Sentences with phrase «uncertainties about the observations»

Uncertainty about the forcings calculated with observed values for greenhouse gas concentrations, solar insolation, and the SOI is small relative to the uncertainty about observations for anthropogenic sulfur emissions.

Not exact matches

Last month, the panel of 31 independent scientists charged with reviewing the EPA's draft report stated that the agency's broad conclusion about the mining technique known as fracking is at odds with the evidence and «inconsistent with the observations, data, and levels of uncertainty presented.»

This method tries to maximize using pure observations to find the temperature change and the forcing (you might need a model to constrain some of the forcings, but there's a lot of uncertainty about how the surface and atmospheric albedo changed during glacial times... a lot of studies only look at dust and not other aerosols, there is a lot of uncertainty about vegetation change, etc).

Despite the observation of CDV contributing to declines in several endangered populations, many uncertainties remain about the threat that it poses.

I talked only about the topic of this post, which is: the mismatch betweem model results and observations, and it's implication for model uncertainty (since the mismatch can not be attributed to observation errors).

*** «Perhaps concern over «uncertainty» in complex, adaptive, open systems should be investigated by inductive generalization from observations of the dynamics of a wide range of such systems: ecosystems, social systems, computer systems, immune systems, economic systems... It is curious that the following things are never admitted as «facts about the world,» but here goes: the observer would note of all of these systems that they undergo oscillations within apparent parameters and occasionally flip into new regimes; they often demonstrate novel emergence; and that increased forcing, whether of native elements or exotic ones, increases the rates of oscillation and catastrophic shifts, sometimes after a quieter period of sub-threshold build - up.

It is expected that an appropriately designed research program, with emphasis on long - term observations and coupled climate modeling, would contribute to substantially reduce uncertainty about the future evolution of the AMOC.

It's risk assessment theory that is the more appropriate mode of thinking in debating the risks of CO2, knowing what we know about risk / uncertainty of the carbon cycle, paleo - research, modelling, observations, etc..

Since the rate of warming is supposedly about 1 °C per century, it would seem that any trend based on afternoon observations, where the TOBS error appears to create an additional ± 2.5 °C uncertainty (for 5:00 P.M.), would not be statistically significant.

«The assessment is supported additionally by a complementary analysis in which the parameters of an Earth System Model of Intermediate Complexity (EMIC) were constrained using observations of near - surface temperature and ocean heat content, as well as prior information on the magnitudes of forcings, and which concluded that GHGs have caused 0.6 °C to 1.1 °C (5 to 95 % uncertainty) warming since the mid-20th century (Huber and Knutti, 2011); an analysis by Wigley and Santer (2013), who used an energy balance model and RF and climate sensitivity estimates from AR4, and they concluded that there was about a 93 % chance that GHGs caused a warming greater than observed over the 1950 — 2005 period; and earlier detection and attribution studies assessed in the AR4 (Hegerl et al., 2007b).»

The reasons for that are many: the timid language of scientific probabilities, which the climatologist James Hansen once called «scientific reticence» in a paper chastising scientists for editing their own observations so conscientiously that they failed to communicate how dire the threat really was; the fact that the country is dominated by a group of technocrats who believe any problem can be solved and an opposing culture that doesn't even see warming as a problem worth addressing; the way that climate denialism has made scientists even more cautious in offering speculative warnings; the simple speed of change and, also, its slowness, such that we are only seeing effects now of warming from decades past; our uncertainty about uncertainty, which the climate writer Naomi Oreskes in particular has suggested stops us from preparing as though anything worse than a median outcome were even possible; the way we assume climate change will hit hardest elsewhere, not everywhere; the smallness (two degrees) and largeness (1.8 trillion tons) and abstractness (400 parts per million) of the numbers; the discomfort of considering a problem that is very difficult, if not impossible, to solve; the altogether incomprehensible scale of that problem, which amounts to the prospect of our own annihilation; simple fear.

I mean you could define the uncertainty of an «ensemble mean» as the «average of the within - model standard deviations over all the models», but comparing that with observed range wouldn't tell you anything about the proportion of models whose range of uncertainty falls outside the uncertainty of observations.

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.

Our estimates of key climate model uncertainties are constrained by observations of the climate system for the period 1906 - 1995, 7 and uncertainty in emissions reflect errors in measurement of current emissions and expert judgment about variables that influence key economic projections.

A secondary result is that caution is required when trying to draw conclusions about any differences between the models and the observations, whether it be to identify internal cycles of the climate system or problems in the models, because the differences that we do see are mostly within the range of uncertainty of the observations.

These products should definitely not be assumed to have the status of «real observations», but they are very useful as long as people are careful to take the caveats seriously, and be clear about the structural uncertainties.

First, Scott Irwin, chairman of the Agriculture Marketing Department, and Professor Darrel Good make some general observations about the RFS (sometimes also referred to as RFS2, for its 2007 revision), uncertainty surrounding potential higher compliance costs and where prices for Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs) may be headed under the RFS» current framework:

Frame et al. (2005) demonstrate that uncertainty ranges for sensitivity are dependent on the choices made about prior distributions of uncertain quantities before the observations are applied.

According to this procedure, sets of plausible values for missing observations are created on the basis of a specified missingness equation and an algorithm that preserves uncertainty about nonresponse.