Sentences with phrase «so much variability»

Given the fact that there's so much variability in defining what cohabitation is, it may not make sense to lump all cohabitating couples into one group.

For one thing, there is just so much variability in premium rates between zip codes.

With such a long list of issues and so much variability and diversity, how can you keep it all straight?

Dr Meier:» There are increasing trends in Antarctic sea ice extent, but they are fairly small and there is so much variability in the Antarctic sea ice from year to year that is difficult to ascribe any significance to the trends — they could simply be an artifact of natural variability»

There's so much variability in 5 - year moving average that more smoothing is certainly needed but not quite as much as in Vaughan's spreadsheet.

2) Why is there so much variability in the cost to have my pet's teeth cleaned?

So why would we see so much variability in per pupil spending between sites?

According to Dr. Klein, there's so much variability in home body composition devices that they aren't always reliable sources.

De Bivort's work is part of a larger effort to understand why nature produces so much variability.

Why hasn't natural selection homed in on optimum character traits instead of allowing so much variability?

Not exact matches

«Obviously, the unique thing with Uber is that there's so much pay variability,» he said.

Even the so - called - and much misunderstood - uncertainty principle, and quantum physics as a whole, work according to precise levels of mathematically expressible variability within a defined system.

I've always found Jim to be a very gentle, non-judgmental commentator on the subject, not so much prescribing a single one - size - fits - all sleep pattern, but standing up to those who do, pointing out that there is enormous variability around the world, and that people who don't follow the standards laid out by some conservative pediatricians are not necessarily condemning their children to inevitable abnormality.

Wrestling with natural variability Scientists have looked for these changes in rainfall patterns, but they are often difficult to distinguish because there is so much natural variability in precipitation.

Does that mean you ring up the Museum and say, «I was all wrong — the natural variability was twice what we thought, so it is unlikely that adding a new brick to the platform will cause as much effect as I told you last year!»

However, that dynamic variability is part of what makes one year so much colder than another, and the temperatures we were seeing over February and March suggested that this would be a bad year for ozone — despite the fact there was a rapid warming towards the end.

The continued swings in the Arctic Oscillation can make it difficult for climate scientists to determine how sea ice loss is altering winter weather, since there is so much natural variability in the system in the first place.

Risk can be defined as reducing the variability of outcomes, so since calls / shorts etc. reduce potential losses and also slightly reduce potential gains, they pretty much by definition reduce risk.

The chart [above] shows the weighted average of the twenty - nine models for the one - month - ahead equity risk premium, with the weights selected so that this single measure explains as much of the variability across models as possible (for the geeks: it is the first principal component).

There is a tremendous amount of genetic variability within every breed — so much so that it's not possible to make any reliable predictions about behavior based solely on breed identification.

Your first differencing removes the trends for the large part and so restricts you to short term variability — much of which is related to hidden variables in your analysis (i.e. ENSO, volcanic AOD etc.), thus causality is going to be tricky.

Doing it that way would just be less sophisticated and informative, because in some places 1.8 degrees would just by nature of the local natural variability be exceeded much more easily than in some other places, so using that kind of threshold would not be as «fair» and even - handed as the 3 - sigma threshold.

As stated above, the wind - driven component is unlikely to change much, and so while the shallow, wind - driven circulations may actually transport more heat (and of course the atmosphere transfers even more), the variability in the heat transport can still be dominated by the variability in the overturning.

Here is the detrended AMO index which has much longer cycles of 25 years or so but shows much less overall variability than the ENSO has (+ / -0.6 C versus the ENSO at + / - 3.0 C).

So to find out how much diet affects adult heights, you can't take one person from each dietary group and correlate because inherent variability swamps the individual effect of diet.

RE: Gavin's response to # 12 — Well then, why do you spend so much time trying to downplay the MWP and when not doing that, trying to make the case that past variability really does not matter?

So in summary, PC selection is a trade off: on one hand, the goal is to capture as much variability of the data as represented by the different PCs as possible (particularly if the explained variance is small), while on the other hand, you don't want to include PCs that are not really contributing any more significant information.

captdallas2 — 24 Jan 2011 @ 12:34 PM «That would of course lead into a question of how over the period 1913 to 1940, though you could pick virtually any 27 year period, natural variability could create similar changes, but not so much now?»

So the question to ask here is: why is the Gulf of Mexico so hot at present — how much of this could be attributed to global warming, and how much to natural variabilitSo the question to ask here is: why is the Gulf of Mexico so hot at present — how much of this could be attributed to global warming, and how much to natural variabilitso hot at present — how much of this could be attributed to global warming, and how much to natural variability?

Antarctic sea ice has both a larger seasonality and bigger year to year variability and so dominates the much more significant Arctic changes.

Does that mean you ring up the Museum and say, «I was all wrong — the natural variability was twice what we thought, so it is unlikely that adding a new brick to the platform will cause as much effect as I told you last year!»

It has more spatial variability than Lewis's model which has exactly zero, not even land - water - ice, so it is much better than what they are comparing it with.

If we instead could get a much better surface remperature reconstruction going back +1000 years soon, it would help so much in adressing this issue of «Climate» internal variability.

I thought it was more like blog posts that provided alternative viewpoints to peer reviewed articles... Clearly comments to posts will have much more variability wrt thoughtful reasoning compared to the posts themselves, so why you would descend to the lowest level as an example of what she probably means by extended peer review is... er, well as someone I know likes to say....

Using the full CMIP3 ensemble at least has multiple individual realisations of that internal variability and so is much more suited to a comparison with a short period of observations.

Your comment about natural variability being such a «wild card» sound much more to belong in the white than in the red box though, so maybe I'm interpreting the flag numbers different than you?

On top of which, we know there were major other anthropogenic inputs in the form of particulates (which didn't likely have much effect, but we can't really be sure of that), so «natural» variability remains off the table as a number we can extract from the data we have.

Free extratropical Rossby waves with zonal wave numbers about 6 to 8 mostly occur as high - amplitude, fast traveling waves (the so - called synoptic transients responsible for much of the weather variability in the extratropics); once established, they can freely propagate predominantly to the east with a phase speed c ≈ 6 − 12 m ⋅ s − 1 without maintenance from external forcing.

And while by eye I could conjecture 86 % of the one year CO2 rise were temperature - correlated in any yearly cycle, clearly there is much greater temperature variability in the region of Mauna Loa in a year (~ 5 - 10C) than there has been globally since observations started (~ 0.7 C), so one would only consider Dr. Spencer's claims plausible if the rise in CO2 since 1960 were smaller than the change in a single year by a factor of ten, rather than larger by an order of magnitude.

My specific concern is that because winter variability is so much greater than summer variability, it will mask any increase in summer variability if you only examine annual data.

If they know so much about natural variability, surely they saw the pause coming.

Until the so called models can model the physics of decadal and much longer variability — I will take them with a grain of salt.

So both quotes emphasised the impacts of natural variability as much as the impacts of pollution.

If it were not so then climate would be very much more stable than it is with a virtually fixed latitudinal position for the air circulation systems and climate variation being limited only to a basic level of chaotic variability.

It takes about 20 years to evaluate because there is so much unforced variability in the system which we can't predict — the chaotic component of the climate system — which is not predictable beyond two weeks, even theoretically.

Not so much of hiatus as progression of a quasi-periodic variability, the SST «cycles» are trailing and not leading N. Atlantic series of the events (see last graph HERE)

A natural variability of no more than + / - 0.1 C is invoked for this effect, which is not much in the long term expected 2 - 4 C or so, but it can modify shorter term decadal trends.

If we are at the stage where the variability of the good was so bad that the trend difference were insignificant, then we'd pretty much have to discard all the surface station data from consideration.

Their famous attribution graph depends on the assumption that their models accurately simulate natural variability with so much precision that they can draw tiny little blue uncertainty bands around the simulations that don't overlap with the GHG forcing simulations.

Chief, So you admit that I can explain some / much of the red noise variability.