You just have to make sure you are applying for
the correct term period.
Your best bet is choosing
the correct term period so you never run into this problem.
Choosing
the correct term period will require you to sit down and take a look at your projected expenses.
Not exact matches
So overall it looks like you may be
correct in identifying that honey has advantages over sugar, but we will need a few more larger scale trials over a longer
period to see if this can really have long
term health benefits, rather than short
term effects.
If those
terms are upheld, meaning payments are made on time and for the
correct amount for an extended
period of years then other financial organizations view this positively and will also want to offer credit lines to you.
All of the above
terms are
correct in describing female cats»
periods of receptiveness to mating, but I will refer to them as the more often - used «heat cycles.»
The
correct term for this fertile
period is estrus.
Over very long time
periods such that the carbon cycle is in equilibrium with the climate, one gets a sensitivity to global temperature of about 20 ppm CO2 / deg C, or 75 ppb CH4 / deg C. On shorter timescales, the sensitivity for CO2 must be less (since there is no time for the deep ocean to come into balance), and variations over the last 1000 years or so (which are less than 10 ppm), indicate that even if Moberg is
correct, the maximum sensitivity is around 15 ppm CO2 / deg C. CH4 reacts faster, but even for short
term excursions (such as the 8.2 kyr event) has a similar sensitivity.
Skeptical101 # 14 My interpretation and synopsis of the considerable technical detail and references provided by Tom Curtis # 15 & One Planet # 16, # 17 is that your»... not use it as an argument to support AGW» is
correct if used over
periods in which short
term natural variability influences the trend strongly (< 30 years was mentioned sometimes) and, in particular, the models are not able to predict the ENSO conditions at all well.
I tried that: http://virakkraft.com/SST-ENSO-integral.png I'm not saying this version is more
correct, maybe your base
period is closer to the long
term average, but it is more in accordance with the available data.
As a question put to leading climate scientist Phil Jones it demonstrates that whoever composed that particular question knew that «statistically - significant «is a technical
term requiring a technically
correct answer, knew that the
period was too short to allow an unequivocal answer, knew that the general public would equate «no statistically significant global warming» with no real warming.
Jo,
correct me if I'm wrong or speaking out of line but I have discussed with my esteemed collegues, and after a long and satisfying session of wanking each other off we came to the conclusion that to a certain extent (although we aren't certain of the extent of the certainty) for a long
period of time the best we can hope for, at least in
terms of [our] grandchildren, is to stabilise the planet and it will stabilise at a temperature which is probably 2 degrees or more above the pre-industrial!
Assuming for argument's sake that the IPCC's calculation of the long
term trend was broadly
correct, would you expect temps to rise in a more or less linear fashion or would you expect there to be
periods when temps were flat or even falling?
But my impression is that the Marcott paper talks about identifying temperatures going back 10,000 years at a scale (if that is the
correct term) which allows for 50 % error for
periods of 1,000 years in length.
It's
correct that the recent rise in temperatures is similar in amplitude to what they see over much longer
periods, but their work can not tell, how much shorter
term variability has occurred, or how rapid that has been.
It seems fairly clear that even many of you are more frequently using the now politically
correct term «Climate Change» — even on this distinguished blog — over that same time
period of five years.
The medieval warm
period and little ice age (whther they are local or global phenomena) are believed to be associated with thermohaline circulations in the atlantic;
correct simulation of such long
term internal oscillations in an ocean basin requires long
term simulations for the ocean for which we don't really have any observational constraints.
You just have to make sure you are applying for the
correct Term plan design especially considering the term per
Term plan design especially considering the
term per
term period.
You have to make sure you are applying for the
correct plan design especially considering the
term length
period.
That is why long -
term equity investments are always better, as market irregularities get
corrected over a
period of time.
You really put out a lot less for
term insurance and if you died within the
term period you had made the
correct decision when you bought
term.
To finally get my financing, that was tricky due to my multiple acquisitions (this year) and that they were still in the «seasoning»
period, plus loans in my name and my wife's name and figuring out the
correct long
term set up.