Sentences with phrase «if simple observation»

If simple observation of such rituals were all the movie had on its mind, I'd have fewer problems with it.

I apologize if my simple observations appear to run up against your views of issues.

Not exact matches

For instance, if a baby loves lots of action then he / she probably has a dynamic personality, whereas if he / she likes simple games which involve smiling and quite observation, he / she evidently has a calm personality.

I always suspected that Neandertals and anatomically modern humans interbred, based on a simple observation: humans are the most sexual of all the primates, willing and able to do it just about anywhere, anytime, with anyone (and even with other species if the Kinsey report is to be believed in its findings about farmhands and their animal charges).

If this interpretation of the observations is correct, it could confirm a 30 - year - old prediction of the cosmic inflation theory: that the simplest models of inflation can generate an observable level of gravitational waves, comparable to density or temperature fluctuations in the early universe.

In a simple way, this observation illustrates one of the rules for how nests are built, Tschinkel says: If a tunnel is vertical, the ants doing the digging tend to distribute themselves evenly as they work, and if it is sloped, they tend to collect in the lower enIf a tunnel is vertical, the ants doing the digging tend to distribute themselves evenly as they work, and if it is sloped, they tend to collect in the lower enif it is sloped, they tend to collect in the lower end.

Even if my observations are based on limited patient data, they indicate specific areas which, with simple means, medical care can and should improve,» concludes Camilla Andersson.

If you understand this simple observation, you'll curb interferences to intention.»

There are a number of potential explanations for this finding, including a limited supply of effective teachers (it's rational to keep a mediocre teacher if the likely replacement will be no better), a lack of administrator ability to discern teacher quality (their observations are less predictive of value - added than those of outside observers), or a simple unwillingness to make the unpleasant decision of firing someone.

But I'm back now, and I just read it, and as I look at it I'm wondering if anyone else has made a simple observation about his idea to renovate America's crumbling public school buildings:

It is not a simple matter that if prediction diverges from observation that the theory must be wrong.

A simple comparison of observations with projections based on real world climate forcings shows a very close match, especially if we take natural unforced variability into account as well (mainly ENSO).

But if you mean by «global warming» all the crap about renewable energy and sealevel rise and «acidification» and the end of civilsation as we know it and 50 million climate refugees and the end of glaciers by 2035 and hockey sticks and «unprecedented» and drowning polies and the whole tranche of wacko ideas that have got attached to the simple climatical observation that its a bit warmer than it was in 1912, then I'm very very sceptical and there are is very little reliable evidence for any of it.

My argument is pretty simple, when you put in reasonable values for GHG, TSI forcing (aerosols too if you want), your model forecasts a warming in the 1910 to 1945 period so low that the high end of the forecast is below the low end of the observation error, i.e. the model fails.

If some simple model turns ultimately to apply well to some global variables that's not likely to be derivable from first principles but will remain a phenomenological observation.

Preliminary comparison of solar results with observations indicates that, if the solar influence exists, it is not being manifested in terms of simple cooling; changes in the ocean - atmosphere system may be significantly modifying the response.

The reasons for that are many: the timid language of scientific probabilities, which the climatologist James Hansen once called «scientific reticence» in a paper chastising scientists for editing their own observations so conscientiously that they failed to communicate how dire the threat really was; the fact that the country is dominated by a group of technocrats who believe any problem can be solved and an opposing culture that doesn't even see warming as a problem worth addressing; the way that climate denialism has made scientists even more cautious in offering speculative warnings; the simple speed of change and, also, its slowness, such that we are only seeing effects now of warming from decades past; our uncertainty about uncertainty, which the climate writer Naomi Oreskes in particular has suggested stops us from preparing as though anything worse than a median outcome were even possible; the way we assume climate change will hit hardest elsewhere, not everywhere; the smallness (two degrees) and largeness (1.8 trillion tons) and abstractness (400 parts per million) of the numbers; the discomfort of considering a problem that is very difficult, if not impossible, to solve; the altogether incomprehensible scale of that problem, which amounts to the prospect of our own annihilation; simple fear.

If the patterns of correlation in the temperature data can be described simply, then this can be as simple as using an «effective number of parameters» which is less than the number of observations.

Attribution outlines in IPCC WG1 AR 5 SPM cover eighteen arguments, each one valid and backed by observations, and each one the simplest, most parsimonious of exception, most universal explanation for that data available; if anything, it errs on the side of least drama, and still remains stark and damning of current emission practices.

By contrast, the atmosphere has a simple surface boundary and free fluid flow and a lot more observations to verify models with, so they know well if they are right or wrong.

US Weather Bureau instructions (Bureau [1938]-RRB- state that the \ condenserintake method is the simpler and shorter means of obtaining the water temperature» and that some observers took ERI measurements \ if the severity of the weather [was] such as to exclude the possibility of making a bucket observation».

a few simple comparisons will demonstrate that you get different paleo answers if you use different observation data sets.

What I don't understand is why there is so much angst about what is after all only simple empirical observations about the nature of a time series (even if aspects of the analysis maybe open to theoretical debate), and so little curiosity about what this all means for statistical inference more generally in climate science.