Sentences with phrase «curve fitting without»

Blaming global warming on the movements of other planets is little more than «climastrology» and curve fitting without a physical basis.

You curve fit without any understanding of the underlying mechanisms and then preen and prattle about how deep and meaningful all this simple nonsense is.

Not exact matches

This is a close - fitting, bodycon mini dress that is made from a remarkable stretchy cotton fabric that clings securely to the curves of the body without undue tightness or discomfort.

They are fitted to my curves without being unprofessional.

Even though it's very slim fitting, the long sleeves and round neck feel demure allowing me to show of my curves without looking too flashy.

The fit of this dress is perfect and accentuates my curves without it being to clingy.

I'm 6 feet tall and have a big butt and these things fit every curve, without making me feel like a stuffed sausage.

Petite figures without well - defined curves can opt for a shorter dress (this will make you look taller) or a dress with a slim fit.

It fit my curves nicely without making me unable to breathe.

From the elegant curves to the easily recognizable front grille, the Renegade safely fits into its own category without losing any of the greatness that has encapsulated the Jeep brand for over 50 years.

To say «it's a natural cycle» without any basis other than a couple of sine curve fits is Climastrology pure and simple.

Anything beyond hypothetical speculation, arguing for the existence of a BNO without a physical process to work it and with nothing but curve - fitting to support it; that is the stuff of Wattsupia.

If both have to be estimated from the same time series data (with or without «optimal» smoothing), then you have «curve fitting».

Curve - fitting is meaningless without any real - world mechanisms.

With regard to the appropriateness of the Hofmann law and my fit of it to the Keeling curve, I commented on Dec. 5, the second day of this thread, here where I said Embarrassingly I discussed the poster with Pieter Tans, one of the coauthors of the Hofmann et al result cited in the poster, for ten minutes without recognizing his name until he pointed it out.

Other than that what you are doing is similar to what I have posted here in panel (b) of the triple plots, just without the fitted curves.

The rationale behind «signal - free» standardization is that it should be possible to produce an improved (i.e., locally unbiased) chronology if the individual measurement series could be detrended without allowing the fitting of standardization curves to be affected by the presence of climatically forced variability.

Actually, you can't forecast anything anyway, because you are curve - fitting to something that looks like a mere 1 1/2 cycles of something, without a prediction - capable mechanism, and without anything that cross-checks it to anything outside those 1 1/2 cycles, on top of which the supposed underlying linear trend might be part of some other cycle and hence not linear at all,.

I believe the same source told me that a metric buttload could be substituted by fitting it to the metric crap - tonne curve, but you either have to hard code in a correction factor (standard practice is to do so without comment), or you have to truncate the metric buttload plot at the end year of the curve fitting period to avoid the divergence problem.

As we have extensively documented in, Roy Spencer has a propensity for performing curve fitting exercises with a simple climate model by allowing its parameters to vary without physical constraints, and then making grandiose claims about his results.

My impression is that Fred gives too much weight at curve fitting, without any plausible explanation of the cause - effect relationship.

Without a realistic physical basis, like Spencer before them, all L&S are doing is playing pointless curve fitting games, and using their results to draw unsubstantiated conclusions.

In other words, they let the parameters vary freely without any physical constraints, and fit the curve as best they could.

(See monthly per century trends plotted without the smooth fitted curves.)

Manacker, playing curve - fitter without a causal account of the «sine» cycle you can test (and based on how many of your «cycles») is pointless.

Without it, we are just curve - fitting.

And Ray, the whole point of the article about curve fitting and natural cycles is that it is inappropriate to make strong claims about random fits without mechanism, attribution and supporting physics and observations, unless you are perfectly willing to accept that the fact that the confidence in any assumptions indicated by any such «curve fitting» is likely lower in contrast to more relevant methods.

He would be doing so retrospectively, fitting a curve by scaling without any strictures on the amplitudes of the scaling, and probably varying the weighting along the way.

The star of the show is the Fit's curved 1.84 - inch color touchscreen display, which is surrounded by chrome trim that manages to add a little bit of style without looking cheap or tacky.