Sentences with phrase «reducing scientific uncertainty»

The decision analytic framework of reducing scientific uncertainty in support of optimal decision making strategies regarding CO2 mitigation has arguably resulted in unwarranted high confidence in future projections and relative neglect of natural climate variability and the possibility of black swans and dragon kings.

In conclusion: The drive to reduce scientific uncertainty in support of precautionary and optimal decision making strategies regarding CO2 mitigation has arguably resulted in:

In addition, theCommittee on Global Change Research of the National Research Council, the operating arm of the NAS and the NAE, will issue a major report later this spring on the research issues that can help to reduce the scientific uncertainties associated with global change phenomena, including climate change.»

Not exact matches

From the examples chosen a pattern emerges that requires a period of sober reflection by any minister or civil servant involved in the planning of major technological projects, for far from the comfort of scientific truth underpinning their decisions, the reality is that the degree of uncertainty involved would appear to reduce the process to a sophisticated form of gambling, with awesome consequences awaiting a wrong decision.

Rather they laid out a strategy to strengthen the scientific basis for the estimates, reduce their uncertainties, and increase transparency of the process.

Scientific knowledge input into process based models has much improved, reducing uncertainty of known science for some components of sea - level rise (e.g. steric changes), but when considering other components (e.g. ice melt from ice sheets, terrestrial water contribution) science is still emerging, and uncertainties remain high.

All scientific questions involve some degree of uncertainties (error bars), and these can only be reduced if one can prove that they are influenced by an external factor («contamination») or if some of the data are not representative for the study.

A key goal of the priority program is to reduce the large uncertainties in our current understanding of CE impacts on the environment, politics, and society so as to create a scientific basis for a responsible approach to the issue CE.

Clearly, further research into the carbon cycle will be essential to reduce the level of uncertainty about the climate system's response to CO2 emissions.For further reading: R. T. Watson et al.: «Green - house gases and aero - sols» in Houghton et al., «Climate Change, the IPCC Scientific Assess - ment», Cambridge (1990).

The Low Dose Radiation Research Act of 2015 directs the two organisations to carry out a research program «to enhance the scientific understanding of and reduce uncertainties associated with the effects of exposure to low dose radiation in order to inform improved risk management methods.»

Also, Inside Climate News recently described a new study published in Science about how fossil - fuel funded climate - science deniers disingenuously shift their arguments and use normal scientific uncertainties to deflect attention from the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change and argue for no action to reduce greenhouse - gas emissions.

This post examines the ethical duty to act to reduce the threat of climate change even if one assumes there is more scientific uncertainty about the causes and impacts of climate change than those identified by the scientific consensus view as articulated most recently by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Among other things, for instance, the parties to the UNFCCC agreed that: (a) They would adopt policies and measures to prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system, (b) Developed countries should take the first steps to do this, and (c) Nations have common but differentiated responsibilities to prevent climate change, (d) Nations may not use scientific uncertainty as an excuse for not taking action, and (e) Nations should reduce their GHG emissions based upon «equity.»

Improving the scientific understanding of all climate feedbacks is critical to reducing the uncertainty in modeling the consequences of doubling the CO2 - equivalent concentration.

Applying ad hoc filtering mechanisms to reduce the solution space may «look» scientific, but without some basis for applying the solution space reduction the argument is that the policy makers should be presented with the full range of uncertainty.

Grant us... The ability to reduce the uncertainties we can; The willingness to work with the uncertainties we can not; And the scientific knowledge to know the difference.

I suggested to Roger on Prometheus that this sort of thing is dangerous because it gives Congress a great excuse for inaction (lots of hearings but no legislation, which is the policy equivalent of the scientific focus on reducing uncertainties for which he and Sarewitz have strongly criticized the scientific community).

What I love most about «skeptics» is that they say that they don't doubt that ACO2 might warm the climate — they only have questions about the certainty related to the magnitude of the effect, but then they turn around and offer an argument like AK's that effectively argue that there is no scientific basis for reducing the uncertainties related to the magnitude of the effect.

However, if climate change is understood as essentially a moral and ethical problem it will eventually transform how climate change is debated because the successful framing by the opponents of climate change policies that have limited recent debate to these three arguments, namely cost, scientific uncertainty, and unfairness of reducing ghg emissions until China does so can be shown to be deeply ethically and morally problematic.

If a nation emitting high levels of ghgs refuses to reduce its emissions to its fair share of safe global emissions on the basis that there is too much scientific uncertainty to warrant action, if it turns out that human - induced climate change actually greatly harms the health and ecological systems on which life depends for tens of millions of others, should that nation be responsible for the harms that could have been avoided if preventative action had been taken earlier?

Should a developed nation such as the United States which has much higher historical and per capita emissions than other nations be able to justify its refusal to reduce its ghg emissions to its fair share of safe global emissions on the basis of scientific uncertainty, given that if the mainstream science is correct, the world is rapidly running out of time to prevent warming above 2 degrees C, a temperature limit which if exceeded may cause rapid, non-linear climate change.

This question is designed to bring attention to the fact that because all nations that ratified the UNFCCC agreed to not use scientific uncertainty as an excuse for not reducing their ghg emissions, they have an ethical duty to keep their promises.

For this reason, all nations should aim to reduce ghg emissions as quickly as possible and any nation which opposes doing so on the basis of scientific uncertainty should be asked if the nation is willing to take full legal and financial responsibility for harms caused by any delay.

Do you deny that those who are most vulnerable to climate change's harshest potential impacts have a right to participate in a decision about whether to wait to act to reduce the threat of climate change to them because of scientific uncertainty?

When you argue that nations such as the United States or states, regional, or local governments, businesses, organizations, or individuals that emit high levels of greenhouse gases (ghg) need not reduce their ghg emissions to their fair share of safe global emissions because of scientific uncertainty about adverse climate change impacts:

Fourth some arguments against climate change policies on the basis of scientific uncertainty often rest on the ethically dubious notion that nothing should be done to reduce a threat that some are imposing on others until all uncertainties are resolved.

Over and over again opponents of climate change policies have argued that nations need not act to reduce the threat of climate change because there are scientific uncertainties about the magnitude and timing of human - induced climate change impacts.

(a) They would adopt policies and measures to prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system; (b) Developed countries should take the first steps to prevent dangerous climate change; (c) Nations have common but differentiated responsibilities to prevent climate change; (d) Nations may not use scientific uncertainty as an excuse for not taking action; and, (e) Nations should reduce their ghg emissions based upon «equity.»

For all of these reasons, arguments against taking action to reduce the threat of climate change based upon scientific uncertainty fail to pass minimum ethical scrutiny.

The optimal decision making model works in the following way: more research reduces uncertainty, which builds a scientific and political consensus that results in meaningful action.

Given that for over 20 years since international climate change negotiations began, the United States has refused to commit to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions based upon the justification that there is too much scientific uncertainty to warrant action, if it turns out that human - induced climate change actually greatly harms the health and ecological systems on which life depends of others, should the United States be responsible for the harms that could have been avoided if preventative action had been taken earlier?

No nation need act to reduce the threat of climate change until all scientific uncertainties about climate change impacts are resolved.

Because it has been scientifically well established that there is a great risk of catastrophic harm from human - induced change (even though it is acknowledged that there are remaining uncertainties about timing and magnitude of climate change impacts), no high - emitting nation, sub-national government, organization, business, or individual of greenhouse gases may use some remaining scientific uncertainty about climate change impacts as an excuse for not reducing its emissions to its fair share of safe global greenhouse gas emission on the basis of scientific uncertainty.

That is deontological, utilitarian, justice, ecocentric, biocentric, and relationship based ethics would not condone using scientific uncertainty as justification for not reducing high levels of greenhouse gas emissions given what is not in dispute among mainstream climate scientists (See Brown, 2002: 141 - 148).

There is much work to be done in climate science to reduce the uncertainties or to at least acknowledge when reducing those uncertainties will require some scientific breakthroughs or clearly present a limitation of knowing.

In addition to collaborative work we do with these models, one of the primary ways that these models contribute to the scientific community's attempt to reduce uncertainty in future carbon uptake is through participation in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5).

Well, it's odd, because the «true» definition seems to have to do with policy making when scientific uncertainty doesn't quite light the way, «normal science» moves too slowly reduce uncertainty significantly, and the potential downside is severe and something must be done.

The DOE support includes funding from the Regional and Global Climate Modeling programme to the Reducing Uncertainties in Biogeochemical Interactions through Synthesis and Computation (RUBISCO) Scientific Focus Area, from the Terrestrial Ecosystem Sciences programme to the Next Generation Ecosystem Experiments — Tropics, and from the Early Career programme (DE-SC0012152).

Generally, considering that technological applications of scientific models, developed to reduce uncertainty about real - world risks, have been widely successful for making life safer and more comfortable for an increasing fraction of the world population, why is there so little trust in the judgments of scientists who generate and test such models?