Sentences with phrase «conclusions on attribution»

«If we're going to have national security organizations delivering these types of conclusions on attribution to the public, we need to find a way to develop trusted output.

Not exact matches

I have no desire to have a «blog debate» but rather I am making the point that hurried «interpretations» of results aren't generally very accurate and that people can be in too much of a hurry to jump to conclusions about the IPCC, attribution, impacts on policy etc..

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.

It's doubtful we will come to a conclusion in real - time on the attribution of this event — or any event — without significant research, better tools / models, and observations.

SW find that solar forcing accounts for ~ 50 % of 20C warming, but this conclusion relies on some rather primitive correlations and is sensitive to assumptions (see recent post by Gavin on attribution).

The fact that certain analytical conclusions about observed climate change, attribution to human causes, in particular the energy system and deforestation, projected greater climate change in the future, observed impacts of climate change on natural and human systems, and projected very disruptive consequences in the future given our current trajectory, is not due to «group think» but rather to a generally shared analysis based on evidence.

Chris O'Neill, I've recently posted on another thread on this site the conclusions of a Workshop supported by the Australian Academy of Science and the Australian Greenhouse Office on «Pan Evaporation: an example of the detection and attribution of trends in climate variables» (22 - 23 November 2004).

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.

The IPCC's conclusion on detection and attribution is reached using probabilistic causation and counterfactual reasoning, whereby an ensemble of simulations are used to evaluate agreement between observations and forcing for simulations conducted with and without anthropogenic forcing.

More specifically in regard to the question of human causation, opponents of climate change policies that deny human causation should be expected to specifically respond to the numerous «foot - print» and «attribution» studies that the international community has relied on to make conclusions about human causation.

Despite the many unresolved issues touched on in this chapter and discussed in more detail in chapters 5 — 9, the progress that has been achieved over the past few years provides a basis for drawing some tentative conclusions concerning the nature of the observed differences between surface and upper air temperature trends, and their implications for the detection and attribution of global climate change.break

You reinforce point that Prof Curry made and others have made: conclusions about attribution depend critically on assumptions about natural variability, and knowledge of natural variability is imprecise and uncertain.

Inasmuch as essentially all of the IPCC claims of AGW attribution, the projections of future climate changes and the resulting recommendations to policymakers are based on GCM simulations, this is a fairly damning conclusion that will not make many modelers (and certainly not IPCC) happy.

Detection and attribution of external influences on 20th - century and palaeoclimatic reconstructions, from both natural and anthropogenic sources (Figure 9.4 and Table 9.4), further strengthens the conclusion that the observed changes are very unusual relative to internal climate variability.

Even before seeing Gabi Hegerl's comment, I had come to a somewhat similar conclusion — that your draft gave the impression that IPCC attribution of most warming since about 1950 to anthropogenic greenhouse gases was based exclusively on the difference between model runs with and without anthropogenic influences.