Sentences with phrase «uncertainty on an attribution»

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

Not exact matches

The International Detection and Attribution Group (IDAG) is a group of specialists on climate change detection and attribution, who have been collaborating since 1995 on assessing and reducing uncertainties in the estimates of climate change, and who have made substantial contributions to the IPCC process and the US CCSP Attribution Group (IDAG) is a group of specialists on climate change detection and attribution, who have been collaborating since 1995 on assessing and reducing uncertainties in the estimates of climate change, and who have made substantial contributions to the IPCC process and the US CCSP attribution, who have been collaborating since 1995 on assessing and reducing uncertainties in the estimates of climate change, and who have made substantial contributions to the IPCC process and the US CCSP activities.

If she accepts that attribution is amenable to quantitative analysis using some kind of model (doesn't have to be a GCM), I don't get why she doesn't accept that the numbers are going to be different for different time periods and have varying degrees of uncertainty depending on how good the forcing data is and what other factors can be brought in.

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.

And you witness dramas about getting attribution probabilities right — for example, the American Physical Society statement on climate change, which has a few of their members foaming — and you realize that the scientific community is full of sticklers about getting the uncertainties right (as they should).

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).

The research proposals that i write and review are about addressing some uncertainty or other, i have no idea where the proposer stands on the attribution of global warming, it simply doesn't come up in the proposal process at least for the grant proposals that I review).

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

I believe her emphasis on uncertainty has made a valuable contribution to the climate science dialog, even though, as she knows, I disagree with her about the merit (as I see it) of the IPCC attribution of most post-1950 warming to anthropogenic GHGs.

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.

This study addresses the challenge by undertaking a formal detection and attribution analysis of SCE changes based on several observational datasets with different structural characteristics, in order to account for the substantial observational uncertainty.

But Julian, a simple model - obs matchup in the temperature field is not how formal attribution is done, and I agree that the aerosol forcing uncertainty makes such simple comparisons problematic (see Knutti's work on this for example).

Their famous attribution graph depends on the assumption that their models accurately simulate natural variability with so much precision that they can draw tiny little blue uncertainty bands around the simulations that don't overlap with the GHG forcing simulations.

It had occured to me that a statement saying most warming is anthro with a high degree of certainty is more user friendly for policy then one that narrows in on the higher end of anthro attribution but with the need to explain the sources of the greater uncertainties.

«The assessment is supported additionally by a complementary analysis in which the parameters of an Earth System Model of Intermediate Complexity (EMIC) were constrained using observations of near - surface temperature and ocean heat content, as well as prior information on the magnitudes of forcings, and which concluded that GHGs have caused 0.6 °C to 1.1 °C (5 to 95 % uncertainty) warming since the mid-20th century (Huber and Knutti, 2011); an analysis by Wigley and Santer (2013), who used an energy balance model and RF and climate sensitivity estimates from AR4, and they concluded that there was about a 93 % chance that GHGs caused a warming greater than observed over the 1950 — 2005 period; and earlier detection and attribution studies assessed in the AR4 (Hegerl et al., 2007b).»

From the IPCC AR4: «Detection and attribution results based on several models or several forcing histories do provide information on the effects of model and forcing uncertainty.