Sentences with phrase «model comparison results»
Second, model comparison results demonstrated that linking perceived relationship closeness and support - seeking at the relationship - general level did not account for sufficient variability in both constructs.
https://interpersona.psychopen.eu/ Not exact matches
The lower levels of baseline sugar sweetened drink consumption in the UK compared with the US may in part explain why the effect on obesity that we estimate in the UK is much less than that estimated in the US.12 The differences with respect to other modelling studies may also be partly explained by their use of higher own price elasticity values for sugar sweetened drinks than we have calculated and used here.18 22 52 We can not make direct comparisons between the results of our study and the results of recent studies of the effect of reducing sugar sweetened drink consumption on body weight in children, 5 7 as the relation between energy balance and change in body mass index in children who are growing is different from that in adults.
However, a model which included them was also fitted, with results given alongside the main findings for comparison.
As a result, the range of possibilities with 95 % probability of happening has widened somewhat by comparison with my previous forecasting models.
The resulting kinetic energy data of the 4D model fits well with observed measurements, in comparison with previous models (shown with the purple and green symbols) without special assumptions.
A comparison with experimental results validates the model adopted.
A comparison of results obtained with both methods shows that a simple two - dimensional linear - elasticity model is able to reproduce quantitatively the low - frequency part of the band structure obtained from computationally much more demanding molecular dynamics simulations of a three - dimensional atomistic model.
Plenary Presentations Jessica Mester — «Comparison of Genetic Counselor Time Investment Utilizing Coupled and Uncoupled Practice Models: Final Results from the Cleveland Clinic General Genetics Clinic Time Study» — Best Abstract Award Recipient
Nijssen, B., et al., 2003: Simulation of high latitude hydrological processes in the Torne - Kalix basin: PILPS Phase 2 (e) 2: Comparison of model results with observations.
Comparison of model results with the «known population» of radio - collared snow leopards suggested high accuracy in our estimates.
The comparison between model results and robotic fish undulations was subsequently performed to validate the ability of the robotic fish to reproduce carangiform swimming.
The second area of scrutiny involves comparison with results from modeling efforts.
These results are based on data compiled from 15 different climate models, and use the average temperature from 1970 through 1999 as a baseline for comparison.
Models in this category are those that had positive and statistically significant results from comparison or third - party comparison studies but did not have research bases that were as broad and generalizable as those of the models that met the highest staModels in this category are those that had positive and statistically significant results from comparison or third - party comparison studies but did not have research bases that were as broad and generalizable as those of the models that met the highest stamodels that met the highest standard.
In these models, the effects of pay for performance are shown to be even larger than the results based on comparisons across continents.
There's a dramatic comparison between these results with those from the 1995 model year, when the Institute began evaluating head restraints.
There may be no connection whatsoever, but it is worth me checking it out in case the rock structure, its composition, density, and the results of its heating, as it fell through the earth's atmosphere, can give me a comparison or model for my moon rock - or even scorched microbes.
The results of the previous correlation exploration helped us to identify which features to include in our model and through a comparison of many different models, we identified the one which best predicted rent from the presence of features.
Instead, he knows that others have latched onto these presentations (for example, Monckton's outpourings), promoting the notion that the result proves the models don't follow changes in the real world, while ignoring the caveats usually attached to such comparisons.
First, scenario A did not come to pass, therefore comparisons of scenario A model results to real observations is fundamentally incorrect — regardless of how likely anyone though it was in 1988.
Unambiguous detection of climate change is likely to be a painfully slow process, involving much more detailed comparison of climate model results with observations.4 There is no climatic counterpart to the Antarctic ozone hole.
Asside from the arguments over who is being dishonest about the testimony... didn't scenario B turn out to be closer to what actually happened RE said boundary conditions and so should not that be the proper comparison result (over time) for the Hansen model at this time?
A straightforward comparison of the adoption and emissions results with other sources is not possible, due to the specificities of the feedstock considered herein, since all other global energy system models consider aggregate numbers for biomass and waste.
The unfiltered model may be extrapolated to see where it would lead but filtering the model results is meaningful only for the purpose of comparison with filtered observations over an identical period.
This work is the first to consistently recreate the event by computer modeling, and the first time that the model results have been confirmed by comparison to the climate record, which includes such things as ice core and tree ring data.
The third phenological model produces opposite results, but the comparison between simulated budburst dates and observed records over the last 60 years suggests its lower reliability.
However, BartH gave some examples in this discussion however that these sorts of projections can still be useful and also examples where higher resolution and / or RCM's in comparison with GCM's resulted in increased model skill.
The second area of scrutiny involves comparison with results from modeling efforts.
Neely (2013 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50263/abstract): «Comparison of the model results to observations reveals that moderate volcanic eruptions, rather than anthropogenic influences, are the primary source of the observed increases in stratospheric aerosol.»
These new sea ice proxy records are needed (1) to fully prove the scenarios of a succession from an extended ice shelf to polynya / open - water conditions (cf., Fig. 6), (2) to reconstruct in more detail the changes in sea ice cover for early, middle and late LIG intervals characterized by very different external forcings and related internal feedback mechanisms, and (3) to allow a more fundamental proxy data / modeling comparison that results in model improvements and better reproduction of the LIG climatic evolution and prediction of future climatic scenarios20, 21,22,23, 64.
For comparison, each of the light blue lines corresponds to the simulation results from one of the «CMIP3» climate models, which were carried out for the 4th Assessment Report.
Well, for aerosols I took my comparison from Miller et al (2014)[iii] where it states in relation to the basic, non-interactive, NINT model version: «Koch et al. [2011] similarly found that NINT aerosols in the year 2000 result in TOA direct forcing of 0.40 W / m2 when using the double - call method (compared to our value of 0.00 W / m2 based upon the 1850 climate).»
For better comparisons between various studies as well as easier communication of model results, it is preferable to use a common set of scenarios across the scientific community.
This diagram from the paper shows the comparison between what climate models typically simulate (the grey bands) and the results of their new simulation (the orange band).
Along with the corrected value of F2xCO2 being higher than the one used in the paper, and the correct comparison being with the model's effective climate sensitivity of ~ 2.0 C, this results in a higher estimate of equilibrium efficacy from Historical total forcing.
As a result of limited satellite observations of sea ice thickness (for more information: Sea Ice Thickness Data Sets: Overview and Comparison), few climate modeling experiments have isolated the role of changing sea ice thickness.
A sensitivity analysis of valuation to a range of prices would be welcome — or at least, disclosure of their long - term price assumptions along with comparison to modelled 2 °C prices and the valuation results.
In this case, the models and observations have been plotted so that their respective 1979 - 2012 trend lines all intersect in 1979, which we believe is the most meaningful way to simultaneously plot the models» results for comparison to the observations.
Demonstrating that 15 - year trend comparisons can yield inconsistent results does not remotely settle the statistical question of models running too hot that is evident in the opening graph.
This is a shame because in Harries 2001 directly below this graph is data analysis of the calculated difference between the IMG and IRIS satellite data as well as a comparison with modelled results.
As a result the most those papers can do is attempt to quantify the effects on measurements such as model TCR and model trends using air temperatures for land and ocean and comparisons with the observed using blended temperatures.
Thus, our simple transparent calculation may provide a useful comparison with geological data for sea - level change and with results of ice sheet models.
More elaborate and accurate approaches, including use of models, will surely be devised, but comparison of our result with other approaches is instructive regarding basic issues such as the vulnerability of today's ice sheets to near - term global warming and the magnitude of hysteresis effects in ice sheet growth and decay.
Our data are available in the electronic supplementary material, allowing comparison with other data and model results.
In all, 73 climate models from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project are plotted against observations so that their respective 1979 - 2012 trend lines all intersect in 1979, which we believe is the most meaningful way to simultaneously plot the models» results for comparison to the observations.»
I get frustrated by studies that give only hazy reference (for this layperson) to problems but fortress their contentions on the comparison of the observed results with modelled results.
The Postdoc will be responsible for preparing long - term lidar and radar measurements for use with a newly developed ground - based lidar - radar simulator for ModelE3, running ModelE3 baseline and sensitivity test simulations, preparing comparisons of aerosol and meteorological conditions with existing reanalysis and satellite data sets, and contributing to model improvement efforts that will be guided by project results.
Results from an upcoming comparison of global models may show how well the new entrant works.
Indeed it has been shown in a comparison of results from the simple model and HadCM2 that the simple model under - estimates the temperature change compared to HadCM2 on longer time - scales (Raper et al., 2001a).
Figure 9.20: Comparison of CMIP2 model results for 20 - year average values centred on year 70, the time of CO2 doubling.