Sentences with phrase «large uncertainty range»

There are large emissions from deforestation and other land - use change activities in the tropics; these have been estimated in IPCC (2007a) for the 1990s to have been 5.9 GtCO2 - eq, with a large uncertainty range of 1.8 — 9.9 GtCO2 - eq (Denman et al., 2007).

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

The large uncertainty ranges preclude you from being able to claim temperature has plateaued, let alone cooled.

A large number of the individual paleo calibrations have pretty large uncertainty ranges, 1.25 C in some cases.

That's explicit in the large uncertainty ranges and for example in the discussion of the residual term of Fig. 2e of the Le Quéré et al paper.

The large uncertainty ranges in atmospheric pCO2 arise from uncertainty in how surface productivity responds to circulation change.

Not exact matches

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.

These divergences suggest that there is still a lot of uncertainty surrounding satellite temperature records that needs to be resolved, as the range of reasonable assumptions for corrections can lead to large differences in results.

This could be used for more uncertainty runs, having larger ensembles, exploring a wider range of types of scenarios.

It'll take me 4 to 8 months to pay down that debt (the large range of uncertainty's due to it depending on whether / when other family members might secure a source of income).

The large degree of uncertainty associated with the effects of these policies logically led to a wide range of predictions from commentators and practitioners, including the downfall of the US dollar, rapidly rising inflation, and the build - up of a significant bubble in the Treasury bond market.

Boundary conditions are another large uncertainty, without which will allow parameters to continue to affect results long beyond their realistic ranges.

The range of the latter is larger than the former because of the uncertainty in the projected levels of greenhouse gases etc..

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.

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.

What you guys will not come clean about however, is that these initial conditions of the ocean / atmosphere also impart a large range of uncertainty on multi-decadal predictions, even though you are invoking changes in boundary values to gain skill.

What is clear is that uncontrolled emissions will very soon put us in range of temperatures that have been unseen since the Eemian / Stage 5e period (about 120,000 years ago) when temperatures may have been a degree or so warmer than now but where sea level was 4 to 6m higher (see this recent discussion the possible sensitivities of the ice sheets to warming and the large uncertainties involved).

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.

I will argue that the uncertainties make it necessary to look at many different methods for downscaling (regional climate models and statistical downscaling) as well as the largest possible range of (sensible) GCMs.

«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.

The sum of these contributions ranged from — 0.8 to 2.2 mm yr — 1, with a mean value of 0.7 mm yr — 1, and a large part of this uncertainty was due to the lack of information on anthropogenic land water change.

Of course, IPCC can simply state that the lower end of the previous range for 2xCO2 ECS of 1.5 to 4.5 C is still OK, but that the upper end has come down as uncertainties on clouds (always «the largest source of uncertainty») have been cleared up, and there won't be too much «loss of face» there.

Bob Droege, since you know that only the «known» anomaly may have doubled with a fairly large range of uncertainty, do you think saying, «ocean heat content doubled in 16 years.»

While climate science can effectively inform us about the range of possible consequences of a warming world, there is a large amount of irresolvable uncertainty inherent in climate forecasting.

You have to remember that the 5 year forecast is derived from a large number of individual runs each with slightly different starting conditions matching the range of the observational uncertainty in the real starting conditions.

GaryM, «initially collected data with wide ranges of uncertainty can be processed using statistics to provide a more accurate measurement on a much larger scale.»

You claim that initially collected data with wide ranges of uncertainty can be processed using statistics to provide a more accurate measurement on a much larger scale.

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.

When uncertainty is very large, an alternative for decision makers that is better than throwing the dice is to present a range of possible scenarios, each associated with its story line (model or whatever).

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.

The large range among projections stems mostly from uncertainty about future energy use and greenhouse gas emissions.

In summary, our results show that in the CESM - LE, the range of uncertainty in projected NAO trends and associated influences on SAT and P over the next 30 years can be obtained to a large degree from the Gaussian statistics of NAO variability during the historical period, with some regional exceptions possibly associated with AMOC variability.

This range is associated with uncertainty in the overlying large - scale SLP regression pattern.

Regarding variability, the ISPM fails to mention that the IPCC found that the larger «natural climatic variability» is almost all in the direction of cooler temperatures, relative to «previous estimations», for the past millenium: «The additional variability shown in some new studies [since the Third Assesment Report] implies mainly cooler temperatures (predominantly in the 12th to 14th, 17th and 19th centuries), and only one new reconstruction suggests slightly warmer conditions (in the 11th century, but well within the uncertainty range indicated in the TAR).»

I ask that because I haven't seen evidence one way or the other that I think convincing — because I think that the uncertainties are too large in a number of ways (w / r / t to the range of sensitivity, w / r / t the massive unknowns about positive and negative externalities, w / r / t modeling future economies, etc..)

For any assumed distribution of parameter values, a method of producing 5 — 95 % uncertainty ranges can be tested by drawing a large number of samples of possible parameter values from that distribution, and for each drawing a measurement at random according to the measurement uncertainty distribution and estimating a range for the parameter.

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.

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 summary, given the large uncertainties, I am unconvinced by Annan and Hargreave's analysis in terms of providing limits to the range of expected climate sensitivity values.

Present uncertainties of ice shelf mass loss are large, however, with estimates of their contribution to sea level rise ranging from a few centimeters to over one meter.

Depending on the global climate model (s) underpinning the projection, emergence timescales range between 120 and 550 years, reflecting a large uncertainty.

But Forster & Gregory instead used a large number of random simulations to determine the likely uncertainty range, thereby robustly reflecting the actual distribution.

So we have a large range of uncertainty: from 0.6 °C to 4.5 °C.

The ranges of uncertainty for future emissions, concentrations, temperature, and damages are extremely large.

But accepting the climate models as our currently best representation of the climate system, the observations unmistakably point to higher ECS being more likely, and a substantially higher ECS than previously thought as most likely — though the range of possible ECS obtained in this way is still wide, still indicating large uncertainties.

and «no data or computer code appears to be archived in relation to the paper» and «the sensitivity of Shindell's TCR estimate to the aerosol forcing bias adjustment is such that the true uncertainty of Shindell's TCR range must be huge — so large as to make his estimate worthless» and the seemingly arbitrary to cherry picked climate models used in Shindell's analysis.

Large uncertainties remain, but that's exactly the reason for the wide uncertainty range of climate sensitivity acknowledged by IPCC.

It is characterized by multiple intersecting and uncertain future hazards to natural and human systems, that are expected to unfold over a very large range of spatial and temporal scales, and whose probabilities may be difficult, or in some cases impossible, to quantify precisely (because of intrinsic and / or irreducible uncertainties about the future).

You apparently do not know that the range of uncertainty on a trend based on only a few points of noisy data is generally large and typically not significant, and that by including more data points you can reduce the range of uncertainty.