Sentences with phrase «much empirical data»

Regarding the sun's connection to global warming (or lack thereof), there is much empirical data and many studies on the topic that have concluded the sun's contribution to global warming has been minimal.

On the contrary it's a simple fact that there's very much empirical data to support AGW (and perhaps also CAGW, alhough I don't know, what the C really means).

Susan Gould Fogerite, director of research for the Institute for Complementary and Alternative Medicine in the School of Health Related Professions, said that although there is widespread evidence that yoga is being used as a form of exercise by those with MS, much of the feedback has been anecdotal and there isn't much empirical data regarding its safety and efficacy.

Such a suggestion ignores, for one thing, much empirical data.

Not exact matches

Nevertheless, it seems to be a very empirical way of beginning to understand the universe, more radically empirical in fact than science is itself.3 Here we are attending not only to the data of sense - perception but also to a much more proximate set of givens — the experiential components of our own subjectivity.

Moreover, although it seems almost de rigueur for apologists for soccer heading to comment that heading is much safer when proper technique is employed, I know of no empirical data that support the contention.

They compared the empirical data to the model simulations of the MJO, where much of the MJO processes are currently represented with parameterizations, a way to express complex climate systems in a computationally efficient way.

How can a single decade be enough to overturn previous results that much, especially when there are other straightforward methods explaining the differences in trend from empirical data, i.e. Foster / Rahmsdorf 2012?

Because the proposal is not based on empirical data on how much it actually costs to adequately and equitably educate students across Connecticut, the proposal is irrational.

The 3 - 4 degree increase depends much more on empirical data.

We can get much information about all these aspects from our models and real observations (empirical data).

2) More empirical data on how much difference poor siting has on the temperature results would add credibility to the complaints.

Without some empirical basis for concern, speculative theoretical mechanisms of harm simply should not be given much resource allocation except for gathering the missing basic empirical data.

How much cO2 is actually present in the atmosphere, we don't have real empirical numbers / data.

SLR satellite data includes things such as the «GIA Adjustment» — which is the amount of SLR that there would have been if the ocean basin hadn't increased in volume and in the case of this new study, how much higher the sea surface would have been if it had not been suppressed by the Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruption, another correction for ENSO / PDO «computed via a joint cyclostationary empirical orthogonal function (CSEOF) analysis of altimeter GMSL, GRACE land water storage, and Argo - based thermosteric sea level from 2005 to present», as well as other additions and adjustments — NONE OF WHICH can actually be found manifested in any change to the physical Sea Surface Height.»

JCH, The progress of scientific understanding has much in common with Bayesian approach to using empirical data in building posterior likelihoods.

Modern 21st century theory, developed on empirical data from heretofor unavailble satellite data, is much more convincing for an atmosphere that is patently not infinite and bounded on both ends.

Such little empirical data as we have, and it is not very much, gives a strong indication that the climate sensitivity of CO2 added to the atmopshbere from current levels, is indistinguishabled from zero.

Many possibilities are theoretically possible, and some may be realized over intervals much longer than the recent centuries (e.g., orbital forcing), but the empirical data make it hard to attribute a major contribution to these during much of the previous century relative to forced trends.

For this reason I don't have much hope that any simple model can give a good overall description of the Earth system, except as an parameterization, whose approximate validity is confirmed over some limited range by comparison with empirical data that covers that whole range — or a complex model that has been validated well enough by some set of empirical data.

This is standard practice in any and all empirical research, and has been pretty much since we started doing observational data - based science.

Normal, non-ideology-based scientists question the veracity of the CRU — IPCC flavoured results just because the JBM camaraderie - based group did refuse to honour such requests and people ask the following question: why, if both the empirical results — the raw data (including the nitty - gritty details of the temperature measurements) AND the theoretical model - based machinery are above board and the overall climatological picture of a man (n)- made warming is pretty much a safe bet, why then would some AGW researchers like the JBM gang refuse to accept that they, too, have got to conform to normal scientific procedure and release the raw data and the details of the theoretical machinery used to understand those data?

Improved empirical data can define climate sensitivity much more precisely, provided that climate - induced aerosol changes are included in the category of fast feedbacks (human - made aerosol changes are a climate forcing).

Their major problem is that it is going to take another 10 or 20 years of empirical data for the trend to become apparent enough to «prove» that their models are correct — by which time it will probably be too late for us to do very much about it.

Similarly, if you have good input and output data, we can sometimes develop a useful empirical relationship of the system behavior without really knowing much about how the system works.

How can a single decade be enough to overturn previous results that much, especially when there are other straightforward methods explaining the differences in trend from empirical data, i.e. Foster / Rahmsdorf 2012?

At the blog Empirical Legal Studies, Indiana University School of Law professor William D. Henderson stood that conventional wisdom against available data from NALP, the ABA's Young Lawyers Division and other sources, and, guess what — the conventional wisdom is pretty much right.

Unfortunately, while there is considerable empirical data on the subject, researcher's agenda'd writeups and the scholarly literature have pretty much ignored the problems.

In the dynamic relationship between research and intervention underlined in this paper, it should be emphasized that interventions should not work with models that explain development and change from a lineal or even interactive perspective, since empirical evidence shows data in favor of transactional models that involve much more complex multilevel dynamic systems (Sameroff, 2010).