Sentences with phrase «errors in the thermometer»

Not exact matches

For example, if your child doesn't press a universal digital thermometer to his body tightly, the result in the armpit can be with a rather large error — up to half a degree.

Correcting this error did not bring the early thermometers completely in line with proxies — up to 0.9 F of additional warm bias might still persist from other sources, such as differences in the thermometers or in how people read them — «but I think we are nearer to the truth,» said Böhm in 2012.

When they corrected the error, Wentz and Schabel derived a warming trend of about 0.07 °C per decade, more in line with surface thermometers and climate models.

They committed serial errors in the data analysis, but insisted they were right and models and thermometers were wrong.

The Sherwood et al. study in Science Express concerns one particular type of long - recognized radiosonde error, that caused by the sun shining on the «thermistor» (basically, a cheap thermometer easily read by an electric circuit).

Now, add all those up, with all the uncertainties involved in trying to get a geographic average when, for example, large swaths of the earth are not covered by an official thermometer, and what is the error on the total?

Rev, «Or — perhaps, in your blog - research, you only use magic «perfect» thermometers that read correctly to 137 decimal places with no margin of error?

As regards thermometers, the diameter of the mercury column with only a + / - 2.5 % deviation in diameter will yield a 10 % error over the number of increments counted.

As an extension, systematic observational errors could perhaps be corrected as part of the regression by estimating a constant shift to apply to each thermometer (treating changes in technology as creating a new thermometer on the same site), though this may make the problem too large.

Nevertheless, this compilation contains the only known official climate records for the Western Australia colony before 1900 and although recording discrepancies may have been common, these mistakes might either inflate or deflate the real temperatures (e.g. thermometers near warm buildings or in cool locations, although a common error was heat radiation from the ground).

Stick a thermometer in for temperatures, use the old unadjusted data and make the models available so programing errors can be removed.

The measurement uncertainties account for correlations between errors in observations made by the same ship or buoy due, for example, to miscalibration of the thermometer.

In the CRU approach the errors are estimated or built up in a bottom up fashion, so there is an estimate for thermometer error, for recording error, etcIn the CRU approach the errors are estimated or built up in a bottom up fashion, so there is an estimate for thermometer error, for recording error, etcin a bottom up fashion, so there is an estimate for thermometer error, for recording error, etc..

They have said above (in their replies, but not in the paper itself) that that particular AGW signal is bounded by a maximum of.66 C per century, and that the AGW signal may come from (1) a recent CO2 increase — which you are apparently assuming is the sole source), (2) measurement error / bias (UHI and bad thermometer sites) and (3) other causes.

See, the first thing to do is do determine what the temperature trend during the recent thermometer period (1850 — 2011) actually is, and what patterns or trends represent «data» in those trends (what the earth's temperature / climate really was during this period), and what represents random «noise» (day - to - day, year - to - random changes in the «weather» that do NOT represent «climate change»), and what represents experimental error in the plots (UHI increases in the temperatures, thermometer loss and loss of USSR data, «metadata» «M» (minus) records getting skipped that inflate winter temperatures, differences in sea records from different measuring techniques, sea records vice land records, extrapolated land records over hundreds of km, surface temperature errors from lousy stations and lousy maintenance of surface records and stations, false and malicious time - of - observation bias changes in the information.)

Errors from all sources — miscalibration of thermometers, reading temperatures inconsistently, poor placement of thermometers, and so on would in general be assumed to be as likely to be too warm as too cold.

If this is the best such land area surface temperature assessment system on the planet (covering, as well, a broad range of metropolitan, suburban, and rural areas), and the quality of the system is now proven to be demonstrably more prone to error than had been previously assumed — with the preponderance of error shown to produce the impression of warming in excess of real conditions prevailing — what may be reliably inferred about surface temperature monitoring systems data from even less reliable thermometers all over the rest of the world?

Parts of the data may have some elements of the errors that are Gaussian — the example of measurement error in terms of scale may be Gaussian — after get through the problems of variances in the thermometers themselves, which is also a well - known problem for mercury thermometers vis a vis their manufacturing — but their measured variance from the true temperature is not demonstrably Gaussian, and gets worse the further back you go.

a Uncertainties (2 sigma) du to: data gaps and random errors estimated by RSOA (heavy solid); SST bias - corrections (heavy dashes); urbanisation (light dashes); changes in thermometer exposures on LAT (light solid).

By fixating on a minor detail, you have glossed right over all the real difficulties and challenges in working out the probable error range for early temperature records, which include uncertainty about the properties of the thermometers used and gaps in the records.