Sentences with phrase «greater magnitude of effect»

Due to the polygenic nature of the endurance phenotype3, it is highly unlikely that a single gene would have any greater magnitude of effect.

These antioxidant and anti-inflammatory effects are also likely to be responsible for the mechanism behind the beneficial associations between coffee consumption and liver fibrosis, cirrhosis, and liver cancer110 that our umbrella review found had the greatest magnitude of effect compared with other outcomes.

Not exact matches

In sophisticated economies, the impact of consumption may be less than in emerging economies that are largely import - export driven, but the consumption magnitude is even more pronounced due to both a greater wealth effect and standard of living that enable individuals to spend more freely with disposable income.

Epigenetics tells us that little things in life can have an effect of great magnitude.»

The stronger hardware makes a vast array of improvements possible: more complex AI, more NPCs on - screen at any given time, dynamic effects in more contexts, greater mission and side - activity variety, foliage density, the magnitude of level - of - detail phases, draw distance and much more.

The magnitude of the effect in reading is greater than one - half of a standard deviation — a large effect by the standards of education policy research.

The magnitude of these changes is particularly great considering that no elementary school on probation was actually reconstituted during this period and that the social promotion policy has no direct effects on teachers» pay or job security.

Any idea how great the magnitude of these two effects (fuel usage, torque converter lifetime) is?

Global climate models have successfully predicted the rise in temperature as greenhouse gases increased, the cooling of the stratosphere as the troposphere warmed, polar amplification due the ice - albedo effect and other effects, greater increase in nighttime than in daytime temperatures, and the magnitude and duration of the cooling from the eruption of Mount Pinatubo.

Backtracking here, I believe the effect of precession on core mantle coupling would be many orders of magnitude greater than the miniscule variation in LOD.

«''»»»» A G Foster says: April 14, 2011 at 2:16 pm Backtracking here, I believe the effect of precession on core mantle coupling would be many orders of magnitude greater than the miniscule variation in LOD.

If the temperature is below 15.21 ℉ -LRB--9.33 ℃), the magnitude of the temperature effect below 15.21 ℉ -LRB--9.33 ℃) is greater than the effect between 15.21 ℉ -LRB--9.33 ₀ C) and 46.97 ℉ (8.32 ₀ C).

I'm pretty sure the effects of delayed return of rainfall are orders of magnitude greater than that of warming of a small fraction of the Pacific Warm Pool.

Temperature proxy from four ice cores for the last 140,000 years, clearly indicating the greater magnitude of the D - O effect in the northern hemisphere.

Presumably at P = 0.05 and with a confidence interval an order of magnitude greater than the purported effect.

My guess would be that the heat capacity of the air would dominate (surely the volume of air in a forest is more than 1000x the volume of the leaves), in which case the cooling effect would still be an order of magnitude greater than the buoyancy of water vapor effect (but no more than 13X).

And anyways, is the solar uncertainty (we understand the sign) really so much more greater than that associated with the effects of clouds on climate (see my recent post The cloud climate conundrum), where even the sign of the feedback is uncertain and the magnitude of cloud forcing swamps greenhouse gas radiative forcings.

Of course, it is interesting that many of those same «skeptics» also make contradictory arguments that suggest that they have great certainty about the magnitude of the effect (that it definitely isn't as large as the range estimated by the IPCC), and / or argue that none of the ways that climate scientists have measured the effect are valiOf course, it is interesting that many of those same «skeptics» also make contradictory arguments that suggest that they have great certainty about the magnitude of the effect (that it definitely isn't as large as the range estimated by the IPCC), and / or argue that none of the ways that climate scientists have measured the effect are valiof those same «skeptics» also make contradictory arguments that suggest that they have great certainty about the magnitude of the effect (that it definitely isn't as large as the range estimated by the IPCC), and / or argue that none of the ways that climate scientists have measured the effect are valiof the effect (that it definitely isn't as large as the range estimated by the IPCC), and / or argue that none of the ways that climate scientists have measured the effect are valiof the ways that climate scientists have measured the effect are valid.

But what is not really speculative is the fact that pollution would have an effect of greater magnitude.

Is the effect quantified well enough to explain why the Arctic effect is «orders of magnitude» greater?

[Response: Your argument misses the point in three different and important ways, not even considering whether or not the Black Hills data have any general applicability elsewhere, which they may or may not: (1) It ignores the point made in the post about the potential effect of previous, seasonal warming on the magnitude of an extreme event in mid summer to early fall, due to things like (especially) a depletion in soil moisture and consequent accumulation of degree days, (2) it ignores that biological sensitivity is far FAR greater during the warm season than the cold season for a whole number of crucial variables ranging from respiration and photosynthesis to transpiration rates, and (3) it ignores the potential for derivative effects, particularly fire and smoke, in radically increasing the local temperature effects of the heat wave.

The HS findings are consistent with the magnitude and direction of those observed at 30 to 33 months, when robust effects were observed for quality of health care services received and parenting practices related to discipline and perceptions of behavior.5 The persistence of these findings is related to experiences seeking health care in an intervention that offered the greatest intensity of services in the first 18 months, with completion of home visits particularly concentrated in the child's first year.