Sentences with phrase «as attribution studies»

I don't see a similar «point of contact» between models and reality as far as attribution studies of extreme events are concerned, given that what we need to compare are modeled statistics (which we can always have by making many model runs) and meaningful real statistics, (which are hard to get)?

Not exact matches

It seems to me less arbitrary and more logical to go along with Jennings (quoted by Agar 1943, p. 153), who wrote after years of study on the behavior of amoebae: «I am thoroughly convinced, after long study of the behavior of this organism, that if Amoeba were a large animal, so as to come within the every day experience of human beings, its behavior would at once call forth the attribution to it of states of pleasure and pain, of hunger, desire, and the like, on precisely the same basis as we attribute these things to the dog.»

Extracts sourced from ACCC, «Cattle and beef markets — a market study by the ACCC Issues Paper (7 April 2016) and reproduced pursuant to Creative Commons By Attribution 3.0 Australia licence as specified on the ACCC website.

When scientists use climate models for attribution studies, they first run simulations with estimates of only «natural» climate influences over the past 100 years, such as changes in solar output and major volcanic eruptions.

Overall, the chances of seeing a rainfall event as intense as Harvey have roughly tripled - somewhere between 1.5 and five times more likely - since the 1900s and the intensity of such an event has increased between 8 percent and 19 percent, according to the new study by researchers with World Weather Attribution, an international coalition of scientists that objectively and quantitatively assesses the possible role of climate change in individual extreme weather events.

Atmospheric heatwaves can have significant impacts on human health31 and attribution studies have shown that these events, and atmospheric heatwaves in general, have become much more likely as a result of anthropogenic warming32.

As has been the case since the first attribution studies, the firmest conclusions about the role of warming came from high temperature events.

As for whether a warming climate played a part in this historic storm, Henson described the event as an «excellent candidate for an attribution and detection study.&raquAs for whether a warming climate played a part in this historic storm, Henson described the event as an «excellent candidate for an attribution and detection study.&raquas an «excellent candidate for an attribution and detection study.»

This included an event - specific attribution study on the 2013 New Zealand drought, as well as highlighting differences in the emergence of heat extremes for the global population when aggregated by income grouping.

Though the results from attribution studies such as this one tend to be released before they've been through the traditional process of peer - review, the methods underpinning them are peer - reviewed and well established, van Oldenborgh tells Carbon Brief.

«The methodological frameworks were very much in their infancy at the time of Katrina in 2005,» said Noah Diffenbaugh, a Stanford climate researcher who performs climate change «attribution» studies, seeking to determine how the probability of various weather events has changed as a result of the warming of the climate.

is the latest in what are known as «single event attribution» studies.

However there's also attribution to the way people study, as some are better than others at traditional methods of study to achieve more.

I disagree as to whether this is a «key» issue for attribution studies, but as to when anthropogenic warming began, the answer is actually quite simple — when we started altering the atmosphere and land surface at climatically relevant scales.

This is a result that has been suggested before (i.e. in the IPCC report (Groisman et al, 2005), but this was the first proper attribution study (as far as I know).

al. study I'd be curious to see how natural fluctuations in multi-decadal cycles such as the PDO and AMO during the time frame in question were filtered out to find the 7 % attribution to AGW specifically, or is this kind of filtering even relevant in this kind of study?

It's hard enough to attribute increased flooding or hurricanes in the past to GW, since these are not everyday events as temperature is (there have been some studies that have attempted such attribution re hurricanes and floods, & I'll see if I can dig them up).

The first cut at the revisions linked above has effectively the same match to the model trends as before (maybe a little better) and so no revisions to the models nor to attribution studies are likely.

It seems like it would be easy to test this sort of hypothesis in a simple EBM attribution study like Crowley 2000 rather than as an isolated phenomenon as above and in Scafetta & West.

When performing an objective attribution study, the logic structure used to track progress towards resolution is fitted as precisely as possible to observations.

Thus the notion of a pause isn't particularly meaningful in the context of what models project, but studying decadal attribution is still very useful, as it might ultimately narrow the ranges of decadal projections.

As long as we're talking about extreme weather events and attribution... although Kerry Emanuel is usually the go - to guy for the study of increasing tropical cyclone intensity, his 2005 and 2011 (linked to above by Stefan) papers being the most cited, there is a limitation of scope in that only the North Atlantic basin is covered by these papers, AFAIAs long as we're talking about extreme weather events and attribution... although Kerry Emanuel is usually the go - to guy for the study of increasing tropical cyclone intensity, his 2005 and 2011 (linked to above by Stefan) papers being the most cited, there is a limitation of scope in that only the North Atlantic basin is covered by these papers, AFAIas we're talking about extreme weather events and attribution... although Kerry Emanuel is usually the go - to guy for the study of increasing tropical cyclone intensity, his 2005 and 2011 (linked to above by Stefan) papers being the most cited, there is a limitation of scope in that only the North Atlantic basin is covered by these papers, AFAIK.

These events would thus be good candidates for attribution studies — as Bob Henson of UCAR remarked in connection with the colorado event:

--- I realize the attribution studies are apt to be ignored by those who feel they aren't needed to support their opinions; I post this not to «debate» but as a reference: attribution for those interested in the science.

But let's make sure the research is not simply «agenda driven», i.e. to support a political agenda, such as the implementation of a direct or indirect «carbon tax», but real scientific studies to clear up the many uncertainties regarding the relative importance of natural and anthropogenic attribution of past climate change, for example.

However, taking account of sampling uncertainty (as most more recent detection and attribution studies do, including those shown in Figure 9.9) makes relatively little difference to estimates of attributable warming rates, particularly those due to greenhouse gases; the largest differences occur in estimates of upper bounds for small signals, such as the response to solar forcing (Allen and Stott, 2003; Stott et al., 2003a).

So various of the shortcomings of such climate sensitivity studies that you allude to also apply to many detection and attribution studies, as you no doubt appreciate, although problems with biased Bayesian inference apply only to such climate sensitivity studies.

Scientists do have better things to do with their time than answer questions raised on climate skeptic blogs, and as a result, you will only generally be assured of a climate change paper taking a stance on the cause of the change if the subject of the paper is an attribution study.

The above still stands out as the best attribution study I've seen.

This evidence includes multiple finger - print and attribution studies, strong correlations between fossil fuel use and increases in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, carbon isotope evidence that is supports that elevated carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere are from fossil sources, and model predictions that best fit actual observed greenhouse gas concentrations that support human activities as the source of atmospheric concentrations.

[ISPM 6.3 c] This is true of most, but certainly not all, of the cited attribution studies, as even the ISPM admits that some studies do take into account forcings such as black carbon and land use.

The ISPM generalizes as follows: «Attribution studies to date do not take into account all known sources of possible influence on the climate.»

In response to their respective opinion articles, I argue that Kevin Trenberth's proposal to reverse the burden of proof in attribution studies is misguided, but Judith Curry's counter proposal to abandon hypothesis tests as useless is worse still.

IPCC has stated (AR4 WG1 Ch.9) that the «global mean warming observed since 1970 can only be reproduced when models are forced with combinations of external forcings that include anthropogenic forcings... Therefore modeling studies suggest that late 20th - century warming is much more likely to be anthropogenic than natural in origin...» whereas for the statistically indistinguishable early 20thC warming period «detection and attribution as well as modeling studies indicate more uncertainty regarding the causes of early 20th - century warming.»

The modeling of the volcanic forcings are very handwavy, and the claim that the CO2 forcing goes as ln [CO2], actually is a model result contrary to the claim that all of the attribution studies only use observations.

Those attribution studies, such as Foster & Rahmstorf 2011 and others have aptly noted this, and, though they might not admit it, McKitrick & Tole 2012 are saying something similar... include the change in the amount of coal burned along with some of the GCM's and you can be much better at having a better model of the surface climate trends.

But in fact the methodology that he's used to link the observed warming to increasing greenhouse gases, the so - called attribution step, is not nearly as robust as many other studies have undertaken over the last 10 years.

Researchers have been doing detection - and - attribution studies on well - understood, well - documented phenomena such as temperature changes and rainfall patterns for more than a decade.

This included an event - specific attribution study on the 2013 New Zealand drought, as well as highlighting differences in the emergence of heat extremes for the global population when aggregated by income grouping.

Many climate - related studies, such as detection and attribution of historical climate change, projections of future climate and environments, and adaptation to future climate change, heavily rely on the performance of climate models.

«The assessment is supported additionally by a complementary analysis in which the parameters of an Earth System Model of Intermediate Complexity (EMIC) were constrained using observations of near - surface temperature and ocean heat content, as well as prior information on the magnitudes of forcings, and which concluded that GHGs have caused 0.6 °C to 1.1 °C (5 to 95 % uncertainty) warming since the mid-20th century (Huber and Knutti, 2011); an analysis by Wigley and Santer (2013), who used an energy balance model and RF and climate sensitivity estimates from AR4, and they concluded that there was about a 93 % chance that GHGs caused a warming greater than observed over the 1950 — 2005 period; and earlier detection and attribution studies assessed in the AR4 (Hegerl et al., 2007b).»

If the mwp was real and was «global» then the models no longer validate the attribution studies and all the relative net contribution from each natural or man - made forcing are not as accurate as thought.

There are also some detection — attribution studies using global climate models that suggest there was a detectable influence of solar variability in the first half of the twentieth century and that the solar radiative forcing variations were amplified by some mechanism that is, as yet, unknown.

The AR documents are position papers, not attribution studies, as exemplified by the fact that supporting and refuting arguments can not be followed in any logical manner and the arguments do not roll up into any logical framework.

That said, it is going to be discussed as if it were an attribution study — that global warming raised the odds of this extreme event.

Its about whether, if the recent trend combines AMO and global warming signals, interpretation of this as if it were an attribution study of global warming may overstate the pure effect of global warming.

If discussed as such, the results appear a high outlier relative to similar - looking attribution studies.

If, when you did that, the marginal increase in likelihood of new extremes fell more in line with the (e.g.) 20 % that seems typical of recent attribution studies, then this would place what is now an extreme outlier result (as it is being interpreted, not as the authors described it) more in line with the rest of the literature.

Attribution studies additionally assess whether the response to a key forcing, such as greenhouse gas increases, is distinguishable from that due to other forcings (Appendix 9.

The claim by advocates seems to be that the only way to do an attribution study is with a climate model, which, as Judith notes, is a circular argument.