Sentences with phrase «signal noise issues»

The History John Kelly, who worked for AT&T's Bell Laboratory, originally developed the Kelly Criterion to assist AT&T with its long distance telephone signal noise issues.

Not exact matches

First, there's the issue of finding the strongest signal — the right signal — in all the noise that emerges from Big Data.

The researchers noted in today's (Mar. 27) issue of Scientific Reports that «Both the models and observations suggest this signal has only recently emerged from the background noise of natural variability.»

Most of the recent complations of borehole temepratures don't go back more than 500 years — presumably because of data quality and signal - vs - noise issues (but maybe someone could enlighten me?)

[Response: This is a real issue, but for attribution purposes the signal vs. noise has to be determined using the models.

Now the issue is of course whether there is a signal at all, but assuming the whole structure of the input data is noise makes the assumption that there is no signal — thus it is somewhat circular.

As for additional topics, perhaps a brief explanation on why confidence in attribution (and prediction) of temperature change is strongest at large scales and weakest at small scales, ie something about the issue of signal to noise relative to spatial scale.

Showing a mismatch between the real world and the observational data is made much easier if you recall the signal - to - noise issue we mentioned above.

Here's his response: «A convincing greenhouse gas - driven change has not emerged in the data so far, in my view, and may well be «in the noise» due to both large natural variability (compared to the expected size of the greenhouse gas - driven signal) and data quality issues.»

While statistical studies on extremes are plagued by signal - to - noise issues and only give unequivocal results in a few cases with good data (like for temperature extremes), we have another, more useful source of information: physics.

Most of the recent complations of borehole temepratures don't go back more than 500 years — presumably because of data quality and signal - vs - noise issues (but maybe someone could enlighten me?)

This issue arises in tree - ring chronology construction too, balancing the inclusion of more data to reduce the noise (i.e. the sampling error) against the inclusion of data from too large an area such that the signal becomes ambiguous or even incompatible.

On the other hand I do agree that the issue is not really about signal and noise as the noise is most commonly understood, but of oscillatory variability in the models, as it is almost certainly in the real Earth system as well.

This is the issue addressed by Santer et al., searching for the AGW signal amidst the natural variability noise.

There are serious signal to noise issues and a core issue is the significance of signals «detected» in various experiments.

Which is the first commandment to follow, the pole star, the guiding signal compared to which all else is noise, the issue to eclipse all issues?

This is not perfect because it is likely that climate effects such as ocean currents and oscillations, changes in biology, ice extent and volume changes, cloud cover variations, etc... are causing a kind of climactic Brownian Motion, hiding the signal in what, lacking deep understanding of these issues, we can only call noise.

My own version of the signal - to - noise issue is here, my display of year - end results from NASA GISS is here, and while I'm waiting for HadCRU and NCDC to post their year - end data I looked at northern - hemisphere land data from NASA here.

That way, as a client, I can tap into the one or two that are focused on my industry and my issues, and choose signal instead of noise.