Sentences with phrase «than scientists assumed»

The reason is that dinosaur legs probably contained thicker pads of cartilage at the bone joints than scientists assumed.

The bacterium Streptomyces chartreusis is an antibiotic - producing bacterium that releases more metabolites into the surrounding medium than scientists assumed based on the analysis of the genome.

Not exact matches

Or in other words, rather than assume that walking while thinking splits your mental and physical resources, leaving less to devote to each, the scientists actually found «an increase in arousal or activation associated with physical activity... which then can be invested into the cognition,» according to the paper reporting the research.

Lesser men than the great scientists too readily assumed that all new knowledge must be made to fit the «scientific» dogma, just as earlier it was expected to fit the ecclesiastical dogma.

«You seem to be assuming that scientists are less resilient than the general population,» says MPB.

reported in the journal «Science», scientists led by Dr. Felix Creutzig from the Mercator Research Institute of Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC), Berlin, and Dr. Patrick Jochem, KIT, point out that the transportation sector may be easier to decarbonize than previously assumed in global emission scenarios.

Assuming it is confirmed, says Stanford theoretical computer scientist Ryan Williams, this is the biggest advance in the field in more than a decade.

For more than two decades, scientists studying hydrothermal circulation in the water under the seafloor have assumed that the flow is relatively stable.

The Big Picture RT The impacts of human - caused climate change are happening faster than scientists previously assumed, the AAAS CEO said on 6 July, during an appearance on The Hartmann Report, a radio and television talk show.

Five contiguous segments of the fault spanning more than 600 kilometers broke at once in the quake, rather than one or at most two, as scientists had assumed.

For more than a century, scientists have assumed your body reacts to that radiation in much the same way it does to high doses — only on a much smaller scale.

That's good news, because scientists here reported yesterday that planets more than 1.6 times the mass of Earth are unlikely to be dense rocky worlds like ours — assumed to be the only plausible habitats for life.

The scientists begin by assuming that particles with lower energies take longer to travel through turbulent magnetic fields, much like a lazy moth takes longer to cross a windy valley than a quick bee.

That indicates that humans could have left Africa and reached the Middle East around 60,000 years earlier than many scientists had assumed.

For years, scientists had assumed that the spinal cord was nothing more than a glorified telephone line carrying messages to and from the brain.

Scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences (MPI CBS) in Leipzig have recently discovered that these capabilities are embedded in a much more finely - tuned way than previously assumed — and even differ depending on the style of the music: They observed that the brain activity of jazz pianists differs from those of classical pianists, even when playing the same piece of music.

Now, experiments by geoscientists from Brown and Columbia universities suggest that this process, called tidal dissipation, could create far more heat in Europa's ice than scientists had previously assumed.

It's possible, say scientists who have studied these symbiotic bacteria, fungi and other microbes, that gut microbiomes might be less ubiquitous than previously assumed.

While the specialized adaptations of our hands have long been assumed as a major evolutionary advantage, the human hand is less developed in terms of evolution than that of a chimp, having changed little from the hands of the last common ancestor shared with our simian cousins millions of years ago, scientists report.

And finally, what about Mark's questions (# 3) and other factors not discussed here — do all these effects re Arctic ice lead scientists to believe there is a greater and / or earlier chance (assuming we continue increasing our GHG emissions — business as usual) of melting hydrates and permafrost releasing vast stores of methane into the atmosphere than scientists believed before the study, or is the assessment of this about the same, or scientists are not sure if this study indicates a greater / lesser / same chance of this?

The Universe does what it wants and our job is as scientists to figure it out, rather than to assume it should be the way we want it to be.»

In my post I was careful to note the following: «I assume that many climate scientists will say that there is no significance to what has happened since 2000, and perhaps emphasize that predictions of global temperature are more certain in the longer term than shorter term.»

May 07, 2015 Genetic changes to basic developmental processes evolve more frequently than thought Newly evolved genes can rapidly assume control over fundamental functions during early embryonic development, report scientists from the University of Chicago.

Scientists at the World Health Organization wrote in an editorial this week that the risks for unborn babies who contract Zika in the womb seem to be even greater than they first assumed.

This, one assumes, is better than being an anti-social scientist.

Is it not the responsibility of scientists to attempt to disprove a null hypothesis and debunk myths rather than assuming that a treatment has a desired effect?

ITHACA, N.Y. — The canine influenza outbreak afflicting more than 1,000 dogs in Chicago and other parts of the Midwest is caused by a different strain of the virus than was earlier assumed, according to laboratory scientists at Cornell University and the University of Wisconsin.

Someone writes a guest post on RC and then for eternity it's a done deal and assumed «true» when it was little more than egregious incompetent SPIN more worthy of a biased politician than a couple of biased scientists obviously incapable of thinking holistically and unable to stop creating fraudulent Strawmen arguments out of thin air trying to prove they are «right» and the other is «wrong».

Since AGW did not reach scientific certainty in studies until 1995, that meant The New Scientist was publishing more articles (more assuming AGW validity) than the somewhat more scientifically cautious journals.

Previously it was pure arrogance for a layman to assume they knew more than the literally thousands of climate scientist modelers.

Next question (assuming the net effect is a positive feedback), do all these factors (net effect) actually mean is it worse than scientists had earlier thought, about the same, not as bad (though still a net positive feedback), or not sure (due to it being so complicated)?

And finally, what about Mark's questions (# 3) and other factors not discussed here — do all these effects re Arctic ice lead scientists to believe there is a greater and / or earlier chance (assuming we continue increasing our GHG emissions — business as usual) of melting hydrates and permafrost releasing vast stores of methane into the atmosphere than scientists believed before the study, or is the assessment of this about the same, or scientists are not sure if this study indicates a greater / lesser / same chance of this?

Assuming that scientists haven't left out anything vital, this suggests that the net effect of water - based feedbacks is positive and would amplify GHG - induced warming by more than a factor of two.Many assumptions have been made, but the historical evidence increases our confidence in model results.

If you know anything about climate change, you've had sleepless nights; and climate scientists know a thing or two about climate change, so we can assume they've had more than...

Unfortunately, it less embarrassing for Western scientists to have joined the museum of hoaxes than it should be in an age when we all might have assumed that at least scientists were immune from superstition.

However he then states that this has misled climate scientists into assuming that the climate is more sensitive than it really is.

Because the alleged IPCC «consensus» is so widely trusted, many climate scientists who haven't studied man - made global warming theory or the predictions of the computer models assume that they must be reliable merely «because the IPCC says so», rather than checking for themselves.

There are lots of great books by scientists and journalists, so why do we assume that deadline journalism is so much more important than books for getting accurate and clear information to the public?

Participants generally assumed that scientists who worked for government or universities were not driven by money, so probably had more worthy intentions and were more trustworthy than those working for private companies.»

The benchmarking of RE statistics was an issue that was put into play in McIntyre and McKitrick 2005a, where we observed that you could get high RE statistics from pseudoproxies with autocorrelation coefficients mimicking the autocorrelation coefficients of actual proxies, rather than the very low - order AR1 coefficients assumed (without proof) by climate scientists.

That's particularly hilarious since Judith was just over at Dan's arguing that there's no reason to assume that scientists are any less biased than Joe lunchpail (which I agree with, btw).

This assumes rocket scientists are smarter than everyone else.

We expect scientists to behave differently, not because they're better than us, but because they're scientists, and because society wouldn't work if people didn't assume different roles and conform to them.

If you know anything about climate change, you've had sleepless nights; and climate scientists know a thing or two about climate change, so we can assume they've had more than their share of sleepless nights.

The reasons for that are many: the timid language of scientific probabilities, which the climatologist James Hansen once called «scientific reticence» in a paper chastising scientists for editing their own observations so conscientiously that they failed to communicate how dire the threat really was; the fact that the country is dominated by a group of technocrats who believe any problem can be solved and an opposing culture that doesn't even see warming as a problem worth addressing; the way that climate denialism has made scientists even more cautious in offering speculative warnings; the simple speed of change and, also, its slowness, such that we are only seeing effects now of warming from decades past; our uncertainty about uncertainty, which the climate writer Naomi Oreskes in particular has suggested stops us from preparing as though anything worse than a median outcome were even possible; the way we assume climate change will hit hardest elsewhere, not everywhere; the smallness (two degrees) and largeness (1.8 trillion tons) and abstractness (400 parts per million) of the numbers; the discomfort of considering a problem that is very difficult, if not impossible, to solve; the altogether incomprehensible scale of that problem, which amounts to the prospect of our own annihilation; simple fear.

(I agree that there are some scientists better versed in the policy end than others, as you say, and I was not «assuming that among the experts in science, there are no experts in policy.»

I'm not a scientist, but I have worked in the high technology industry for more than 40 years, where familiarity with physics and chemistry is assumed.

In my post I was careful to note the following: «I assume that many climate scientists will say that there is no significance to what has happened since 2000, and perhaps emphasize that predictions of global temperature are more certain in the longer term than shorter term.»

«I assume that many climate scientists will say that there is no significance to what has happened since 2000, and perhaps emphasize that predictions of global temperature are more certain in the longer term than shorter term.»

This gives reason to assume that the German climate scientists are more inclined to communicate their results in public when they confirm rather than contradict that climate change is dramatic.