Not exact matches
In one sentence: Researchers
at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and colleagues found that if followed by measures of
equal or greater ambition, individual country pledges to reduce their emissions called Intended Nationally Determined Contributions have the potential to reduce the
probability of the highest levels of warming and increase the
probability of limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius.
In February of 2011, CUNY's Office of Institutional Research and Assessment, headed by University Dean David Crook, released critical data (obtained by Director of Policy Analysis Colin Chellman using linear
probability models and logistic regression) demonstrating that, all else being
equal (i.e., taking into account all measurable demographic and performance characteristics), CUNY's transfer students were
at a disadvantage in terms of graduation compared to native students.
Assign
equal probability to each of these classrooms, choose one
at random, and denote it by.
I had attempted a similar project
at the 3rd conference with my poster «Comparison of Climate Forecasts: Expert Opinions vs. Prediction Markets» in which my abstract proposed the following: «As an experiment, we will ask participants to go on the record with estimates of
probability that the global temperature anomaly for calendar year 2012 will be
equal to or greater than x, where x ranges in increments of 0.05 °C from 0.30 to 1.10 °C (relative to the 1951 - 1980 base period, and published by NASA GISS).»
As I recall, this is based on the theory that the structure of the black body surface is so complex that it has a continuous spectrum of oscillatory mechanisms and can thus radiate or absorb
at any frequency with
equal probability.
The solution for the pressure
at a constant temperature above indicates that a gas is perfectly happy to support its own weight and density / pressure profile
at a constant temperature, and
at a constant temperature all collisions have
equal probabilities of heat transfer in all collisions in all directions.
Were the hypothesis that warming will increase
at least 1C / decade averaged over a millennium
at 95 % confidence, nineteen times in twenty, given the noise in the signal, all other things being
equal, we'd first need 17 years
at least to get some kinda sketchy data, and then could begin calculating from the set of subsequent running or independent 17 year spans (a different calculation for each, depending on the PDF) the
probability that a -20 C decade would be consistent with a +1 C / decade hypothesis.