Sentences with phrase «estimated uncertainty range»

For China's annual emissions in 2008, the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency estimated an uncertainty range of about 10 %.

The new report, for example, slightly reduces the lower end of the estimated uncertainty range for the amount of warming scientists expect in response to a doubling of CO2 concentrations compared to preindustrial levels.

To estimate the uncertainty range (2σ) for mean tropical SST cooling, we consider the error contributions from (a) large - scale patterns in the ocean data temperature field, which hamper a direct comparison with a coarse - resolution model, and (b) the statistical error for each reconstructed paleo - temperature value.

We refer to an interpolated data set (Schäfer - Neth and Paul 2003) from which we use the variance V = (1.41 °C) 2 as the starting point to estimate an uncertainty range for the spatial mean of the data field.

Not exact matches

It added that «the effect on U.S. growth is estimated to be positive through 2020, cumulating to 1.2 percent through that year, with a range of uncertainty around this central scenario.»

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.

The range of uncertainty is huge, with estimates of Europa's energy supply varying by orders of magnitude.

The least one ought to be able to expect in a book by a statistician is (a) clear specification of what is being depicted by the numbers that are presented and (b) appropriate indication of the magnitudes of uncertainties (as reflected, for example, in the range of respectable estimates of a quantity of interest).

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

In addition, a wide range of forcing schemes designed to span the approximate range of uncertainties associated with anthropogenic climate forcing estimates were generated and implemented in order to assess what differences in effects exist between the «best guess» counter-anthropogenic geoengineering forcing scheme and other plausible schemes.

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.

«Although the different estimates of OHCA (ocean heat content anomaly) produce seemingly different estimates of interannual ocean heating rate variability, these differences are all within the range of observational uncertainty.

The age of the Upper Cave (Zhoukoudian) remains is similarly problematic and has been a major source of uncertainty since their discovery in the 1930s, with estimates ranging from ∼ 33 - 10 ka [2], [4].

«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.»

The 16 planetary candidates have estimated diameters within range of being super-Earths (1.26 to 2.0 times Earth's diameter), given error margins ranging from 25 to 35 percent due to the uncertainty in the size of their host star and of the «depth» of the observed transits (decrease in stellar luminosity) across the surface of the star.

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.

Depending on what you are looking at, it could have a bottom up estimate of aerosol forcing or aerosol forcings from a residual calculation — neither of which really have the range of uncertainty.

One estimate of that error for the MSU 2 product (a weighted average of tropospheric + lower stratospheric trends) is that two different groups (UAH and RSS) come up with a range of tropical trends of 0.048 to 0.133 °C / decade — a much larger difference than the simple uncertainty in the trend.

The IPCC range, on the other hand, encompasses the overall uncertainty across a very large number of studies, using different methods all with their own potential biases and problems (e.g., resulting from biases in proxy data used as constraints on past temperature changes, etc.) There is a number of single studies on climate sensitivity that have statistical uncertainties as small as Cox et al., yet different best estimates — some higher than the classic 3 °C, some lower.

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.)

The estimated temperature change of ~ 8 °C is quite a bit warmer than most previous estimates which are more in the range of 2 - 5 °C (though the uncertainty estimates clearly overlap).

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 all Outlook values is similar to those expressed by individual uncertainty estimates.

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).

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.

The result is that temperatures in recent decades exceed the maximum proxy estimate (including uncertainty range) for the past 1,300 years.

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.

A reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere temperature from stalagmites shows that while the uncertainty range (grey area) is significant, the temperature in the latter 20th Century exceeds the maximum estimate over the past 500 years (Smith 2006).

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.

The IPCC forbids him to quote from it, but he is privy to all the observational best estimates and uncertainty ranges the draft report gives.

To estimate uncertainty in total committed rise given some temperature increase, we use the derived Antarctic intervals, plus the ranges for the first three SLR components as shown in figure 2 A — C of ref.

«We were able to give the first observation - only estimate of ocean thermal expansion prior to the 1950s with ranges of uncertainty,» Will said.

This is within the uncertainty range of the observed rate of warming (0.15 ± 0.08 °C) per decade since 1990, and very close to the central estimate.

Tom Curtis - I would agree that little attention has been paid to the uncertainty ranges on consensus estimates.

These budgets give the lowest estimates of allowed emissions and are the simplest to convert into policy advice, but they suffer from the same problem of probabilistic interpretation as TEBs since they are dependent on simple climate models with uncertainty ranges calibrated to the CMIP5 ensemble.

Further estimates of internal variability can be produced from long control simulations with climate models... Expert judgments or multi-model techniques may be used to incorporate as far as possible the range of variability in climate models and to assign uncertainty levels, confidence in which will need to be assessed.»

Solid coloured boxes show the AR5 best estimates and 90 % uncertainty ranges.

The statement of Sato et al. «'' This suggests that estimates of the net negative radiative forcing due to the total ACI can also be significantly reduced and its uncertainty range could even include positive values.»

The authors give some hint when they write:» This suggests that estimates of the net negative radiative forcing due to the total ACI can also be significantly reduced and its uncertainty range could even include positive values.».

Unwillingness to combine the evidence in this way might be justified by the difficulties of estimating the full range of uncertainties of each analysis, but if the likelihood curves are taken seriously, combining all independent evidence is a natural procedure that should be done.

> Advances in climate change modelling now enable best estimates and likely assessed uncertainty ranges to be given for projected warming for different emission scenarios.

Estimates from proxy data1 (for example, based on sediment records) are shown in red (1800 - 1890, pink band shows uncertainty), tide gauge data in blue for 1880 - 2009,2 and satellite observations are shown in green from 1993 to 2012.3 The future scenarios range from 0.66 feet to 6.6 feet in 2100.4 These scenarios are not based on climate model simulations, but rather reflect the range of possible scenarios based on other kinds of scientific studies.

The same is true for any estimate of a physical parameter based on a method with a large range of uncertainty and no well defined theory or earlier data to define the prior.

Because of the many uncertainties involved, any estimate of climate sensitivity comes with a range, a lower and upper limit within which the real value could reasonably lie.

When people talk about estimates, possibilities, large uncertainties, likelies, maybes, and suggestions; when their guesses range from 10 to 40 %, and from 1 to 80 % — they aren't saying much of anything.

In the 2009 Outlook, most estimates overlapped each other when their uncertainty ranges were considered.

If identified and meaningfully detected but without substantial resolution, we estimate their range and include that in the Uncertainty.

So considering the uncertainty range that accompanies Lewis and Crok's estimate — something that climate skeptics are normally keen to highlight — the GWPF's estimate is very close to the IPCC's.

Significant uncertainties in the process parameters result in a wide, asymmetric range associated with this estimate, with higher values being more likely than lower ones.