Sentences with phrase «model useful questions»

Not exact matches

As the model runs progressed, those tiny differences grew and expanded, producing a set of climate simulations useful for studying questions about variability and change.

A useful model for answering that question is the Frizzled6 mouse, a mutant breed born with permanently messy hair.

The mammalian skull is a useful model for tackling these questions as it is a simple sheet - shaped tissue that expands, and like many tissues, does so anistropically.

He questions the one - hit - a-day approach as a useful model of concussions in high - school athletes, however.

There can be little question of comparing the Bionic to the iPhone 4, but with the iPhone 5 due for release as soon as six weeks for now i think the only useful comparison will be against these two models when they have both available.

This model would also generate a wealth of rich, useful data; the key question is whether the platform developer makes this data widely accessible or hides it from the community.

The More Features section includes a useful Portfolio modelling tool along with a «Sounding board», which will send your account information and some responses to a few questions about investment goals to a Scotiabank representative who will provide some guidance for future moves.

Separating things out into more components like this is necessary if we want to build a useful statistical model of the data - model comparison, i.e. one that doesn't just answer the question «is the model right?»

The question instead is whether a model is useful or whether a forecast was skillful (relative to a naive alternative).

There will always be a limit to the degree of detail for which the models fail to produce reliable and useful information, and the interesting question is where this limit is.

Not understanding or having a useful model of how it is that you repeatedly appear to misunderstand simple things I (and others) have written, I tried to help by correcting the only thing I perceived to be wrong with the sentence in question — some faulty phrasing of mine (the «or» clause).

• «Remember that all models are wrong; the practical question is how wrong do they have to be to not be useful.»

Perhaps, but much more importantly, it proves beyond any question of doubt that «the physics in the models» is not adquate for the models to be useful.

The question for the climate change adaptation community is whether the uncertainty (including model errors) in the projected climate change is small enough to be useful in a decision making framework.

Going to more specific questions we may ask, whether a model can produce projections to the future at a level of accuracy that makes the projections useful.

In fact, I always stress that patterns, as well as models, are most useful when they fail, because that tell us about the areas that we do not understand, and that is where we should be asking questions, not hiding them.

I was going to ask you a question up thread in regards to picking that «one model» - What criteria would you suggest be used to get to three to five best models that could then follow a development approach that would lead to more useful outputs.

The correct question is «how accurate» or how useful is a linear model of the response.

An interesting point not much commented on is that neither models or data sets do not have to be complete to be useful, just that they isolate the question under study and that there are no significant interferences, or even if there are known intererences what their effects will (approximately) be.

Science is only useful when it asks the right questions, openly tests hypothetical models with honesty and integrity and accepts the conclusion with the understanding that «not false» is not the same «true».

More useful, suggested by the climate regime model, is the question, «Do the temperatures observed belong to the climate regime before 1930, or a climate regime warmer than the one from 1930 to 2001?»

Meanwhile the simple models remained useful for exploring questions that the large models could not handle efficiently.

This allows the appropriate cost benefit analysis (maybe this is getting to far into politics) that should be significantly more useful for the main debate than these temperature predictions that we have and takes many unpredictable factors out of the equation and if we have a full chain of logic it should be easier to find — because time as opposed to amount of carbon related models leave you asking questions like «what will happen to technology»

All climate models are wrong, but some of them are useful, and by working more closely to answer the questions that are actually being posed by policymakers, we can make them more useful still.

However, where van de Plassche says their system stands out is that it has been designed to be a «sand box» where you make a model, add «nodes» where a Q&A question may be, or a piece of useful advice may pop up, and can change and modify what you want to make.