Sentences with phrase «uncertainty ranges»

The large uncertainty ranges in atmospheric pCO2 arise from uncertainty in how surface productivity responds to circulation change.

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.

Even in the ARGO era (2003 --RRB-, the error bars and uncertainty ranges for our educated guesses (that's what they are) about deep ocean heat are 10 times greater (and more) than the suggested temperature changes (hundredths of a degree) themselves.

(c) Overlap of the published multi-decadal time scale uncertainty ranges of all temperature reconstructions identified in Table 6.1 (except for RMO.

This would represent a bias, as distinct from the random error represented by published reconstruction uncertainty ranges.

If one then weights the models on the proposed basis, the uncertainty ranges become 2.9 — 4.45 °C and 2.3 — 4.9 °C, very close to Brient & Schneider's weighted ranges.

Although this way of illustrating uncertainty ranges is correct, it can easily be misinterpreted.

By 2300, the central estimates of extra warming were more variable, and ranged from 0.13 to 1.69 °C when full uncertainty ranges were taken into account.

Ken, No, I'm just regressing the Historical (All - forcings) forcing time series on the forcing time series for the constituent individual forcings.If they have been correctly included in Historical forcing, the coefficients should contain one within their uncertainty ranges, as they do except for land use forcing where they are consistent with zero.

Table 8.7 of the SOD summarises the AR5 RF and AF best estimates and uncertainty ranges for each forcing agent, along with RF estimates from previous IPCC reports.

We investigate the sensitivity of our results to uncertainties in the prescribed CO2 and orographic changes, to derive uncertainty ranges for the various contributing processes.

Add the facts in trend: The oceans are acidifying, The climate has already shifted 4 degrees of latitude in the past 30 years; the Arctic will likely be virtually ice free during the summer melt within the decade, all the uncertainty ranges are positive and none of them are negative, CO2 is plant food, but what does that mean when the oxygen levels are dropping, the Hoover dam is supposed to shut down in 2023 due to no water (latitudinal shift), the Yangtze in China is getting very low, etc. etc..

The modern rate is also unprecedented for the Ray and Douglas data although there is some overlap of the uncertainty ranges (if you consider both ranges).

Both approaches should IMO have been included in the reported uncertainty ranges.

Scientific progress since the Third Assessment Report (TAR) is based upon large amounts of new and more comprehensive data, more sophisticated analyses of data, improvements in understanding of processes and their simulation in models and more extensive exploration of uncertainty ranges.

However, Shakun et al. were quite explicit about the associated uncertainties throughout the paper (for example, see the uncertainty ranges depicted in Figures 1 and 4 above).

I strongly suggest you read the articles that are referred to in chapter 9 to understand how they calculate climate sensitivity and the uncertainty ranges therein.

That's explicit in the large uncertainty ranges and for example in the discussion of the residual term of Fig. 2e of the Le Quéré et al paper.

Given bounds on volcanic / aerosols, solar, and GHG concentrations, some completely unknown cause is needed for the MWP to have been as warm as now... That is, at least by eyeball, the higher edges of M&W's MWP uncertainty ranges either require throwing out a lot of data or maybe bending conservation of energy.

Using 1859 — 1882 for the base period and 1995 — 2011 for the final period, thus avoiding major volcanic activity, median estimates are derived for ECS of 1.64 K and for TCR of 1.33 K. ECS 17 — 83 and 5 — 95 % uncertainty ranges are 1.25 — 2.45 and 1.05 — 4.05 K; the corresponding TCR ranges are 1.05 — 1.80 and 0.90 — 2.50 K. Results using alternative well - matched base and final periods provide similar best estimates but give wider uncertainty ranges, principally reflecting smaller changes in average forcing.

Energy budget estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) and transient climate response (TCR) are derived using the comprehensive 1750 — 2011 time series and the uncertainty ranges for forcing components provided in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Working Group I Report, along with its estimates of heat accumulation in the climate system.

Hugelius G, Strauss J, Zubrzycki S et al. (2014) Estimated stocks of circumpolar permafrost carbon with quantified uncertainty ranges and identified data gaps.

We should debate rational policy in the light of known facts, known uncertainty ranges, and plausible risks.

Energy budget estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) and transient climate response (TCR) are derived based on the best estimates and uncertainty ranges for forcing provided in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Scientific Report (AR5).

A large number of the individual paleo calibrations have pretty large uncertainty ranges, 1.25 C in some cases.

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

If we wish to reason about certain questions on the basis of uncertainty ranges we need cdfs and hence knowlege of pdfs and for these we need some function, in this case a prior, to add that important aspect of density that can not be derived from the likelihood function that results from the application of a statistical model to the experimental evidence.

The dots are the Outlook themselves and the intervals are the uncertainty ranges provided by the groups.

The resulting forced - response GMST trend would approximately be 0.13 [0.06 to 0.31] °C per decade, 0.19 [0.10 to 0.40] °C per decade, and 0.17 [0.08 to 0.36] °C per decade for the periods 1998 — 2011, 1984 — 1998, and 1951 — 2011, respectively (the uncertainty ranges assume that the range of the conversion factor to GMST trend and the range of ERF trend itself are independent).

[2] Uncertainty ranges for the predictions are derived from cross-validation based estimates of uncertainty in the relationships between the predictors and the future warming.

As I wrote in this post, the correct single forcing uncertainty ranges are only half those given in the corrected SI that Gavin has made available.

Those uncertainty ranges almost certainly are too small.

Figure 3: Global average radiative forcing in 2005 (best estimates and 5 to 95 % uncertainty ranges) with respect to 1750 (IPCC AR4).

Figure 1: Global average radiative forcing in 2005 (best estimates and 5 to 95 % uncertainty ranges) with respect to 1750.

In this case, perhaps, although the standard form of SRLR isn't suited to badly non-monotonic parameter — data relationships and non-contiguous uncertainty ranges.

A method that only provides reliable uncertainty ranges if the sample was generated by a process that produces a distribution of sample ages matching as to both shape and extent the prior distribution used seems pretty unsatisfactory to me.

And maybe in many applications it is felt more important to have realistic looking posterior PDFs than uncertainty ranges that accurately reflect how likely the true calendar date is to lie within them.

Assuming that the desire is to produce uncertainty ranges beyond which — upon repeated use — the true calendar date will fall in a specified proportion of cases, the fact that in reality there may be an equal chance of tilying in any calendar year is irrelevant.

#e2l = T - D -LRB-:, 6); % lower #e3u =D -LRB-:, 7)- T; % upper 95 % uncertainty ranges from the bias uncertainties.

The dots are the outlook estimates themselves and the intervals are the uncertainty ranges provided by the groups.

#e3l = T - D -LRB-:, 8); % lower #e4u =D -LRB-:, 9)- T; % upper 95 % uncertainty ranges from the combined station and grid - box sampling, and coverage uncertainties.

So far as I can see, the uncertainty ranges it provides will be considerably closer to those derived using objective Bayesian or SRLR methods than to those given by the OxCal and Calib methods, even though like them it uses Bayes» theorem with a uniform prior.

#e4l = T - D -LRB-:, 10); % lower #e5u =D -LRB-:, 11)- T; % upper 95 % uncertainty ranges from the combined effects of all the uncertainties.

#e1l = T - D -LRB-:, 4); % lower #e2u =D -LRB-:, 5)- T; % upper 95 % uncertainty ranges from the coverage uncertainties.

The two posterior PDFs in Figure 2 imply very different calendar age uncertainty ranges.

For any assumed distribution of parameter values, a method of producing 5 — 95 % uncertainty ranges can be tested by drawing a large number of samples of possible parameter values from that distribution, and for each drawing a measurement at random according to the measurement uncertainty distribution and estimating a range for the parameter.

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).

Might it be better to display the likelihood function from a radiocarbon determination (which would be identical to the subjective Bayesian posterior PDF based on a uniform prior) instead of a posterior PDF, and just to use an objective Bayesian PDF (or the SRLR) to derive the uncertainty ranges?

Many people may be surprised that the actual probability distribution of the calendar date of samples for which radiocarbon determinations are carried out is of no relevance to the choice of a prior that leads to accurate uncertainty ranges and hence is, IMO, appropriate for scientific inference.

Two, was there any explanation of the discrepancy between the AR4 uncertainty ranges as originally published compared to AR5 Figure 1.4?