Sentences with phrase «very high level of uncertainty»

It also contains a very high level of uncertainty, as current rate of annual SLR will give us a grand total of....

Not exact matches

«I know it can be very difficult to maintain a high level of focus and commitment during a time of turmoil and uncertainty.»

What is clear is that uncontrolled emissions will very soon put us in range of temperatures that have been unseen since the Eemian / Stage 5e period (about 120,000 years ago) when temperatures may have been a degree or so warmer than now but where sea level was 4 to 6m higher (see this recent discussion the possible sensitivities of the ice sheets to warming and the large uncertainties involved).

They point to this uncertainty, while ignoring the very high degree of confidence scientists have that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, currently warming the planet, causing sea level rise and ocean acidification.

In spite of these very fundamental uncertainties, the Kyoto Protocol, adopted in 1997, insists on lowering emissions in the hope of reaching stabilization at some level, preferably one that is not too high.

From this statement, I infer that their objective analysis produced a very high level of confidence based upon multiple lines of evidence (which is referred to as a consilience of evidence), which they then downweighted to account for remaining uncertainties.

If the level of uncertainty is very high, they stress resilience as the best strategy (which basically means economic development to reduce vulnerability, which is basically what the libertarians have been arguing for).

When you argue that a nation emitting high levels of ghgs need not adopt climate change policies because there is scientific uncertainty about adverse climate change impacts, are you arguing that a nation need not take action on climate change until scientific uncertainties are resolved given that waiting to resolve all scientific uncertainties before action is taken may very likely make it too late to prevent catastrophic climate change harms to millions of people around the world?

Based on our assessment, we have very high confidence for climate impacts (especially sea level rise and storm surge) on ecosystems; and we have high confidence for climate impacts on agriculture (reduced to some degree, compared to our level of confidence about ecosystems, by uncertainty about the efficacy and implementation of adaptation options).

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 standard deviation or some other appropriate measure of ensemble spread.

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).

In fact they are very spot on how this report was presented, and they clearly laid out the high level of uncertainties and the need for much new detailed climate science research.

Such solecisms throughout the IPCC's assessment reports (including the insertion, after the scientists had completed their final draft, of a table in which four decimal points had been right - shifted so as to multiply tenfold the observed contribution of ice - sheets and glaciers to sea - level rise), combined with a heavy reliance upon computer models unskilled even in short - term projection, with initial values of key variables unmeasurable and unknown, with advancement of multiple, untestable, non-Popper-falsifiable theories, with a quantitative assignment of unduly high statistical confidence levels to non-quantitative statements that are ineluctably subject to very large uncertainties, and, above all, with the now - prolonged failure of TS to rise as predicted (Figures 1, 2), raise questions about the reliability and hence policy - relevance of the IPCC's central projections.