Sentences with phrase «not attribution studies»

The AR documents are position papers, not attribution studies, as exemplified by the fact that supporting and refuting arguments can not be followed in any logical manner and the arguments do not roll up into any logical framework.

Not exact matches

Another possible issue with attribution science, he says, is that the current generation of simulations simply may not be capable of capturing some of the subtle changes in the climate and oceans — a particular danger when it comes to studies that find no link to human activities.

Trenberth says, and some scientists agree, that attribution studies that use climate models do not work well for weather events that are local and dynamic — a flash in the pan.

Smith said his study is not meant to tease out event attribution, and that for many of last year's weather events, it will take months for scientists to determine which variables are linked to certain parts of climate change.

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.

Ultimately, however, no one has performed a specific climate attribution study on this event, so we can not say with high confidence if and to what extent climate change has altered Hurricane Harvey.»

The new research differs from other so - called extreme event attribution studies, not just in its broad - brush approach, but also in how the term «extreme» is defined.

The first study tying a weather event to climate change didn't come out until 2004, making the field of weather event attribution less than 15 years old.

I don't see a similar «point of contact» between models and reality as far as attribution studies of extreme events are concerned, given that what we need to compare are modeled statistics (which we can always have by making many model runs) and meaningful real statistics, (which are hard to get)?

I'm not a close follower of the literature in this area, but has someone done an attribution study showing that the 97 - 98 event — or general ENSO variation in the past 30 years — would be unchanged in the absence of increasing anthropogenic GHG forcing?

It's hard enough to attribute increased flooding or hurricanes in the past to GW, since these are not everyday events as temperature is (there have been some studies that have attempted such attribution re hurricanes and floods, & I'll see if I can dig them up).

Thus the notion of a pause isn't particularly meaningful in the context of what models project, but studying decadal attribution is still very useful, as it might ultimately narrow the ranges of decadal projections.

It is of course true that a role for climate change has not been excluded in attribution studies — of course, the IPCC also did not exclude a role for solar influences, cosmic rays or for that matter, evil leprechauns.

It should be noted that proper attribution studies don't just do correlations, they are rather more sophisticated.

«Chief among these,» wrote Mann, «is the notion that just because somebody hasn't done a formal attribution study of a particular event, that event somehow must not have been influenced by climate change.»

Hank Roberts wrote: «I realize the attribution studies are apt to be ignored by those who feel they aren't needed to support their opinions»

--- I realize the attribution studies are apt to be ignored by those who feel they aren't needed to support their opinions; I post this not to «debate» but as a reference: attribution for those interested in the science.

Hopefully such red - teams will put an end to the destructive monopolistic funding that flows one - way toward «man - made» (CO2) attributions and not to natural studies.

David Wojick said «Attribution in this case is obviously very difficult, not to mention not being studied.

Attribution in this case is obviously very difficult, not to mention not being studied.

But let's make sure the research is not simply «agenda driven», i.e. to support a political agenda, such as the implementation of a direct or indirect «carbon tax», but real scientific studies to clear up the many uncertainties regarding the relative importance of natural and anthropogenic attribution of past climate change, for example.

Of course, this is ALL hypothetical, since we do not have any robust attribution studies based on empirical scientific data to confirm the anthropogenic portion of the changes measured by Leviticus et al., assuming that these are correct, despite the stated fact that (bold type by me):

Answer: Our study is not explicitly an attribution study and we do not attempt to quantify the anthropogenic contribution to warming over the past ~ 40 years.

I think it is true that attribution studies must use appropriate climate models but that does not to my mind imply AOGCMs to the exclusion of all others.

«Confounding factors may lead to false conclusions within attribution studies if not properly considered or controlled for.

And the fact that the null hypothesis can not be disproved at present is why «attribution studies» have great importance.

It is not used in attribution studies and could never be used in attribution studies.

But this is an approach that many attribution scientists have considered and rejected, says Dr Friederike Otto, a senior research at the University of Oxford, who also wasn't involved in the study:

According to a study published in the latest Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (BAMS) special issue on attribution, climate change did not contribute to the extreme five - day rainfall event that caused the floods.

[ISPM 6.3 c] This is true of most, but certainly not all, of the cited attribution studies, as even the ISPM admits that some studies do take into account forcings such as black carbon and land use.

The ISPM generalizes as follows: «Attribution studies to date do not take into account all known sources of possible influence on the climate.»

The ISPM summary states: «These attribution studies do not take into account... potentially important influences like aerosols, solar activity, and land use changes.»

Yet the preminary BEST study did not even address the attribution question (the biggest bone of contention between IPCC and its skeptics, which Dr. Curry has also addressed separately.

Anyone who admits that would also have to admit that the climate models (which don't «predict» a Medieval Warm Period) are inadequate, don't understand all the forcings, and are therefore woefully inadequate for attribution studies (the ones that «tell» us what caused the latest warming).

This would be helped by other studies building on their «ingenious approach,» says Prof Peter Stott, head of the climate monitoring and attribution at the Met Office Hadley Centre and professor of detection and attribution at the University of Exeter, who also wasn't involved in the study.

Those attribution studies, such as Foster & Rahmstorf 2011 and others have aptly noted this, and, though they might not admit it, McKitrick & Tole 2012 are saying something similar... include the change in the amount of coal burned along with some of the GCM's and you can be much better at having a better model of the surface climate trends.

says, and some scientists agree, that attribution studies that use climate models do not work well for weather events that are local and dynamic — ...

I've skimmed some of the detection and attribution studies and I don't like them much either.

Point 17: The Beenstock study only shows that the correlation of the variability's between T (t) and dCO2 / dt is quite good, it doesn't say anything about the attribution of the offset and slope of dCO2 / dt, which is anyway from a different process than what caused the variability.

But in fact the methodology that he's used to link the observed warming to increasing greenhouse gases, the so - called attribution step, is not nearly as robust as many other studies have undertaken over the last 10 years.

Chief among these is the notion that just because somebody hasn't done a formal attribution study of a particular event, that event somehow must not have been influenced by climate change.

Categories applied to how AGW was referenced, how the literature (and authors) regard AGW, not just to what are explicitly attribution studies.

If we look at attribution studies that have not had serious claims against their methods, the number is not going to end up at 97 %.

If the mwp was real and was «global» then the models no longer validate the attribution studies and all the relative net contribution from each natural or man - made forcing are not as accurate as thought.

[Response: David is one of the people who won't accept any attribution study because they can't include the «unknown unknowns» — he'd be great jury member for the defence; no matter how strong the evidence there is always some doubt.

One of those is the current shift in weather extremes, though not 100 % provable, the attribution studies and predictions of the IPCC are very robust and compelling.

If, when you did that, the marginal increase in likelihood of new extremes fell more in line with the (e.g.) 20 % that seems typical of recent attribution studies, then this would place what is now an extreme outlier result (as it is being interpreted, not as the authors described it) more in line with the rest of the literature.

This agreement is used to argue that «Detection and attribution studies using such simulations suggest that results are not very sensitive to moderate forcing uncertainties.»

We won't know for sure until (and unless) the question is formally studied; «attribution» of particular events is notoriously tricky.

The one sentence that you cite does not imply that that is the only thing considered in the attribution studies, as discussed at length in my essay, although upon reflection I can modify that one sentence.