Detection and
attribution analyses show robust evidence for an anthropogenic influence on climate.
But... from a political point of view, if there was a decade - long downturn in temperature, and all
the attribution analyses showed it to be a temporary downswing with more warming expected later... no - one would listen — William]-RSB-
Well, now that I think about it, I do have another quibble with one word you used: You said that current
attribution analysis shows a «dominant» anthropogenic component.
Results of the detection and
attribution analysis shows that these declines are attributable to the anthropogenic forcing, which is dominated by the effect of increases in greenhouse gas concentration, and that they are not caused by natural forcing due to volcanic activity and solar variability combined.
Not exact matches
Now, the answer is easy: we have
attribution analyses that all
show a dominant anthropogenic component.
Multi-signal detection and
attribution analyses, which quantify the contributions of different natural and anthropogenic forcings to observed changes,
show that greenhouse gas forcing alone during the past half century would likely have resulted in greater than the observed warming if there had not been an offsetting cooling effect from aerosol and other forcings.
IPCC appeared to be claiming that the weight of atmospheric CO2 started with the weight of natural CO2 in 1750, but it never supplied a mass balance
analysis to
show that this isotopic
attribution was reasonable.
This
shows how selectively restricting any
analysis to only the most recent portion of the available data opens up the likelihood of confounding cyclic and non-cyclic trends leading to false diagnosis and
attribution.
Analyses showed a significant indirect effect for dysfunctional parental
attributions in favor of the group receiving the behavioral program, and significant effects of the behavioral program on positive and negative parenting and parental self - efficacy, compared to the nondirective intervention.