Event
attribution studies like the one described in the paper can help lead to improved understanding.
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.
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.»
In the second real - time extreme weather
attribution study in the context of the World Weather Attribution project the team found a 5 - 80 % increase in the likelihood of heavy precipitation like those associated with storm Desmond to occur due to anthropogenic clim
attribution study in the context of the World Weather
Attribution project the team found a 5 - 80 % increase in the likelihood of heavy precipitation like those associated with storm Desmond to occur due to anthropogenic clim
Attribution project the team found a 5 - 80 % increase in the likelihood of heavy precipitation
like those associated with storm Desmond to occur due to anthropogenic climate change.
I
like these
attribution studies mention in this post, but the denialists seem forever stuck out on the long tail of «anything's possible in a non-ACC world, it's all within what's natural.»
In the second real - time extreme weather
attribution study in the context of the World Weather Attribution project the team found a 5 - 80 % increase in the likelihood of heavy precipitation like those associated with storm Desmond to occur due to anthropogenic clim
attribution study in the context of the World Weather
Attribution project the team found a 5 - 80 % increase in the likelihood of heavy precipitation like those associated with storm Desmond to occur due to anthropogenic clim
Attribution project the team found a 5 - 80 % increase in the likelihood of heavy precipitation
like those associated with storm Desmond to occur due to anthropogenic climate change.
The result still remains counter-intuitive, and most other similar
attribution studies (
like those referenced above) generally estimate between 0.65 and 0.85 °C warming over the past 100 - 150 years.
The ISPM summary states: «These
attribution studies do not take into account... potentially important influences
like aerosols, solar activity, and land use changes.»
I've skimmed some of the detection and
attribution studies and I don't
like them much either.
Given this plain and simple refusal to accept or even consider the facts here, I have little doubt that you will dispel out of hand any reference to the
attribution studies linking the observed warming to GHGs (
like e.g. Stott et al. 2000), or the following droughts in the Mediterranean region or the Moscow Heat wave.