The first k observations are i.i.d. and come from a Poisson distribution with
mean lambda, while the remaining observations are i.i.d. and come from a Poisson distribution with mean phi.
Not exact matches
and
lambda is 0.99 where 0.97 - 1.03 are the range,
means the fuel mix is a bit fat but not so bad.
The
lambda reading you have provided may point to an exhaust leak, but without an exhaust leak it will
mean a weak running condition of the engine.
«Radiative forcing [RF] can be related through a linear relationship to the global
mean equilibrium temperature change at the surface (delta Ts): delta Ts =
lambda * RF, where
lambda is the climate sensitivity parameter (e.g., Ramaswamy et al., 2001).
It
means that, for every W m $ ^ -LCB--2 -RCB- $ of excess energy we put into our system, our model predicts that the surface temperature must increase by $ -1 / \
lambda = 0.3 $ K in order to re-establish planetary energy balance.
Let's reserve the symbol $ \
lambda $ to
mean the overall or net climate feedback, and use subscripts to denote specific feedback processes.
I consider myself a climate apostate,
meaning someone who used to accept the basic climate science paradigm that ∆ T =
lambda ∆ F but now rejects it... in any case, a definition of what you are calling a «skeptic» and what you are calling a «denier» would make your comment understandable to the rest of us.