Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 56
Review of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program’s Synthesis and Assessment Product on Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere B Committee to Review the U.S. Climate Change Science Program’s Synthesis and Assessment Product on Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere Statement of Task The Committee will review the Climate Change Science Program’s draft synthesis and assessment product on “Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences.” The committee will consider the following questions, among others, as it conducts its review: Are the goals, objectives, and intended audience of the product clearly described in the document? Does the product address all the questions as outlined in the prospectus? Are the findings and recommendations adequately supported by evidence and analysis? If any recommendations are based on value judgments or the collective opinions of the authors, is this acknowledged and are adequate reasons given for reaching those judgments? Are the data and analyses handled competently? Are statistical methods applied appropriately? Are uncertainties and confidence levels evaluated and communicated appropriately? Are the document’s presentation and organization effective? Are the questions outlined in the prospectus addressed and communicated in a manner that is appropriate for the intended audiences? Is the document scientifically objective and policy-neutral? Is it consistent with the scientific literature, including recent NRC reports and other scientific assessments on the same topic? Does the summary concisely and accurately describe the content, key findings, and recommendations? Is it consistent with other sections of the document? What significant improvements, if any, might be made in the document?
Representative terms from entire chapter: