Sentences with phrase «observations as»

We thank you for your observations as we use feedback to continue to improve in our effort to offer our guests the very best beach vacation experience possible.

From his observations as an expert legal witness in agency cases, Hall contends that consumer complaints and litigation regarding buyer agency are on the rise — though probably not as fast as the growth of buyer agency itself.

I also advocate this position because my clinical observations as a therapist reveal that many of our relational issues (especially infidelity) are the result of a self - centeredness that we have learned from our culture and from the sinful desires our hearts.

My observations as a marriage and couples therapist in New York using the Loving at Your Best plan are that partners usually have high sexual chemistry when they meet, and emotional chemistry builds over time.

Despite the fact that the approach to these topics has been rooted in lengthy and tediously demanding observations, the papers are demonstrating the power of ethological observations as well as longitudinal analysis with which the Grossmanns have spent much of the lifetime throughout their impressive careers.

Read about one teacher's research and observations as she explores how to create a more peaceful and inclusive classroom.

The positive outcomes were reported not only by parents, teachers and children but by independent observations as well.

In preparing this Report, I spoke to Justice Wilcox about his observations as a Federal Court judge who sat on native title cases.

Dunckley's observations as a practitioner is that many children «suffer from sensory overload, lack of restorative sleep, and a hyper - aroused nervous system.»

The blogs which are posted here are his meditations and observations as well as offering some materials from others which have influenced his thinking.

United Kingdom About Blog Forex blog, where our experienced market experts share their trading knowledge, provide noteworthy market observations as well as give updates on the upcoming important economic events.

These problems can be observed by financiers, accountants and managers, but we would like to share these observations as professional corporate lawyers.

Looking forward to that session, we offer these observations as a coda to the presentation to the Commission summarized above.

While it's difficult to generalize because of the myriad kinds of technology deals, I offer the following observations as to why certain technology deals end in failure (defined by me as any combination of unhappy customers, terminated contracts, and the occasional lawsuit):

In Part V of this series I offer the last of my guiding observations as you consider consultations with legal counsel:

Aaron Munro's observations as accounting manager at Robertson Stromberg LLP in Saskatoon are quite different.

The current cooperation pursuant to the Council Framework Decision 13th June 2002, following my observations as a practitioner in both jurisdictions, drew my attention to the necessity for a mutual cooperation, not only between the Member States» authorities, but inter alia, the lawyers from both countries as the ways of defending the requested persons are completely different; this will see the result meeting at one point, namely the successful defence.

I had an encounter with the health system recently, and from my observations as a patient we need to keep this initiative moving, find ways to solve those issues, and stop using paper.

There is a due process of verification to be gone through and it entails taking critically - decisive real - world observations as well as calculating things.

The word «favoring» is used advisedly; in the experiments it is a «weighting of the dice», an increase in the likelihood of these effects while accounting for less than one standard deviation of the variability (a result found in observations as well).

I simply compared IPCC predictions with observations as an example of how to do a verification, which is standard practice in the atmospheric sciences, but much less so in the climate modeling community (and yes, I think this is indeed the case).

further: 3 ---» which shows that similar slowdowns have ocurred before in the OBSERVATIONS as well as in the output of individual model runs....

I also suggest you read the paper by Easterling and Wehner (2009)(Google scholar will find it easily), which shows that similar slowdowns have ocurred before in the OBSERVATIONS as well as in the output of individual model runs.

Incorporating climate data and observations as they become available into the model helps refine the results and predictions.

Knutti et al. (2010a) investigated the behaviour of the state - of - the - art climate model ensemble created by the World Climate Research Programme's Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 3 (CMIP3, Meehl et al. 2007), and found that the truth centred paradigm is incompatible with the CMIP3 ensemble: the ensemble mean does not converge to observations as the number of ensemble members increases, and the pairwise correlation of model errors (the differences between model and observation) between two ensemble members does not average to zero (Knutti et al. 2010a; Annan and Hargreaves 2010; hereafter AH10).

The differences are that in the present study we include the uncertainty in the observations as described in Sect. 2.4 and there are also small differences due to the different number of model runs used.

The difficulty with many of the recent anecdotal observations as well as the larger studies is that distributions of plants, and especially animals, can be hard to map.

The GISS analysis [1] extrapolates observations as far as 1200 km from measurement points, thus covering practically the entire globe.

Using a global network of observations as input and our physical understanding of the atmosphere, weather simulations do a good job at estimating how fast these systems will travel and how they interact.

Models (aka theory) provide a bullsh*t test for observations as much as data is a bullsh*t test for observations.

The Problem Re-stated IPCC's Government Draft attempt to frame the discrepancy between models and observations as due to «natural variability» is ultimately a statistical problem — never a strong point of IPCC authors.

While it is impossible to know what decisions are made in the development process of each model, it seems plausible that choices are made based on agreement with observations as to what parameterizations are used, what forcing datasets are selected, or whether an uncertain forcing (e.g. mineral dust, land use) or feedback (indirect aerosol effect) is incorporated or not.

This opinion that we can not measure to the stated level of accuracy is a common misconception - from the Law of Large Numbers we find that as the number of observations increases the accuracy of the observations as a whole converges towards the real answer, regardless of the resolution of the individual measurements.

Moreover the recent decline of the yearly increments d (CO2) / dt acknowledged by Francey et al (2013)(figure 17 - F) and even by James Hansen who say that the Chinese coal emissions have been immensely beneficial to the plants that are now bigger grow faster and eat more CO2 due to the fertilisation of the air (references in note 19) cast some doubts on those compartment models with many adjustable parameters, models proved to be blatantly wrong by observations as said very politely by Wang et al.: (Xuhui Wang et al: A two-fold increase of carbon cycle sensitivity to tropical temperature variations, Nature, 2014) «Thus, the problems present models have in reproducing the observed response of the carbon cycle to climate variability on interannual timescales may call into question their ability to predict the future evolution of the carbon cycle and its feedbacks to climate»

But the steady state idea is a myth or a religious idea which contradicted by the observations as shown by figure 4 - A where the monthly increments (computed over dt = over 12 months (to minimize seasonal effects) are anywhere between (about) minus -0.4 ppm and +3.7 ppm that is -1 Gt - C to +8 Gt - C

Because the differences between the various observational estimates are largely systematic and structural (Chapter 2; Mears et al., 2011), the uncertainty in the observed trends can not be reduced by averaging the observations as if the differences between the datasets were purely random.

This has been been measured in real - world observations as well as simulated by climate models.11

It all accords with such relevant observations as are currently available for the period after 2000 AD

I see the growing disagreement between models and observations as climate science's version of the ultraviolet catastrophe.

Based on our assumptions of observational values, we conclude the AR4 model - mean or — best estimate ‖ of the SR (1.38 ± 0.08) is significantly different from the SRs determined by observations as described above.

The real point is about climate teleconnections and the danger of trying to assess what is going on globally by simply taking local observations as a proxy.

In our work we use observations as well as a hierarchy of numerical models to study dynamical processes in the atmosphere, and climate variability.

I haven't seen a study that compared the number of studies based upon actual observations as compared to model studies and sensitivity beliefs either come to think of it.

It's also a fools errand for skeptics to invest too much in the «Pause» either because it is validating junk science observations as it is criticizing them.

With OLS and using the mean observations as predictor, the estimated mean ECS is 3.68 K, standard deviation 0.58 K.

Isn't it about time that historical climatology and science - that currently likes to discount observations as «anecdotal» but cheerfully uses other proxies - cooperated more closely so we can gain a more reliable climatic picture of the last 1000 - 2000 years?

This report is based on such weather observations as had been recorded into global archives as of early January 2018.

The skeptics tend to pick out one aspect where there is perhaps not full agreement and fail to recognize that observations as well as models have shortcomings (witness the recent MSU [Microwave Sounding Unit] report's findings of shortcomings in the observational techniques, etc.)-- and that our best understanding must be based on a coherent integration of the many, many studies into a comprehensive synthesis — and this is what the IPCC assessments (and others) do.

But without observations as a basis, there is much speculation.

«The message here is very simple — the theory does not match the observations as measured independently by both satellites and balloons.»