Sentences with phrase «s model averages»

In their February 2017 paper entitled «Bayesian Model Averaging, Ordinary Least Squares and the Price of Gold», Dirk Baur and Brian Lucey analyze a large set of factors that potentially influence the price of gold via two methods: Ordinary Least Squares (OLS, scatter plot) and Bayesian Model Averaging (BMA, accounting for model uncertainty).

The S model averages about 311 miles per electronic fill - up.

The researchers collected data from 1,571 food diaries completed by adults for four days in the United Kingdom to model the average diet and tweak it to still be appetizing but reduce emissions.

Using footage of more than 72,000 pedestrian paths captured over the course of a year, the researchers modelled the average route people took (Physical Review E, doi.org/b4sb).

This is almost exactly in line with the model average of 0.088 degrees per decade.

Models were compared using the corrected Akaike Information Criteria (AICc) and the final estimates were obtained using model averaging following recommendations by [29] on model selection.

All forecasted SST series were pooled and for each calendar year the forecasted nest abundances is the model average for the ensemble of 200 simulations, essentially, deterministic models within a stochastic shell [59].

The model averaged estimate of survival probability of adults was 0.83 (SE + − 0.08), and that of the individuals marked when young were 0.83 (SE + − 0.15) and 0.77 (SE + − 0.2) respectively, before and after the age of 2 years (Table 4).

Somehow it feels both wrong and completely fitting that in my mind the fashion blogger was supposed to be fashion role model the average woman could relate to, but the most glorified ones are the most unattainable.

My 2014 Dynamic model averaged 11.4 L / 100 km overall, which may be a far cry from the 8.4 L / 100 km Natural Resources Canada claims for the baby Range Rover, but about 1.0 L / 100 km less than the last Evoque I tested in similar conditions.

«We were able to lower the price on Grand Caravan models an average of $ 1,460 while adding an average of $ 2,000 in standard content across the lineup.»

In a week of driving the Touring model I averaged 44 mpg in cold and occasionally snowy weather.

The first three models average 25 mpg in the city and 30 on the highway.

In Consumer Guide ® testing, a CTS 2.0 T Performance model averaged 18.8 mpg in mostly city driving.

In Consumer Guide ® testing, AWD models averaged 17.5 mpg in mostly city driving and 20.5 mpg with more highway use.

In Consumer Guide testing, a Touring L model averaged 18.2 mpg in a fairly even mix of city and highway driving, much of which was done with a full complement of passengers.

In Consumer Guide ® testing, an all - wheel - drive Premium Plus model averaged 24.2 mpg in 55 - percent city driving.

In Consumer Guide ® testing, a manual - transmission S model averaged 26.9 mpg in 55 - percent city driving, and a manual - transmission SE averaged 22.1 mpg in 75 - percent city driving.

In Consumer Guide ® testing, an all - wheel - drive V6 model averaged 16.7 mpg in 65 - percent city driving, and a rear - wheel - drive V8 model averaged 18.0 mpg in 60 - percent city driving.

In Consumer Guide ® testing, a manual - transmission S model averaged 26.9 mpg in 55 - percent city driving, and a manual - transmission SE averaged 22.1 mpg in 75 - percent city driving.

In Consumer Guide ® testing, a manual - transmission Club model averaged 31.4 mpg in 60 - percent highway driving, and a manual RF Grand Touring model averaged 33.7 in 70 - percent highway driving.

This will result in a low - cost platform, which can be installed in future Hyundai models the average consumer can afford.

In Consumer Guide ® testing, an all - wheel - drive V6 - powered Genesis averaged 22.7 mpg in mostly highway driving, while a V8 - powered model averaged an unimpressive 16.3 mpg in a near - even split of city and highway driving.

Yet another might be comparing satellite retrievals of low clouds with the model averages, but forgetting that satellites can't see low clouds if they are hiding behind upper level ones.

Now the models average out these temporary weather forcings so they are only showing the true climate signal.

For each scenario, the midpoint of the range in Table SPM - 3 is within 10 % of the TAR model average for 2090 - 2099.

the observed and modelled average and standard deviation (the former is obviously the same at all

If you want to demonstrate good theoretical understanding, please answer my question: What makes you think that you can model averages better than the initial weather objects itself (of which the averages are built on)?

Computer Modelling Average Annual Temperature in the Ground Layer of Air for the South of Western Siberia (Russia)

What makes you think that you can model averages better than the weather objects itself (which you can not model)?

The question above, «What makes you think that you can model averages better than the initial weather objects itself (of which the averages are built on)?»

Christy is correct to note that the model average warming trend (0.23 °C / decade for 1978 - 2011) is a bit higher than observations (0.17 °C / decade over the same timeframe), but that is because over the past decade virtually every natural influence on global temperatures has acted in the cooling direction (i.e. an extended solar minimum, rising aerosols emissions, and increased heat storage in the deep oceans).

While global temperatures were running a bit below climate models between 2005 and 2014, the last few years have been pretty close to the model average.

The temperature reconstruction of Shakun et al. (green — shifted manually by 0.25 degrees), of Marcott et al. (blue), combined with the instrumental period data from HadCRUT4 (red) and the model average of IPCC projections for the A1B scenario up to 2100 (orange).

«Here, it is sufficient to note that many of the 20CEN / A1B simulations neglect negative forcings arising from stratospheric ozone depletion, volcanic dust, and indirect aerosol effects on clouds... It is likely that omission of these negative forcings contributes to the positive bias in the model average TLT trends in Figure 6F.

By the end of the 21st century, the area of permafrost near the surface (upper 3.5 m) is projected to decrease by between 37 % (RCP2.6) to 81 % (RCP8.5) for the model average (medium confidence).

The graphs show growth efficiency (GE) normalized over the modeled average for the time period for (A) site I and (B) site II.

The current models average of 200 % actual temperature trends since 1990 are symptomatic of the IPCC's very poor.

Model averaging implicitly assumes the same parameters and processes exist across the models, so averaging makes sense (Banner and Higgs 2017).

Lovenduski and Bonan then use weighted model averaging to demonstrate the impact this model - to - model variation has on the prediction from a set of models.

One of the consequences is that if you run multiple computer simulations of earth's climate, then average the results, the simulated ENSO events get scattered throughout time and end up being averaged out, so that the model average ends up looking like it doesn't have a strong ENSO impact even though the individual model runs do.

This information - theoretic model averaging generally assigns greater weight to HS models because they are more consistent with the observations (Fig. 3a).

In every single case, the observed trend lies below the model average trend.

I find there's Bayesian Model Averaging, but that's done based on reliability of each model.

It also has model average forcing changes of -1.13 W / m2 for aerosols and +0.32 W / m2 for ozone.

Models averaged 3.2 and I picked something less than the mean of the models.

In fact the logic of Bayesian Model Averaging goes completely counter to what you are proposing to do, since it is used to neutralize cherry - picking (or «model selection») bias in situations where researchers can pick from an extremely large number of models.

Up to 1998 the model average and the observational average regularly cross back and forth.

Sure, but nothing like the model average... more like 50 % to 60 % of the model average.

Those based on instrumental temperature records (e.g., thermometer measurements over the past 150 years or so) have a mean sensitivity of around 2.5 C, while climate models average closer to 3.5 C.