Search

Comparing simulations of key warm periods in Earth history with contemporaneous geological proxy data is a useful approach for evaluating the ability of climate models to simulate warm, high-CO2 climates that are unprecedented in the more recent past. Here we use a global data set of confidence-assessed, proxy-based temperature estimates and biome reconstructions to assess the ability of eight models to simulate warm terrestrial climates of the Pliocene epoch. The Late Pliocene, 3.6–2.6 million years ago, is an accessible geological interval to understand climate processes of a warmer world. We show that model-predicted surface air temperatures reveal a substantial cold bias in the Northern Hemisphere. Particularly strong data–model mismatches in mean annual temperatures (up to 18 °C) exist in northern Russia. Our model sensitivity tests identify insufficient temporal constraints hampering the accurate configuration of model boundary conditions as an important factor impacting on data–model discrepancies. We conclude that to allow a more robust evaluation of the ability of present climate models to predict warm climates, future Pliocene data–model comparison studies should focus on orbitally defined time slices.

Background: We previously developed and validated the Oxford NOTECHS rating system for evaluating the non-technical skills of an entire operating theatre team. Experience with the scale identified the need for greater discrimination between levels of performance within the normal range. We report here the development of a modified scale (Oxford NOTECHS II) to facilitate this. The new measure uses an eight-point instead of a four point scale to measure each dimension of non-technical skills, and begins with a default rating of 6 for each element. We evaluated this new scale in 297 operations at five NHS sites in four surgical specialities. Measures of theatre process reliability (glitch count) and compliance with the WHO surgical safety checklist were scored contemporaneously, and relationships with NOTECHS II scores explored. Results: Mean team Oxford NOTECHS II scores was 73.39 (range 37-92). The means for surgical, anaesthetic and nursing sub-teams were 24.61 (IQR 23, 27); 24.22 (IQR 23, 26) and 24.55 (IQR 23, 26). Oxford NOTECHS II showed good inter-rater reliability between human factors and clinical observers in each of the four domains. Teams with high WHO compliance had higher mean Oxford NOTECHS II scores (74.5) than those with low compliance (71.1) (p = 0.010). We observed only a weak correlation between Oxford NOTECHS II scores and glitch count; r = -0.26 (95% CI -0.36 to -0.15). Oxford NOTECHS II scores did not vary significantly between 5 different hospital sites, but a significant difference was seen between specialities (p = 0.001). Conclusions: Oxford NOTECHS II provides good discrimination between teams while retaining reliability and correlation with other measures of teamwork performance, and is not confounded by technical performance. It is therefore suitable for combined use with a technical performance scale to provide a global description of operating theatre team performance.

n/a

This thesis was submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy and awarded by Brunel University London The post-9/11 intelligence reform’s endorsement of Structured Analytic Techniques (SATs) as a remedy to intelligence failures has been increasingly criticized, with a main argument being that SATs do not eliminate bias or increase judgement accuracy. However, previous research on SATs has predominately only focused on one technique, Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH), without procedural understanding of its use in the intelligence process. This research sets forth a comprehensive SATs-model for improving the estimative process in intelligence and investigates analysts’ experienced effects of using this SATs-methodology in the intelligence process. The main finding is that analysts experience that using SATs in a comprehensive, layered, and iterative manner in the estimative intelligence process increases analytic rigour and their ability to assess uncertainty. Using a set of interconnected SATs in a creative, critical, and sensemaking logic-process increases analyst’s analytic objectivity and integrity and thereby making them more confident in their key judgments and aware of the attached uncertainties. The effects furthermore remained years after having received SATs training. However, agency culture plays a vital role, both for the use of SATs and for the use of community standards for communication of uncertainty. Hence, leadership endorsement is important for SATs to be used by more than the dedicated few who have SATs as part of their analytical DNA.