Sentences with phrase «do sensitivity analyses»

«When doing this sensitivity analysis, we ask what it would it take to knock our results over — a feather, an arm or a sledgehammer, and these are pretty close to sledgehammer results,» Frank said.

To explore the possibility that frailty (which is associated with both low cholesterol and death28 29) could confound these results, we did a sensitivity analysis adjusting our Cox models (table 4 ⇑) for two known markers of frailty (changes in body weight and changes in systolic blood pressure).28 29 30 These adjustments did not materially change the effect estimates, which remained significant in both groups.

But as Tamino points out, the McIntyre method of doing a sensitivity analysis is to eliminate all of the data he does not like.

We actually looked at this; see the Supplementary Material, where we did a sensitivity analysis.

Ok for a class exercise (though the prof could have pointed out how to do a sensitivity analysis of our assumption...) BUT not in the real world.

WRT to divergence's possible influence, do a sensitivity analysis incorporating reasonable estimates of pre-historical divergence if you're concerned about it.

Not exact matches

«I could see that there were many things I could do that would be valuable for the organization — cash flow projections, budgets under different scenarios, sensitivity analysis — but time is always at a premium so I ended up spending my time on the must - do things like annual reports and AGLC audits.

If you are a committed, disciplined buy - and - hold investor with no sensitivity to cyclical market fluctuations (even those as large as the 50 % losses of 2000 - 2002 and 2007 - 2009), and you fully recognize the depth of cyclical risks that regularly accompanies that strategy, I don't encourage a deviation from that discipline based on my analysis of market risk.

It is surprising that Treasury Board did not undertake such an analysis, given the sensitivity around «missing» cash.

We assumed that breastfeeding does not influence the costs of childbearing and discounted future costs by 3 % per year, the social discount rate, to the year when our hypothetical women were aged 25 years, the mean age of U.S. women at first birth.14 We performed sensitivity analyses with discount rates of 0 % and 5 %.

If we find that the answer to the question is different in the sensitivity analysis, we assume the true answer is closer to the sensitivity analysis than the full analysis — remember, we don't know for sure these studies had bias, only that they were at risk.

If you check out the study, you will see that the results of the sensitivity analysis did move some estimates that favored water birth to the null — which means that there was no difference between water birth and conventional delivery.

With further experimental analysis, the scientists identified two distinct genetic variants that resulted in these sensitivity differences, suggesting that in crowded places, wild C. elegans populations with a specific genetic variation adopt different behaviors than those who don't.

In this explorative study, analysis was done according to the number of subjects showing an improvement of insulin sensitivity after treatment.

It is because of this sensitivity that I don't hold much stake in dcf analyses.

I didn't think it mattered at the time, but it turned out it definitely did matter, because this was the first thing those BBC journalists threw at me, and I continue to meet journalists and even scientists who are convinced that your analysis was in fact our «true» result, and we only drew attention to the fat tail extending out to much higher sensitivities because we wanted to alarm people.

While I did replicate the MM07 analysis, the fact that I was dependent on their initial economic data collation means that some potentially important sensitivities did not get explored.

On the other hand, you do want to know if some single dataset is dominating the conclusion (because the whole point of pooling a lot of data sources is to avoid that), so scientists will frequently engage in sensitivity analysis, deleting one dataset or another, and checking to see whether the conclusion is altered meaningfully.

They do the calculations in a somewhat different way, but it appears to be a sound analysis, and I particularly like the thorough testing of the sensitivity to the various parameters used in the statistical model.

It featured the incorrect Spencer and Christie analysis, a comparison with a GCM simulation done with steady 1 % CO2 increase and no aerosol forcint (meant as a sensitivity study, not a forecast!)

Instead, we did an extensive parallel set of sensitivity analyses using an EBM w / different estimates of the forcings, different climate sensitivities, etc. and showed that our key conclusions are quite robust.

I don't imagine the proxies have the temperature sensitivity nor the data accuracy required to do such an analysis with a good degree of confidence.

Given that models have been improving in their ability to model processes, I personally find it difficult to believe that, at least in terms of a Bayesian analysis, the models themselves aren't doing better in terms of their ability to identify climate sensitivity by applying first principles to our climate system.

Italian flag analysis: 30 % Green, 50 % White, 20 % Red (JC Note: all climate models produce this result in spite of different sensitivities and using different forcing data sets; the models do not agree on the causes of the early 20th century warming and the mid-century cooling and do not reproduce the mid-century cooling.)

One empirical analysis of the type of F+G 06 does not tell that the climate feedback parameter Y is 2.3 ± 1.4 W m ^ -2 K ^ -1 with 95 % certaintyor that the equilibrium climate sensitivity is in the corresponding range 1.0 — 4.1 K. Those limits are obtained only, when the additional assumption of uniform prior in Y is made.

How does your analysis allow you to distinguish between a climate sensitivity to changes in CO2 - effected radiative forcing of 0 K / (W.M ^ -2) and say 0.3 K / (W.M ^ -2), if there are these large uncertainties in the values of the forcings?

It is certainly done in models where it is called sensitivity analysis.

It will be pretty easy to do a first - pass sensitivity analysis of an SST series in which the Pearl Harbor adjustment for introduction of engine inlet measurements is phased in after 1970 rather than in 1941, but it's not too hard to picture the result.

Too bad Annan didn't understand my talk, since it was targeted particularly at people like him who are pushing the idea that CO2 sensitivity is 3C http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frsgc/research/d5/jdannan/probrevised.pdf and think that Bayesian analysis can actually provide such an answer in the face of such large uncertainty.

Max earlier asked the question: «Instead of giving us your analysis of «why» Willis Eschenbach (or Nic Lewis) are committed to a low (2xCO2) climate sensitivity, why don't you rebut Willis» paper.»

But of course Lewis wouldn't want to contact the authors if he thought they might say something like «Yeah, we discussed it, and we decided all the sensitivity studies should use similar statistical assumptions» or «On reflection, the choice we made in 2006 seems unwise to us now» or, worse of all, «We don't think they should have changed the analysis, but it doesn't effect our results in any substantial way.»

I also want to try to get sensitivity analyses done so I can understand what are the most significant factors for estimating net costs and benefits of advocated mitigation policies.

You've seen the sensitivity analysis that Ryan has done on adding / removing trends from the peninsula.

As it turns out, however, we can push our analysis further and show that the lower end of the climate sensitivity distribution does not offer the comfort it implies at first glance.

We don't have a particular position on that, but intend to report some more sensitivity analyses in the final paper.

Sensitivity analysis shows that different assumptions of climate sensitivity, carbon cycle model or scenario do not substantially change tSensitivity analysis shows that different assumptions of climate sensitivity, carbon cycle model or scenario do not substantially change tsensitivity, carbon cycle model or scenario do not substantially change the outcome.

If a sensitivity analysis is done in which the Graybill bristlecone chronologies are excluded from the AD1400 network, then a materially different reconstruction results — a point made originally in the MM articles [note: also Cook's old Gaspe chronology which has its own serious issues — see below], confirmed by Wahl and Ammann 2007 and noted by the NAS panel.

Even after having it explained to you, you apparently do not understand the difference between a sensitivity analysis — a «what if?»

The way he had done this was to perform a sensitivity analysis, showing that you still got a hockey stick without the Tiljander proxies.

Especially since Lewis does not actually calculate the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity factor that is commonly referred to by the IPCC and paleo - climate analyses, but instead the on - going «effective» climate sensitivity as Gregory et al 2002 already pSensitivity factor that is commonly referred to by the IPCC and paleo - climate analyses, but instead the on - going «effective» climate sensitivity as Gregory et al 2002 already psensitivity as Gregory et al 2002 already pointed out.

This is one of the reasons why the analysis the Williams et al (2012) did was so important; they looked at the sensitivity of the homogenization results to all the different tweakable parameters (use of metadata, breakpoint size, number of neighbor stations used, etc.).

Hence, I asked Gavin if they did a real sensitivity analysis, ie testing to the full extents of the input ranges.

I wanted to do another analysis of the atmospheric water content, q, using the RSS SSM / I data set at another latitude in order to check the sensitivity of the first result (reported above) of the global zone from 50S to 50N to the latitude zone selection.

Smith and Bernstein's analysis did not change any assumptions regarding climate sensitivity or other relevant climate parameters that might have been misspecified in the IAMs used by the IWG.

Several analyses of ring width and ring density chronologies, with otherwise well - established sensitivity to temperature, have shown that they do not emulate the general warming trend evident in instrumental temperature records over recent decades, although they do track the warming that occurred during the early part of the 20th century and they continue to maintain a good correlation with observed temperatures over the full instrumental period at the interannual time scale (Briffa et al., 2004; D'Arrigo, 2006).

Nic Lewis in the post at BishopHill does a very nice empirically based sensitivity analysis following the general methodology of the Gregory et al (2002) heat balance change derived value of the equilibrium climate sensitivity, determining a value of ECS of 1.6 - 1.7 C.

A figure for Climate sensitivity is needed for doing the economic analyses that are needed to inform policy analyses, at least that is the case the way we are doing them based on projections of climate change and damages.

Is not it more important to stay on message with what RyanO has done here in his analysis with loads of sensitivity tests than get into a pis - ing contest with Steig and his loyalists about whether his work should be retracted or he should be professionally reprimanded.

Recommendations for verification are: 1) comparison to other models 2) degenerate tests 3) event validity 4) extreme event validity 5) extreme condition tests 6) «face» validity tests 7) fixed value tests 8) historical data validation 9) internal validity (stochastic runs) 10) multistage validation 11) parameter variability - sensitivity analysis 12) predictive validation 13) traces 14) turing tests (i didn't know what this is so googled ECWMF turing test, and i got 150 hits)

We did not talk much about the development roadmap but Ben did share that a future iteration will generate an automatic sensitivity analysis of input (user answers) to outputs (legal answers).