Sentences with phrase «papers on attribution»

This metric comes follows on from work that Hansen did a decade ago exploring the question of what it would take for people to notice climate changing, since they only directly experience the weather (Hansen et al, 1998)(pdf), and is similar to metrics used by Pall et al and other recent papers on the attribution of extremes.

The team did not only look at specific events however but also published a number of conceptual papers on attribution as a science, CPDN as a unique capability and climate modelling in general (10 - 15).

Not exact matches

Extracts sourced from ACCC, «Cattle and beef markets — a market study by the ACCC Issues Paper (7 April 2016) and reproduced pursuant to Creative Commons By Attribution 3.0 Australia licence as specified on the ACCC website.

Extracts from Productivity Commission website (including Terms of Reference, Issues Paper and Draft Report) and reproduced pursuant to Creative Commons By Attribution 3.0 Australia licence as specified on the PC website.

Harper Review Issues Paper 2014 Material reproduced pursuant to Creative Commons By Attribution 3.0 Australia licence as specified on Harper Review website © Commonwealth of Australia 2014

As ScienceInsider reported on Thursday, the journal's editor, Graham Parker, retracted the paper on 21 July after it was discovered that several paragraphs in the introduction had been copied, without attribution, from a 2007 review article.

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.

Note that (somewhat confusingly) she * assumes * the attribution is 100 % in her papers on estimating climate sensitivity.

We recently published a paper exploring the impact of observational uncertainty on an attribution analysis.

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 conference).

Well, given that I was working on the reply to my uncertainty monster paper, where the IPCC grand poobahs were telling me that they did it right in AR4 and they had natural variability figured out, I was rather surprised to see these comments, especially since one of the persons quoted was a coauthor of the reply criticizing the attribution arguments in my uncertainty monster paper.

I refer to this generally in my draft «uncertainty monster» paper (will resume working on the revisions to that paper once my proposal is submitted) as a significant reason in support of my thesis that the «very likely» statement in the IPCC attribution statement is over confident

Scientists do have better things to do with their time than answer questions raised on climate skeptic blogs, and as a result, you will only generally be assured of a climate change paper taking a stance on the cause of the change if the subject of the paper is an attribution study.

That is, to the best of our current knowledge, ~ 87 % of climate scientists (on attribution), and ~ 97 % of climate science papers.

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

Dr Peter Stott, who leads the Climate Monitoring and Attribution team at the Met Office and wasn't involved in the paper, says we shouldn't admit defeat and ignore the impacts of climate change on circulation patterns.

A new report by the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU) presents the findings of their analysis of all research papers published since the Paris summit two years ago on the attribution of specific events to climate change.

Thanks for the 3 papers, the 1st was a real eye openner but was essentially confirming what I said which is that most model attribution expts based on comparison of historical forcing and runs held at pre - industrial condition suggest long term change is essentially forced.The point is the Karnauskas paper bucks the trend in understanding as expressed by the Ipcc (the consensus or whatever).

Other honourable mentions in the Carbon Brief survey of most influential climate papers go to Norman Phillips, whose 1956 paper described the first general circulation model, William Nordhaus's 1991 paperon the economics of the greenhouse effect, and a paper by Camile Parmesan and Gary Yohe in 2003, considered by many to provide the first formal attribution of climate change impacts on animal and plant species.

Never mind that oceanic forcing attribution was established prior to 2006, climate science is still cranking out lightweight papers that try to peg the blame on fossil fuel emissions.

We discussed this in detail in our survey paper http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es501998e, because the responses suggested that the AR4 statement on attribution has been widely misinterpreted.

The measure used by TCP is perfectly reasonable, if you understand the nature of scientific publication, and are aware that attribution studies are only a small fraction of the papers publiched on climate change.

Duarte (and many AGW «skeptics») treat Cook et al as a survey of papers which provide evidence for attribution of 50 % (or greater than 0 % based on their misrepresentation) of recent warming to anthropogenic factors.

In the case of that climate attribution chart it is based on a clearly identified paper, so I don't think it is too much of a leap of faith to accept it at face value.

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.