I did that because I knew he would
know the error bars anyway and go with it as a story if he thought it worthwhile.
Not exact matches
This is my first year doing so and I'm nervous as to how long it ACTUALLY takes I
know the website says 6 - 8 weeks but my
bars have also disappeared with no topic or
error code.
General fixes • Significant improvements to the Squad Join interface • Removed FIND ME A SQUAD option • Allow players to join empty Squads alone, thus having 1/4 Squad members • Change order of options to LEAVE SQUAD, INV A FRIEND, SWITCH TEAM • Disable Privacy flag when 1 man Squad • Reset Privacy flag from Private to Public when Squad drops to 1 player • All occupied Squads will now show up colored blue on the Squad selection screen • Players who choose not to join Squads will also show up as Blue in the «Not in a Squad» line • Squads that are currently empty will display as white — if you wish to join an empty Squad, you can choose the first one marked with white text • Added round duration and ticket summary at end of round screen • Fixed sound for when climbing ladders • Fixed and issue with some weapons» sounds in first person view • Fixed a swim sound loop
error • You should
no longer be able to damage a friendly vehicle when sitting in an open position • Grenades now drop to ground if you get killed while attempting to throw it • Spawn protection now should work in Conquest so you
no longer should spawn too close to enemies • You should
no longer spawn too close to enemies in TDM and SQDM • Fix for missing input restriction during intro movie, causing players to potentially fall and die while watching movie if moving controller (or having a controller with a bad stick zone) • Combat areas on Kharg Island in Rush mode tweaked in order to disallow defenders to access the carrier ship after first base is taken and being able to enter the AA gun • Fixed a problem with revived players not being able to get suppressed • Fixed a problem with the camera when being revived in co-op • Spotting VO now plays when spotting from MAV / EOD bot • Fixed several issues regarding the kill card, including showing wrong weapons used for the kill • Fixed that sometimes you would be stuck on a black screen when kicked from server • Fixed so when a team captures two flags at the same time, the UI does not show wrong owner of the flag • Fixed a problem where the capture progress
bar was shown as friendly when the enemy was capturing • Fixed a problem with the bipod deploy sound • Fixed a problem that you could be spawned in with
no weapons after being killed while using the EOD bot • Fixed problems with health
bars not displaying health properly when using EOD bots • Fixed a problem with flickering name tags • Fixed a problem where you could damage friendly helicopters • Fixed a problem where you could get stuck in the co-op menu when attempting to join the session twice • You should now be able to spot explosives • You should
no longer spawn in home base if your selected spawn point is disabled while waiting to spawn (e.g. if your teammate dies right before you are about to spawn) • Damage from bullets will now continue to cause damage even after the firing user is dead • Fixed several client crashes • Fixed a problem where players could get stuck in the join queue • Fixed the repair icon on the minimal • Fixed a problem with changing camera on certain vehicles • Fixed a problem with the grenade indicator when in guided missile mode • Fixed a problem where the machine could hard lock when joining a public coop game • Fixed a problem where the headset attached icon would not show up in the UI • Fixed a problem with the falling antenna on Caspian Border.
But if I say «about 1 psi lower than air pressure is good,» that has meaning
no matter how little experience you have had at fixing vacuum powered wipers and regardless of the
error bars.
Scientists
know how to handle
error bars.
We
know how much radiation comes from the sun, and we
know the effects of CO2, but there are pretty large
error bars on aerosols that this mission could help with.
My view is that ultimately it's a waste of mental energy, since we've already got enough certainty to
know that it's a good idea to take out an insurance policy against the worst - case scenario — and by the time you've got the hindsight to have «no
error bars,» it's already too late to do anything about GHGs:
The overall process is so statistically bizarre that no one
knows how to carry the
error bars of individual averages, or grid averages, or interpolations, etc., forward to even estimate the likely
error.
The two periods are of different length, and at different temperature levels, with different
error bars, and we already
know from Cowtan & Way and other basic observations that the so - called «global» dataset isn't representative of the scale of the change but tends to minimize differences: you can't simply subtract one rate from the other and get a valid result.
You do
know that you're suppose to put
error bars on things.
But if we question it too hard we would need to either strip out every
error bar and uncertainty limit from every paper without a
known prior, or put large horror warnings against each one stating that these
error limits are the result of a subjective judgement of the authors.
Ice thickness is more difficult, and I would assign greater
error bars, but the increase is quite remarkable, and, as Willis recently pointed out, while the exact m = thickness may be disputable, the method used is consistent, therefore the change documented is true relative to the past, even if the exact value is not
known.
«The problem with the models is that their
error bars are so huge, compared to the trend that they are intended to predict, that they basically can not be falsified during the academic lifetime of their creators,
no matter what happens.»
You want your doctor to predict the future and tell you whether you are going to die or not — with appropriately tiny
error bars no doubt.
I believe that the science abusers out there come in 2 categories 1) Those who don't
know what
error bars mean, and 2) Those who do and choose not to use them because it minimizes their hype of AGW.
And when one puts in
error bars, as has not (as far as I can tell) been done on a uniform basis, it is evident that we still don't
know about Earth's energy budget.
I don't support reducing the
error bars on the original data either, because I act like a scientists and not a priest that
knows the answer from the start.
pete - perhaps you could take the time to explain to those of who do not
know, why it is wrong to take annual readings instead of 40 year groupings for the
error bars?
It is the result of one computer model, run by... well, who
knows, with an accuracy of... well, who
knows, and an
error bar of......
But I DO
know, i would not be so deluded as to believe I could specify something so nebulous to 2 places of decimals, and I sure as Hell would incorporate
error bars.
The early scientific reviews suggest a couple of reasons: firstly, that modelling the climate as an AR (1) process with a single timescale is an over-simplification; secondly, that a similar analysis in a GCM with a
known sensitivity would likely give incorrect results, and finally, that his estimate of the
error bars on his calculation are very optimistic.
Upper
error bar can not reach present temperatures, u
know.
IPCC (2007) does not mention κ and, therefore, provides neither
error -
bars nor a «Level of Scientific Understanding» (the IPCC's subjective measure of the extent to which enough is
known about a variable to render it useful in quantifying climate sensitivity).
The
error bars on the data used to make the mass balance argument are
no where near large enough to cast any doubt on the conclusion.
Anyone sensible
knows that different lines whose
error bars generally overlap are more in agreement or not.