Sentences with phrase «uncertainty range does»

Not exact matches

While we do see positive signs in parts of the economy, many firms still show some reluctance to commit to significant investment, often citing a range of uncertainties.

Powell has in the past expressed a view that Fed communication «should do more to emphasize the uncertainty that surrounds all economic forecasts, should downplay short - term tactical questions such as the timing of the next rate increase, and should focus the public's attention instead on the considerations that go into making policy across the range of plausible paths for the economy.»

The range reflects uncertainty about the health effects of fine particles, and the possibility that airborne exposures to fine particles do not increase mortality risks.

As can be seen your graph, our climate models make a wide range of predictions (perhaps 0.5 - 5 degC, a 10-fold uncertainty) about how much «committed warming» will occur in the future under any stabilization scenario, so we don't seem to have a decent understanding of these processes.

I agree (as does IPCC) that there is uncertainty, as stated, in the climate sensitivity, but you are completely unjustified in your claim that the cosmic - ray correlation (for which there is still no sound physical basis or quantified mechanism) supports the lower end of the sensitivity range.

Therefore, I wouldn't attach much credence, if any, to a modelling study that didn't explore the range of possibilities arising from such uncertainty in parameter values, and particularly in the value of something as crucial as the climate sensitivity parameter, as in this example.

This paper suggests that models with sensitivity around 4ºC did the best, though they didn't give a formal estimation of the range of uncertainty.

In addition, model intercomparison studies do not quantify the range of uncertainty associated with a specific aerosol process, nor does this type of uncertainty analysis provide much information on which aerosol process needs improving the most.

There are limitations in using a Monte Carlo simulation, including the analysis is only as good as the assumptions, and despite modeling for a range of uncertainties in the future, it does not eliminate uncertainty.

If you want to do a more precise analysis, fine — you'd need to properly include the uncertainty ranges and you would come to the same conclusion as me — as far as one can tell within uncertainty, the non-CO2 anthropogenic forcings approximately balance.

[Response: If you screen the models to have surface trends similar to that observed, you do reduce the tropospheric range of responses, but error bars still overlap with the uncertainty in the obs.

We are currently exploring the impacts that updates in the forcings have on the CMIP5 model runs and exploring the range of uncertainty where we don't have solid information.

Pieter Tans of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration stressed the persistent uncertainty in the range of warming expected from a buildup of greenhouse gases as cutting against the idea of specific thresholds: «Our biggest science problem is that we do not know how strong the climate feedbacks are, or even whether we know all of the ones that are important on decadal and longer time scales,» he said in an e-mail.

There are reasons why the AR4 runs did not span the whole possible space of aerosol forcings & sensitivity (e.g., Kiehl, 2007, GRL) and thus do not sample the full range of uncertainty.

This paper suggests that models with sensitivity around 4ºC did the best, though they didn't give a formal estimation of the range of uncertainty.

So then the question is «When do we act in a world of uncertainty when our investments in mitigation produce only reductions in the likelihoods of a range of uncomfortable or fundamentally intolerable effects?»

The data are available and anyone can calculate the different trends, I don't think I have any special method or anything, but for completeness the 1950 - 2006 trend went from 0.097 deg C / dec to 0.068 deg C / dec (mean of all realisations) a 31 % drop (uncertainties on OLS trends + / -0.017 deg C / dec; for 100 different realisations of HadSST3 the range of trends is [0.0458,0.0928] deg C / dec).

If a model - data comparison is done, it has to account for the uncertainty ranges — both in the data (that was Lesson 1 re noisy data) and in the model (that's Lesson 2).

[The main conclusion of this analysis is that sea level uncertainty is not smaller now than it was at the time of the TAR, and that quoting the 18 - 59 cm range of sea level rise, as many media articles have done, is not telling the full story.

What he did in 1988 was entirely appropriate — try to map out the range of future possibilities based on some manner of bounding the uncertainties.

Bob Droege, since you know that only the «known» anomaly may have doubled with a fairly large range of uncertainty, do you think saying, «ocean heat content doubled in 16 years.»

That does not lie in the uncertainty range of Doran et al..

The wide range of possible futures that the Economist article complains about do not represent uncertainty in a meaningful sense in the context of decision making.

Unwillingness to combine the evidence in this way might be justified by the difficulties of estimating the full range of uncertainties of each analysis, but if the likelihood curves are taken seriously, combining all independent evidence is a natural procedure that should be done.

I agree that the application of higher resolution model equipment does not help to reduce the uncertainty range of the sea level in the Amsterdam harbours: assumptions about changes in the heat storage, icecap melting and changes in the gravity field dominate this uncertainty range (although some regiona features related to oceanic circulation and heat redistribution may be better resolved in higher resolution models).

Indeed, the range of temperature projections of CMIP3 does not strongly differ from CMIP5, although the modellers do claim that their models have improved and the level of understanding has increased (and thus inherent uncertainty has decreased).

What do you consider to be the «true» uncertainty range.

The reason for the «wild range» of model predictions has much more to do with the uncertainty in how emissions will play out in the coming century than it does in the climate sensitivity to CO2 forcing.

From the right margin A1B uncertainty range, the missing A1B uncertainty range can be more or less interpolated, as I have done here with the red envelope.

All that is shown for AR4 are 2035 uncertainty ranges for three AR4 scenarios (including A1B) in the right margin, plus a spaghetti of individual runs (a spaghetti that does not correspond to any actual AR4 graphic.)

However, posterior CDF points using a uniform prior don't provide very good matching, particularly for small values of the CDF (corresponding to the lower bound of two - sided uncertainty ranges).

In other words, when estimating the value of a fixed but unknown parameter, does the true value lie outside the specified uncertainty range in the indicated proportion of cases?

«The entire community of journalists, well - meaning colleagues, bloggers would do well to remember that a «range of uncertainty» has a shape of its own,» Arndt said.

That paper reported a wide range of uncertainty; neither Huang nor Karl did.

Your figure for the uncertainty range of «many degrees» simply does not tally with what we see in the data themselves.

The TAR reported that the RF due to anthropogenic mineral dust lies in the range of +0.4 to — 0.6 W m — 2, and did not assign a best estimate because of the difficulties in determining the anthropogenic contribution to the total dust loading and the uncertainties in the optical properties of dust and in evaluating the competing shortwave and longwave radiative effects.

Throwing out Mann - o - matic reconstructions without realistic uncertainty ranges is doing the actual paleo guys a major disservice.

These uncertainties could be quantified by employing a range of regionalisation techniques, but this is rarely done.

In rereading your post, you didn't specify confidence intervals, but these are what are conventionally used, because estimating the probability that a value lies with a specified range is far more problematic, and requires assumptions about prior probabilities that are more fraught with uncertainty.

Although it is important to reduce the remaining climate uncertainties, such as the magnitude of the impacts of short - lived pollutants, it does not change the fact that CO2 is very likely the driving force behind the current global warming, or that if we double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from pre-industrial levels, the planet will likely warm in the range of 2 to 4.5 °C.

I won't insist on those numbers at all for the split, but I do think 33 - 66 % still is too much uncertainty for the degree of opportunity cost associated if science accurately hits the target range but is off within the range near the margin.

The simplest, a chain of length one month («AR (1)» in the plot), doesn't do it, but one of just two months length («AR (2)») works pretty well (subtracting it from the sample noise moves most of the autocorrelations into the zero uncertainty range).

For example, he doesn't realize that you need more than a few data points with which to establish a trend and that for noisy data the range of uncertainty associated with a trend increases the fewer the number of points one uses in order to establish that trend.

But I do know the difference between a simple linear interpolation and principal component analysis, and I can calculate the two standard deviations range of uncertainty on a white noise linear trend.

Regardless of high uncertainty associated with such an estimate, it does provide a lower bound of the time range for projections of seasonal sea ice cover.»

R. Gates, Perhaps eadler2 will try digging into his skeptical side a bit more so he can see that there valid range of uncertainty that doesn't preclude ~ 50 % «natural», 50 % Anthro with a 30 % margin of uncertainty:) He seems to have a very select «peer» group.

That range measures our ignorance; it does not mean that climate response from a specified state is stochastic with such inherent uncertainty.

You apparently do not know that the range of uncertainty on a trend based on only a few points of noisy data is generally large and typically not significant, and that by including more data points you can reduce the range of uncertainty.

The disparity between the IPCC's models doesn't come close to exploring range / uncertainty of viable projections that could be made with climate models.

Don't know where I got my lines crossed but I herewith point out in Chapter1 figures 1.4 and 1.5, comparing near surface temperature range observed data with projections, 1990 — 2015 with its plateau of measured data warming and large uncertainty shading.