Sentences with phrase «largest measurement uncertainty»

• The reviewer is apparently unaware that the large measurement uncertainties vitiate attribution and validation, item 5.

Not exact matches

«Given the uncertainty surrounding the measurement of economic slack, the true amount may be larger than estimated, which could slow down the emergence of price pressures,» Draghi told a regular committee hearing.

However, because each of these measurements must be calibrated to account for natural variation in the environment over time, individual dates have large amounts of error and uncertainty, making them difficult to aggregate or interpret in groups.

The uncertainty in the latest measurement is 150 parts per million, or 0.015 % — only slightly larger than that of the conventional method of determining G, which is to quantify the mutual pull of two macroscopic masses.

Over the instrumental period, fractional uncertainty in the latter is very much larger than fractional uncertainty in temperature change measurements, and is approximately normally distributed.

Of course, on a timescale of one decade the noise in the temperature signal from internal variability and measurement uncertainty is quite large, so this might be hard to determine, though tamino showed that five year means show a monotonic increase over recent decades, and one might not unreasonably expect this to cease for a decade in a grand solar minimum scenario.

The selected air - sample measurements themselves have negligible uncertainty and are representative of large areas.

The current state of measurements is such that these quantities have large uncertainties.

But there is a potential problem: I don't know how precisely the experimentalists have pegged these values either for current years (when direct measurements are possible) or in past years (when direct measurments likely weren't done) It may be the uncertainty bounds from in experiments are rather large giving modelers quite a bit of leeway.

«In contrast, the difference between, say, the second and sixth warmest years is trivial since the known uncertainty — or noise — in the temperature measurement is larger than some of the differences between the warmest years.»

Cogley (1999) pointed out that with a measurement network spaced at 50 - 100 m apart the largest source of uncertainty is the error in actual point mass balance measurement (> 0.05 m), and sampling error is negligible.

That means the uncertainty in temperature measurements can be larger than the difference between individual years, which typically comes down to just a few hundredths of a degree.

In the mid 19th century the largest components of the uncertainty at annual time scales are the measurement and sampling uncertainty and the coverage uncertainty because there were few observations made by a small global fleet.

If we have inadequate sampling, and short time intervals, the statistical uncertainties from random fluctuations and random measurement errors can be large, but would tend to cancel out as the number of observations and length of time increases.

These measurements, while subject to some large uncertainties, also show 2017 as a near - record warm year.

GaryM, «initially collected data with wide ranges of uncertainty can be processed using statistics to provide a more accurate measurement on a much larger scale.»

You claim that initially collected data with wide ranges of uncertainty can be processed using statistics to provide a more accurate measurement on a much larger scale.

As a result the bias uncertainties are larger than the measurement and sampling uncertainties.

That is, (1) there is dO18 measurement, which I claim should be fairly precise, but you stated has large uncertainties, and then there is (2) derivation of temperature from dO18 values, where you have indeed pointed out that there could be a number of possibly confounding factors in that analysis if other variables than temperature are not controlled.

My experience in working extensively with temperature measurements and temperature forecasting leads me to believe that our best estimates of global temperature anomalies based on surface measurements have a much larger degree of uncertainty than has been implied by most users of these estimates.

The use of even more recently computer - reconstructed total solar irradiance data (whatever have large uncertainties) for the period prior to 1976 would not change any of the conclusions in my paper, where quantitative analyses were emphasized on the influences of humans and the Sun on global surface temperature after 1970 when direct measurements became available.

For any assumed distribution of parameter values, a method of producing 5 — 95 % uncertainty ranges can be tested by drawing a large number of samples of possible parameter values from that distribution, and for each drawing a measurement at random according to the measurement uncertainty distribution and estimating a range for the parameter.

You might even argue that the molecular - translational - kinetic - energy difference is so small that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle dictates an extraordinarily large time uncertainty in its mUncertainty Principle dictates an extraordinarily large time uncertainty in its muncertainty in its measurement.

The uncertainty of temperature trends calculated from satellites is about five times as large as the surface temperature measurements.

This suggests that the uncertainties in measurements from these regions are larger than in other regions, and this will be exacerbated by the high variability.

To date, the airborne in situ measurements of the cirrus PSD have contained large uncertainties due to errors in measuring small ice crystals (D ≲ 60 μm).

The SST of the periode mentioned as tuning parameter seems to be much more plausibely than the TOA - imbalance which is not directly observable at all also with the sofisticatest recent technonolgies, see http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JAMC-D-16-0406.1 «Uncertainties in absolute calibration and the algorithms used to determine Earth's radiation budget from satellite measurements are too large to enable Earth's energy imbalance to be quantified in an absolute sense.»

The report also notes that there are large uncertainties in agricultural water use due to a lack of consistent measurement and reporting, time lags in information, and confusion about definitions.

This is partly because the interannual to decadal variability is generally large in these variables, and partly because there are large uncertainties and sometimes an artificial trend in observations owing to the difficulty in measurement of these climate variables (Trenberth et al. 2007).

Over the instrumental period, fractional uncertainty in the latter is very much larger than fractional uncertainty in temperature change measurements, and is approximately normally distributed.

We do not investigate the twentieth century trend of PRCP, SLP, or TOA radiation because the interannual to decadal variability is generally large in these variables, and there are large uncertainties and sometimes an artificial trend in observations owing to the difficulty in measurement of these variables (Trenberth et al. 2007).