Reply to Comment by Mandel et al. on “Numerically Bounded Linguistic Probability Schemes Are Unlikely to Communicate Uncertainty Effectively”

King, Andrew D.; Perkins‐Kirkpatrick, Sarah E.; Wehner, Michael F.; Lewis, Sophie C.

doi:10.1029/2020EF001757

Title: Reply to Comment by Mandel et al. on “Numerically Bounded Linguistic Probability Schemes Are Unlikely to Communicate Uncertainty Effectively”

Abstract

Abstract We thank the Comment's authors for their considered critique of our paper. We respond to their main criticisms and hope that this discussion motivates further consideration of communication strategies for event attribution analyses.

Authors:

^[1];

^[2];

^[3];

^[4]

ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes and School of Earth Sciences University of Melbourne Melbourne Victoria Australia
ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes and Climate Change Research Centre University of New South Wales Sydney New South Wales Australia
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Berkeley CA USA
ACT Commissioner for Sustainability and the Environment Canberra Australian Capital Territory Australia

Publication Date:: 2021-01-09

Research Org.:: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), Berkeley, CA (United States)

Sponsoring Org.:: USDOE Office of Science (SC), Biological and Environmental Research (BER)

OSTI Identifier:: 1760027

Alternate Identifier(s):: OSTI ID: 1786850; OSTI ID: 1827915

Grant/Contract Number:: DE‐AC02‐05CH11231; AC02-05CH11231

Resource Type:: Published Article

Journal Name:: Earth's Future

Additional Journal Information:: Journal Name: Earth's Future Journal Volume: 9 Journal Issue: 1; Journal ID: ISSN 2328-4277

Publisher:: American Geophysical Union (AGU)

Country of Publication:: United States

Language:: English

Subject:: 97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING

Citation Formats


                    King, Andrew D., Perkins‐Kirkpatrick, Sarah E., Wehner, Michael F., and Lewis, Sophie C. Reply to Comment by Mandel et al. on “Numerically Bounded Linguistic Probability Schemes Are Unlikely to Communicate Uncertainty Effectively”.  United States: N. p., 2021. 
Web.  doi:10.1029/2020EF001757.

Copy to clipboard


                    King, Andrew D., Perkins‐Kirkpatrick, Sarah E., Wehner, Michael F., & Lewis, Sophie C. Reply to Comment by Mandel et al. on “Numerically Bounded Linguistic Probability Schemes Are Unlikely to Communicate Uncertainty Effectively”.  United States.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2020EF001757

Copy to clipboard


                    King, Andrew D., Perkins‐Kirkpatrick, Sarah E., Wehner, Michael F., and Lewis, Sophie C. Sat .  
"Reply to Comment by Mandel et al. on “Numerically Bounded Linguistic Probability Schemes Are Unlikely to Communicate Uncertainty Effectively”".  United States.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2020EF001757.

Copy to clipboard


                    
@article{osti_1760027,

  title        = {Reply to Comment by Mandel et al. on “Numerically Bounded Linguistic Probability Schemes Are Unlikely to Communicate Uncertainty Effectively”},

  author       = {King, Andrew D. and Perkins‐Kirkpatrick, Sarah E. and Wehner, Michael F. and Lewis, Sophie C.},

  abstractNote = {Abstract We thank the Comment's authors for their considered critique of our paper. We respond to their main criticisms and hope that this discussion motivates further consideration of communication strategies for event attribution analyses.},

  doi          = {10.1029/2020EF001757},

  journal      = {Earth's Future},

  number       = 1,

  volume       = 9,

  place        = {United States},

  year         = {2021},

  month        = {1}

}

Copy to clipboard

Journal Article:

Free Publicly Available Full Text

Publisher's Version of Record
https://doi.org/10.1029/2020EF001757

Other availability

Search WorldCat to find libraries that may hold this journal

Save / Share:

Export Metadata

Save to My Library

Works referenced in this record:

Toward Calibrated Language for Effectively Communicating the Results of Extreme Event Attribution Studies
journal, September 2019

Lewis, Sophie C.; King, Andrew D.; Perkins‐Kirkpatrick, Sarah E.
Earth's Future, Vol. 7, Issue 9
DOI: 10.1029/2019EF001273

Representing and communicating deep uncertainty in climate-change assessments
journal, March 2005

Kandlikar, Milind; Risbey, James; Dessai, Suraje
Comptes Rendus Geoscience, Vol. 337, Issue 4
DOI: 10.1016/j.crte.2004.10.010

Anthropogenic and Natural Influences on Record 2016 Marine Heat waves
journal, January 2018

Oliver, Eric C. J.; Perkins-Kirkpatrick, Sarah E.; Holbrook, Neil J.
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol. 99, Issue 1
DOI: 10.1175/BAMS-D-17-0093.1

Communicating uncertainty: lessons learned and suggestions for climate change assessment
journal, March 2005

Patt, Anthony; Dessai, Suraje
Comptes Rendus Geoscience, Vol. 337, Issue 4
DOI: 10.1016/j.crte.2004.10.004

Similar Records in DOE PAGES and OSTI.GOV collections:

Reply to Comment by Peterie Et Al. on “Accelerated Fill‐Up of the Arbuckle Group Aquifer and Links to U.S. Midcontinent Seismicity”

Journal Article Ansari, Esmail ; Bidgoli, Tandis S. - Journal of Geophysical Research. Solid Earth

Abstract Peterie et al. question one observation in our paper: associating pressure increases to injection volumes at distances of up to 25 km from an injection well. In this reply, we show that the comment misunderstands our analysis and the evidence that led to this conclusion. We also show that gauge‐depth‐corrected pressures, used by the authors to produce statewide pressure maps, are discrepant with the static fluid level data, provided in our original compilation and analysis. The discrepancies are a result of the pressure correction method employed, which naïvely substitutes formation pressure for bottomhole pressure to calculate wellbore fluid density. Theirmore »« less
https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JB019275
Spatschek et al. reply

Journal Article Spatschek, K H ; Laedke, E W ; Marquardt, C ; ... - Physical Review Letters; (United States)

The authors respond to the comment on dipole and monopole vortices in nonlinear drift waves'' in plasma. They hope part of their result commented might help to clarify the applicability of their solutions to concrete physical problems. In addition, there are two papers mentioned in the comment, both works are interesting. (AIP)
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.67.1672
Reply to ''Limitation on numerical bounds on transition probabilities''

Journal Article Storm, D - Phys. Rev., A, v. 12, no. 5, pp. 2234-2236

It is demonstrated that a good share of the error Shakeshaft attributes to the failure to account for ionization in customary impact-parameter calculations for proton--hydrogen-atom scattering amplitudes really results from the inadequacy of the traveling hydrogenic basis set to account for the dynamic polarization of the hydrogen atom by the moving proton. The lower limit for the first-order bound can be reduced by using hydrogenlike basis functions that allow for this polarization. Bounds on the cross sections obtained by using the boundmore »« less
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.12.2234
Reply to comment by Remya et al. on “Effects of electron temperature anisotropy on proton mirror instability evolution”

Journal Article Ahmadi, Narges ; Germaschewski, Kai ; Raeder, Joachim - Journal of Geophysical Research. Space Physics

In the comment to our paper, Remya et al. (2017) state that we conclude that their theory is incorrect; however, no such conclusion is in our paper. In fact, as stated in their paper, we agree with their theory that shows the impact of heavy ions and electron temperature anisotropy on the competition of the ion anisotropy instabilities. While their linear theory is correct, our paper focused on the nonlinear evolution, where one needs to be careful in assuming a given electron anisotropy, because electrons themselves can be unstable to the electron whistler instability, which quickly lowers the anisotropy tomore »« less
Cited by 7
https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JA023452

Full Text Available
Reply to Comment on "Ab Initio Study of 40Ca with an Importance Truncated No-Core Shell Model"

Journal Article Roth, R ; Navratil, P - Physical Review Letters

In their comment on our recent Letter [1] Dean et al. [2] criticize the calculations for the ground-state energy of {sup 40}Ca within the importance truncated no-core shell model (NCSM). In particular they address the role of configurations beyond the 3p3h level, which have not been included in the {sup 40}Ca calculations for large N{sub max} {h_bar}{Omega} model spaces. Before responding to this point, the following general statements are in order. For the atomic nucleus as a self-bound system, translational invariance is an important symmetry. The only possibility to preserve translational invariance when working with a Slater determinant basis ismore »« less
Full Text Available

Similar Records

Title: Reply to Comment by Mandel et al. on “Numerically Bounded Linguistic Probability Schemes Are Unlikely to Communicate Uncertainty Effectively”

Abstract

Citation Formats

Toward Calibrated Language for Effectively Communicating the Results of Extreme Event Attribution Studies journal, September 2019

Representing and communicating deep uncertainty in climate-change assessments journal, March 2005

Anthropogenic and Natural Influences on Record 2016 Marine Heat waves journal, January 2018

Communicating uncertainty: lessons learned and suggestions for climate change assessment journal, March 2005

Toward Calibrated Language for Effectively Communicating the Results of Extreme Event Attribution Studies
journal, September 2019

Representing and communicating deep uncertainty in climate-change assessments
journal, March 2005

Anthropogenic and Natural Influences on Record 2016 Marine Heat waves
journal, January 2018

Communicating uncertainty: lessons learned and suggestions for climate change assessment
journal, March 2005