Sentences with phrase «agree with our observations because»

«There are models that predict that [nickel - 48] has such a short lifetime that we should not have been able to see it, and other models agree with our observations because they predict that it lives at least a few microseconds.»

Not exact matches

Jeff, I agree with your initial observation... and I guess for me this is also kind of the point in that, at some stage (hopefully), we are able to evaluate in a different way because we also become aware of all (or at least some!)

Minus some flashes from both Sead and Iwobi, and a workingman - like effort from Elneny, we learned very little... so here are a few of my observations from today's game, which highlight my concerns about this team moving forward... the fact that Mertz started this game, regardless of our injuries or those being «rested», should be a serious red flag for any true Arsenal fan... if Wenger is preparing to use Mertz with any regularity then the whole thing is a moot point because we are in deep shit... the fact is no quality team would ever have this tin soldier anywhere near there starting eleven except to groom their youthful players, who in turn should be playing in this type of game instead... I can only hope he was simply throwing him a bone for the FA appearance and for agreeing to stay on following the season, but I think the most likely answer is that Wenger's fragile relationship with the fan - base can't be ignored so he felt his experience was a safer bet... unfortunately not a positive choice for a team trying to move forward (same old, same old)

Models actually predict that the interior of the ice sheets should gain mass because of the increased snowfall that goes along with warmer temperatures, and recent observations actually agree with those predictions.

Therefore, it is intriguing that arguments persist that because only small accelerations are presently evident, the IPCC sea level projections must be wrong, when in fact the observations over the last 20 years agree closely with the Third Assessment Report and AR4 projections and are statistically consistently with AR5 RCP8.5 projections.

Because the new precise observations agree with existing assessments of water vapor's impact, researchers are more confident than ever in model predictions that Earth's leading greenhouse gas will contribute to a temperature rise of a few degrees by the end of the century.

The evidence is «equivocal» because it does not agree with limited land based observation of cloud — something that may be a little shortsighted as these changes seem significantly to be associated with sea surface temperature in the tropics and the influences of the northern and southern annular modes.

Which is funny because to me they're built in a way that makes me trust them less, which is basically: - We build them - If they don't agree with past observations figure out what would likely make them agree more and implement that change - Repeat 2 and 3 until you're done As a mathematician I'm appalled that there are educated people that think this is scientifically acceptable, and not something that lets in any number of biases.

As for the models agreeing with observations — that's only because they tweaked the previous models that didn't agree so well, which gives no weight to the idea that the models are any good.