Sentences with phrase «than the estimated uncertainty»

When comparing 2017 to 2015, the smaller difference is less than the estimated uncertainty.

Not exact matches

«Given the uncertainty surrounding the measurement of economic slack, the true amount may be larger than estimated, which could slow down the emergence of price pressures,» Draghi told a regular committee hearing.

For all low risk women, bootstrapped estimates showed that planned birth in settings other than an obstetric unit was associated with cost savings and considerable stochastic uncertainty surrounding adverse perinatal outcomes.

The usual health warnings were issued in the form of statistical uncertainty estimates, but these invitations to prudence were given less attention than they deserved by most consumers of the numbers.

Their latest calculation, based on the oldest light that telescopes can detect, is 14.0 billion years with an uncertainty of just 500 million years — the tightest age constraint yet, and slightly older than the going estimate of around 13 billion years.

Only a few estimates account for uncertainty in forcings other than from aerosols (e.g., Gregory et al., 2002a; Knutti et al., 2002, 2003); some other studies perform some sensitivity testing to assess the effect of forcing uncertainty not accounted for, for example, in natural forcing (e.g., Forest et al., 2006; see Table 9.1 for an overview).

Using TGAS parallaxes in isochrone fitting we are able to reduce distance and age estimate uncertainties for TGAS stars for distances up to 1 kpc by more than one third, compared to results based only on spectrophotometric data.

(in general, whether for future projections or historical reconstructions or estimates of climate sensitivity, I tend to be sympathetic to arguments of more rather than less uncertainty because I feel like in general, models and statistical approaches are not exhaustive and it is «plausible» that additional factors could lead to either higher or lower estimates than seen with a single approach.

So, I interpret this as scything that the IPCC's best estimate is that 100 % of the warming since 1950 is attributable to humans, and they then down weight this to «more than half» to account for various uncertainties.

But since there are reasonable estimates of the real world GMT, it is a fair enough question to ask why the models have more spread than the observational uncertainty.

For various reasons ozone loss estimates for the past winter are more difficult than usual and the uncertainties of the final analysis will remain larger than for most previous winters.

This is enough to matter, but it's no more scary than the uncertainty in cloud feedbacks for example, and whether they could put us on the high end of typical climate sensitivity estimates.

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.

Since you don't seem to know how meaningless «decadal trends» are, you use the only data set that gives you what you want and ignore the others, and you act as though there's no uncertainty in your «trend» estimate, your level of certainty amounts to nothing more than hubris.

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.

(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).

Not only is its central estimate relatively distant from (warmer than) the prior record, but even accounting for known uncertainties, and their known shapes, it still emerges as easily the most likely warmest year on record.

These estimates are subject to a further uncertainty of more than ± 0.1 °C arising from the uncertainties in the pre-industrial values and in the values from each individual dataset.

When the emission estimates are compared over time, the resulting relative uncertainty is generally lower than the uncertainty of estimates for individual years.

Whilst these numbers are smaller than some recent estimates from other groups, the authors do admit to several uncertainties in their approach.

Max, «The natural GH effect is estimated to be around 33C,» plus or minus a few degrees, the uncertainty in that one assumption is greater than the estimated impact.

From Figure 1 it looks as though a window of no more than 120 months, and preferably only 60 months is desirable to capture the changing distribution of temperature anomalies, however a shorter window may not provide enough data to reliably estimate the uncertainty.

More often than not it's better to jump directly to making quantitative estimates with uncertainty analysis.

However, that should be a call for estimating the size of that uncertainty rather than simply ignoring the calculations.

It also exhibits retreat of springtime snow generally greater than observational estimates, after accounting for observational uncertainty and internal variability.

Haven't had a chance to read them yet, but looking at the abstracts, they seem to agree with Dr. Curry's intuitive conclusion that the uncertainties in historical SSTs are larger than previously estimated.

In particular, a Gregory - 02 lower bound estimate is more reliable than their median value, given the upper bound uncertainties.

They are simply a first estimate.Where multiple analyses of the biases in other climatological variables have been produced, for example tropospheric temperatures and ocean heat content, the resulting spread in the estimates of key parameters such as the long - term trend has typically been signicantly larger than initial estimates of the uncertainty suggested.

The uncertainty of the global average computed by Kennedy et al. (2011b) were generally larger than those estimated by Rayner et al. (2006).

At that point, we were linearly incorporating the estimated biases rather than their uncertainties.

It's correct to take the precautionary principle into account in the estimate of the damages giving more weight to the unfavorable outcomes than to the favorable, but the uncertainties in the efficiency of the mitigating measures should be also taken into account and taken them into account means that the correct level of tax is lower than it would be without this uncertainty.

Uncertainties of estimated trends in global - and regional - average sea - surface temperature due to bias adjustments since the Second World War are found to be larger than uncertainties arising from the choice of analysis technique, indicating that this is an important source of uncertainty in analyses of historical sea - surface Uncertainties of estimated trends in global - and regional - average sea - surface temperature due to bias adjustments since the Second World War are found to be larger than uncertainties arising from the choice of analysis technique, indicating that this is an important source of uncertainty in analyses of historical sea - surface uncertainties arising from the choice of analysis technique, indicating that this is an important source of uncertainty in analyses of historical sea - surface temperatures.

UHI is under estimated, the homogenization method is not accepted by statisticians outside of the small club who created the technique — the climate-gate emails showed severe uncertainties and lack of knowledge of proper analytical and statistical techniques, and even suppression of information, even if this is more common practice than people believe... just unacceptable.

However, the uncertainty in the estimate is high, 1.32 ± 0.26 * 106 km2, and the lowest value is slightly higher than last year.

My experience in working extensively with temperature measurements and temperature forecasting leads me to believe that our best estimates of global temperature anomalies based on surface measurements have a much larger degree of uncertainty than has been implied by most users of these estimates.

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.

Choosing lower and upper limits that encompass the range of these results and deflating significance levels in order to account for structural uncertainty in the estimate leads to the conclusion that it is very unlikely that TCR is less than 1 °C and very unlikely that TCR is greater than 3.5 °C.

The ISPM overview states: «Natural climatic variability is now believed to be substantially larger than previously estimated, as is the uncertainty associated with historical temperature reconstructions.»

In general, these studies have shown that different ways of creating scenarios from the same source (a global - scale climate model) can lead to substantial differences in the estimated effect of climate change, but that hydrological model uncertainty may be smaller than errors in the modelling procedure or differences in climate scenarios (Jha et al., 2004; Arnell, 2005; Wilby, 2005; Kay et al., 2006a, b).

Spatial sampling uncertainties were estimated by simulating poorly sampled periods (e.g. 1753 to 1850) with modern data (1960 to 2010) for which the Earth coverage was better than 97 % complete, and measuring the departure from the full site average when using only the limited spatial regions available at early times.

In AR4 these mostly offset each other, but AR5 does have central estimates with wide uncertainties that the forcing really is changing faster than that from CO2 alone while the AR4 offsetting is still comfortably within the uncertainty too.

I don't have any problem with the fact that there are many time frames over which atmospheric CO2 would respond if emissions were to stop, though I think there is far more uncertainty in the estimates of response over time than is usually acknowledged, and that people with «agendas» consistently discount the response times that do not support their policy positions.

«However, Fig. 15 and the associated uncertainties discussed in Section 3.4 show that long term estimates of time variable sea level acceleration in 203 year global reconstruction are significantly positive, which supports our previous finding (Jevrejeva et al., 2008a), that despite strong low frequency variability (larger than 60 years) the rate of sea level rise is increasing with time.»

To suggest that this may be a taken as a validation of F&P requires rigorous validation of these two assumptions and a formal error estimate for the uncertainty of the hindcast to 1850 showing it to be substantially smaller than F&P bias that is being evaluated.

• Poles to tropics temperature gradient, average temp of tropics over past 540 Ma; and arguably warming may be net - beneficial overall • Quotes from IPCC AR4 WG1 showing that warming would be beneficial for life, not damaging • Quotes from IPCC AR5 WG3 stating (in effect) that the damage functions used for estimating damages are not supported by evidence • Richard Tol's breakdown of economic impacts of GW by sector • Economic damages of climate change — about the IAMs • McKitrick — Social Cost of Carbon much lower than commonly stated • Bias on impacts of GHG emissions — Figure 1 is a chart showing 15 recent estimates of SCC — Lewis and Curry, 2015, has the lowest uncertainty range.

Furthermore, on these times scales the differences between MSU data sets are often not larger than published internal uncertainty estimates for the RSS product alone and therefore may not be statistically significant when the internal uncertainty in each data set is taken into account.

After 10000 rolls the uncertainty in the estimate of the mean will 100 times smaller than the standard deviation of a single die roll, far below the single digit resolution of the die faces.

Radiative perturbation from icesheet and changed sealevel is estimated -3.2 W / m2 (with higher uncertainties than GHG), Vegatation and aerosols estimated -1 W / m2.

The very high significance levels of model — observation discrepancies in LT and MT trends that were obtained in some studies (e.g., Douglass et al., 2008; McKitrick et al., 2010) thus arose to a substantial degree from using the standard error of the model ensemble mean as a measure of uncertainty, instead of the ensemble standard deviation or some other appropriate measure for uncertainty arising from internal climate variability... Nevertheless, almost all model ensemble members show a warming trend in both LT and MT larger than observational estimates (McKitrick et al., 2010; Po - Chedley and Fu, 2012; Santer et al., 2013).