Sentences with phrase «uncertainty estimates shown»

Not exact matches

Chart 14 shows that the «dispersion of EPS estimates for S&P 500 companies is near all - time lows, likely reflecting an unwillingness of analysts to diverge from consensus amid macro uncertainty.»

The fact that one calculation shows increased claims indicates the uncertainty in the estimates and suggests Iron Dome's influence may have been small enough to be overshadowed by changes in other factors.

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.»

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.

It shows that the problem of pollution from trash burning is big enough that it warrants further study to try and narrow down the large uncertainties inherent in the study's estimates.

«Our results show that the uncertainty estimates of greenhouse gas inventories depend on the calculation method and on how the input data for the model, such as weather and litterfall data, have been averaged,» says Aleksi Lehtonen, researcher at the Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke).

These confidence limits assume that the overall risk for a given individual is provided by our estimates and should not be interpreted as measuring the overall uncertainty in the absolute risk estimates, as shown in Table 5.

Global mean temperatures averaged over land and ocean surfaces, from three different estimates, each of which has been independently adjusted for various homogeneity issues, are consistent within uncertainty estimates over the period 1901 to 2005 and show similar rates of increase in recent decades.

Comparisons with stellar parameter estimates from the literature show good agreement within uncertainties.

The cooling in the graph shown is indeed 0.1 °C only as you observed, the 0.3 °C arises when we, conservatively, estimate all uncertainties in the modeling and the forcings.

In particular, our WMMP estimates (Fig. 4d) show a brief shift to wetter conditions pre-CIE, which 15 although uncertainties are large coincides with the first common appearance of the freshwater algae Pediastrum.

For tunings and other estimates, the model parameters should show the uncertainty initially.

The grey shading shows the uncertainty in the estimated long - term rate of sea level change (Section 6.4.3).

The solid line shows the current «best estimate» of the temperature change; the dotted lines show the range of uncertainty in the climate response to these emissions.

A reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere temperature from stalagmites shows that while the uncertainty range (grey area) is significant, the temperature in the latter 20th Century exceeds the maximum estimate over the past 500 years (Smith 2006).

However, taking account of sampling uncertainty (as most more recent detection and attribution studies do, including those shown in Figure 9.9) makes relatively little difference to estimates of attributable warming rates, particularly those due to greenhouse gases; the largest differences occur in estimates of upper bounds for small signals, such as the response to solar forcing (Allen and Stott, 2003; Stott et al., 2003a).

To estimate uncertainty in total committed rise given some temperature increase, we use the derived Antarctic intervals, plus the ranges for the first three SLR components as shown in figure 2 A — C of ref.

Solid coloured boxes show the AR5 best estimates and 90 % uncertainty ranges.

A time series of global - average, bias - adjusted SSTs with all uncertainty estimates combined is shown in Figure 11.

Nevertheless, this first attempt to estimate urban - scale CO2ff from atmospheric radiocarbon measurements shows that CO2ff can be used to verify and improve emission inventories for many poorly known anthropogenic species, separate biospheric CO2, and indicates the potential to constrain CO2ff emissions if transport uncertainties are reduced.

Estimates from proxy data1 (for example, based on sediment records) are shown in red (1800 - 1890, pink band shows uncertainty), tide gauge data in blue for 1880 - 2009,2 and satellite observations are shown in green from 1993 to 2012.3 The future scenarios range from 0.66 feet to 6.6 feet in 2100.4 These scenarios are not based on climate model simulations, but rather reflect the range of possible scenarios based on other kinds of scientific studies.

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.

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).

Recent studies show that there is great «uncertainty» on the postulated theoretical temperature impact of doubling atmospheric CO2 concentrations, with latest estimates running around half the previous ones.

«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.

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).

The lightest gray shading shows the 5 — 95 % uncertainty in the estimates, and the medium gray shading denotes the one standard deviation error estimate.

The point I'm making (and I don't actually care if you don't like the roundabout way I'm making it), is that the PDF shown above uses an uncertainty estimate (± 0.2 ºC) that is far too low for anthropogenic warming because it's not acutally derived from any calculation of the components anthropogenic warming (i.e. ANT = GHG + OA).

Spencer + Braswell showed, based on CERES observations, that the net feedback from clouds with warming temperature over the tropics was negative, instead of positive as estimated earlier by the IPCC models while conceding «cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty»

The ensemble prediction from the PIOMAS model submitted by Zhang and Lindsay is still showing an open Northwest Passage (Figure 1a), as in the June Outlook, but there has been a notable drop in the uncertainty of the estimate with a low standard deviation in the model ensemble (Figure 1b).

Table 8.7 shows that the best estimate for total aerosol RF (RFari + aci) has fallen from − 1.2 W / m ² to − 0.7 W / m ² since AR4, largely due to a reduction in RFaci, the uncertainty band for which has also been hugely reduced.

Figure 2.8 shows a smoothed optimally averaged annual global time - series with estimates of uncertainty at ± twice the standard error of the smoothed (near decadal) estimate.

We are most confident in the methodological strengths of the longitudinal design and future longitudinal analyses.7 More caution is needed in interpreting our prevalence estimates, but in spite of the methodological uncertainties of using a non-probabilistic sample, we believe this, like many other quota samples, is likely to give estimates similar to a probabilistic sample (which may be subject to different biases, as we have shown with the NATSISS).23