Sentences with phrase «on simple correlations»

Anthropogenic global warming does not rely on simple correlations.

It was therefore essential to determine whether a causal link exists between methylation and gene expression, rather than relying on a simple correlation.

In a completely different analysis, based only on a simple correlation of observed sea level rise and temperature, I came to a similar conclusion.

Not exact matches

Looking at a simple asset allocation, a theoretical allocation to long - dated U.S. bonds (+20 years) fluctuates from as low as 3 % to as high as 25 % based on changes to the risk model, i.e. correlation of different asset classes.

When we started, it was just a simple hypothesis based on a correlation, and correlations are, of course, something that could be quite dubious, and they could go away if you get better data.

Most analytical approaches to this problem are rather rudimentary and involve calculating simple correlations among the genes whose expression changes in response to a perturbation, clustering the genes by molecular or known functional class, and drawing crude inferences about mechanism on that basis.

The simple correlation between spending per student and average TIMSS test scores is 0.13 in primary school and 0.16 in middle school, on a scale where 1.0 denotes an absolute positive correlation between the two variables and 0 signals no correlation (see figure 2).

My only remaining skepticism had to do with the use of this simple correlation for predicting the future «to within a millikelvin»: namely, that the correlation ignored two real constraints on future atmospheric CO2 increase, from human emissions upon which the entire correlation is based.

Simple calculation shows that this residual oscillating component (it very closely matches the AMO with amplitude excursion of ~ 0.6 C) is directly related to the sunspot cycles for the period: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm On the other hand there is close correlation between the N.A. SST (AMO) and global temperatures for period 1880 - 2010, with a single exception at 1969 - 70 when there is an inexplicable drop in the AMO of 0.325 C, and than trends continue on a parallel up - slopOn the other hand there is close correlation between the N.A. SST (AMO) and global temperatures for period 1880 - 2010, with a single exception at 1969 - 70 when there is an inexplicable drop in the AMO of 0.325 C, and than trends continue on a parallel up - slopon a parallel up - slope.

I would love to see CO2 plotted on top of the second graph with the MWP so that my simple brain could see the correlation.

For the record, in the case of this «divergence», after dropping that post 1960 portion, the comparison between the reconstruction and the temperature record was done using decadal «smoothing» (basically weighted moving averages) of both series correlated on an annual basis for the 80 year period 1880 to 1960 so that the reported correlation was extremely exaggerated and not interpretable as a simple correlation might be.

Sadly, Prof. Salby's presentation did not include nearly enough information to reproduce the graphs shown above, so I will explain the flaw in his reasoning first via a simple thought experiment, and then illustrate the mainstream understanding of this issue, that is based on the correlation between the annual growth rate and the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO), which was first mentioned in the peer reviewed literature way back in 1979.

After detrending the proportions using a simple regression on year, the ACF shows no correlations are significantly different from zero.

On the basis of that apparent correlation and the absence of any non solar cause having gone into reverse I prefer the idea that in some way the change in solar activity levels is responsible and the simplest explanation is the one I have advanced but I remain open to sensible alternative suggestions of which there are precisely none.

Equally important, the simple regression approach leads to extraordinarily small values of the correlation on the order of 0.02.

Kellie, any thoughts on preparing a summary of whatever evidence is available from Factor Analysis, as opposed to simply talking about simple correlations which don't of course — as you'd know — tell us much about actual causation of the differences?