Sentences with phrase «error range so»

As far as «climate» goes, a 30 year smooth reduces most on the weather noise giving you something to fit with a reasonable error range so you don't have to magnify some obscure signal by a factor of ten to get a «fit».

Not exact matches

But this forecast would be so swamped by the + / - 2 % range of error as to make that forecast meaningless.

So for example, a 4 - week forecast in the most favorable Market Climate would be a gain of about 4 x 0.4 % = 1.6 %, but the range of error would grow to the square root of 4 x 2 % = + / - 4 %.

For the 2013 local elections however, the margin of error is so wide as to cover almost the entire range of probabilities — perhaps the statistical equivalent of shrugging your shoulders and admitting you haven't got a clue.

While some research was previously done by his and other groups on a smaller scale, «This is the first real description of a method that could be used broadly across a range of conditions to operationally measure diagnostic errors and associated bad outcomes so that we can track our performance and see whether our interventions are making a difference,» Newman - Toker says.

That's how we flush enough error out of the system so that we can have some confidence that within some limited range of social behavior that we're going to get some degree of accuracy.

Borehole temperature reconstructions necessarily exhibit dramatically increasing error ranges the further back in time one goes, so this can not possibly be right.

So there the error bars are -1 K and +1.5 K. Annan & Hargreaves give a means to narrow this range somewhat and I think they give 2.8 K as most likely.

Note that the time span is so short that these results are far less precise than the 30 - year trend; for the trend from 1975 the error range was only 0.003 deg.C / yr, but for the trend from 2000 the error range is + / - 0.019 or 0.016 deg.C / yr.

It seems my objections are within the error range of your calculations, so why do you dismiss them as being ridiculous?

On a more specific issue, even counting in errorbars, the usual way to do this is this to center the range around the best estimate, so you should have written 40 % + - error.

For NWP forecasts, model error is not usually so dominant that a reforecast set is needed but for the subseasonal to seasonal range model error is too large to be ignored.

I can claim I'm very accurate because my models predict a temperature between absolute zero and the surface temperature of the sun, but that error range is so large, it means I'm not really predicting anything.

So please give an example where measurements of any given phenomenon were taken, with a potential error range of the equivalent of + / - 5 % that you stipulated in the initial measurements, where that poor initial data was processed using statistics, and provided an «actual average measurement within + / -.03 %, that was then verified against later, with subsequent more accurate measurements.

Danny, for weather there are many past forecasts that can be verified against what happened, so the uncertainty in forecasts can be quantified by the range of the errors.

* there are no error ranges on any of the graphed figures so it's unclear which figures are consistent and which are not.

So yes, that range of error pretty much means the Antarctic cores are novelties without verification.

Ok, so then are you saying that if we follow my rule for picking decades of only allowing years that are multiples of ten when specifying ranges, the last decade warmed almost as fast as the previous one, but if we follow your rule of only allowing years that are congruent to 1 mod 10, per the fencepost error that makes the year 1990 part of the 1980's, then the warming paused during the last decade?

Thirdly anthropogenic global warming [ANT] is still put at greater than 100 %, ie 110 %, after taking off the supposed negative aerosol effect [OA], which is so unknown that the error bars are bigger than the guesstimate.This is where Gavin obtains his 110 % likely range of Anthropogenic warming that he attributes to the IPCC.

So you fuzz your data into the error ranges, e.g. your datum says 1500AD with standard age error of 150 years, so you write 1000 records into the range 1350AD - 1650AD — taa daa, your data now includes the standard erroSo you fuzz your data into the error ranges, e.g. your datum says 1500AD with standard age error of 150 years, so you write 1000 records into the range 1350AD - 1650AD — taa daa, your data now includes the standard erroso you write 1000 records into the range 1350AD - 1650AD — taa daa, your data now includes the standard error.

So you need to look at a wide range of indicators all of which have independent sources of error (for instance, errors in satellites are not likely to be correlated with errors in weather stations or ocean buoys) and see if your understanding matches all of the different aspects that you expect from the theory (stratospheric cooling, ocean warming, Arctic melt, poleward and upward expansion of biomes etc...).

The papers themselves will always be well caveated and full of error ranges and uncertainty, often so much that seemingly different results are in fact compatible at the edges of their respective error bounds.

So the actual error range is substantially greater.

In light of the mandatory minimum, these two errors may have canceled each other out (the unenhanced range was less than the mandatory minimums) so perhaps he should have voted to uphold the district court.