Sentences with phrase «evidence in attribution»

In an influential article in October 2016, Thomas Rid, a prominent commentator on computer security, stated that this argument was the most important evidence in attribution of the DNC hack to Russia — it was what Rid called the «hackers» gravest mistake».

In an influential article in October 2016, Thomas Rid, a prominent commentator on computer security, stated that this argument was the most important evidence in attribution of the DNC hack to Russia — it was what Rid called the «hackers» gravest mistake».

Not exact matches

Furthermore, attribution is always a grey area for enforcing punishment for cyber attacks, even in the presence of substantial evidence.

If, as seems to be the case, unicellular organisms are responsive to their environment in their unity, then the evidence supports the attribution to them of internal relations to that environment.

Indeed, the direct evidence that in fact exists, and it is not slight, contradicts, almost point for point, each of Ford's attributions.

The understanding of the physics of greenhouse gases and the accumulation of evidence for GHG - driven climate change is now overwhelming — and much of that information has not yet made it into formal attribution studies — thus scientists on the whole are more sure of the attribution than is reflected in those papers.

Further evidence of this has emerged in new attributions made through Christie's research before the sale of his collection on 27 September.

The attribution of the recent rise of CO2 in the atmosphere to industrial activities and deforestation is incontrovertible through dozens of lines of evidence.

The paleoclimate evidence from this new study supports the attribution of the tropical temperature trend to the ever - increasing greenhouse gas burden in the atmosphere.

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.

In a second attack on attribution, IPCC claimed that the observed decline in atomic weight of atmospheric CO2 showed that lighter ACO2 mixing with heavier atmospheric CO2 was evidence that ACO2 was the cause of the bulge at MLIn a second attack on attribution, IPCC claimed that the observed decline in atomic weight of atmospheric CO2 showed that lighter ACO2 mixing with heavier atmospheric CO2 was evidence that ACO2 was the cause of the bulge at MLin atomic weight of atmospheric CO2 showed that lighter ACO2 mixing with heavier atmospheric CO2 was evidence that ACO2 was the cause of the bulge at MLO.

I intend both to «follow the money» (flowing primarily from special interests opposed to regulation or taxation of greenhouse gas emissions) and to «follow the science» (by exposing the most egregious flaws in the «evidence» against the attribution of contemporary climate change primarily to human causes).

Trend scepticism would be disbelieving of evidence that suggested a change in climate was occurring, whereas attribution scepticism would be doubtful that such trends were predominantly caused by human agency.

the attribution of a specific heavy precipitation event to human - caused GHG's is not an extra development in science that is needed to add to the burden of proof regarding the human influence on climate already provided by the current scientific evidence.»

The authors pull no punches in boldly asserting that the brand of human attribution science as currently practiced by climate activists such as Michael Mann and Michael Oppenheimer «contradicts the scientific evidence «and engenders a «massive oversimplification» or even «misstatement» of the «true state of the science.»

Fascinating that he suggest a state change before and after climategate — as the result of climategate — with providing neither evidence of a change in state or evidence supporting his claim of attribution.

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.

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.

Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: In drafting the keynote message, the UK suggested adding a sentence that explicitly notes increased evidence of anthropogenic influence since the AR4.

2) In addition to estimates of climate sensitivity, there are other lines of evidence showing that anthropogenic activity (predominately increased CO2) caused most of the recent global warming; this provides further credence for the > = 95 % certainty on the attribution point.

To provide members of the public with the opportunity to contribute directly to research on climate change in a vulnerable region and demonstrate the power of an evidence - based approach to climate impact attribution.

A general agreement that IF this trend continues for another «X» years despite continued increase of GHG concentrations, there will be enough evidence in the red column to seriously question the ability of the GCMs cited by IPCC: a) to correctly assess human attribution of past climate change b) to estimate climate sensitivity c) to make meaningful projections of future climate changes due to AGW

Nobody ever argued that SLR IN AND OF ITSELF was evidence about the Attribution of the warming.

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.

Feel free to disagree with the anthropogenic attribution — just keep in mind that all of the evidence supports it, and opinions contrary to facts are not science.

Detection and attribution studies consistently find evidence for an anthropogenic signal in the climate record of the last 35 to 50 years.

I don't see where he has presented evidence to confirm the level of confidence he places in that attribution of causality.

Oh I see someone has already asked for Cosmic Rays... Another request is to answer the claim that there is no evidence that CO2 is causing the current warming, in other words a sum up of what I believe is called the «attribution problem».

In order to «prove» (a), evidence has to be fabricated — literally — in the sense of using computer simulations with a preordained bias towards the hypothesis (see Judith Curry's series of articles: «Overconfidence in IPCC's detection and attribution», which discusses «bootstrapped plausibility» of modelsIn order to «prove» (a), evidence has to be fabricated — literally — in the sense of using computer simulations with a preordained bias towards the hypothesis (see Judith Curry's series of articles: «Overconfidence in IPCC's detection and attribution», which discusses «bootstrapped plausibility» of modelsin the sense of using computer simulations with a preordained bias towards the hypothesis (see Judith Curry's series of articles: «Overconfidence in IPCC's detection and attribution», which discusses «bootstrapped plausibility» of modelsin IPCC's detection and attribution», which discusses «bootstrapped plausibility» of models).

My long comment was not meant to suggest that models were irrelevant in quantifying attributions and estimating forcings, but rather that there is independent evidence pointing in the same direction.

With a robust evidence base and the right protocols in place it is now possible to run near real - time extreme weather event attribution within days of an event striking.

Independent evidence shows that the attribution to humans of the large signal, 1ºC rise in Earth's global average surface temperature over the last century is erroneous, and confirms the non-existence of AGW.

Yes, incredible, some of these claims of confidence in the draft WGI report, they made me laugh a few times when comparing the statements to the actual evidence cited in the attribution chapter.

The Vostok ice core had stopped me in my tracks because it seemed to suggest definitive evidence of CO2 attribution (though we now know the effect comes before the cause), but it was the hockey stick graph that caused me to do a U-turn, because it implied so plainly that today's temperature was unprecendented in magnitude and rate of change.

* «UK rainfall shows large year to year variability, making trends hard to detect» * «While connections can be made between climate change and dry seasons in some parts of the world, there is currently no clear evidence of such a link to recent dry periods in the UK» * «The attribution of these changes to anthropogenic global warming requires climate models of sufficient resolution to capture storms and their associated rainfall.»

The short route to attribution is to recognize a unique signature in the evidence that can only be explained by a single root cause.

After reviewing evidence in both the latest global data (HadCRUT4) and the longest instrumental record, Central England Temperature, a revised picture is emerging that gives a consistent attribution for each multidecadal episode of warming and cooling in recent history, and suggests that the anthropogenic global warming trends might have been overestimated by a factor of two in the second half of the 20th century.

On the issue of to what extent attribution «evidence» derived from GCMs / AOGCMs (the validity of which is dependent on their climate sensitivities being realistic) can be relied on, three academics who have published extensively on climate sensitivity, Chris Forest, Peter Stone and Andrei Sokolov, wrote about GCMs in «Constraining Climate Model Parameters from Observed 20th century Changes» (Tellus A, 2008) as follows:

There are around 20 different lines of evidence canvassed in the IPCC chapter on detection and attribution.

The predominant summary statements from the TAR WGI strengthened the SAR's attribution statement: «An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system», and «There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.»

This subsection argues that the IPCC's detection and attribution arguments involve circular reasoning, and that confidence in the evidence and argument is elevated by bootstrapped plausibility.

However, even by 1900, reconstructions of hemispheric temperatures show evidence for a detectible warming driven by increases in greenhouse gases, particularly relative to slightly reduced CO2 during the Little Ice Age (Abramet al., 2016; Schurer et al., 2013) consistent with attribution of a substantial fraction of the ETCW in temperature reconstructions to greenhouse gas increases (Schurer et al., 2013).

The question on this appeal is whether the trial judge erred in law in the manner in which she addressed what remained of the Crown's case: that the driving was such a marked departure from the standard expected as to establish mens rea on an objective basis by inference and attribution, and that the respondent's own evidence did not support an exculpatory defence.

Such burden of attribution can create practical problems, in that the disclosure and evidence often central to assessing the true control, and issuance of consent lies with the party that does not bear the burden of proof.

The results revealed that (1) for females and males, higher levels of depressive symptoms correlated with a more depressive attributional style; (2) females and males who met diagnostic criteria for a current depressive disorder evidenced more depres - sogenic attributions than psychiatric controls, and never and past depressed adolescents; (3) although no sex differences in terms of attributional patterns for positive events, negative events, or for positive and negative events combined emerged, sex differences were revealed on a number of dimensional scores; (4) across the Children's Attributional Style Questionnaire (CASQ) subscale and dimensional scores, the relation between attributions and current self - reported depressive symptoms was stronger for females than males; and (5) no Sex × Diagnostic Group Status interaction effects emerged for CASQ subscale or dimensional scores.