worse than they ever have before.