Sentences with phrase «a1b uncertainty range»

«The three papers come to perhaps different numbers, but we're all within uncertainty ranges, well within them, and lends confidence to the statement that there was a significant human influence on the amount of precipitation that was produced by Hurricane Harvey,» he said.

«This is one of several recent studies that provide sobering evidence that earth's climate sensitivity may lie in the upper end of the current uncertainty range,» Mann said in an email.

He added that based on «several sources of biases in the [study's] method and the wide uncertainty ranges, we express reservations that the paper's conclusions of declining catch trends can be strongly opposed to FAO's reports of stable capture production trends in recent years.»

«The real reason for concern is that we can not rule out the upper end of that uncertainty range, i.e. around 9 °F warming of the globe by the end of the century,» Mann said.

They found that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions increased the risk of the once - a-century wet January in 2014 by 43 % (uncertainty range: 0 - 160 %).

Scientists claim that the rate trend of pH lowering in the last 200 years has amounted to ~ 0.00004 per year, which is below the uncertainty range.

The heightened risk of rainfall found in the meteorological modelling led to an increase in the peak 30 - day river flow of 21 % (uncertainty range: -17-133 %) and about 1,000 more properties at risk of flooding (uncertainty range: -4,000-8,000).

Lewis then argues that the large uncertainty ranges in E and in aerosol forcing make it the TCR estimates «worthless».

Climatologists would have dearly loved to narrow the uncertainty range of climate sensitivity, but until recently there has been not enough solid evidence to justify this.

Both sets of observations fall well above the IPCC uncertainty range.

-- gavin][Addendum: Arrhenius paper from 1896 states 4 - 6 ºC warming for CO2 - doubling; the uncertainty range in the last IPCC report is 1.5 - 4.5 ºC.

The heightened risk of rainfall found in the meteorological modelling led to an increase in the peak 30 - day river flow of 21 % (uncertainty range: -17 — 133 %) and about 1,000 more properties at risk of flooding (uncertainty range: -4,000 — 8,000).

This difference is at the margins of significance: the uncertainty ranges overlap.

We shall see in this 3 - part article that emergent constraint approaches have the potential to offer useful insights into cloud behaviour, however the main focus will be on to what extent they narrow the uncertainty range of ECS in GCMs.

Up to about 1970, the new reconstruction of Hay et al. runs at the top of the existing uncertainty range.

«We use a massive ensemble of the Bern2.5 D climate model of intermediate complexity, driven by bottom - up estimates of historic radiative forcing F, and constrained by a set of observations of the surface warming T since 1850 and heat uptake Q since the 1950s... Between 1850 and 2010, the climate system accumulated a total net forcing energy of 140 x 1022 J with a 5 - 95 % uncertainty range of 95 - 197 x 1022 J, corresponding to an average net radiative forcing of roughly 0.54 (0.36 - 0.76) Wm - 2.»

Error bars denote the 5 — 95 % uncertainty range.

Note that the uncertainty ranges from inverse and forward calculations are different due to the use of different information, and that they are affected by different uncertainties.

In comparison, North American stock betas have an uncertainty ranging from about +0.4 to -1.2.

As discussed above, these are only broad and highly uncertain estimates, and StarCapital Research estimated an overall uncertainty range from 11 % to -1.5 % real returns using the CAPE ratio from December 2015.

If you want to do a more precise analysis, fine — you'd need to properly include the uncertainty ranges and you would come to the same conclusion as me — as far as one can tell within uncertainty, the non-CO2 anthropogenic forcings approximately balance.

The two future scenarios mentioned in the text (RCP8.5 and RCP2.6) are shown in red and blue, with their «likely» uncertainty range according to the IPCC (meaning a 66 % probability to remain inside this range).

-- gavin][Addendum: Arrhenius paper from 1896 states 4 - 6 ºC warming for CO2 - doubling; the uncertainty range in the last IPCC report is 1.5 - 4.5 ºC.

Climatologists would have dearly loved to narrow the uncertainty range of climate sensitivity, but until recently there has been not enough solid evidence to justify this.

[Response: I'm not a fan of false precision — since the uncertainty range on this number (as given by IPCC) is 1.13 — 3.33, I see little point in calling it 2.29 with three significant digits.

Terry: As far as I know you can recreate the IPCC uncertainty range for a response to CO2 doubling by using a simple energy balance model.

And the great uncertainty range can be used to political advantage.

Warmer periods prior to the 20th century are within the uncertainty range given in the TAR.»

And that gray uncertainty range is for the not - forcing - adjusted models, if I understand correctly.

This difference is at the margins of significance: the uncertainty ranges overlap.

Cox et al. provide a statistical uncertainty range for a single study, ignoring structural uncertainty and systematic biases resulting from their choice of model and method.

These accelerations are larger than the acceleration observed in the altimetry and GMSL reconstruction over the period 1990 — 2010, but are still within the (66 % confidence) uncertainty range (see Table 1 in ref.

That is why the IPCC in its SPM quoted above says that the 1998 - 2012 trend is +0.05 with an uncertainty range of — 0.05 to +0.15 °C per decade.

The uncertainty range, with 90 per cent confidence, is from 1.2 °C to 2.9 °C.

Up to about 1970, the new reconstruction of Hay et al. runs at the top of the existing uncertainty range.

Was the uncertainty range underestimated on the low side?

However, even given a particular emission scenario, IPCC has always allowed for a wide uncertainty range.

Pielke compares single scenarios of IPCC, without mentioning the uncertainty range.

Greenland has contributed +0.14 to +0.28 mm / year of sea level rise over this period, while for Antarctica the uncertainty range is -0.14 to +0.55 mm / year.

My point is that in terms of a risk assessment, the uncertainty range that one needs to consider is in my view substantially larger than 18 - 59 cm.

«In terms of a risk assessment, the uncertainty range that one needs to consider is in my view substantially larger than 18 - 59 cm... [T] his discussion has all been about sea level rise until the year 2095.

A comparison just with the «best estimate» without uncertainty range is not useful for «forecast verification», the stated goal of Pielke's letter.

(Another fine point: This is slightly less than the central estimate of 43 cm for the A1FI scenario that was reported in the media, taken from earlier drafts of the SPM, because those 43 cm was not the sum of the individual best estimates for the different contributing factors, but rather it was the mid-point of the uncertainty range, which is slightly higher as some uncertainties are skewed towards high values.)

If a model - data comparison is done, it has to account for the uncertainty ranges — both in the data (that was Lesson 1 re noisy data) and in the model (that's Lesson 2).

The uncertainty range around the estimate of 3.9 °C from current confirmed proposals means warming could be significantly higher, but there is essentially no chance of limiting warming to the 2 °C target.

Great to see a paper addressing the uncertainty range.

As already noted, my iRF efficacy uncertainty ranges are much narrower than Marvel et al.'s.

Their revised primary (iRF) estimate of historical transient efficacy is, per Table S1, 1.0 (0.995 at the centre of the symmetrical uncertainty range).

Since the values given are stated to be «mean and 95 % confidence intervals», I can not see any justification for the efficacy uncertainty ranges actually being 95 % confidence intervals for a single run, centered on the mean efficacy calculated over all runs.

Nor have I yet worked out why most of the ERF mean estimates and uncertainty ranges differ between my calculations and the 10 March 2016 version of Table S1.