Sentences with phrase «uncertainty about the forces»

You wouldn't want to drive over a bridge with so much uncertainty about the forces acting on it.

In this case, there's no uncertainty about the magnitude of climate variation, but uncertainty about the forcing.

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

Poloz said several forces were restraining Canada's economy, including new mortgage rules, uncertainty about U.S. trade policy and the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement, and a range of competitiveness challenges.

In other words, does UNCERTAINTY about forward movement in the administration's program start to affect the financial markets and the market's view of the potential for reforms that have been a significant force in both the equity and bond markets since the election?

And even if we had more confidence in the forces behind past movements in asset values, we would still face substantial uncertainty about their future behavior.

Low inflation and uncertainties about the global economy also forced the ECB to revise its forecast for 2015 eurozone growth from 1.5 % to 1.4 %.

Inevitably, there is a lot of uncertainty about how these opposing forces will net out.

We continue to estimate that a large foreign currency supply will bring about the continued strengthening of the shekel but the Bank of Israel is keeping its policy secret and wants to create uncertainty, not necessarily showing its cards and letting market forces swiftly push the exchange rate down.»

Hopefully United's first German star will force the honourary Bayern president to eat his words, but there remains an air of uncertainty about exactly what kind of contribution he can make.

Sore nipples, conflicting emotions, worry about the uncertainty of our path, and of course the nausea and lack of sleep, have forced me to use another set of AP tools.

According to the governor, uncertainty about President Donald Trump's budget, and how New York will fare, is forcing him to consider a bare - bones spending plan, or even extenders, which would make the budget late.

The point is that given the uncertainties in the forcings, the sensitivity and the response, it is difficult to rule out much when thinking about the real world.

Finally, although there is uncertainty about solar forcing, this is also true for GHG and other forcing.

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).

Missing forcings or lack of knowledge about uncertainties, and the highly parametrized spatial distribution of response in some of these models may hamper the interpretation of results.

For instance, uncertainty about the 1994 - 1998 Rwandan refugees» future in exile is compounded by the recent resolution of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to launch military attacks on refugees based in the DRC.35 No account has been taken concerning the fact that they are survivors of the 1996 - 2000 massive forced repatriation and that they have been more vulnerable to extremely stressful and traumatic events that took place since the invasion of Rwanda on October 01, 1990.36 Although they are indeed susceptible to posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, high level of fear and anxiety (psychosomatic) and / or malnutrition caused by the persecution and destruction of the war, no one who wants to empathise with them.

Call that person a denier even if they deny nothing and agree with consensus but they think there is uncertainty about some claims (because you must defend your tribe from all outside forces).

*** «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.

Given the large and growing (my opinion) uncertainty of the aerosol forcing, how can we make meaningful statements about the climate sensitivity from paleo - experiments?

Finally, although there is uncertainty about solar forcing, this is also true for GHG and other forcing.

Given the uncertainties in the observed forcings, this is about as good as can be reasonably expected.

Do you have figures (with uncertainties) about how much changes in solar forcing affect climate?

With an honest appraisal of the full uncertainty, also in the forcing, one must come to the conclusion that such a short period is not sufficient to draw conclusions about the climate sensitivity.

Based on results from large ensemble simulations with the Community Earth System Model, we show that internal variability alone leads to a prediction uncertainty of about two decades, while scenario uncertainty between the strong (Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5) and medium (RCP4.5) forcing scenarios [possible paths for greenhouse gas emissions] adds at least another 5 years.

We can derive the underlying trend related to external forcings from the GCMs — for each model, the underlying trend can be derived from the ensemble mean (averaging over the different phases of ENSO in each simulation), and looking at the spread in the ensemble mean trend across models gives information about the uncertainties in the model response (the «structural» uncertainty) and also about the forcing uncertainty — since models will (in practice) have slightly different realisations of the (uncertain) net forcing (principally related to aerosols).

They also have some good points about possible solar forcings, uncertainties in aerosols and clouds, to mention just a few.

If you pick a modern ear baseline where you have more data and a better handle on forcings you end up with about 0.8 C — 2.0 C «sensitivity» and an uncertainty range of about + / -0.3 C degrees.

It is well known that the ERFaero, the sum of direct aerosol forcing (ERFari) and ERFaci is by far the greatest source of uncertainty when it comes to observationally based estimates about the transient sensitivity (TCR) and the expected warming in this century.

We know the climate sensitivity to radiative forcing to be about 3 °C per 4 W / m2 of forcing to within something like a 10 % uncertainty, base on current climate modeling and the geological record (see Hansen et al., 2008) for details http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha00410c.html The natural (unforced) variability of the climate system is going to remain highly uncertain for the foreseeable future.

The first is uncertainty about the assigned magnitudes — for example, if solar influence must be scaled up to account for forcing not apparent in the total irradiance data, the solar role would increase.

All those climatic variables and uncertainties and probabilities and «forcings» and «feedback loops,» those cans of worms that Bill Gray talks about, get boiled down to their essence.

In a sense, Danzig's advice is to reject the notion of optimality, arguing that there is too much uncertainty about the environment to base any significant wager with respect to policy and even the technologies that undergird military force structure.

Irrespective of what one thinks about aerosol forcing, it would be hard to argue that the rate of net forcing increase and / or over-all radiative imbalance has actually dropped markedly in recent years, so any change in net heat uptake can only be reasonably attributed to a bit of natural variability or observational uncertainty.

Matthew Marler, The uncertainty I was talking about is the uncertainty in forcing, so «natural variation» is not included.

Nic invited me to coauthor this paper, and I was delighted to given my concerns about ignoring uncertainties in external forcing in attribution arguments and climate sensitivity estimates (which I discussed in the Uncertainty Monster paper).

In most cases, these range from about 2 to 4.5 C per doubled CO2 within the context of our current climate — with a most likely value between 2 and 3 C. On the other hand, chapter 9 describes attempts ranging far back into paleoclimatology to relate forcings to temperature change, sometimes directly (with all the attendant uncertainties), and more often by adjusting model parameters to determine the climate sensitivity ranges that allow the models to best simulate data from the past — e.g., the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM).

The 5AR estimates (with «low confidence») they create -1 W / m2 of forcing, with an uncertainty of about + / - 1 W / m2, with GHGs forcing of about 3.2 + / - 1 W / m2 (5AR WG1 Figure T. 6).

Both forcings are poorly understood and may represent the largest source of uncertainty about future climate change.

Uncertainty about how the climate system will respond to climate forcing by humans - Climate Sensitivity.

These findings are not sensitive to a wide range of assumptions, including the time series used to measure temperature, the omission of black carbon and stratospheric water vapor, and uncertainty about anthropogenic sulfur emissions and its effect on radiative forcing (SI Appendix: Sections 2.4 — 7).

Sensitivity analysis indicates that uncertainty about the measure of surface temperature, anthropogenic sulfur emissions, or its conversion to radiative forcing has a small effect on the model's simulated forecast for global surface temperature (SI Appendix: Section 2.4 and Figs S3, S4).

If one uses the historical record of warming to help tune your climate model, you are assuming that 100 % of warming is due to the forcing we know about (with a great deal of uncertainty in the case of aerosols).

«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).»

There remains some uncertainty about how much decadal variability of GMST that is attributed to AMO in some studies is actually related to forcing, notably from aerosols.

Second, the uncertainty of Anthro is substantially less than the uncertainty of the other four (including Natural forcings (Nat), and Internal Variability (Intern Var), which have an uncertainty about that of Anthro, but centered on, or very near zero) because their uncertainties are not independent.

Skeptics like to befuddle uncertainty about sensitivity with certainty about forcing magnitudes, it seems, or maybe they can't distinguish a forcing from a sensitivity.

William Faulkner, bane of every English student forced to read DWMs until they cry MEGO, had this to say about automobiles in his minor novel Pylon, «a dark and pessimistic novel, one that looks at the uncertainty of American society created by the dehumanizing effects of the machine age.»

These feedbacks are the primary source of uncertainty in how much the earth will warm (side note: the question that most climate scientists who study the forcing due to CO2 try to answer is, how much will the long - term globally averaged surface temperature of the earth rise due to an rapid rise of CO2 to twice its industrial level, that is, 270 ppm to 540 ppm; it is currently about 380 last time I checked, and rising at ~ 3ppm / year, although this rate of change appears to be accelerating).

The forced binary distinction implicit in the phrase is designed to misleadingly relegate anything about which there is still uncertainty to the category of completely unknown.