Sentences with phrase «n't average measurements»

Ad homs aside, my point was that you can't average measurements that were never measured.

Not exact matches

Absolute Support is not your average «Value Brand» - we take 4 - 6 compression measurements at precise intervals between the ankle and end of garment.

The traditional methods used in materials science analysis, like high - powered electron microscopy and spectroscopy, do not combine chemical insights with the spatial resolution of IR imaging, the researchers said, so they can only provide average chemical measurements.

That measurement included only the height above the average level of the sea and did not consider the depth of the wave trough.

The changes in average cranial capacity from Morton's seed - based measurements to shot - based measurements can not be reconstructed with any certainty, incorporate erroneous seed measurements made by Morton's assistant, yielded a broad range of changes (− 10 to +12 in3) hidden by Gould's mean, and are confounded by the shifts in sample composition (circa 50 %) between the two rounds of measurement.

When the researchers compared those numbers, they found that ambulatory blood pressure — an average of all measurements taking while they were awake — tended to be higher than their in - office averages, not lower.

Taking a single measurement, or even a 24 - hour average, is not enough.

While the grades — first given districtwide last month — are not factored into students» overall grade point averages, those who score well on the measurements earn a «hire me first»...

Put differently, and In the authors» words, «the analysis does not support interpreting the four domain scores [or indicators] as measurements of distinct aspects of teaching; instead, the analysis supports using a single rating, such as the average over all [sic] components of the system to summarize teacher effectiveness» (p. 12).

The work is an estimate of the global average based on a single - column, time - average model of the atmosphere and surface (with some approximations — e.g. the surface is not truly a perfect blackbody in the LW (long - wave) portion of the spectrum (the wavelengths dominated by terrestrial / atmospheric emission, as opposed to SW radiation, dominated by solar radiation), but it can give you a pretty good idea of things (fig 1 shows a spectrum of radiation to space); there is also some comparison to actual measurements.

[Response: While the raw data at any one station at any one time obviously doesn't change, the value for any regional or global average in the past is always an estimate since there isn't a perfect network of measurements across the whole area.

The question isn't whether UHI contributes to surface temperature rise, but whether it affect temperature measurements sufficiently to bias the measured averages.

First they said the Mars and Venus measurements weren't measured, just computed; then they said we couldn't measure temperatures on other planets; then they said we'd need billions of measurements to estimate average surface temperature.

Now draw a picture of the globe and show on it what you call «average temperatures» for whatever zones you choose to draw on it; then show recent variations from those «averages» — the variations from the longterm average in a higher latitude zone don't mean as much, because we're comparing today's measurement to averages based on fewer numbers, collected over fewer years in fewer places, when looking at variation near the Poles.

This is clear by your repeated confusion about how taking thousands of temperature measurements to get an average, repeatedly over time, then comparing those averages to identify changes over time, does not yield results measured in integers.

You really can not logically average temperatures across the globe with such poor distribution of stations and such variability of accuracy in local measurement capability.

Beck interpretes the latter as the direct influence of seawater temperatures, but the measurements near the floating ice border were just average, not the lowest... Modern measurements give less than 10 ppmv difference over the seas from the coldest oceans to the tropics, including a repeat of the trips that Buch made.

You can average a million thermometer readings in Cape Cod and it will not improve the precision of a single measurement made in Cape Town.

This should be obvious from the fact that we can not determine the average temperature of the ocean from 10 measurements with any accuracy or precision.

The presence of 1 / f noise means you can't increase precision forever by averaging more and more measurements or increasing integration or counting times.

I couldn't find their «2003 measurements of seasonal LST» or their «annual average LST», although Figure 29 of that CLIMLAKE report does show a three year temperature record for two places on the lake, so I suppose they might have used those.

• The measured «average global temperature» isn't necessarily representative of the overall thermal energy in the system, because temperatures can change in regions not part of the measurement system.

For November to be warmer than the long - term average in the troposphere, we would have had to see solar output increase over the measurement period (it has not), or sensible or latent heat to be higher than average (it is not, in fact we ware in a ENSO neutral or cool PDO situation), or we would have to see GH gases having an effect.

The AVERAGE has increased, but that is not a measurement.

The measurements from most ships will have some kind of systematic bias, but this will not be exactly the same for all ships, so some component of that will be reduced by averaging the measurements from many ships together.

Yet we know the land around then Arctic is warming faster than the global average so it seems unreasonable to suggest that the ocean isn't, Satellite temperature measurements up to 82.5 N support this as does the decline of Arctic sea ice here, here & here.

2) The fractal nature of the earth's surface means that averaging anything over that surface will give different answers based on how far apart your measurements are taken — and the answers will not converge to a single «correct» answer the closer together you make them.

As 34F ocean below, this would lead to a 5 deg average temp increase in the measurements for the arctic area when in fact the ocean below hasn't warmed.

The newest entry in the theological literature is Parker (2004, 2006), who, once again, does not show the absence of an urban heat island by direct measurements, but purports to show the absence of an effect on large - scale averages by showing that the temperature trends on calm days is comparable to that on windy days.

Let's suppose this position is correct, but when creating the global average I cut the percentage of rural stations in the measurement network from 75 % to 25 % (sorry don't know the real numbers).

i.e. averaging a whole bunch of inaccurate measurements taken with widely varying methods does not give you an accurate measurement.

For example, since showing lights at night was generally not a good idea because of the submarine threat, maybe the measurements were biased more to daytime measurements, where the surface was generally warmer due to solar heating, than to average temperatures over the whole day which would be more typical of peacetime.

Prior to 1979 when satellites began to measure lower troposphere temperature all over the globe we had no measure of global average temperature (GAT) only guesstimates based on fewer and fewer measurements using instruments not designed to measure decadal trends so small as a few milliKelvins per decade.

Direct measurements and other proxies that don't involve multi-century averaging, however, show much more variability.

Bunny Labs has had a word or two or three or four to say about Ernst - Georg Beck who never met a CO2 measurement he did not accept as representative of the background atmosphere, especially when it was taken in the middle of Paris or some other large city, which as we all know has a bit more CO2 in the air, then in your average fizzy beverage of choice.

One could argue that real SST measurements aren't quite so well - behaved, but it is possible to show (see Figure 11 of the HadSST2 paper, Rayner et al. 2006 for details) that the standard deviation of grid box averages falls roughly as one over the square root of the number of contributing observations and that the standard deviation for gridbox averages based on a single observation is a lot less than 10 degrees.

Note that I am not necessarily claiming that this is the feedback operating on the long time scales associated with global warming — only that it is the average feedback involved in the climate fluctuations occurring during the period when the satellite was making its measurements.

Cross checking measurements is useful for improving the error estimates, but not always necessary for getting a rather accurate average.

The tropospheric satellite data doesn't have the resolution to show a so - called hotspot, the lower troposphere measurement is an average from ground level to an altitude of 10 km.

Finally the example of distance does not carry over exactly to the climate problem, since distance is extensive (summable) whereas temperature is intensive (not summable), so concepts like measurement norms and averages can not be readily invoked for temperature as they can for distance.

In the past two years Climate News Network has reported that climate scientists certainly expected a slowdown, but just not right now; or that planetary measurements might be incomplete or misleading; or that even though average levels were down, this masked a series of hotter extremes.

[4] Thanks to a strong El Niño that brought near average precipitation to the northern California, the statewide April 1 snowpack measurement in 2016 showed state water resources at 87 percent of the long - term average; however, the snowpack was not sufficient to undo water deficits caused by years of drought.

concepts like measurement norms and averages can not be readily invoked for temperature as they can for distance.

This means that each one second temperature value is not an instantaneous measurement of the air temperature but an average of the previous 40 to 80 seconds.

If this is not being taken into account, then the number is meaningless as you are effectively averaging differnt measurements.

If a chemist was measuring the mass of samples and realized that they had been placing their thumb on the scale for some samples, they would not keep those measurements and try to «adjust them» by guestimating how much pressure their thumb was applying to the scale on average and then applying a correction factor to all their measurements.

Our smoothed average is a product of computation, not of measurement.

Averaging is appropriate for an unbiased sample of measurements, not for a selected set of numerical models.

In the Fahrenheit measurements familiar to citizens of the U.S., the G - 8 target means not allowing a global temperature average above roughly 61.6 degrees Fahrenheit.

BTW, since we're talking about TOB, I don't like that you use mean or average temp trends, at least min and max are real measurements, not the the average of the two values.