Sentences with phrase «really low estimates»

-- He then uses really low estimates of Solar Cycle 24 and 25 to «predict» future world temperatures.

Not exact matches

Since warming is proportional to cumulative carbon, if the climate sensitivity were really as low as Schmittner et al. estimate, then another 500 GT would take us to the same risk level, some 11 years later.

In some cases, where people eat really low calorie diets like 500 or 600 calories per day and do lots of exercise, they often lose about 30 % — 40 % less fat than is estimated using prediction equations.

I just read an interesting thing that often LDL is often estimated rather than measured ($) based on a calculation with HDL, TC, Triglycerides — «the Friedewald equation» - apparently if your triglycerides are really low as my husbands are, the LDL readings can be grossly overestimated.

Whether the teacher estimates are a little low, a little high, or even a little more than a little low is not really the point of this exercise: Really, it's about breaking your kid of the habit of wasting time complaining about or delaying homework, rather than just doireally the point of this exercise: Really, it's about breaking your kid of the habit of wasting time complaining about or delaying homework, rather than just doiReally, it's about breaking your kid of the habit of wasting time complaining about or delaying homework, rather than just doing it.

Furthermore, when sales rank is really good (low number), improving estimates usually means adding arbitrary + X amounts to sales estimates.

In the video we did not, the matte screen is a glorified screen protector, it does not really do much other then protect your unit, we would estimate it lowered the glare by like 30 % BUT it looked really artificial.

If you mean that Amazon is only 30 % of the ebook market, I'd like to see your figures, because not only is that lowest figure I've ever seen floated in the past four years, this data is the first time self - published ebooks have been really accounted for and it suggests that any estimates we're getting to date could be off by an order of magnitude.

Both parties know that stock prices do well when they beat estimates, and it is a lot easier to set the bar really low than to actually outperform realistic expectations.

It is really here where my greatest concern lies, because while our overall return / risk estimate for the stock market is the second most negative in history, that estimate also reflects relatively low dispersion, and the single most lopsided consensus (97 % of individual learners negative) that we've observed in the historical data set.

OK, so I see that they are using a discount rate of 5 % and that doesn't really cut it, but I also think they have only been able to use a low estimate of reserves.

The obvious answer (from someone who is indeed receptive to arguments for lower - than - consensus climate sensitivities) is that it was on a par with recent hot years because temperatures at US latitudes of the globe really weren't as much cooler in the 1930s / 1940s (compared to the present) than GISS / Hadley's best estimates (from often sketchy global coverage) suggest.

There is really no «unrealistic» low estimate but It (vtg) can produce lots of unrealistically high estimates.

So this wouldn't fix the problem with the low - freqency portion («the trend») dominating the estimate of the correlation coefficient, when what you really want is just the the high - frequency portion unadorned by the trend from another region.

It gives a TCR range of 1.0C - 2.5 C and a transient response to cumulative CO2 emissions of 0.8C - 2.5 C. Again, no best estimates, so they really don't know what climate sensitivity might actually be; could be low, could be high.