Sentences with phrase «lower than physics»

Not exact matches

From this Stoeger argues that «special divine action» is really a matter of the «higher laws of nature» as they actually function, rather than as we understand them, subsuming, modifying and marshalling the «lower orders of nature»; those of physics, chemistry and biology.

«The low representation of women in physics starts much earlier than at the point of hire for physics departments as a whole.

«For low - density materials like plastics, polymers, foams and other encapsulants, this phase signal can be a thousand times bigger than the absorption signal (of conventional X-ray),» said principal investigator Amber Dagel, who studies physics - based microsystems.

The combined surveys generated only limited data on compensation for nonbiomedical postdocs, although those that did come in indicate that biomedical postdocs are compensated at a lower rate than chemistry and physics postdocs.

The energy of the converted photons was much lower than expected, indicating that the physics of the interaction may be richer and more interesting than anticipated.

Regardless of artistic style, paintings created soon after volcanic eruptions had redder skies than those painted during periods of low volcanic activity, the researchers report online today in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.

This indicates that OH levels in the troposphere may be much lower than previously thought, and their filtering effect less pronounced, the team will report in an upcoming issue of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.

Supersymmetry — an appealing idea that attempts to explain many mysteries of physics, such as why the Higgs boson's mass is as low as it is — posits more particles in the universe than those that have so far been found.

Gillian Wilson, professor of physics and astronomy at UC Riverside, added, «Fascinatingly, however, the study found that the percentage of galaxies which had stopped forming stars in those young, distant clusters, was much lower than the percentage found in much older, nearby clusters.

«The transformation to hexagonal diamond occurs at a significantly lower stress than previously believed,» said WSU Regents Professor Yogendra Gupta, director of the Institute for Shock Physics and a co-author of the study.

If greenhouse gases were responsible for global temperature increases in recent decades, atmospheric physics require that higher levels of our atmosphere would show greater warming than lower levels.

A low - rent neo-noir propped up by descriptions of, rather than depictions of, sexual kink and an odd interest in quantum physics.

The paper also cites PISA data from 2012 showing girls studying physics «had lower confidence than their male classmates, despite tests revealing no difference in academic performance; and that students confidence in their maths abilities were more likely to embark on STEM careers».

according to dice they both look equally crappy (run at pc lowest settings) at 1280x704 with no v - sync, no texture filtering and smaller maps and player count the ps3 uses spu based differed rendering while 360 uses tile based differed rendering they are both the same thing but the ps3 version is simoly called spu based differed rendering because the differed rendering is done on SPU and NOT the gpu the 360s gpu is much more advanced than the ps3s gpu (which is why the gpu can handle the differed rendering while with ps3 it must be done on spus) while the ps3s cpu is better at graphics calculations and simple physics than the 360s cpu but the 360 cpu does win in branch intensive operations ust so you know the 360s cpu can also help out with graphics operations and post processing effects just not as much as the cell because MS focused on putting more power into the gpu even IBM stated that the cell is better for more things than xenon but that the 360s gpu is «very sophisticated» compared to the ps3s rsx.

They might say for example, «Ah yes, run number 12 in GCM model XYZ was a little too warm but that's because real world forcings were a little lower than in the projections — the physics was correct, it was the scenario that wasn't quite right».

If greenhouse gases were responsible for global temperature increases in recent decades, atmospheric physics require that higher levels of our atmosphere would show greater warming than lower levels.

It's not the last word, as Gavin notes, but further refinements (which could be higher or lower than 2m by 2100) await more science at both GIS and WAIS, glacier physics, and more comprehensive glacier modeling, which simply requires more time.

The physics tells us that it is much easier to get an Earthlike climate with a high sensitivity than it is with a very low sensitivity.

How can The physics (Stefan - Boltzmann) require the energy - out to be Larger for a hotter GHG caused temperature (this I accept), but the GCMs require a number lower than the energy - in to provide the source of the energy for global warming?

and there's a lot of basic physics that stem from simple principles (e.g., precipitation is more depleted than the water from which it evaporated, the high latitudes are more depleted than lower latitudes, etc).

rather than depending on stochastic approaches with all the errors they reproduce, it's better to discover the low dimensional determinism that describes the climatic system, as I have done in my research, and the underlying physics that drive the system evolution.

The point is that lack of your wondrous GHGs results in higher daytime temperatures, and lower nighttime temperatures, in accordance with normal, rather than Warmist, physics.

Does it mean that, if this new physics were incorporated in the models, the models would say climate sensitivity is higher or lower than what they are currently saying?

Wenk Physics Institute, University of Bern, CH — 3012 Bern, Sidlerstrasse 5, Switzerland Studies on air trapped in old polar ice1, 2 have shown that during the last ice age, the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration was probably significantly lower than during the Holocene — about 200 p.p.m. rather than 270 p.p.m.. Also, Stauffer et al. 3 recently showed by detailed analyses of Greenland ice cores, that during the ice age, between about 30,000 and 40,000 yr BP, the atmospheric CO2 level probably varied between 200 and 260 p.p.m..

Let's suppose hypothetically a fundamental breakthrough in physics allows us to build a very low sensitivity model that simulates the 20th century climate better than any of the existing models.

1) Our understanding of atmospheric physics is wrong, and the lower atmosphere should not warm faster than the surface.

Much of the renewable subsidy industry justified in the name of these flawed models causes net grid emissions of CO2 to be much worse for much longer than simply replacing coal with clean low carbon gas and long term inevitable base load zero carbon nuclear on the grid, unsubsidised — but that's only a generation engineering fact from the laws of physics.

All we seemed to have nailed is that geosciences are held to a lower standard of tests than physics.