Sentences with phrase «experts in the attribution»

Note that the consistency between modeled and observed temperature trends is not an attribution, and is not taken to be by experts in the attribution field.

Not exact matches

Legal experts, speaking on a not - for - attribution basis because precise measures have not been announced, said one possibility is the government might change the Competition Act to say that «abuse of a dominant position» would include «exploitative pricing» or, in effect, charging too much.

Earlier this month, it was revealed that Sotheby's auction house sold Frans Hals's Portrait of Man for $ 10m in 2011, a work which rival Christie's had passed on because its experts were not satisfied with the provenance and attribution.

«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.

But what I have read suggests to me that 1) for some reason climate scientists eschewed established methods for attribution in favor of a newly invented one, 2) overly relied upon expert judgement in favor of direct refutation of alternatives, and 3) ended up steering a tortuous but narrow path through what should have been a much broader logic tree resolution.

In this case, the committee might have discovered more than a few papers by one of them on the subject, such as Risbey and Kandlikar (2002) «Expert Assessment of Uncertainties in Detection and Attribution of Climate Change» in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, or that Prof. Risbey was a faculty member in Granger Morgan's Engineering and Public Policy department at CMU for five years, a place awash in expert elicitation of climate (I sent my abstract to Prof. Morgan — who I know from my AGU uncertainty quantification days — for his opinion before submitting it to the conferenceIn this case, the committee might have discovered more than a few papers by one of them on the subject, such as Risbey and Kandlikar (2002) «Expert Assessment of Uncertainties in Detection and Attribution of Climate Change» in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, or that Prof. Risbey was a faculty member in Granger Morgan's Engineering and Public Policy department at CMU for five years, a place awash in expert elicitation of climate (I sent my abstract to Prof. Morgan — who I know from my AGU uncertainty quantification days — for his opinion before submitting it to the conferencein Detection and Attribution of Climate Change» in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, or that Prof. Risbey was a faculty member in Granger Morgan's Engineering and Public Policy department at CMU for five years, a place awash in expert elicitation of climate (I sent my abstract to Prof. Morgan — who I know from my AGU uncertainty quantification days — for his opinion before submitting it to the conferencein the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, or that Prof. Risbey was a faculty member in Granger Morgan's Engineering and Public Policy department at CMU for five years, a place awash in expert elicitation of climate (I sent my abstract to Prof. Morgan — who I know from my AGU uncertainty quantification days — for his opinion before submitting it to the conferencein Granger Morgan's Engineering and Public Policy department at CMU for five years, a place awash in expert elicitation of climate (I sent my abstract to Prof. Morgan — who I know from my AGU uncertainty quantification days — for his opinion before submitting it to the conferencein expert elicitation of climate (I sent my abstract to Prof. Morgan — who I know from my AGU uncertainty quantification days — for his opinion before submitting it to the conference).

An asterisk in the column headed «D' indicates that formal detection and attribution studies were used, along with expert judgement, to assess the likelihood of a discernible human influence.

there is a highly interesting discussion of how a «very likely» level of confidence as to attribution was obtained in AR4 in a McKitrick paper in 2007: http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/mckitrick.final.pdf after having a look on it, you may conclude that IPCC expert knowledge may be closer to alchemy than to science

My point is that I think there are some glaring logical errors in the IPCC's detection and attribution argument, that it doesn't take an expert in logic to identify.

The IPCC is straightforward in its introduction to attribution and doesn't claim anything other than that attribution needs some kind of modelling (because we can't put the climate in a bottle) and that this method relies on a number of different tactics, including the consensus of what these tactics mean of the experts.

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).

She further reports that the atmospheric scientists are the experts on attribution, and therefore their agreement carries more weight than the self - identified climate scientists in this study.

Gavin's statement that attribution — which only deals with phenomena in the past or present — is necessarily «model based» is exactly the sort of revelatory statement that means that he spent exactly zero time trying the benchmark his attribution approach against the accumulated wisdom of the experts.

Dr. Pratt, Your attribution of motive to those with whom you disagree is annoyingly illogical, especailly for someone who claims to be an expert in logic.

«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.

Dr Balan Sarojini's co-authors on the new paper were Prof Peter Stott, Head of Climate Monitoring and Attribution at the Met Office and Professor of Detection and Attribution at the University of Exeter, and Dr Emily Black, Associate Professor and expert in water cycle variability at NCAS based at the University of Reading.

In addition to a deep - dive on the impact of U.S. tax reform, we'll also address the OECD's work on financial transactions, key developments in taxation of the digital economy and expert insights and analysis on key transfer pricing issues including BEPS, country - by country reporting, attribution of profits to PE's, APA's, the MLI and morIn addition to a deep - dive on the impact of U.S. tax reform, we'll also address the OECD's work on financial transactions, key developments in taxation of the digital economy and expert insights and analysis on key transfer pricing issues including BEPS, country - by country reporting, attribution of profits to PE's, APA's, the MLI and morin taxation of the digital economy and expert insights and analysis on key transfer pricing issues including BEPS, country - by country reporting, attribution of profits to PE's, APA's, the MLI and more.

I was also impressed by how the study's authors and other experts quoted in the mainstream media refused to make any causal attributions.