Sentences with phrase «because observation changes»

Not exact matches

Perhaps it makes sense to conclude with the more general observation that changes in the size of global capital flows and the accompanying imbalances increase the importance of sustaining the credibility of monetary policy, because they increase the costs of a loss of credibility or a negative shock to credibility.

yes all your negative reckoning or observation in history is part of the evolutionary change, your reaction is part of the solution, the reasons for your concern on slavery, gay rights etc, will be resolved in the future for the good of humanity for thats his will, we have to experience and pass all this trials in life because thats part of the evolutionary process

I agree that the formation change made us much more potent going forward, but Gotanidea's observation that we are then open to counterattacks is surely because the players haven't been disciplined or intelligent enough to leave one full back and one midfielder in defensive positions when all the rest go streaming forward.

It is an easy observation to make; because as you rightly say the criticism is there all the time, but the change for the better is not there all the time.

His observations, come as his kid brother and friend, John Dramani Mahama, storms Cape Coast on Sunday to plead for four additional years to continue his `' Changing Lives and Transforming Ghana» agenda, because like ex-President Kufuor and ex-President Rawlings, who both served eight uninterrupted years, a four - year term is not enough.

Because El Niño's warmer, drier conditions in tropical regions mimic the effects of climate change expected by the end of the century, those observations may be a sobering harbinger of the tropics» diminishing role as a...

In their view, we do not see quantum effects in the every day world because the act of observation changes everything, fixing the many possibilities allowed by quantum mechanics as one.

«The atmospheric carbon dioxide observations are important because they show the combined effect of ecological changes over large regions,» says Graven.

Because El Niño's warmer, drier conditions in tropical regions mimic the effects of climate change expected by the end of the century, those observations may be a sobering harbinger of the tropics» diminishing role as a buffer for fossil fuel emissions (SN Online: 9/28/17).

The estimates of ice loss also helped them calculate the amount of sea level rise contributed by the ice sheet prior to 1990 — a number missing from the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report because of the lack of direct observations.

Some of the discontinuities (which can be of either sign) in weather records can be detected using jump point analyses (for instance in the new version of the NOAA product), others can be adjusted using known information (such as biases introduced because changes in the time of observations or moving a station).

Because Pluto has 56 days for every Earth year, it takes almost week for it to complete a single rotation giving us an interesting data set By spreading out those observations over 14 days, there's enough information to see how the surface changes over a time.

The fact that the observations have a «memory» from month to month (because the ocean is slow to change temperature) allows us to predict the annual mean from the year - to - date average (which implicitly includes the ENSO effect).

As explained by a teacher in the article: «She said she's actually benefited from changes to the teacher evaluation system, such as more constructive feedback because of the increased number of observations.»

According to the observations of the fluctuations in Forex charts, the profits may rise greatly because of the proximity of Fibonacci ratios to the indicators of changing prices.

Good day Dr. my name is Jeandre our Jackrussel sadly passed away today her name was Ruby, the symptoms started yesterday, (the day before yesterday she was still playfull) when we arrived from work we saw that she look very off and took her to the vet right away, the vet said to us it looks like a problem in the abdominal area, he gave her a couple of shots and said we can take her home for observation and if nothing changes we must come back, when we arrived at home she did not whant to eat anything and was very drowsy we tired to give het a small piece of steak but was not interested at all, she took a small walk and pooped, her poop was like dark black, grey and slobby, we also saw a square piece in the stool and did not think much of it as she also eats dog food pellets, the smell was very bad, she also vommited like a clear watery substance i think two times, we too her back to the vet this moring and the vet inserted a tempreture pen from behind, while it was her he felt and squeezed in the abdominal area then pen ejected like she pooped (because of the squeez) red blood was present.

Because no two pets react exactly the same to a given amount of insulin, changes in the dose administered should be done under observation in an animal hospital setting.

Some of the discontinuities (which can be of either sign) in weather records can be detected using jump point analyses (for instance in the new version of the NOAA product), others can be adjusted using known information (such as biases introduced because changes in the time of observations or moving a station).

Moreover, it would have to change over time because the thermometer observations have covered a larger fraction of Earth's area with time (see Figure 3).

The constraining of the atmospheric model affect the predictions where there are no observations because most of the weather elements — except for precipitation — do not change abruptly over short distance (mathematically, we say that they are described by «spatially smooth and slowly changing functions»).

An important point with reanalyses, is that the model used doesn't change over the time spanned by the analysis, but reanalyses are generally used with caution for climate change studies because the number and type of observations being fed into the computer model changes over time.

The hydrologic cycle can change because of changes in plant cover — it's a common observation that after a forest fire or logging, streams and springs will flow higher and longer for a period of years.

Because of the limited availability of daily observations, however, most previous studies have examined only the potential detectability of changes in extreme precipitation through model — model comparisons (12 — 15).

In fairness, our science has little ground proofing of theory on climate change because this is our first time having actual field observations.

However, because of the limited availability of daily observations, most studies to date have only examined the potential detectability of changes in precipitation through model - model comparisons.

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.

Your and all your other fellow climate alarmists provide evidence that these observations of eminent scientists is correct, because none of you can cite any peer reviewed science that empirically falsifies the null climate hypothesis of natural variability still being the primary cause of climate change, or cite any peer reviewed science that empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2 has been the primary cause of the late 20th century climate warming.

But when the data is lacking, and it is, and changes do occur in climate, and the accepted null is natural change, because climate change always has occurred, yes, one must find a means of observation to establish said data.

The question is whether or not the change in the amounts of Co2 is large enough on scale to have the claimed effect outside of other observations because the raw physics equation doesn't side with observations.

[9] Recent warming observations of Antarctic Bottom Water in the Southern Ocean is of concern to ocean scientists because bottom water changes will effect currents, nutrients, and biota elsewhere.

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.

Because the GISS analysis combines available sea surface temperature records with meteorological station measurements, we test alternative choices for the ocean data, showing that global temperature change is sensitive to estimated temperature change in polar regions where observations are limited.

The change of the locations of the observations (horizontal sampling) during the past 50 years is responsible for this divergence, because Ship - based system pre-2000 has insufficient sampling on the global ocean for instance in Southern Hemisphere, while these area begin to achieve full sampling in this century by Argo system.

We should start with the observation that Exxon could not possibly have «lied» about climate change, even if it intended to, because first there would have to be a proven truth on the subject.

DAGW «consensus» believers apparently do not like your analyses, because they are based on actual observations of past climate trends rather than on model predictions of future climate changes, which myopically fixate on the human - induced aspect only.

Other scientists promptly pointed out that the observations might be a mere artifact — the amount of gas absorbed might change with the local temperature in Greenland because of the physical chemistry of ice.

Jeff is making the observation that since CO2 could not have contibuted to the early 1 / 6th of the warming / cooling because its level hadn't changed but it could well have contributed to the later 5 / 6ths of the warming / cooling.

It is because both contain stations like Las Vegas that have been compromised by changes in their environment, that station itself, the sensors, the maintenance, time of observation changes, data loss, etc..

And trying to estimate it based on current observations is ridiculous, if your premise is that climate has changed dramatically because of CO2.

A) When a station moves, its a new fricking station because temperature is a function of SITING B) When the instrument changes, its a new fricking station C) when you change the time of observation, its a new station.

On TOB adjustments, because I generate a diff on both min and max, and because T avg is just the average of min and max, I don't think time of observation really makes a difference, as long as it doesn't change.

The fact that the observations have a «memory» from month to month (because the ocean is slow to change temperature) allows us to predict the annual mean from the year - to - date average (which implicitly includes the ENSO effect).

Bob Tisdale says that NMAT must be good, because, as said here «Further, NMAT data is relied upon to correct / adjust inhomogeneity in SST series arising from changes in observation techniques» But they don't use a NMAT global average to correct a SST average.

Though many modeling studies have demonstrated the impact of deep water formation changes on the overturning circulation, the observational evidence for such a linkage has been hard to come by for two reasons: (1) Deep water formation is difficult to quantify because the time and locale of production are highly variable from winter to winter, and (2) overturning circulation measures require observations that span the basin, which have been limited in space and time.

And of perhaps even greater import (because it is a real - world observation), he reports that «although the globe is significantly warmer than it was a century ago, there is little evidence that climate change has already favored infectious diseases.»

So, to reply to your original observation: It may well happen that one station gets warmer and one a few kilometers away gets colder, for example because the land use around it changes (from agriculture to growing forests or similar, but often it's perhaps not even an obvious change).

In the lower atmosphere, the available data points to increasing water vapor content, but because of large variations in local humidity from day to night, from day to day, and from season to season, no - one currently knows exactly how much more water vapor is going into the air (IPCC Working Group 1 Assessment Report 4, Chapter 3, «Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change», page 273).

This is because imperfections in climate models and observations are still obscurring the climate change signal in some places, even despite technical advances and a satellite record that spans over more than 30 years.

Observations of the climate system and the output of models are a combination of a forced climate change signal and internally generated natural variability which, because it is random and unpredictable on long climate time - scales, is characterised as climate noise.

I wasn't clear: My reference to corporations was informed by my personal observation that large, powerful law firms (animated by large, powerful corporate clients) are the engines that drive most significant changes in the profession — because of the influence those same firms have within provincial Law Societies and the judiciary.