Sentences with phrase «few numbers on paper»

Not exact matches

Sure, there might be a few papers that take climate sensitivity as a given and somehow try to draw conclusions about the impact on the climate from that... But, I hardly think that these are swamping the number of papers trying to determine what the climate sensitivity is, studying if the water vapor feedback is working as expected, etc., etc..

When they drill down into the numbers on their royalty statements, these writers find very few paper books (hardcover or mass market) selling at full retail price.

While the escalating numbers on sales charts for the online book market are key points in possibly propelling a natural progression of books from paper to electronic format, there are a few other equally decisive factors that could take the Indian publishing industry by storm.

A self - portrait and a portrait of an elderly woman, both clothed and on seven - foot tall canvases from 1983, plus a number of intense, graphite pencil - on - paper portraits display skills that few young artists today are bothering to acquire.

HELEN FRANKENTHALER Flotilla screenpint in colors, 2006, on wove paper, signed and dated in pencil, numbered 23/120, published by Lincoln Center / List Poster and Print Program, New York, the full sheet, a few soft handling creases at the sheet edges, otherwise in good condition S. 31 x 37 in.

HELEN FRANKENTHALER (B. 1928) A Little Zen, from Four Pochoirs (Harrison 29) pochoir and screenprint in colors, 1970, on Arches Imperial Rough, signed and dated in pencil, numbered 9/50 (there were also 7 artist's proofs), published by Abrams Original Editions, New York, the full sheet, the paper slightly toned, soft rippling throughout, a few small stains in places, pale time staining, otherwise in very good condition, framed S. 22 x 30 1/2 in.

Approximately sixty - three vintage gelatin silver prints, some on Agfa Brovira pa..., some on Agfa Brovira paper from the 1940s, a number ferrotyped, images mostly 3 1/4 x 4 3/8 inches (80 x 110 mm), a few smaller.

ADOLPH GOTTLIEB Green Ground, Blue Disk screenprint in colors, 1966, on wove paper, signed and dated in white pencil, numbered 7/50, published by Marlborough Graphics, New York, the full sheet, minor scuffs, a few handling creases, minor ink loss at the sheet edges, otherwise in good condition S. 24 x 18 in.

HELEN FRANKENTHALER Soho Dreams etching, aquatint and drypoint in colors, 1986, on wove paper, signed and dated» 87» in pencil, numbered 64/71 (there were also 8 artist's proofs), with the 2RC Editions blindstamp, with full margins, a very soft crease at the bottom left margin corner, a few foxmarks on the reverse, otherwise in excellent condition, framed S. 25 1/2 x 30 3/4 in.

ADOLPH GOTTLIEB Germination # 3 (Asociated American Artists 61) lithograph in colors, 1969, on wove paper, signed and dated in pencil, numbered 44/75, published by Marlborough Graphics, with margins, the colors attenuated, a few soft creases, otherwise in generally good condition, framed S. 22 1/8 x 30 in.

ADOLPH GOTTLIEB Green Dream screenprint in colors, 1969, on smooth wove paper, signed and dated in pencil, numbered 5/95, published by Marlborough Graphics, New York, with full margins, minor scuffs, a few minute accretions and minor ink losses, the palest mat staining, otherwise in good condition, framed Scr.

re: # 18 I've long argued that this is an «evidence vs representation» issue, that the emphasis on the hockey stick in the TAR seemed due to fact that of the huge numbers of papers and lines of evidence, very few offer a simple, compelling graphic... which is why it has been subject to such attack.

However, it is not foolproof — a deeply flawed paper can end up being published under a number of different potential circumstances: (i) the work is submitted to a journal outside the relevant field (e.g. a paper on paleoclimate submitted to a social science journal) where the reviewers are likely to be chosen from a pool of individuals lacking the expertise to properly review the paper, (ii) too few or too unqualified a set of reviewers are chosen by the editor, (iii) the reviewers or editor (or both) have agendas, and overlook flaws that invalidate the paper's conclusions, and (iv) the journal may process and publish so many papers that individual manuscripts occasionally do not get the editorial attention they deserve.

Over the last few months, though, there have been a number of new papers on this connection that provide some interesting perspective on the issue which will certainly continue as the CMIP5 models start to get analysed.

The Blacklist Paper, authored by Stephen Schneider et al, had as its intention the separation of climate scientists into two groups — one they called «credible», based on the number of publications and citations of those publications, and one called «climate deniers», which would be less credible because the way they set up the analysis guaranteed they would have fewer publications and citations.

However, if I were prepping a paper like this, I would run the model with a large number of variations on the source data just to satisfy myself that my conclusions were not dependent on a few stations.

There were a few who had me stamp the number on the document and print them out with the number already on them, but the production format was in paper.

A few little caveats — number 11 is actually individual wall decals that you can place on your wall in a pattern which still gets the look of wall paper (also removable), at a much lower price point, and number 12 is not actually a temporary wallpaper, I think it is more of a traditional wallpaper with a smarter adhesive technology so it is supposed to be easier to adhere and remove.