Sentences with phrase «whether as climate scientists»

Not exact matches

Alaskan scientists aren't the only ones who have noticed: Climate change activists have already adopted the walrus's cause, and the U.S. Interior Department is now deciding whether to list the walrus as endangered species.

Now, with the frozen soil disturbed by the process of laying down the rail and a warming climate on the plateau, some scientists question whether the $ 4 - billion rail line will survive as is or require major reconstruction.

While some may see evidence of rapid glacier thinning in the past and again today as evidence that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is nearing a collapse driven by human - caused climate change, Steig said at this point, scientists just don't know whether that is the case.

Scientists studying whether wildlife can adapt to climate change should focus on characteristics such as what they eat, how fast they breed and how well they survive in different habitats rather than simply on how far they can move, a conservation biologist at the University of Exeter says.

Although Climate Feedback can function as a media training sandbox, whether it pays off for early - career scientists trying to make their mark in academia isn't as obvious.

Scientists want to use NEPTUNE Canada to study how different systems interact, answering questions such as whether earthquakes trigger methane release, and how climate change is affecting the ocean.

As scientists continue their research on CCS, though, one of the biggest remaining questions is whether policymakers want to include it in their climate goals, Stute said.

As part of the World Weather Attribution (WWA) team CPDN scientists have looked at observational data and model simulations, including weather@home to identify whether and to what extend human - induced climate change influenced the likelihood and magnitude of this extreme event.

The interview focused on climate change assessments and whether scientists underestimate impacts to, as Oreskes... Continue reading →

The latter is still a big question mark, but as we wait for more data, a UK - based team of scientists is trying to figure out whether Proxima b might have the stable climate and reasonable temperatures necessary for life.

This is NOT open and honest debate as to whether climate change is happening and what its effects are when people who are not climate scientists have louder voice on the science.

RC and the other climate scientists can not say definitively whether Hansen is «right» about 350; rather, I imagine, they're working as hard as they can to refine the science and the models, and they will be for years.

I suspect one of the reasons that he brought it up is that the general public, when told there is no debate amongst experts as to whether warming is occurring, are also told that the hundreds of scientists they hear about in the news dismissing warming (or saying that there is a debate) are not climate change experts and therefore shouldn't be believed.

There's been an ongoing thread on Dot Earth examining whether and how scientists can stake a position on climate policy while maintaining their credibility as objective pursuers of scientific knowledge.

As you might expect in a debate about whether or not the U.S. should make a risky move to perpetuate the use of fossil fuels, some committee members took the opportunity to voice doubt that the constant burning of that energy source was behind the rising temperatures, melting ice sheets, and abnormal weather events most scientists associate with climate change.

I'd like to ask you, as a climate insider, whether climate scientists privately recognise the shortcomings of their subject — such as the hockey stick, or the poor quality temperature data — or whether they simply refuse to look at what Anthony Watts, Steve McIntyre, and others have unearthed.

They suggest that scientists are still discussing whether or not the climate is changing in response to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, as if there were a simple yes / no answer.

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.

As I heard Penn State climate scientist Dr. Richard Alley during his talk at Climate One meeting at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco last December, «Scientists are no longer debating (whether humans are causing) climate change because that is no longer a useful discussion.climate scientist Dr. Richard Alley during his talk at Climate One meeting at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco last December, «Scientists are no longer debating (whether humans are causing) climate change because that is no longer a useful discussion.Climate One meeting at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco last December, «Scientists are no longer debating (whether humans are causing) climate change because that is no longer a useful discussion.climate change because that is no longer a useful discussion.»

Their description, insofar as the Google translation is correct, of orthodox scientists, (whether they are correct or not), as «proposed supporters of climate alarmism» ought to ring the warning bells, no?

But after trying to follow EO's numerous claims about climate, in the particular case of (ii) at hand I have serious doubts as to whether climate scientists have anything at all to learn from rocket engineers other than that the latter should stick to rocket engineering.

Speaking of which, the issue raised by you in the OP was whether the IPCC 1990 graphic was used by climate scientists in the period 1992 - 1995 in a way that would rebut John Mashey's claim that by 1992 it had been rejected as misrepresenting what really occurred.

ourphyl, I believe you have just disqualified yourself as to your ability to comment upon the question of whether the science being used by climate scientists is any good — since you also admit you are a newbie to the climate science field.

Choice 1: How much money do we want to spend today on reducing carbon dioxide emission without having a reasonable idea of: a) how much climate will change under business as usual, b) what the impacts of those changes will be, c) the cost of those impacts, d) how much it will cost to significantly change the future, e) whether that cost will exceed the benefits of reducing climate change, f) whether we can trust the scientists charged with developing answers to these questions, who have abandoned the ethic of telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but, with all the doubts, caveats, ifs, ands and buts; and who instead seek lots of publicity by telling scary stories, making simplified dramatic statements and making little mention of their doubts, g) whether other countries will negate our efforts, h) the meaning of the word hubris, when we think we are wise enough to predict what society will need a half - century or more in the future?

Almost as soon as the world's nations settled on the Paris target, there were doubts about whether the temperature limit is achievable, and these doubts have been expressed by distinguished scientists at the forefront of climate change research.

As to whether «climate science is unaffected,» I think climate scientists such as yourself need to do some soul searchinAs to whether «climate science is unaffected,» I think climate scientists such as yourself need to do some soul searchinas yourself need to do some soul searching.

These plans, known in UN jargon as Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), must be produced by all countries so that scientists can assess whether their sum total is enough to keep the world from overheating by 2 °C — the limit agreed by politicians to prevent dangerous climate change.

The 400 scientists they characterize as disputing man - made climate change include mostly folks no one has ever heard of, and the quotes they cherry pick aren't all expressing doubt about whether climate change is real and a problem — many are simply expressing differing opinions about the degree of warming and the consequences of that warming.

This is a 1995 analysis by Shell International B.V. scientist Peter Langcake of whether climate change was in fact underway and if, as some scientists were suggesting, a «signal» had been detected showing human influence on climate from temperature, weather, polar ice melt and other data.

Through the rapidly growing field of research known as «event attribution ``, scientists have a way to gauge whether climate change has altered the chances of particular types of extreme weather occurring.

In fact many scientists believe that the warming limit should be lower than 2 degree C to prevent dangerous climate change and as a result the international community has also agreed to study whether the warming limit should be lowered to 1.5 degree C.

Even after the chapters have been revised, there still appear to be major inconsistencies within the lPCC documents as to whether scientists can, with confidence, attribute climate change to human influence.»

But scientists are divided over whether or not the change will benefit the climate, as it may simply cause the trees to die more quickly.

The scientists want to continue to study patterns in this crucial temperature - regulating system, to understand whether as ice sheets continue to melt, this could drive further slowdown — or even a shutdown of a system that regulates our climate.

My role as Chairman of the IPCC is not to trust or mistrust any of the participants in the climate - change debate, whether they belong to environmental groups, industry associations or individual scientists.

The warning — one of the starkest delivered by a top scientist — comes as ministers decide next week whether to weaken measures to cut the pollution that causes climate change...

The focus of the e-mail hacking incident commonly known as «climategate» has shifted to whether scientists at East Anglia's Climate Research Unit threw away raw temperature data.

As part of the World Weather Attribution (WWA) team CPDN scientists have looked at observational data and model simulations, including weather@home to identify whether and to what extend human - induced climate change influenced the likelihood and magnitude of this extreme event.

But as the recent spate of climate conspiracy paranoia (and again, I am not talking about legitimate concerns over certain scientists behavior) shows, bad ideas have a habit of spreading — whether we talk about them or not.

This depends critically on whether they have a method for getting a representative sample across all climate scientists, or have more or less got all climate scientists in their sample, as mentioned earlier.

As for the million dollar question — whether climate change is making tornados more dangerous — I'll turn that one over to Dr. Kevin Trenberth, senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research Global.

Whether he's taking on climate skeptics or vouching for a cap - and - dividend system, Hansen is as outspoken a scientist as they come.

Most climate scientists are interested in policy only insofar as their role in assessing whether it addresses the risks.

«It is not up to us as climate scientists to clear up this mess... We will follow with great interest whether the media world has the professional and moral integrity to correct its own errors.»

Another tradeoff scientists must weigh is their ability to raise social consciousness about climate change, and whether that's best achieved by making themselves as visible as possible, or serving as examples on how to live more sustainably.