Sentences with phrase «confidence for temperature»

While we have relatively high confidence for temperature extremes and some confidence in precipitation extremes, as yet we can say relatively little about storms, droughts and floods.

Not exact matches

And, whereas a breastfeeding mother generally leaves milk composition, temperature, cleanliness, and intake to nature, for the formula - feeding parent these are all subjects for worry and argument, which further erode her confidence.

Editor's note: Exactly 20 years ago, on June 23, 1988, James Hansen of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies testified before a Senate committee that he could state with «99 percent confidence» that a recent, persistent rise in global temperature was occurring, and had long been expected.

The report claims 95 % confidence that «human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century» How is this value calculated, especially since there is a great discrepancy between the models and observed temperatures, that this tome completely fails to account for.

Confidence in these estimates is higher for some climate variables (e.g., temperature) than for others (e.g., precipitation).

Less confidence can be placed in large - scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period from A.D. 900 to 1600.

16 Speakers, 18» x 7.5» Bright Machined 10 - Spoke Wheels, 4 - Wheel Disc Brakes, ABS brakes, AM / FM radio: SIRIUS, Auto - dimming door mirrors, Automatic temperature control, Bumpers: body - color, Electronic Stability Control, Four wheel independent suspension, Front Bucket Seats, Heated front seats, High - Intensity Discharge Headlights, MP3 decoder, Premium audio system: THX II, Premium Leather - Trimmed Heated / Cooled Buckets, Steering wheel memory, Steering wheel mounted audio controls, Variably intermittent wipers.Clean CARFAX.Buy with confidence, this vehicle has undergone a thorough 145 point inspection and qualifies for an extended warranty available at an additional cost.2011 Lincoln MKS Base FWD 6 - Speed Automatic Duratec 3.7 L V6 VCT 24VReviews: * Spacious interior, plentiful standard features, top safety scores, good power and fuel economy from the turbocharged V6.

18» Painted Alloy Wheels, 7 - Speaker Audio System Feature, Automatic temperature control, Electronic Stability Control, Exterior Parking Camera Rear, Four wheel independent suspension, Front Bucket Seats, Fully automatic headlights, Radio: Buick IntelliLink AM / FM Stereo w / CD Player, Rear Parking Sensors, Security system, Single - Slot CD / MP3 Audio System Feature, SiriusXM Satellite Radio, Steering wheel mounted audio controls, Turn signal indicator mirrors, Variably intermittent wipers.Clean CARFAX.Buy with confidence, this vehicle has undergone a thorough 145 point inspection and qualifies for an extended warranty available at an additional cost.2015 Buick Regal Turbo / e-Assist Premium I w / Leather FWD 6 - Speed Automatic 2.4 L I4 DI Turbocharged DOHC 16V LEV II 259hp 36/25 Highway / City MPGReviews: * Plentiful standard features; reasonable base price; available all - wheel drive; standard turbocharged power.

Sunroof / Moonroof, Leather, Alloy wheels, Automatic temperature control, Four wheel independent suspension, Front Bucket Seats, harman / kardon ® ® Speakers, Steering wheel mounted audio controls.Buy with confidence, this vehicle has undergone a thorough 145 point inspection and qualifies for an extended warranty available at an additional cost.2015 Mercedes - Benz C - Class C 250 w / Harmon Kardon Stereo RWD 7G - TRONIC PLUS 7 - Speed Automatic 1.8 L I4 DOHC 16V 31/22 Highway / City MPGReviews: * Meticulous construction and engineering; refined ride and handling; elegant interior; rip - roaring C 63 AMG ® model.

As for additional topics, perhaps a brief explanation on why confidence in attribution (and prediction) of temperature change is strongest at large scales and weakest at small scales, ie something about the issue of signal to noise relative to spatial scale.

Is there a probability / odds level «threshold» if - you - will, whereby if the odds of «x» number of «y» years of observed temperature anomaly all occurring outside the confidence interval for a model's temperature projection, that it would be time for a paradigm shift in the particulars of the model, moreso than the normal tweaks?

Without adaptation, local temperature increases of 1 °C or more above pre-industrial levels are projected to negatively impact yields for the major crops (wheat, rice, and maize) in tropical and temperate regions, although individual locations may benefit (medium confidence).

Positive and negative yield impacts projected for local temperature increases of about 2 °C above preindustrial levels maintain possibilities for effective adaptation in crop production (high confidence).

For RCP8.5 [the high emissions scenario and warming track in the illustration above] by 2100, the combination of high temperature and humidity in some areas for parts of the year will compromise normal activities, including growing food or working outdoors (high confidencFor RCP8.5 [the high emissions scenario and warming track in the illustration above] by 2100, the combination of high temperature and humidity in some areas for parts of the year will compromise normal activities, including growing food or working outdoors (high confidencfor parts of the year will compromise normal activities, including growing food or working outdoors (high confidence).

Global climate change risks are high to very high with global mean temperature increase of 4 °C or more above preindustrial levels in all reasons for concern (Assessment Box SPM.1), and include severe and widespread impacts on unique and threatened systems, substantial species extinction, large risks to global and regional food security, and the combination of high temperature and humidity compromising normal human activities, including growing food or working outdoors in some areas for parts of the year (high confidence).

The mean temperature response to a doubled CO2 - forcing for GCMs was 2.36, with a 90 % confidence interval: 1.5 — 3.3.

«We also present a set of global vulnerability drivers that are known with high confidence: (1) droughts eventually occur everywhere; (2) warming produces hotter droughts; (3) atmospheric moisture demand increases nonlinearly with temperature during drought; (4) mortality can occur faster in hotter drought, consistent with fundamental physiology; (5) shorter droughts occur more frequently than longer droughts and can become lethal under warming, increasing the frequency of lethal drought nonlinearly; and (6) mortality happens rapidly relative to growth intervals needed for forest recovery.

As to the technical parts, as described in many sources, we have lots of paleothermometers for the central Greenland ice cores over the last 100,000 years, providing multiple validation and high confidence that temperatures have been estimated accurately.

«Peterson's approach and conclusions, therefore, provide a false sense of confidence with these data for temperature change studies by seeming to indicate that the errors can be corrected.»

BTW, the authors continue considering both the LIA and the MWP as valid concepts, contrary to Mann et al. 2) Even though they have little confidence in temperature reconstructions previous to AD 1600 and very little for those previous to AD 900, the authors consider that Mann et al's claim of the last decades being warmer than any such period in the past millennium is nonetheless plausible.

GISS, HadCRUt3, RSS and UAH all show no statistically significant trend in mean gobal temperature at 95 % confidence limits for the most recent 15 years.

Most worrisome, if humanity stays near its current path of greenhouse gas emissions, the IPCC warns with «high confidence» that «the combination of high temperature and humidity in some areas for parts of the year is projected to compromise normal human activities, including growing food or working outdoors.»

Given that there is still much we do not know about climate change — including why mean global temperature has been flat for the past ten years — undermining confidence in climate science can (further) undermine its ability to inform policy.

The consistency between these two data sets gives confidence in the ocean temperature data set used for estimating depth - integrated heat content, and supports the trends in SST reported in Chapter 3.

This mantra refers to a complex non-linear dynamic system with annual variation in forcing greater than 80Wm - 2 (20Wm - 2 for the guys that can only think in terms of averages) repeated by «scientists» so inept at thermodynamics and statistics that they confuse confidence intervals based on temperature anomalies with actually uncertainty of energy flow based on T ^ 4 relationship of the real T not the imaginary T anomaly.

The high confidence level ascribed by the IPCC provides bootstrapped plausibility to the uncertain temperature observations, uncertain forcing, and uncertain model sensitivity, each of which has been demonstrated in the previous sections to have large uncertainties that were not accounted for in the conclusion.

The Linear Trend (with 95 % Confidence Level) for the Three Key Climate Indicators: Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST), Ocean Heat Content (OHC), and Sea Level Rise (SLR) a

No acknowledgement of uncertainties, lack of measurements globally, lack of basis for increased confidence in man causing increased temperatures since 1976 or even the almost 20 years of level temperatures despite all predictions of the models.

This is why such statements as models without CO2E were unable to replicate the post 1940 or so temperatures were compared to proxies for greater confidence.

These are included in the HadCRUT4 ensemble, and when computing linear trends in global temperatures from August 1997 to August 2012 these give a trend of 0.034 ± 0.011 °C per decade (95 % confidence interval) for the observed portion of the earth.»

Importantly, the changes in cereal yield projected for the 2020s and 2080s are driven by GHG - induced climate change and likely do not fully capture interannual precipitation variability which can result in large yield reductions during dry periods, as the IPCC (Christensen et al., 2007) states: ``... there is less confidence in the ability of the AOGCMs (atmosphere - ocean general circulation models) to generate interannual variability in the SSTs (sea surface temperatures) of the type known to affect African rainfall, as evidenced by the fact that very few AOGCMs produce droughts comparable in magnitude to the Sahel droughts of the 1970s and 1980s.»

if GISS gets it this wrong in a modern country with a competent national weather service, why would anyone have confidence in all the temperatures that are «estimated or extrapolated» for areas like the artic?

For example, relatively small increases in sea temperature (as little as 1 — 2 °C) can cause mass coral bleaching and mortality across hundreds of square kilometers of coral reef (high confidence).

I do not think there is any convincing evidence to support a hockey stick shape for global temperature anomalies of the past 1000 - 2000 years, with any kind of confidence.

For this article, a statistically - significant global warming means that the linear trend (slope of the trend line) is likely greater than zero with 95 % statistical confidence (i.e. the 95 % error bars do not include a possible 0.0 or negative temperature degree slope).

If IPCC models can not even predict the temperature of the next decade, why are we to put any confidence whatsoever in their ability to project temperatures for the next several decades — or even century?

I questioned another co-author about why they choose to use a 90 % confidence threshold for evaluating the statistical significance of surface temperature trends, instead of the standard for significance of 95 % — he also expressed reluctance and did not defend the decision.

For example, people who do not know the difference between precision and accuracy are able to refudiate the global temperature trends with confidence approaching 100 % on the blog.

Because you are fitting to look for a trend * after * selecting the data that looks flat, the real 95 % confidence interval of the trend in temperature (or ocean heat content) over any of these intervals is much larger than what you are presumably calculating.

For example, can we not predict the average minimum temperature for New York in June for the next 10 years with some confidence and accuraFor example, can we not predict the average minimum temperature for New York in June for the next 10 years with some confidence and accurafor New York in June for the next 10 years with some confidence and accurafor the next 10 years with some confidence and accuracy?

I really would not be bothered with climate change had I not seen a tree ring based temperature reconstruction claiming an accuracy of + / - 0.5 degree with a 95 % confidence interval for global past temperature.

My conclusion is that we can have a strong confidence in the results produced for the global temperature trend.

This hardly seems to fit the IPCC description that «[m] odels reproduce observed continental - scale surface temperature patterns and trends over many decades» or is grounds for having «very high confidence» that the «model simulations show a trend in global - mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2012 that agrees with the observed trend.»

Smith, who is the convening lead author of the second working group report on vulnerability to climate change, says: «The new assessment has increased our confidence that the effects for climate change are beginning to be seen, in terms of rise in temperature, sea levels and heavy precipitation events».

Climate model studies since the Working Group I Third Assessment Report (TAR; IPCC, 2001) give medium confidence that the equilibrium global mean temperature response to a given RF is approximately the same (to within 25 %) for most drivers of climate change.

There is medium confidence that at least partial deglaciation of the Greenland ice sheet, and possibly the West Antarctic ice sheet, would occur over a period of time ranging from centuries to millennia for a global average temperature increase of 1 - 4 °C (relative to 1990 - 2000), causing a contribution to sea - level rise of 4 - 6 m or more.

The increasing normalized trends in the U.S. were evident in convective storms, winter storms, flooding events and high temperature - related losses, and were almost statistically significant for hurricanes at the conventional 95 percent confidence level.3 In view of data like this, it's very hard to accept Pielke's confident assertion that «[n] o matter what President Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron say, recent costly disasters are not part of a trend driven by climate change.»

Note that observed temperature moves below the 95 % confidence interval in 2000 and 2008 for the global surface temperature as driven by anthropogenic changes only (red line).

Put another way, what is the confidence level that if we stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow, we would see a decline in temperature and how long would it take for the decline to occur?

Scientific confidence of the occurrence of climate change include, for example, that over at least the last 50 years there have been increases in the atmospheric concentration of CO2; increased nitrogen and soot (black carbon) deposition; changes in the surface heat and moisture fluxes over land; increases in lower tropospheric and upper ocean temperatures and ocean heat content; the elevation of sea level; and a large decrease in summer Arctic sea ice coverage and a modest increase in Antarctic sea ice coverage.