Sentences with phrase «mbh error range»

The survey margin of error ranged from 4.5 to 4.8 percent.

Normally, radiocarbon dates have error ranges of several centuries, but the researchers could improve the estimates because the smallest sharks measured showed the «bomb pulse» — a huge increase in global radiocarbon released from the hundreds of nuclear weapons tested in the 1950s and»60s.

The differences in the parameters of the host star are all within the error ranges.

The greater depth in the KELT paper means they arrive at a slightly larger planet radius (1.29 ± 0.10 Jupiter radii) than we do (1.20 ± 0.06) but here the error ranges overlap.

Borehole temperature reconstructions necessarily exhibit dramatically increasing error ranges the further back in time one goes, so this can not possibly be right.

To give an idea of whether the fluctuations are meaningful, decadal 5 % to 95 % (light grey) error ranges about that line are given (accordingly, annual values do exceed those limits).

Finding the formula to achieve it has led to commit a number of errors ranging from mild to serious repercussions.

Just the expected error range alone is six times greater than what you are trying to monitor... unless you are measuring some other parameter not introduced into our discussion.

Aside from the wide error range found to be associated with these metrics, they offer no information about what students actually did, said, or thought that could help teachers improve their practice.

For the most part, the issues are easily resolved by reboot or simple refresh of BlackBerry World or just simply waiting it out if it's a known issue but in some rare cases, BlackBerry World simply refuses to load no matter what measures are taken with errors ranging from «You must upgrade your BlackBerry World» to «Unable to connect.

With the Fair Credit Reporting Act in place, it should not have taken Sharma six years and a meeting with a lawyer to get errors ranging from bad Social Security numbers to accounts that weren't his erased from his credit report.

LoriAnn Pecoraro of Paramus, N.J., spent close to a year trying to get errors ranging from collection bills that weren't hers to unfamiliar variations of her name and Social Security number off her reports.

Credit report errors range anywhere from the mundane like a misspelled street address all the way to thousand of dollars reported as outstanding debt in default when the balance is actually paid in full and the account is closed.

[A fool's game — noting current growth forecasts, and historical error ranges, all those highly - paid forecasters are really telling you is that developed market growth may be positive... or, um, negative!]

The survey margin of error ranged from 4.5 to 4.8 percent.

If you think they are a little high, you can feel free to add an error range.

Re # 21: I think one of the issues here is «with an admittedly large error range».

Put another way — do other modelers include «whatever caused Pliocene rapid warming happening again» added to the upside error range» for other models?

Simon, The favored value for sensitivity has not changed as the error range has narrowed significantly.

Or even if we allow for an error range and say that it is.1 C to.3 C, then every decade must show that increase within that range unless there are elements of natural variation that take us outside of that range.

In this conversation you cite unceratinty of RSS data that are almost twice larger than trend (+ -0,26), although Mears and Weinz (2005) state that error range of RSS T2LT is 0.09!!!

However, the error calculation is predicated on a null hypothesis which we know to be false; under such circumstances a better estimate of the error range is the FWHM in a Fourier transform.

What's the source of that figure, and the error range on that?

Also, of course you know that the current numbers are not inconsistent with theory since the difference falls within the predicted error range.

PHEaston: as a scientist, why are you picking ANY arbitrary start and end dates in noisy data sets, rather than fitting trend lines (preferably with error ranges)?

Note that the time span is so short that these results are far less precise than the 30 - year trend; for the trend from 1975 the error range was only 0.003 deg.C / yr, but for the trend from 2000 the error range is + / - 0.019 or 0.016 deg.C / yr.

The brief time span of the most recent data, and the strong autocorrelation of temperature time series, combine to make the error range considerable.

It seems my objections are within the error range of your calculations, so why do you dismiss them as being ridiculous?

If the old dataset is outside the error range, it seems there is an issue with estimating error and if it's not, then what changed?

If you have a reconstruction of annual average temperatures at a location over the past 1000 yrs with an error range of, say, + / -0.3 deg C in the proxy data, and the net temperature change over that time period is 1.0 deg C from the proxy data, your counts and timing of records are going to be heavily dependent on errors.

This could have a number of different reasons, and the discrepancy could be considered not significant given the error ranges of observations and models.

It seems to me that when one has strong reason to suspect that one does not understand the most important factor in a situation (ice dynamics here), then quoting a quantitative value and a quantitative error range for all the second order effects which one does understand is singularly pointless.

Steven E. Koonin, once the Obama administration's undersecretary of energy for science and chief scientist at BP, stirred up a swirl of turbulence in global warming discourse this week after The Wall Street Journal published «Climate Science is Not Settled,» his essay calling for more frankness about areas of deep uncertainty in climate science, more research to narrow error ranges and more acknowledgement that society's decisions on energy and climate policy are based on values as much as data.

CRU Director Phil Jones's claimed an increase of 0.6 °C in the last 130 years, but with an error range of ± 0.2 °C.

What gets accomplished by moving a 3.4 °C error range up and down 0.1 °C?

The 0.8 °C figure is used to imply it is unnaturally rapid, therefore caused by humans, when it is statistically meaningless because the error range is over 20 percent.

They can be expected to be rather delicate: tropical cloud buoyancies are comparable to the error range of many measurement systems, and to the ambiguities of parcel theories of cloud buoyancy.

The contribution from natural factors and internal variability is thought to be about 0 °C with an error range of ± 0.1 °C (± 0.2 °F).

69 % of stations (CRN = 4 and = 5) have error ranges equal to or greater than 2 °C.

, 6 — , 85 W / m ^ 2 (with a satellite error range of 3 to 4 W / m ^ 2.)

Based on the error range compounded annually, climate modelers are somewhere between childish and delusionally psychotic.

In order to compensate for these human endeavors to enhance the «global warming» storyline, the margin of error range applied by policymakers should at least be doubled, if not more.

Thorne claims that he is certain that it is exists within the uncertainties error range.

Yet this predicted record would be only one hundredth of a degree above 2010 and two hundredths of a degree above 2005 — with an error range of one tenth of a degree.

As far as «climate» goes, a 30 year smooth reduces most on the weather noise giving you something to fit with a reasonable error range so you don't have to magnify some obscure signal by a factor of ten to get a «fit».

I can claim I'm very accurate because my models predict a temperature between absolute zero and the surface temperature of the sun, but that error range is so large, it means I'm not really predicting anything.

This measures the whole ocean except areas near coastlines that satellites can not measure, with an error range that is greater than the trend it is supposedly measuring.

I can certainly understand that there are differing scientific views about CIs and error ranges and measures of probability — but categorical statements such a yours, that «solid evidence» doesn't exist, don't wash with me.

So please give an example where measurements of any given phenomenon were taken, with a potential error range of the equivalent of + / - 5 % that you stipulated in the initial measurements, where that poor initial data was processed using statistics, and provided an «actual average measurement within + / -.03 %, that was then verified against later, with subsequent more accurate measurements.

On Page 64, you appear to accuse Al Gore of data presentation fraud because he removed the data scatter and gray error range from the IPCC TAR Figure 5 before using it in An Inconvenient Truth.