Sentences with phrase «much uncertainty mean»

Does so much uncertainty mean it's time to toss out the cereal and instead make do with grapefruit and cottage cheese?

Not exact matches

a set of values, beliefs, and structure in a person's life in order to give them direction and a sense of right and wrong is fine, but organized religions are no more than large corporations, and like any large corporation are only focused on their bottom line... trying to control the public and extract as much money as they can from them by any means necessary... promoting fear, uncertainty, hate and a sense that they alone can offer salvation... for a price (although they are very cleaver about getting to this hidden and unspoken cost... after all these hundreds of years they have perfected their craft well!)

«Which means that if you want to protect your biological specimen on a trip to Mars to a set conservative limit, you will probably be carrying six times too much shielding, just because the uncertainty is a factor of six — a 600 percent uncertainty in the measurement.»

This means that we can never say that there is too much uncertainty for us to act.

How much more difficult must it be when there is uncertainty about the grammar or vocabulary, or little differences that mean so much.

While, the moment Gravity is disturbed through whatever means; the entire objects within the Universe shall disintegrate and shall reborn again; if the ORDER is disturbed; all shall merged to zero but much of uncertainty of rebirth.

Those are an array of challenges, juxtaposed against the uncertainty of how long it takes to make a AAA title, which means we can find ourselves in fiscal 2018 with a much thinner schedule than we'd like

This means you have a better sense of how much your investment is worth, and less uncertainty is always a good thing.

Those are an array of challenges, juxtaposed against the uncertainty of how long it takes to make a AAA title, which means we can find ourselves in fiscal 2018 with a much thinner schedule than we'd like.»

If you do the same on annual means instead, the uncertainty most programs report will be much closer to reality.

A responsible skeptic will request that you remain open minded to opinions from both sides, and consider the uncertainties involved * without * prejudging them based on the demonstrable human predilection toward a «herd mentality» — by «herd mentality», I mean that once a consensus is formed, a flock of «me too» science papers become much more easily accepted, by peer review journals, than the skeptics» papers.

The uncertainties on the HIGH side are greater than those on the low side, meaning we may be setting in motion much WORSE for our descendants than what's described in what we read.

Given inherent uncertainty in assessing new technologies this means that the risks to the environment and human health are much higher than were the case if more certain scientific information were required.

However if the uncertainty is of the same order as the signal in the forecast (scenario if you will) then the meaning of the forecast is pretty much nil.

But, it also meant that you could (relatively) easily find the sensitivities of the overall uncertainty to individual uncertainties (in an experimental setting, this tells you which device it's worth buying better versions of and which ones are just not going to bring you much benefit).

Some compromises between inconsistent data mean that... [the fluxes] are not always exactly consistent: errors of ~ 15 % may be present in the fluxes for nuclei and protons: the uncertainties for electrons are much larger.»

The specific claim made is that the number of grid boxes in actual climate models is relatively much smaller — but all that means is the statistics of climate models will have much more uncertainty than the actual physical climate, hardly something modelers don't recognize.

IPCC has stated (AR4 WG1 Ch.9) that the «global mean warming observed since 1970 can only be reproduced when models are forced with combinations of external forcings that include anthropogenic forcings... Therefore modeling studies suggest that late 20th - century warming is much more likely to be anthropogenic than natural in origin...» whereas for the statistically indistinguishable early 20thC warming period «detection and attribution as well as modeling studies indicate more uncertainty regarding the causes of early 20th - century warming.»

It means there is a much larger uncertainty in high mountain Asia than we thought.

Because Schwartz's model is simpler it is easier to account for and quantify the uncertainty in it (in fact much of the uncertainty in complex GCMs is hidden eg see Stainford et al referenced in the post), so if you take the view that you are interested not just in the mean but the variation in the estimate Schwartz's model, despite being simpler, gives you better information.

What bothered me most about the whole Proposition 23 media efforts was the lack of any meaningful dialogue on the uncertainties around the technologies needed (and how much they the will cost - as it's important from an opportunity costs discussion) to meet the stated goals and what it means if the rest of the country doesn't follow a similar approach to addressing CO2 loads.

In that case the mean (or median) Anthro contribution may be as little as 100 %, but may be as much as 116 %, with the additional uncertainty due to rounding error.

As you can see, the difference in the trend is much smaller than uncertainty, meaning there is minimal evidence supporting your view that the data «could be indicating» another pause.

Gavin Schmidt can parse his words and insist on his «interpretation» as much as he wishes but his meaning is absolutely clear — despite his «uncertainty» post made after «climategate» had outed him: that global warming is happening, that this is caused, in the main, by human made GHGs, that, if mankind does not halt these GHGs, catastrophe will follow and that this is «settled science» and the «consensus».

Occasionally it is necessary to assess the homogeneity of data without the use of reference stations, but using such an approach means that detection and adjustment take place with a much higher level of uncertainty.

But if we ignore all the science on impacts and only assume that Earth will warm within a particular range in response to CO2 emissions I think we still have reason for concern because uncertainty about the impacts (what and how much) could still mean that severe and even unforeseen consequences are possible.

This means we should reduce the uncertainty as much as possible before making the decision, rather than reversing the «ready, aim, fire» sequence by shooting ourselves in the foot.

The graph at right shows how much warmer each month is than the annual global mean (derived from the MERRA2 reanalysis over 1980 - 2015 with an uncertainty range).

The scientists» central projection is for a 0.2 % rise, but uncertainties inherent in these kind of carbon budget calculations means fossil fuel emissions could fall by as much as 1 %, or rise by up to 1.8 %.

Well the interaction time of two atoms or molecules in collision, is very much faster by many orders of magnitude, than the mean time between molecular collisions that result in pressure broadening of molecular absorption lines; and that means that the uncertainties in the emitted photon energies become extremely large.

On issues such as CRISPR and genetic engineering the EU is regulating itself out of the competition and many businesspeople are unaware that this will get much worse once the ECJ starts using the Charter of Fundamental Rights to seize control of such regulation for itself, which will mean not just more anti-science regulation but also damaging uncertainty as scientists and companies face the ECJ suddenly pulling a human rights «top trump» out of the deck whenever they fancy (one of the many arguments Vote Leave made during the referendum that we could not get the media to report, partly because of persistent confusion between the COFR and the ECHR).

Knowing the important custody terms and what they mean to your divorce can reduce much of your uncertainty when interacting with the court on matters related to your child.