Sentences with phrase «error bars on»

The error bars on that are 0.07 degC, which negates the effect.

The slope I reported in that comment is significant based on the F test, a t test, or just informally eyeballing the error bars on the slope.

In fact, given uncertainties and error bars on our historical temperature measurements, climate scientists are probably trumpeting a perfect fit here to the wrong data.

The size of the one std error bars in Figure 1A and the lack of error bars on Figure 3C were distressing.

Thanks, that really does sound like quite a substantial change from what I understood his previous position to be - though with no error bars on that 2C, it is hard to be sure.

The error bars on the data used to make the mass balance argument are no where near large enough to cast any doubt on the conclusion.

There ought to be pretty large error bars on the uptake of CO2.

The early scientific reviews suggest a couple of reasons: firstly, that modelling the climate as an AR (1) process with a single timescale is an over-simplification; secondly, that a similar analysis in a GCM with a known sensitivity would likely give incorrect results, and finally, that his estimate of the error bars on his calculation are very optimistic.

Either way, it is satisfying to see error bars on all these measurements.

How about «The error bars on the last months of data from our study are too wide for us to advance ANY FIRM SCIENTIFIC CONCLUSION whatsoever, based on those last months.»?

So, it's quite likely that the next IPCC report will have much larger error bars on its estimates of future temperature or precipitation, compared with AR4.

The GISS graph has the error bars on it, both should lead you to the study details, also check the CRU page link to the IPCC report (also in my sidebar).

Error bars on red symbols span 16 — 84 percentiles (similar to ± 1 σ), unless noted otherwise.

I appreciate the BEST work, which generally includes error bars on their temperature charts.

So we are supposed to look at that graph, look at the error bars on it, and accept it!

(a) the residence time for CO2 in the atmosphere is around 5 years (b) The fluxes (sources / sinks) of CO2 in nature are very large, as are the error bars on their estimates:

Sure there are probably fairly substantial error bars on the estimates of annual anthropogenic emissions (+ / - 15 - 20 %, maybe) but that doesn't prevent one from making the calculations.

I don't support reducing the error bars on the original data either, because I act like a scientists and not a priest that knows the answer from the start.

Then we misapply the law of large numbers to say there is no way that many stations could all be wrong, and apply tiny error bars on populations that still have large unresolved systematic errors and biases.

I thought the entire error range for NCDC global surface temps was 0.09 C + \ - 0.045 C. (NASA GISS is + \ - 0.05 C.) But the error bars on the graph in this post show + \ - 0.09 C which is 0.18 C overall range.

What is the justification for adjusting past values, and is there any way to convey the increasing level of statistical uncertainty in the USHCN values, like confidence intervals or error bars on charts?

That is way you data - processing people look at it, then error bars on error bars.

Natural variability would put error bars on that, could you finish the calculation, Student's T - Test would be fine???

What are the error bars on this?

My guess is that you can't find anything post-2008 because there are so few data points that the error bars on short trends are going to swamp any chance of significance (right?).

You do know that you're suppose to put error bars on things.

Upshot about misprediction of the AMO and PDO, is that the models can start putting better error bars on things.

Refer to Estimation of the Error Bars for a discussion of the error bars on these amplitudes.

Specifically, he criticized the lack of error bars on the data used in The Escalator, making some rather wild claims about the uncertainty in the data.

There has not been an effort to put plausible error bars on the data, perhaps because it is already quite challenging to simply get it to line up, while interpreting the temperature implications of different tree ring or sediment layers thicknesses is inherently very ambiguous.

I then started looking at the issue and I made the mistake of asking a question about error bars on an alarmist blog and wow, I got immediately accused of all kinds of horrible things including being in the pay of big oil, a reaction that utterly shocked me.

Unfortunately the error bars on human aerosols are so large that even TCR can't be reasonably constrained.

What are the error bars on the satellite land surface and sea surface assumed means?

What it would cost them is certainty during the post 1970 period e.g bigger error bars on the gradient, strangely they seem to have bigger error bars in the summary than the AOGCMS suggest.

Where are the error bars on each measurement?

Max, just to clear things up, the error bars on the trend for UAH from 2001 to 2012, are about 5 times the trend, and the trend to date is now positive at

But in these graphs they are mostly related to organisms, through which any local temperature «signal» is noisy — which means it has a lot of error bars on it.

At least the IPCC still puts error bars on their estimate of ECS, what are the error estimates for the 1.6 or 1.7 figure?

If, as I think we should, we implicitly place very wide error bars on the 3 scenarios, then the current temperature record would fall comfortably within the error bars of all 3 scenarios.

That puts huge error bars on what CO2 sensitivity could be.

And now Gavin et al finally admit that the error bars on the outputs are consequently huge too (which was always blindingly obvious to more responsible computer modelers).

I'm guessing that the MBH one was used because it had nice error bars on it

I f you were to display error bars on the end result, I think a considerable number of people would be delighted.

«the sea level rise was 2.2 mm / y in 1993 - 1996 and 3.3 mm / y in 2003 - 2006» 1) what are the error bars on this result?

I'm afraid the error bars on H2O would dwarf the other greenhouse gases.

What does it tell you about a field that is unwilling or unable to narrow the error bars on the key quantity driving policy decisions in over 4 decades of extremely well - funded research?

The error bars on the CERES retrievals, particularly when all 4 sensors are available are significantly less than the (reported) error bars on the ocean heat content data in the Lyman et al work.

We know how much radiation comes from the sun, and we know the effects of CO2, but there are pretty large error bars on aerosols that this mission could help with.

If not I think I may be confused about why the error bars on ANT are much less than OA+GHG separately.

I will venture a guess that most of these approaches will actually reduce the error bars on the sensitivity — not increase them.