Sentences with phrase «sigma event not»

Not exact matches

Hiding on the «business» floor at the London Windows Phone 7 launch event was the Dell Venue Pro 7 not due in the UK till November, but here nonetheless to be caught on our Sigma 28 - 70 mm lens for you to see.So what do you get?

Not until a three - sigma event can a decade - long return for the S&P 500 turn negative.

Having just experienced two four - sigma events, these are not simply academic musings.

If the shape were unchanged, we would expect that the probability of a n sigma event for the baseline (1951 - 1980) would be the same as the probability of an (n +1) sigma event for 2001 - 2011.

[Response: While warm in the US, the 30s overall were not that warm, and so the percentage of 3 sigma + events globally was lower than the last decade.

But if you impose a forcing (AGW) which changes the degree of independence, making the tails fatter / less Gaussian, doesn't that mean the forcing ACTUALLY makes the probability of what were once 3,4,5 sigma events MUCH higher than indicated by tamino's method of analysis, which removes these effects?

The incidence of 3 sigma + events in any one decade is independent of what might be the best fit to the distribution and the Gaussian approximation doesn't come into any of the calculations above.

If this all wasn't scary enough, +4 - sigma events are now happening about 5 % of the time and +5 - sigma events, that formerly had a return time of about a million years, are now occurring about as often as 3 - sigma events happened 50 years ago.

People will not take dramatic action on climate change until it bites them on their ass (e., g., a catastrophic, 9 - sigma event).

phatboy, I don't think you know what Hansen meant by the 3 - sigma events.

Jim D, A 3 - sigma event in eg Alaska is not the same thing as a 3 - sigma event in eg Libya, not by any stretch of the imagination, yet Hansen lumps them together as if they were exactly the same animal

I haven't seen a list of the three sigma events characterized as extreme weather, and the temptation to lump events into the extreme category without a careful look at historical perspective and complicating factors would be very hard to resist — although I am not in any way impugning their integrity.

The entire analysis relies on not having any adjustment for adaptation, and for assuming there are going to be a lot more 3 - sigma events in the future.

Summary of how they got to this finding: They use CMIP models which, if not outright flawed, have not proved their validity in estimated temperature levels in the 2030 to 2070 timeframe, are used as the basis for extrapolations that assert the creation of more and more 3 - sigma «extreme events» of hot weather; this is despite the statistical contradiction and weak support for predicting significant increases in outlier events based on mean increases; then, based on statistical correlations between mortality and extreme heat events (ie heat waves), temperature warming trends are conjured into an enlargement of the risks from heat events; risks increase significantly only by ignoring obvious adjustments and mitigations any reasonable community or person would make to adapt to warmer weather.

Therefore, sigma events should be calculated for the new mean, not the old (using a similar mean, 3 - sigma events such be occurring at the same rate as 2 - sigma events did 50 years ago).

That suggest it was not more than a 2 sigma event.

I'm not sure how best to express that as a quantitative statistical constraint: perhaps favoring models which have spontaneous excursion properties under which historical temperature anomalies weren't 14 - sigma events?

Hiding on the «business» floor at the London Windows Phone 7 launch event was the Dell Venue Pro 7 not due in the UK till November, but here nonetheless to be caught on our Sigma 28 - 70 mm lens for you to see.So what do you get?