Sentences with phrase «current uncertainty range»
«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.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/ Not exact matches
However, in view of the current uncertainty, including continued discussions with the Government on a range of other issues, all funding and work on the underground development will be delayed until these matters are concluded and a new timetable has been agreed.
Some of the largest uncertainties in current climate models stem from their wide - ranging estimates of the size and number of dust particles in the atmosphere.
Three approaches were used to evaluate the outstanding «carbon budget» (the total amount of CO2 emissions compatible with a given global average warming) for 1.5 °C: re-assessing the evidence provided by complex Earth System Models, new experiments with an intermediate - complexity model, and evaluating the implications of current ranges of uncertainty in climate system properties using a simple model.
Quoting the IPCC 1.4 to 5.8 Â °C estimate (for doubling CO2) outside current agreements among models that the uncertainty is most likely in the 2.5 to 4Â °C range or failing to point out that discrepancies (used by skeptics) between surface and troposphere warming have been resolved, is misleading in my view.
The current batch of models have a mean climate sensitivity of about 3 C to doubled CO2 (and range between 2.5 and 4.0 degrees)(Paris meeting of IPCC, July 2004), i.e an uncertainty of about 30 %.
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.
The range of uncertainty for the warming along the current emissions path is wide enough to encompass massively disruptive consequences to societies and ecosystems: as global temperatures rise, there is a real risk, however small, that one or more critical parts of the Earth's climate system will experience abrupt, unpredictable and potentially irreversible changes.
The solid line shows the current «best estimate» of the temperature change; the dotted lines show the range of uncertainty in the climate response to these emissions.
So after considering all of that, the estimated current «surface» temperature produces an estimated effective radiant return energy from the atmosphere of about 345Wm - 3 + / - 9 called DWLR which, had the average effective radiant energy of the oceans been used, ~ 334Wm - 2 would have created less confusion and still have been within a more realistic uncertainty range of + / - 17 Wm - 2.
Li, T., T. Hasegawa, X. Yin, Y. Zhu, K. Boote, M. Adam, S. Bregaglio, S. Buis, R. Confalonieri, T. Fumoto, D. Gaydon, M. Marcaida, III, H. Nakagawa, P. Oriol, A.C. Ruane, F. Ruget, B. Singh, U. Singh, L. Tang, F. Tao, P. Wilkens, H. Yoshida, Z. Zhang, and B. Bouman, 2015: Uncertainties in predicting rice yield by current crop models under a wide range of climatic conditions.
For a return time in the current climate similar to the observed one, 200 years, we find an increase in probability of a factor 2.5, with an uncertainty range of 1.2 to 4.5.
One might (or might not) argue for such a relation if the models were empirically adequate, but given nonlinear models with large systematic errors under current conditions, no connection has been even remotely established for relating the distribution of model states under altered conditions to decision - relevant probability distributions... There may well exist thresholds, or tipping points (Kemp 2005), which lie within this range of uncertainty.
In most cases, these range from about 2 to 4.5 C per doubled CO2 within the context of our current climate — with a most likely value between 2 and 3 C. On the other hand, chapter 9 describes attempts ranging far back into paleoclimatology to relate forcings to temperature change, sometimes directly (with all the attendant uncertainties), and more often by adjusting model parameters to determine the climate sensitivity ranges that allow the models to best simulate data from the past — e.g., the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM).
«Reducing the wide range of uncertainty inherent in current model predictions of global climate change will require major advances in understanding and modeling of both (1) the factors that determine atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols, and (2) the so - called «feedbacks» that determine the sensitivity of the climate system to a prescribed increase in greenhouse gases.»
Moreover, models that strive to incorporate everything, from aerosols to vegetation and volcanoes to ocean currents, may look convincing, but the error range associated with each additional factor results in near - total uncertainty.
Although it is important to reduce the remaining climate uncertainties, such as the magnitude of the impacts of short - lived pollutants, it does not change the fact that CO2 is very likely the driving force behind the current global warming, or that if we double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from pre-industrial levels, the planet will likely warm in the range of 2 to 4.5 °C.
Knutti and Hegerl in the November, 2008 Natural Geoscience paper, The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth's temperature to radiation changes, says various observations favor a climate sensitivity value of about 3 degrees C, with a likely range of about 2 — 4.5 degrees C per the following graphic whereas the current IPCC uncertainty is range is between 1.5 - 4.5 degrees C.
For example, some other areas of science are using ways of combining aleatory and epistemic forms of uncertainty to produce fuzzy intervals or developments of the Dempster - Shafer approaches which deal with ranges going from what is «belief» (e.g current process models) to what is «plausible» (e.g semi-empirical).
Quoting the IPCC 1.4 to 5.8 Â °C estimate (for doubling CO2) outside current agreements among models that the uncertainty is most likely in the 2.5 to 4Â °C range or failing to point out that discrepancies (used by skeptics) between surface and troposphere warming have been resolved, is misleading in my view.
It is clear you do not like statements like «the current AOGCMs may not cover the full range of uncertainty for climate sensitivity».
[ii] The range of uncertainty for the warming along the current emissions path is wide enough to encompass massively disruptive consequences to societies and ecosystems: as global temperatures rise, there is a real risk, however small, that one or more critical parts of the Earth's climate system will experience abrupt, unpredictable and potentially irreversible changes.