Sentences with phrase «attribution assessments»

Although the demand for attribution assessments is higher shortly after an event occurs, most scientific studies become available several months later.

For event attribution assessments to be most useful, remaining scientific uncertainties need to be robustly assessed and the results clearly communicated.

Detection / attribution assessments, using General Circulation Models (GCMs) or Energy Balance Models (EBMs) with geographical distributions of surface temperature trends, suggest that the solar influence on climate is greater than would be anticipated from radiative forcing estimates.

The paper considers the necessary components of a prospective event attribution system, reviews some specific case studies made to date (Autumn 2000 UK floods, summer 2003 European heatwave, annual 2008 cool US temperatures, July 2010 Western Russia heatwave) and discusses the challenges involved in developing systems to provide regularly updated and reliable attribution assessments of unusual or extreme weather and climate - related events.

Some attribution assessments that link events to dynamically driven changes in circulation have been criticized on the grounds that small signal - to - noise ratios, modeling deficiencies, and uncertainties in the effects of climate forcings on circulation render conclusions unreliable and prone to downplaying the role of anthropogenic change.

Otto, a climate scientist at the University of Oxford, also works with Climate Central's World Weather Attribution program, which attempts to conduct rapid attribution assessments in the days and weeks after an event.

Some grounds for cautious optimism in the AR5 regarding its detection and attribution assessment is presented.

JC's attribution assessment: likely (> 66 % likelihood) 50 - 50 split between natural variability and anthropogenic forcing, with + / -20 % range.

These phenomena are mentioned in AR4, atlhough you are probably right that they aren't specifically invoked in the attribution assessment.

Not exact matches

Two important advances since the last IPCC assessment have increased confidence in the use of models for both attribution and projection of climate changes.

The carbon majors are defined as fossil fuel production entities and cement manufacturers that produced more than ≥ 8 million tonnes carbon per year (MtC / y), while the total human attribution case refers to all relevant human activities that have been measured and used in climate assessment model scenarios that influence climate change.

Although proper attribution is an important precondition to learning, further development needs to take place to design instruments that measure actual reading gains, as measured on statewide assessment tests and other vehicles.

«The approaches used in detection and attribution research described above can not fully account for all uncertainties, and thus ultimately expert judgement is required to give a calibrated assessment of whether a specific cause is responsible for a given climate change.

However, none of these issues really affect the attribution argument because a) differences in magnitude of forcing over time are assessed by way of the scales in the attribution process, and b) errors in the spatial pattern will end up in the residuals, which are not large enough to change the overall assessment.

I was definitely more ambitious and I go into more detail than Gavin, Andrew and Oliver on how attribution works, partly because that's what I do, but also because just telling the judge «the IPCC says the warming is pretty much all human - induced and 80 % of that is CO2» would have been a bit circular, having been involved myself in those IPCC assessments since the 1990s.

How are these «revelations» relevant for the «very likely» assessment of attribution 20th century warming?

Similarly, attribution of climate change to anthropogenic causes involves statistical analysis and the assessment of multiple lines of evidence to demonstrate, within a pre-specified margin of error, that the observed changes are (1) unlikely to be due entirely to natural internal climate variability; (2) consistent with estimated or modelled responses to the given combination of anthropogenic and natural forcing; and (3) not consistent with alternative, physically plausible explanations of recent climate change.

«Well thank you IPCC authors for letting us know what is really behind that «very likely» assessment of attribution 20th century warming.»

So, how will more realistic assessment of data set uncertainty influence the IPCC AR5 conclusions and confidence levels regarding the attribution of warming since the mid 20th century?

«how will more realistic assessment of data set uncertainty influence the IPCC AR5 conclusions and confidence levels regarding the attribution of warming since the mid 20th century?»

For the entire Northern Hemisphere, there is evidence of an increase in both storm frequency and intensity during the cold season since 1950,1 with storm tracks having shifted slightly towards the poles.2, 3 Extremely heavy snowstorms increased in number during the last century in northern and eastern parts of the United States, but have been less frequent since 2000.11,15 Total seasonal snowfall has generally decreased in southern and some western areas, 16 increased in the northern Great Plains and Great Lakes region, 16,17 and not changed in other areas, such as the Sierra Nevada, although snow is melting earlier in the year and more precipitation is falling as rain versus snow.18 Very snowy winters have generally been decreasing in frequency in most regions over the last 10 to 20 years, although the Northeast has been seeing a normal number of such winters.19 Heavier - than - normal snowfalls recently observed in the Midwest and Northeast U.S. in some years, with little snow in other years, are consistent with indications of increased blocking (a large scale pressure pattern with little or no movement) of the wintertime circulation of the Northern Hemisphere.5 However, conclusions about trends in blocking have been found to depend on the method of analysis, 6 so the assessment and attribution of trends in blocking remains an active research area.

Short summary: scientists sought political relevance and allowed policy makers to put a big thumb on the scale of the scientific assessment of the attribution of climate change.

Current work1 has provided evidence of the increase in frequency and intensity of winter storms, with the storm tracks shifting poleward, 2,3 but some areas have experienced a decrease in winter storm frequency.4 Although there are some indications of increased blocking (a large - scale pressure pattern with little or no movement) of the wintertime circulation of the Northern Hemisphere, 5 the assessment and attribution of trends in blocking remain an active research area.6 Some recent research has provided insight into the connection of global warming to tornadoes and severe thunderstorms.7, 8

Taken together, the combined evidence increases the level of confidence in the attribution of observed climate change, and reduces the uncertainties associated with assessment based on a single climate variable.

Most assessments of health have concentrated on malaria and there are still debates on the attribution of malaria resurgence in some African areas.

two points for your consideration, are (A) the design of the Cook - 2013 study included a second part where the scientific paper authors were surveyed to discover their assessments of their own papers, regarding attribution... and this second part confirmed the accuracy of the first part

Consider the following argument that I think must underlie the IPCC's assessment of attribution and their high confidence in this assessment.

I am saying the knowledge in chapter 2 should have influenced the assessment of attribution in chapter 9, not that the assessment in chapter 9 should influence what was said in chapter 2.

Terry, I really look forward to your input / assessment of my Part III on detection and attribution, which addresses the overall logic of the IPCC's argument

Indeed, there are examples in IPCC reports of willingness to acknowledge the importance of expert (subjective) judgment, if on a limited basis (e.g., see discussions of climate sensitivity, detection and attribution and climate and weather extremes in WGI report, assessment of response strategies in the WGII report of AR4; see also Knutti and Hegerl (2008) for futher details on the role of expert judgement in estimating climate sensitivity).

IPCC claims to know this (as expressed in its attribution statement regarding «most of the observed increase in global average temperature since the mid-20th century...»), but as our hostess and others have pointed out, there is much too much uncertainty regarding natural factors to make such an assessment with any degree of certainty.

The phrasing of the IPCC attribution statement in its fourth assessment report (AR4)-- providing a lower limit for the isolated GHG contribution — may have led to an underestimation of the GHG influence on recent warming.

Dare we hope for sanity from the AR5 in their assessment of detection and attribution?

The carbon majors are defined as fossil fuel production entities and cement manufacturers that produced more than ≥ 8 million tonnes carbon per year (MtC / y), while the total human attribution case refers to all relevant human activities that have been measured and used in climate assessment model scenarios that influence climate change.

Judith, you write «Dare we hope for sanity from the AR5 in their assessment of detection and attribution?

A week after the event the climateprediction.net team, together with the World Weather Attribution team, provided an initial assessment of the influence of anthropogenic climate change on the likelihood of one - day precipitation events averaged over an area encompassing northern England and southern Scotland using data and methods available immediately after the event occurred.

JW comment — Independent of the above # 1, # 2, # 3 and # 4 assessments, then the assessment of the attribution to mankind's activities as the cause of some or all of an increase or decreases in atmospheric CO2 conc (whether regional or global) is in significant debate.

«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).»

The study revealed that there is no difference in the quantitative assessment of the attribution statements of temperature in the two approaches.

Confidence in such joint attribution statements must be lower than the confidence in either of the individual attribution steps alone due to the combination of two separate statistical assessments.

The global surface temperature record for the last 100 years is well characterized and the attribution of the variations (including the cooling ca 1940 - 1970) is well understood and characterized in a large number of publications and assessment reports.

«The approaches used in detection and attribution research described above can not fully account for all uncertainties, and thus ultimately expert judgment is required to give a calibrated assessment of whether a specific cause is responsible for a given climate change.

Over the course of the four IPCC assessments, the attribution statement has evolved in the following way:

My assessment of the IPCC's argument for detection and attribution starts with the issue of detection, which relates to the background of natural internal variability against which forced variability is evaluated.

Geographic Information System Analyst — Duties & Responsibilities Serve as geographic system analyst responsible for major nationwide mapping and assessment projects Recruit, train, and direct junior team members ensuring they understand the brand and corporate protocols Set and strictly adhere to departmental and project budgets and schedules Maintain comprehensive records detailing project schedules, geographic information, and other pertinent data Consistently meet and exceed company goals through strong managerial skills Complete all phases of cartographic mapping and database management on 25 Digital Flood Oversee Insurance Rate Map countywide studies in association with FEMA's map modernization process Enhance PBS&J's Floodmap Desktop version 9.3 with an automated cross-section annotation process Create FMD tools and a nationwide automated public land survey system attribution tool Assist in 2006 Post-Hurricane Katrina flood assessment with the Army Corps of Engineers in New Orleans Create final project maps portraying environmental impact assessment calculations associated with the Saratoga, Wyoming well field and transmission line environmental assessment Design final project maps for a hydrologic assessment of County Road 204 in Garfield County, Colorado Provide GIS / data analysis services on a sign asset management project for the Colorado Department of Transportation Build and strengthen relationships with key clients, partner agencies, and community leaders Represent company brand with poise, integrity, and positivity

By engaging with children in a way that involves them in assessment and planning, that encourages them to contribute to decisions about their lives and that provides them with positive choices practitioners could help to shift such attributions and create the conditions for the development of better self - efficacy.