Sentences with phrase «who knows about climate»

Not exact matches

To the surprise of everyone who knew about the strong evidence for the little ice age and the medieval climate optimum, the graph showed a nearly constant temperature from the year 1000 until about 150 years ago, when the temperature began to rise abruptly like the blade of a hockey stick.

It is freezing but I won't complain about the temperatures because I know I have many readers who live in cold, snowy climates... I don't know how you do it!

Whilst these blogs are popular - in terms of unique visitor numbers (and before Unity has a go at me, I know there are weaknesses in those numbers)- they tend to be written by people who write about a large number of issues and climate change is not their principle topic (or even one that they discuss very often).

«There is just no case for being sceptical about climate change... I don't quite know why Nigel Lawson, who is an extremely intelligent man, takes the other side of it.»

Those who know more about climate science, for example, are slightly more likely to accept that global warming is real and caused by humans than those who know less on the subject.

But perhaps it holds a lesson for anyone who is concerned about climate change and doesn't know how to talk to friends and family who aren't.

Not much is known about what happens in these transitional savanna ecosystems located between more arid and wetter climate zones, information critical to their management,» said lead author J. Tyler Fox, who earned his doctorate in fish and wildlife conservation in Virginia Tech's College of Natural Resources and Environment in 2016.

Climate change and the resulting loss of sea ice during the summer have opened new hunting territory for the killer whales in the eastern Canadian Arctic, but scientists knew very little about these animals until they tapped into the traditional knowledge of Inuit hunters who shared unique firsthand descriptions of orca hunting tactics.

Davies wanted to find out who knew about these Climategate emails, which had been timed to coincide with climate change talks in Copenhagen, Denmark, in 2009.

Nothing, Coulson says, is known about the people who carved the animals (except that they didn't live in a desert; at the time the engravings were made, the Sahara enjoyed a much more temperate climate than today).

If you can, talk to someone who knows a bit about recruitment, even if you aren't planning to return to their company — they will be able to give you an honest perspective on the current hiring climate.

Many of you know Dr. Hansen, the former Director of the Goddard Space Center of NASA — as the man who warned the U.S. Congress about dangerous climate change in 1988.

Dr Kevin Anchukaitis, associate professor of paleoclimatology at the University of Arizona, who also wasn't involved in the study, disagrees that proxy records can't record climate extremes — indeed, it is only through using proxies that scientists know about past extremes, he says.

«In stark contrast to Lindzen's letter, ours was signed only by those who know something about the climate system,» said Kerry Emanuel, an MIT professor of atmospheric sciences who signed the letter opposing Lindzen.

«We know rather little about how much methane comes from different sources and how these have been changing in response to industrial and agricultural activities or because of climate events like droughts,» says Hinrich Schaefer, an atmospheric scientist at the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) in New Zealand, who collaborates with Petrenko.

But beyond the data issue, I think there's a whole income economic piece so folks who don't care about, you know, disparities and suspensions and maybe they don't respond, you know, in a warm way to talk about school climate, the economic reality is that it's incredible expensive to the taxpayer.

Another principal at a middle school in Chicago's western suburbs who saw lackluster performance on measures of trust made a concerted effort to change the culture and climate in her school, because, as she said, «If students know you care about them, it makes everything else a little easier.»

The one thing everyone knows about Texas is the Battle of the Alamo, but most of Texas history occurred before the Alamo, before the Anglo colonists arrived; it was the history of the native peoples who lived there over the course of 14,000 years, some of whom left huge, magnificent cosmological murals in rock shelters along the Pecos River before they moved on as the climate changed and water disappeared.

Against this sort of background, it's perhaps understandable that I should have sided with McKeever, who seemed to offer in his paintings and his writings so much that I couldn't argue with: «In the present climate of all - knowing, self - conscious art, where just about everything is a critique of something or other, there is still the need, even an urgent need, for something as unadorned as (the) simple painting.

At last in this instance, he's found someone in KIA who knows even less about climate change he does.

Instead of the about 50 % reduction in the 1950 - 2007 trend from the first rough guess from you - know - who, Real Climate's first guess results in a reduction of the trend by about 30 %.

But, since such a thing is unlikely, those of us who are speaking up need to not only speak up, but do so in such a manner as to leave no doubt where the lies and damned lies about Climate Science come from and what the results of listening to them might be.

But first, here's Lynne Cherry, an author, illustrator and filmmaker who collaborated many times with Braasch, particularly notably in my favorite book on climate change for younger readers, «How We Know What We Know About Our Changing Climate.climate change for younger readers, «How We Know What We Know About Our Changing Climate.Climate.»

Seriously, it's getting to the point where anyone who stands up in a crowd and says «my dog knows more about climate than Jim Hansen» is not going to like the reaction he gets.

I think that the vast majority of lay readers who read the headlines and the text of stories on climate sensitivity do not know this and they simply presume that the scientists concerned are talking about their absolute best estimates of the possible temperature increases which may be faced.

Do you know about, or can you refer me to someone who may know about, the climate effects of the other Tambora - scale volcanic eruption (VEI = 7) of the last millenium — from Changbaishan (Baitoushan) on the China - NKorea border (42oN latitude) sometime between 960-1025 AD?

It's easy for the majority of the folks who gravitate to the RealClimate blog, to forget how little most people in the world know about climate.

Even for those of you who are interested in seeing a reduction in our dependence on fossil fuels — and I know how passionate young people are about issues like climate change — the fact of the matter is, is that for quite some time, America is going to be still dependent on oil in making its economy work.

Mister KIA (aka «Doesn't Know Crap About Science»), who has no true climate science credentials, now does not understand the definition of the word «global» versus «regional».

But this awards blog is not about the good country of the Czech Republic, who citizens are good honest people who know a thing or two about global warming and climate change.

-LSB-...] everyone that the best - selling author who has become a hero to Deniers — even bringing his trash talk against U.S. climate scientists to a Senate hearing — doesn't seem to know the first thing about global warming -LSB-...]

No matter who is right about the oscillating thingies effect on short term temprature, climate modeling will be the winner.

However one may feel, think, or know about AGW, taking a stated group (s) to task is not to take everyone such would be included by any reasonable definition of «mainstream science», unless this is code for IPCC and climate scientists who make up only a small part of what is considered «mainstream science».

However, since a high proportion of misnamed «skeptics» are in fact deliberate liars, who endlessly repeat assertions that they well know have been repeatedly shown to be false, it will probably have little effect on the fake, phony, Exxon - Mobil sponsored «debate» about anthropogenic climate change.

I read this website to become more acquainted with the science of climate change (I'm also attending Prof. Archer's Coursera class on climate change right now), and because this website seems trustworthy to me as someone who doesn't know enough about climate science to decide for myself who's right or wrong about this subject.

Another fact: The idea that a layman somehow knows something about climate trends that literally thousands of climate scientists who have spent their careers working with the subject (and who have published their results in peer - reviewed journals and at scientific conferences) is ludicrous and the height of arrogance.

While it's fashionable these days to fight over who's in denial about what facts on climate change, a focus on known uncertainty goes way back.

Now, I think it was in 1956 that atmospheric physicist and sometimes - weapons designer Gilbert Plass (who needed to know about IR to fire heat - seeking missiles up the tailpipes of jet fighter at high altitude) noted that CO2 in the upper troposphere could block the escape of IR to space: The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change, Gilbert Plass (1955)(abstract) In the full paper, available at the above link, Plass spells out the previous notion which his research overturned:

Causality in anything remotely as complicated as the climate system is an exceedingly difficult concept, and I would argue anyone who instantly says «yes this must be right» or «no this is wrong» or even that «this is important» can not possibly know what he is talking about.

The people who aren't being paid millions but still bang on about climate change being a conspiracy etc. are scarier, because you know they must really believe it!

Anyone who claims that «climate change is nothing to worry about» or conversely that «we're in for a major disaster» is overstepping the bounds of what is known.

When news broke, whether it was the wreck of the Exxon Valdez or the release of a new report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, there was a decent chance someone who knew about oil toxicity or the heat - trapping properties of CO2 would report the story.

Even those who «know» the extent of climate change find it difficult to feel authentic moral outrage about it.

Thank goodness the Trump Train has not or will not be derailed by people like McCarthy, who obviously knows - infinity (not just nothing but boundlessly and harmfully wrong) about either global warming (aka climate change) or economics.

This is the same Ed Cook who admitted in the first dossier that we know «f *** all» about climate variability > 100 years based on dendro.

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.

I'll tell you someone else who you can be sure knows what farmers really think about climate scientists: their representatives in Congress.

People who follow the «climate change» mantra know exactly what to think and feel about the topic but have no concept of the facts.

Those dismissive comments sounded laughable to folks who read Skeptical Science and know the scientific understanding about climate change.

The Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change, for instance, has sometimes made conclusions based upon the «balance of the evidence» The ideological climate skeptics, (to be distinguished from reasonable skepticism) often publicizes what is not known about these issues and ignores what is known and at the same time has accused those who have identified plausible but unproven risks as doing «bad science.Climate Change, for instance, has sometimes made conclusions based upon the «balance of the evidence» The ideological climate skeptics, (to be distinguished from reasonable skepticism) often publicizes what is not known about these issues and ignores what is known and at the same time has accused those who have identified plausible but unproven risks as doing «bad science.climate skeptics, (to be distinguished from reasonable skepticism) often publicizes what is not known about these issues and ignores what is known and at the same time has accused those who have identified plausible but unproven risks as doing «bad science.»