Sentences with phrase «excluding lu»

My case for considering excluding LU run 1 has nothing to do with whether I like the result of the run or not.

Not exact matches

If the regression is forced to go through the origin, LU efficacy it is much closer to one — or belwo 1 if run 1 is excluded.

[Response: Quotes: «an outlier, possibly rogue», «estimates are greatly reduced... if run 1 is excluded», «I conjectured run 1 might be rogue», «it seems pretty clear that run 1 is a rogue», «whether or LU run 1 is rogue, there is a good case for excluding it».

Quite apart from the wider publicity given to the heat transport problem in the Russell ocean model (which affects all of the published GISS - E2 - R results), and the famous rogue LU run where a negative forcing yields an overall positive net flux response (which is not rogue at all and not to be excluded according to Gavin), the WMGHG results and particularly the relationship between Fi and ERF values now seem positively bizarre.

Doing so would have reduced the LU 3.89 efficacy to 1.83, or to 0.91 excluding run 1.

Excluding also the LU run with the lowest GMST response, to balance excluding the run with the highest GMST response, would cause little further change in the efficacy Excluding also the LU run with the lowest GMST response, to balance excluding the run with the highest GMST response, would cause little further change in the efficacy excluding the run with the highest GMST response, would cause little further change in the efficacy estimate.

[22] The LU efficacies estimates are greatly reduced if run 1 is excluded.

As I wrote earlier, whether or not LU run 1 is strictly a rogue, it seems to me that there is a good case for excluding it since we know the real world climate system did not behave like this during the 20th century.