Sentences with phrase «value averaging forces»

Value averaging forces you to buy less shares when the market is higher and more when it is lower.

Not exact matches

A startup selling via a direct sales force will want to understand: average order size, Customer Lifetime Value, average time to first order, average time to follow - on orders, revenue per sales person, time to salesperson becomes effective.

Consequently I am inclined to question the value of specialised strength development exercises where the athlete may be able to solve the task via increased force production through ranges of movement that do not correspond to that initial 50 % of ground contact (why train something that doesn't separate good athletes from average ones?).

For the average American entering the labor force, the value of lifetime earnings for full - time work is currently $ 1.16 million.

Wouldn't DCA in combination with re-balancing your portfolio have a similar effect as value averaging, since that also forces you to buy high and sell low to maintain a desired ratio between stocks and bonds, while still putting all your money to work for you, and without predicting future returns?

There is no modelling of any orbital variations in incoming energy, either daily, yearly or long term Milankovitch variations, based on the assumption that a global yearly average value has a net zero change over the year which is imposed on the energy forcing at the TOA and the QFlux boundary etc..

- I assume that the winds even it out fairly quickly to allow the use of average values for forcing.)

3 Variations in the CO2 forcing function (& presumably all the GHGs) are also based on a yearly global average value, so that there is also no daily or seasonal variation included in the models, let alone north - south variations.

Look at the purple line in Figure 1; ten decadal averages, where the forcing file contains 163 years of values.

Since many of these processes result in non-symmetric time, location and temperature dependant feedbacks (eg water vapor, clouds, CO2 washout, condensation, ice formation, radiative and convective heat transfer etc) then how can a model that uses yearly average values for the forcings accurately reflect the results?

the problem is that this definition implicitly assumes that the global, time average surface temperature is a definite single valued function of the radiative average forcing, which is far from being true since there are considerable horizontal heat transfer modifying the latitudinal repartition of temperature: the local vertical radiative budget is NOT verified.

As GWPs are concerned with a GHG emission today and as the Forcing of CO2 is logarithmic, the averaged 1750 - 2011 values would be roughly 25 % too low (so 28 becomes 37).

For a small amount of absorption, the emission upward and downward would be about the same, so if the upward (spectral) flux from below the layer were more than 2 * the (average) blackbody value for the layer temperature (s), the OLR at TOA would be reduced more than the net upward flux at the base of the layer, decreasing CO2 TOA forcing more than CO2 forcing at the base, thus increasing the cooling of the base.

For the purposes of this report, radiative forcing is further defined as the change relative to the year 1750 and, unless otherwise noted, refers to a global and annual average value.

TOA = 0.62 [d (OHC) / dt] I used this to check my math and found the following average forcing values to match my calculations.

Like JimD said, climate scientists calculate the forcing from a longer duration end point than what amounts to an equivalent average value over the last 55 years.

The striking consistency between the time series of observed average global temperature observations and simulated values with both natural and anthropogenic forcing (Figure 9.5) was instrumental in convincing me (and presumably others) of the IPCC's attribution argument.

But I figured out that all stations are getting a calculated solar forcing based on latitude, and when I average all of the included stations I also get an average of the solar for that particular combination of stations recorded in the average solar forcing, I also calculate the same value with an average Sun, and I generate an average of the average blend of latitude values.

The corresponding working quasilinear wave equation for the barotropic azonal stream function Ψm ′ of the forced waves with m = 6, 7, and 8 (m waves) with nonzero right - hand side (forcing + eddy friction) yields (34) u˜ ∂ ∂ x (∂ 2Ψm ′ ∂ x2 + ∂ 2Ψm ′ ∂ y2) + β˜ ∂ Ψm ′ ∂ x = 2Ω sin ϕ cos2 ϕT˜u˜ ∂ Tm ′ ∂ x − 2Ω sin ϕcos2 ϕHκu˜ ∂ hor, m ∂ x − (kha2 + kzH2)(∂ 2Ψm ′ ∂ x2 + ∂ 2Ψm ′ ∂ y2), [S3] where x = aλ and y = a ln -LSB-(1 + sin ϕ) / cos ϕ] are the coordinates of the Mercator projection of Earth's sphere, with λ as the longitude, H is the characteristic value of the atmospheric density vertical scale, T˜ is a constant reference temperature at the EBL, Tm ′ is the m component of azonal temperature at this level, u˜ = u ¯ / cos ϕ, κ is the ratio of the zonally averaged module of the geostrophic wind at the top of the PBL to that at the EBL (53), hor, m is the m component of the large - scale orography height, and kh and kz are the horizontal and vertical eddy diffusion coefficients.

Since MEA stated (in Figure 1 of the SI) that ensemble - average temperature response anomalies were relative to 1850, and nowhere did the paper suggest that forcings were treated differently, as anomalies relative to 1850 - 59 or any other period, it seemed to me to be natural to use the forcing values as they were.

To put it yet another way, the average buoyant forces that have to be exerted, the density and pressure profile, and all of the thermodynamic properties of the gas in the centrifuge are pretty much determined by the horrendously large value of effective g in the centrifuge.

While this consistency is encouraging, it should be qualified by noting that: 1) The multi-model average TLT trend is always larger than the average observed TLT trend; 2) As the trend fitting period increases, values of pf decline, indicating that average observed trends are increasingly more unusual with respect to the multi-model distribution of forced trends.

For the IPCC reports, radiative forcing is further defined as the change relative to the year 1750 and, unless otherwise noted, refers to a global and annual average value.

I was rather surprised that the first piece of data I looked at — the WM - GHG (well - mixed greenhouse gas) global forcing for the average of the MIROC, MRI and NorESM climate models, in Table S2 — is given as 1.91 W / m ², when the three individual model values obviously don't average that.

This value of 375 CO2 - e is the actual forcing that is currently acting to warm the oceans, melt ice, and cause gradual upwards changes in average air temperature.

Howard, Eli certainly does not disagree, but the Rabett is not comfortable with single valued simplifications such as global temperature and average bc forcings.

It varies up an down around an average value that is positive because of the ever increasing external forcing and the slow intake by oceans.

Well, let's assume like Bart that Average temperature from 1960 to 2003 does not have a unit root, so we can regress the absolute values on GISS» Net Forcing.