Sentences with phrase «if scenario b»

Not exact matches

No different than my rambling post agreeing with him and providing even more real life human scenarios that can evoke strong emotions, that can easily cause someone to either A: Seek out religion, even if it's only for some semblance of accepttion and / or explanation of the unknown, or B: If they already have a religion, re-embracing it with new enthusiasif it's only for some semblance of accepttion and / or explanation of the unknown, or B: If they already have a religion, re-embracing it with new enthusiasIf they already have a religion, re-embracing it with new enthusiasm.

The best - case scenario would be if Proxima b «transits,» periodically flitting across the face of its star to cast a shadow toward us across the light - years.

A non-techie reader has no recourse in scenarios like this but to either a) slog through a poor reading experience in the hopes that the story will outweigh the broken formatting, or b) return a clearly broken ebook and go buy print instead, if they really want to read that book.

My question is, if I were to set up the standing order scenario outlined above, with account A being my account and B being her account, is she considered to have an income of 1000 GBP per month and spending it by giving it to me?

If we change Scenario B slightly, the outcome is different: Scenario C: If the merchant submits the $ 35.00 settlement transaction before you conduct the $ 80.00 ATM transaction, your $ 35.00 purchase does not trigger your Overdraft Privilege service or a fee.

This is presented as a worst - case scenario — what might be expected to happen if a) nothing is done to curb GHG emissions and b) the climate sensitivity is in the higher range Peter Cox and other leading scientists now believe possible.

Is there any good reason why, if the model is correct, the counterfactual scenario c fits the data better than the scenarios a and b, or is it merely a short - term statistical fluke with no long - term importance?

If the modeled results from scenario c (with best possible parameter estimates and counterfactual CO2 assumptions) continue for a sufficient time to be closer to actual data than the modeled results from scenarios a and b (with best possible estimates of parameters and accurate CO2 assumptions), then the model that produced the computed results will have been disconfirmed.

If the correlations were positive, that temperatures matched Scenario B, would you accept skeptics saying, «Sure, but really, Scenario C is more useful», and if the ocean - heat data looked like Lyman (2010), them saying «Sure, but that's only because deeper heat is being transfered to the surface and replaced by cooler waters, but we can't see it»If the correlations were positive, that temperatures matched Scenario B, would you accept skeptics saying, «Sure, but really, Scenario C is more useful», and if the ocean - heat data looked like Lyman (2010), them saying «Sure, but that's only because deeper heat is being transfered to the surface and replaced by cooler waters, but we can't see it»if the ocean - heat data looked like Lyman (2010), them saying «Sure, but that's only because deeper heat is being transfered to the surface and replaced by cooler waters, but we can't see it»?

If Scenario C is not to be viewed «as is», then the non cognoscenti would wonder about A and B also.

I meant that mean temperature of the world has developed (according to the data to date) differently from forecast (or «anticipated») by scenarios A and B. It's almost as if the increased CO2 since 1988 has had no effect.

And if you factor in the 5 to 10 % overestimate of the forcings in a simple way, Scenario B would be right in the middle of the observed trends.

[Response: If you restricted the analysis to 1988 to 2000 (13 years instead of 23 years of 1984 - 2006), no trends are significant in the obs or scenario B (scenario A is and scenario C is marginally so), although all error bars encompass the longer term trends (as you would expect).

The reason, I guess that Scenario B is considered «the» forecast is that the other two scenarios were known at the time to be relatively unlikely, if not outright impossible.

I think that if you look into it, you will see that that Hansen's «B» scenario is closest to the actual CO2 increase.

If you consider the following: you will see that temperatures in the B scenario should have come very close to those of A from ~ 2007 onwards, i.e. 12 years after the projected volcano.

«Chris V. (08:29:23): Katherine (06:13:00): I think that if you look into it, you will see that that Hansen's «B» scenario is closest to the actual CO2 increase.»

Your original statement said: «Chris V. (08:29:23): Katherine (06:13:00): I think that if you look into it, you will see that that Hansen's «B» scenario is closest to the actual CO2 increase.»

Taken in this context, the later statement that scenario B was «perhaps» the most plausible could only be reconciled with the earier description of scenario A if one were to consider the scenarios over the very long term.

If you want to calculate how much lower the climate sensitivity model would have to be to match C fine, but that's easier in reference to scenario B given forcings most closely followed that scenario.

If the uncertainties in the models are large enough to make the A and B scenarios still unfalsified then the C scenario is also unfalsified.

As far as CO2 production goes, we have vastly exceeded the expectation of scenario B (which does not include the crazy CFC growth) in terms of CO2 production, and yet the ppm count in the atmosphere is slightly lower than what Hansen would have been expecting from capped growth with flat consumption after 2000 (if I remember scenario 2 correctly).

Yet, to answer but another question, if we look at ye old 1988 Hansen graph, you know, the one that got the 1998 El Nino right, we see between 1973 and 1984 a flat eleven year period in Scenario B So what more do the denialists want, good predictions of El Nino, flat decades and more out of a twenty year old model that you can run on a PC.

He did say, as an aside, that «you could argue that if the data were extended out to the present, the line might more closely resemble scenario C [a flat line]» but then continued with his story that observations were matching the ever - rising - temperatures of Hansen's scenario B (see Figure 2 below).»

So the argument is now if the volcano which erupted in 1991 and by which studies show would have less then a 0.1 C influence 6 years later should have caused the inclusion of scenarios B and C. I would regard this argument as weak and certainly not strong enough to declare someone a liar.

If the observable outcome (temperature increase, independent variable) is the result of a) manmade forcings plus b) non manmade forcings; and if admittedly non manmade forcings are not well enough to well embody them in the models (scenario or what if sensitivity models not forecasting models), the answer (by definition) it's not possible to put a number on the probability / likelihood of manmade causeIf the observable outcome (temperature increase, independent variable) is the result of a) manmade forcings plus b) non manmade forcings; and if admittedly non manmade forcings are not well enough to well embody them in the models (scenario or what if sensitivity models not forecasting models), the answer (by definition) it's not possible to put a number on the probability / likelihood of manmade causeif admittedly non manmade forcings are not well enough to well embody them in the models (scenario or what if sensitivity models not forecasting models), the answer (by definition) it's not possible to put a number on the probability / likelihood of manmade causeif sensitivity models not forecasting models), the answer (by definition) it's not possible to put a number on the probability / likelihood of manmade causes.

a) start off by making a hypothesis concerning the color of crows and how this impacts their habits b) based on the hypothesis, create model scenarios to simulate the color and behavior of crows c) investigate fossil remains of pre-historic Archaeopteryx d) declare that the paleo - avain findings check closely with the model e) validate the model scenarios by comparing them with one another f) declare that the hypothesis has been confirmed by the model simulations g) project that (if unabated by exorbitantly costly measures involving major payments to dictatorships in the developing world) black crows will destroy all other species plus our planet by 2100 h) ensure that «crow disaster scenario» is conveyed to public by a doomsday - hungry» media

(BTW, if I've correctly extended Gavin's test in the above link through 2009, the Scenario B trend in Hansen 1988 has now drifted just outside the error estimate of the lower GISTEMP record.

There is a substantial body of case law on whether prosecution for a crime with elements A, B, and C bars prosecution for a crime with different elements arising from the same facts and circumstances (e.g. if acquittal of a lesser included offense whose elements must all be proved to convict on the more severe offense provides double jeopardy protection), that wouldn't be directly applicable in my alternative scenario because the offense tried the first time and the second would have exactly the same elements.

«whether (A) and (B) are in anyway problematic if used in a monetized Youtube video» - These scenarios have nothing to do with copyright; whether YouTube allows them will depend on YouTube's policies for monetized videos.

If the applicant qualifies, this can sometimes be better that a fully underwritten policy where the applicant could fall into a rating scenarios such as standard B, Standard C, Standard D, Standard E and so forth where the premium could end up higher in the long run.

For Sick Sinus Syndrome and heart blocks (other than congenital), you can expect a Table B as a best case scenario if you're over 55 years old.

Scenario B - Death Benefit: In the event of his death during the 16th policy year, the Death Benefit payable is higher of the sum assured or single premium fund value Plus higher of top - up premium sum assured or top - up premium fund value, if any.

Scenario B - Death Benefit: In the event of his death during the 14th policy year, the Death Benefit payable is higher of the sum assured or regular premium fund value Plus higher of top - up premium sum assured or top - up premium fund value, if any.