Sentences with phrase «takes decades of observation»

Not exact matches

Led by astrophysicist Paul Crowther of the University of Sheffield in the United Kingdom, the group sifted through observations taken by the Hubble Space Telescope earlier in this decade and combined them with new images by the European Southern Observatory's Very Large Telescope (VLT) in Cerro Paranal, Chile.

Detecting a solar system like our own (in which the most massive planet, Jupiter, takes a full 12 years to complete one orbit) would require at least another decade or two of high - precision Doppler observations.

Hubble's eXtreme Deep Field image combines a decade of Hubble observations, including some taken in infrared light, to create one of the deepest pictures of the universe ever taken, spanning 13.2 billion years of galaxy formation.

«The study is unique in taking observations by different instruments and different field campaigns separated by a decade to document that changes in the region include the flow connecting these two outlets,» Charles Jackson, a geophysicist at the University of Texas who wasn't part of the study, told Earther.

I hope to be completely wrong, but my observation of world politics, the UN in particular, over the past several decades, is that just when you are certain that the Intergovernmental Panel on Chicken Chit has finaly died, it will be reborn as the World Wide Focus on Poultry Excrement (WWF - PE) and it will take ten years before anyone realizes that its all the same people just with different titles and brand new evidence much stronger than the previous evidence because they have learned from their mistakes.

If you can cite me a couple of good references that line up theory and observations to date with a clear exposition supporting a sensitivity of less than 3 with a nice tight clarity that there's no long term sensitivity attached to that to take it higher after further decades or centuries, go for it.

My own goal is to have readers (and maybe even but not necessarily Graeme) understand the invalidity of his argument asserting that (essentially) one sea level time series observation at one coastal location that (allegedly) doesn't show much change in several decades does not imply that the sea level changes have been the same at all other coastal locations (give or take 100 mm)- which implies that any observed variations exceeding this level in sea level rise at different locations around the world are «not real» and hence sea level rise due to global warming isn't anything to worry about.

For those who did not see it, I thought it would be helpful to put into this blog Justice Brown's observation, reported in the Globe in early July 2013, that «the root of the problem is a belief that «trials are bad» and «mediation will solve all problems,» which took hold in recent decades and sapped the will to move cases swiftly to trial».