Sentences with phrase «observed data»

Regression models with observed data can not adequately deal with the problem of correlation between outcomes and exposures.

The findings regarding both the measurement and structural models fit the observed data well, and invariance was largely found across grandchildren's gender and age (4 — 7 vs. 8 — 12).

This is not a large issue for bivariate associations because variables that have associations in the observed data will be selected by the stepwise selection procedures.

The RMSEA is a measure of lack of fit per degrees of freedom, controlling for sample size, and values less than.06 indicate a relatively good fit between the hypothesized model and the observed data.

Additionally, when the comparative fit index (CFI) and the incremental fit index (IFI) are greater than.90 the hypothesized model fits the observed data adequately (Browne & Cudek, 1993).

A CFA was performed on the raw data of the ULS - 6 to test goodness of fit of the observed data for the one - factor model suggested by Neto (1992).

The pattern of results was confirmed in robustness checks using observed data.

As such, the classes may deviate from the results obtained if observed data had been used instead.

However, the pattern of results was largely replicated in robustness checks using observed data, and the classes were associated with relevant socioeconomic factors in a meaningful way, increasing our confidence that the LCA has captured meaningful patterns in the income data.

We further conducted robustness checks using categorisations based on observed data.

His technology is described as «different from most social research measurement instruments» in that it is not solely based on self - reported data — with the follow - on claim being made that: «Using observed data from Facebook users» profiles makes GS» measurements genuinely behavioral.»

Rather, the probability that is estimated under a frequentist interpretation is the probability of obtaining the observed data, given the specified hypothesis.

His model runs generated coefficients that bore no resemblance to the results on observed data.

There may be some challenging of observed data, papers pointing out the inaccuracy of measurement devices, «proxy» data to challenge the observations, etc. first.

Ross: an anonymous commenter comes along saying that coefficients estimated on observed data can not be compared to ensemble means, instead they must be compared to individual model runs

The answer in all cases where the observed data ain't in synch with the settled science, is: b) the instruments are faulty

The simple answer is that it fits the observed data better.

i.e. if the socioeconomic data can explain the a priori unrelated model data, then Ross's explanation for the observed data may also be spurious.

On the other hand we have the observed data that may be described by a certain process (or perhaps by several different processes), and we can try to estimate from the data the true structure and values for the parameters.

When comparing climate hindcasts to observed land and ocean data (Figure 3), the early 1940's is the only period where observed data lie above model predictions.

Well Debs it's pretty basic isn't — the complex radiation models built on Nasif's alleged incorrect physics seem to validate out on observed data.

We have established that the change in radiative forcing can not be measured; there is, however, observed data which suggests that the number obtained is about right.

They do after all supercomputer produce data and good data at that after all you can't believe you lying eye when you look at the observed data after all the compute data came from the all knowing computer.

Note that the residual from a proxy - based global reconstruction is much smaller (Crowley et al., 2014), raising questions if the strong bias of observed data toward the Atlantic sector enhances the residual warming.

Scientific confidence with observed data is currently low, though the underlying mechanisms of climate change are expected to play a role.

But that's crying over spilt milk; what we can do in Science is apply inference to the observed data and determine what answer is accurate or very nearly true based on what data we do have until such time as new data requires us to amend our explanation, not bemoan our uncertainties and dither indecisively.

Surely this must be the first time in the annals of science since the time of Galilleo and Newton, that a claim has been made the the «science is settled», and there is absolutley no observed data whatsoever to support this assertion.

Interesting also that the efficacy measures made by Marvel could in some sense and context be construed as factors required to bring the model sensitivity more in line with the empirical results using mostly observed data and that obtains lower sensitivities.

These three independently observed data sets are intimately connected, give exceptional confidence related to the gains of energy in the Earth system, and say far more about the long - term external forcing the system is undergoing than looking at sensible surface temperature trends with the starting point being the height of the big 1998 El Niño.

«Science is apply inference to the observed data and determine what answer is accurate or very nearly true based on what data we do have until such time as new data requires us to amend our explanation, not bemoan our uncertainties and dither indecisively.»

I modeled Pinatubo from the observed data some years ago, and found (like several others), that the apparent ocean response is matched by a much smaller heat capacity even than the ocean mixed layer.

«Science is apply inference to the observed data and determine what answer is accurate or very nearly true based on what data we do have»

In their first comparison of observed data with computer models, Santer and his colleagues concluded that the increase in tropopause height was driven by the warming of the troposphere by greenhouse gases and the cooling of the stratosphere by ozone depletion1.

As far as I can determine, we don't have enough information to derive the multiplier from physical principles, so we are inferring the multiplier from the observed data.

Re # 230 and 232 Gavin, I'm not certain whether you mean that James has been overly rigorous in requesting precise meaning or that no more causes of hurricane theory be inferred than are necessary to account for observed data.

In fact the main result of the paper doesn't depend on observed data at all — no matter what the data or its origin, the likelihood of a new record changes when the time series is nonstationary, and when the series mean has shifted by a notable amount new records become far more likely.

If the past, pre-industrial variations were considered as random NOISE, there would be nothing significant in the observed data, especially if you consider homogeneous measurements (through proxies).

Estimating the Hurst parameter from observed data is very tricky business.

The trick is that past data aren't considered as «noise», or only in limited amount, but rather as a significant «signal» that can be substracted from the observed data to get a significant trend.

'' Formulas such as this are empirical, meaning they are calculated only with observed data, so they really are simplifications of the ice growth processes.

Model precipitation «forecasts» over the Central Sahel were correlated with observations for about three days, but reinitializing with observed data on day 5 resulted in a dramatic improvement in the precipitation validation over the remaining 9 days.

Now for the record statistical significance is a measure of how small is the probability of some observed data under a given «null hypothesis» (We know from a previous discussion Nick doesn't believe in the null hypothesis as part of science but there it is).

In - depth analyses of the observed data clearly show that the solar effect and human - made halogenated gases played the dominant role in Earth's climate change prior to and after 1970, respectively.

Name some studies of these «observed data and theoretical physics» that provide «plenty of evidence» for the effects of greenhouse gases on climate.

Thanks for asking me to «Name some studies of these «observed data and theoretical physics» that provide «plenty of evidence» for the effects of greenhouse gases on climate.

Check with Mosh how the observed data need to be adjusted, corrected, etc. to put them more in line with model predictions.

It is shown that an analytical equation derived from the CRE theory reproduces well 11 - year cyclic variations of polar O3 loss and stratospheric cooling, and new statistical analyses of the CRE equation with observed data of total O3 and stratospheric temperature give high linear correlation coefficients ≥ 0.92.

Observed data and theoretical physics provide plenty of evidence for the effect of greenhouse gases on climate, gases which humans are clearly contributing to the atmosphere.

The point is quite simply: The IPCC assumption of essentially constant relative with warming is not supported by the physically observed data, therefore the assumption of strong water vapor feedback with warming is also not supported by the observations.

Also, although there is no practical value in trying to ascertain the color of crows by virtue of seeing a red tulip, the principle involves Bayesian reasoning that has substantial practical applicability in science — i.e., the notion that probabilities change on the basis of observed data, even when the changes are too small to be obvious.