Sentences with phrase «at graph»

Cryptocurrencies have a well - deserved reputation for volatility, and a look back at a graph charting the performance of ETH over the past year will show substantial fluctuations.

The research firm did not share its raw numbers, but looking at the graph below, it looks like Huawei's and Apple's share in July were around 12 percent.

It is hard to believe only on the verbal things, therefore, look at the graph shown below:

Just take a look at this graph from Medscape:

The more carefully you look at graph at the top of this page, the more you'll start to appreciate that the individual ranking of a given year hardly even matters.

If you look at a graph of our instrumental temperature records (like this one) you'll see that temperatures seem to bounce around idly until after 1900, at which point a sustained rise becomes apparent.

And if you look at his graph, the data for the sensors still falls within the range of model prediction up to around 1998, 2000.

Look at this graph for some perspective on that, also here.

Mike already wrote about how Canada vs. USA Final Made Power Consumption Jump by Around 600 Megawatts in Ontario, but look at this graph of water usage; a lot of beer got drunk that night, and now we know not only where it went but when.

I had to look at the graph twice before I realized what it was.

I took another look at your graph, with my laptop this time, and there were the two colors, plain as could be.

«One look at the graph below shows some interesting results.

Look at the graph above which appears to be a shotgun blast and you proclaim it is a true prediction?

OK, so I looked at your graph above and the 2007 post.

If you want more, try looking at a graph of CO2 levels, e.g. here.

Don't pay attention to those oil company ads that claim they're devoting time and resources towards working on clean energy solutions — just look at the graph below.

You can't tell just by looking at the graph, but standard criteria show that this trend is statistically significant, meaning that there is a very low probability that it could be due to chance.

No, looking at the graph below, my little patch of heaven — or at least, suburbia — doesn't say much about world temps.

If you look at a graph such as the following, there is a very clear pattern.

Re # 67 — I see no increase in the number of storms from looking at the graph, and I understand that warming ocean water is not linked to number of storms.

Just look at a graph for the Holocene period, where you can actually resolve a variation that is thicker than the sea level curve.

When you look at the graph you see that it's breaking later, but not later than what it should considering the recovery from the little ice age.

You can see that for yourself by looking at the graph shown above.

Have a look at this graph.

I do nt know how to put graphs on this site but if you go to the link and look at the graph you will see that the K degrees are around 200 at 100 km up which everyone agrees is the TOA.

At Pielke's site in the OHC discussions you mentioned, Willis presented recent values at this graph.

If you look at a graph for almost any day on Wind Farm Performance you will see a similar result; some days there will be more generation than others, but most wind farms generate some power most of the time.

I looked closer at your graph and it shows two out of the last three years as above the long term mean.

In fact, looking at this graph, it's hard to say anything about England's climate that would be consistent with the claims that it is changing, or becoming hostile to wildlife — it is a very variable graph.

So any inverted orientation is done manually, calibration is from looking at the graph, seeing a spike at the end, and assuming that it doesn't need to be flipped.

The climate is warming — and that means if you look at a graph of average global temperatures, you'll see an overall upward trend over the last 130 years.

So we are supposed to look at that graph, look at the error bars on it, and accept it!

From looking at the graph I would guess that the smoothing period is a few years — certainly not more than ten.

Looking at the graph you provide, it seems silly to characterize the increase in temperature during the 20th century as a single trend characterized by a single number 0.07 C / decade.

One can be deceived by looking at a graph and determining the significance of trends using the Mark IV eyeball, better to use statistical methods.

When you look at the graph, what pops out at you?

But when climate scientists looked at a graph of the rise of temperatures in the last 60 years, they saw — or thought they saw — a distinct drop in the rate of increase in global average temperatures in the last 15 years.

As it turns out, however, if you look at the graph I posted above — despite imposing no restrictions on the profile — it turns out to have a relatively smooth shape.

Looking at this graph one would expect to see a very reasonable fit of the Growth Curve to the actual delta if the tree ages used did not exceed 250 to 300 years.

It is clear from looking at the graph, that the different organizations have chosen different values for corrections.

Looking at the graph I'd have to go with that.

Looking at your graph, even that group does not continue downwards.

At most you can look at this graph and determine that those two downward extremes demonstrate that the decrease in Arctic ice extent can temporarily be much faster than the overall longterm trend.

Take a look at this graph, do you think it is just coincidence that since the industrial revolution the concentration of these gases spontaneously increased by a factor of thousands?

Any way I looked at his graph from his hearing notes and looked at what eventually became GIss and it seems that upon transferring from the hearing to GIss the 1940's have cooled and the cool spot around 1965 has also changed.

Anyone can look at that graph, or the one for the 1750 - 2000 changes, and estimate the relative magnitudes and the signs of the changes at different times of year.

Take a look at this graph.

In looking at a graph of the North Pacific SST anomaly and PDO data, there's no long - term correlation between the two.

However looking at the graph the two curves cross at six points and it appears to be just a coincidence that one of the crossings was close to the end of the backcasting interval.

When I studied these data sets, I didn't just look at a graph and take somebody else's word for the logical conclusion.