Sentences with phrase «errors than trend»

Current fluctuations are more a result of rounding errors than trend indicators.

Not exact matches

It is important to see the change in the Conservative vote share in the context of the longer term trend: though the Tory figures have moved around more than those of other parties in the ANP, they have been around 30 %, within the margin of error, for eight weeks, while Labour remain firmly in the mid-30s.

In summary the projections of the IPCC — Met office models and all the impact studies (especially the Stern report) which derive from them are based on specifically structurally flawed and inherently useless models.They deserve no place in any serious discussion of future climate trends and represent an enormous waste of time and money.As a basis for public policy their forecasts are grossly in error and therefore worse than useless.For further discussion and an estimate of the coming cooling see http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com

That's still less than a rounding error compared to what investors in active funds are being charged but is this the start of a new trend now that iShares is in the hands of BlackRock?

In this conversation you cite unceratinty of RSS data that are almost twice larger than trend (+ -0,26), although Mears and Weinz (2005) state that error range of RSS T2LT is 0.09!!!

** Note added 1/21/05: McKitrick and Michaels have published an errata correcting the degrees / radians error in CR 27, 265 - 268 which now shows that latitude correlates much better with temperature trends than any economic statisitic.

One estimate of that error for the MSU 2 product (a weighted average of tropospheric + lower stratospheric trends) is that two different groups (UAH and RSS) come up with a range of tropical trends of 0.048 to 0.133 °C / decade — a much larger difference than the simple uncertainty in the trend.

PHEaston: as a scientist, why are you picking ANY arbitrary start and end dates in noisy data sets, rather than fitting trend lines (preferably with error ranges)?

In other words, it's the hardest month to predict, in the sense that if you predict presistence (i.e. a continuation of the linear downward trend), you are likely to make a larger error for your September prediction than for any other month.

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.

Generally, the remaining uncorrected effect from urban heat islands is now believed to be less than 0.1 C, and in some parts of the world it may be more than fully compensated for by other changes in measurement methods.4 Nevertheless, this remains an important source of uncertainty.The warming trend observed over the past century is too large to be easily dismissed as a consequence of measurement errors.

A group of people analyzing sea level data points from satellite altimetry, where the errors inherent in the methodology are greater than the absolute trend itself and all sorts of adjustments must be made to get anything out of the raw data, are in much worse shape than the guy making the mark in stone.

What I am refuting is that there is not enough evidence with this paper to say x is now greater than y and that it does not differ greatly with historical evidence, There may be an error, on the hot side (in the models), but the actual historical trend line didn't really change.

Could models, which consistently err by several degrees in the 20th century, be trusted for their future predictions of decadal trends that are much lower than this error?

This measures the whole ocean except areas near coastlines that satellites can not measure, with an error range that is greater than the trend it is supposedly measuring.

This is due to the error in reasoning that because human flux is so much smaller than ocean flux we must surely make little difference compared to nature in the final trend.

The trend over the course of the entire 20th century is about 0.6 - 0.7 C, probably no greater than the expected error, and, given the secrecy and opaqueness of the methods by which the record was constructed, probably not worth paying any attention to.

Note that the SRs from the thermal wind calculations are significantly larger than model values in all cases, which provides further evidence that TWE trends contain large errors.»

If they can be inferred to a reasonable degree, then one can use the observed characteristics of interannual NAO variability to estimate the error on future NAO trends, rather than relying solely on the model.

It is also fun to note that Parker bemoans major gaps in the data for the tropics in his paper, yet assigns a two sigma error measurement of.04 degrees C in the trend data above for the.18 degree C trend for the tropics, which is less than the.05 degree C two sigma error measurement for the.20 degree trend shown for the whole globe.

Our tests of forecast accuracy over the period from 1851 to 1975 found that for forecasts for 91 to 100 years ahead, the models used by the IPCC had errors that were more than 12 times larger than errors from our «no - trend» model....

Horatio has discovered that (lo and behold) a «Curry Cliff Quotes» site already exists (ThinkExist.com) though Horatio must admit that the Judith Curry who is quoted there may be (sure seems like) a different one than the one who has been doing the blog shows recently (quoted at CurryQuotes) Here's an example of the kind of thing «ThinkExist Judith Curry» (aka «Thinking Judith Curry») says: «Even with imperfect data and some uncertainty, it's hard to imagine what kind of errors might be in the data set to give you a long - term trend.»

For this article, a statistically - significant global warming means that the linear trend (slope of the trend line) is likely greater than zero with 95 % statistical confidence (i.e. the 95 % error bars do not include a possible 0.0 or negative temperature degree slope).

Seawater pH has decreased by 0.07 - 0.08 U overall in the last 200 years — a figure that is subject to enormous error bars larger than that estimated trend.

Although we should and do neglect absolute values — the error for anomalies is considerably less than the trend in anomalies.

Using decadal averages the last decade was 0.15 degrees than the previous one, and the error bars are actually smaller than the trend.

Since the projections are based on the models simulations that indicate approximately 0.2 C per decade, the error in the models in the Antarctic and tropics appear to be higher than observation, and the trend in the tropics since 1994 is only 0.04 C per decade, it appears likely that H I will be falsified.

Bearing in mind their previous hubris about short - term cycles being manmade, their gross, unproven assumption about CO2 as a climate driver and the fact that the signal is far less than the error bars in the noise then why would anyone think that the long - term trend is anything other than just a separate upswinging natural cycle?

The very high significance levels of model — observation discrepancies in LT and MT trends that were obtained in some studies (e.g., Douglass et al., 2008; McKitrick et al., 2010) thus arose to a substantial degree from using the standard error of the model ensemble mean as a measure of uncertainty, instead of the ensemble standard deviation or some other appropriate measure for uncertainty arising from internal climate variability... Nevertheless, almost all model ensemble members show a warming trend in both LT and MT larger than observational estimates (McKitrick et al., 2010; Po - Chedley and Fu, 2012; Santer et al., 2013).

The pressure error meant that the temperatures were being associated with a point higher in the ocean column than they should have been, and this (given that the ocean cools with depth) introduced a spurious cooling trend when compared to earlier data.

Severe Type B Error Rather than being normally distributed about the actual temperature trends, > 95 % of the IPCC's 34 year projections are severely biased too hot.

«Error limits larger than the trend» doesn't apply in all cases; as Jim Cripwell is fond of pointing out, you can't directly measure climate sensitivity.

Anyway, it looks like very premature to accuse them of hiding the data, if the error bars of the historical measurements are larger than the trend you are looking for...

My issue is, there are uncertanties in the data - temperature for instance (error limits, splicing etc etc) and although not a direct counter to the theory, the statistical error limit is larger than the trend we're trying to observe (particularly for the proxy data).

The regression does indeed show a positive trend for the atmospheric water vapor content, but when the AR1 correction is applied to the trend slope (TS) confidence intervals (CI) for the standard error (SE) the CIs include zero and thus we can not conclude that the trend is statistically different than zero.

Its standard error is 0.11 degC / decade, so the real trend rate could be as high as 0.36 deg.C / decade, quite a bit larger than the average rate since 1975.

This makes estimates of trend rates from linear regression (or any other method, for that matter) less precise; the probable error from such an analysis is larger than it would be if the random parts of the data were uncorrelated.