Sentences with phrase «using upper estimates»

Estimated deaths by belief / non-belief (source Wikipedia, using upper estimates): Atheist Stalin: 60 million Pol Pot: 4 million Total: 64 million

Not exact matches

Using float data, scientists recalibrated sparse historical measurements and estimates of ocean warming, concluding that the upper 2,700 feet of the world's oceans had warmed by between a quarter and a half more than had previously been realized.

Maximum likelihood estimates for the TMRCA of each clade (x axis with the unit of kya), providing upper boundaries for population split times, were obtained using r8s.

For dose - response analysis, we used the method proposed by Greenland and Longnecker [13] to estimate study - specific slopes from the correlated natural logarithm of the RR across categories of coffee consumption, assigning to each class the dose corresponding to the midpoint of upper and lower boundaries.

Using the upper range of their effect size estimates, $ 100 spent on classroom coaches would yield a gain of over one - half standard deviations in student achievement, and one - to - one tutoring would yield a one - quarter standard deviations improvement.

Below, we translate the measured impacts of the Chicago CPC program into estimates of how public investment in a universal, high - quality, prekindergarten program would affect future government finances, the economy, earnings, and crime and health, using the attenuations described above for children from middle - and upper - income families, and for children who in its absence would have attended some other preschool.

I prefer to use it as a rough estimate of the likely upper end of valuations for my basket of stocks.

The total variance in the data gives an upper limit to the errors, and using that upper limit we can compute a statistically reliable estimate of the significance of the trend.

Extrapolating based on date from 1980 to the present yields and estimate around the 2040 for zero September ice volume while using an apparent steeper trend since 2000 yields an estimate around 2015 for the lower curve in fig. 1 or around 2020 using the upper curve as a guide.

I am especially interested in the mathematical details outlined in this sentence; «The total variance in the data gives an upper limit to the errors, and using that upper limit we can compute a statistically reliable estimate of the significance of the trend.»

The Curry et al. paper examined the posteriors separately for the surface temperature data, the ocean data, and the upper air data and never estimated a posterior using all three diagnostics.

Using the business - as - usual scenario for GHG radiative forcing (RCP8.5) and their novel estimate of Earth's warm - phase climate sensitivity the authors find that the resulting warming during the 21st century overlaps with the upper range of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) climate simulations.

However, that dataset is compatible, when using the surface, upper air and deep - ocean data in combination, with a central estimate for climate sensitivity close to S = 3, in line with the Forest 2006 results.

The right - hand panel shows ranges of global average temperature change above pre-industrial, using (i) «best estimate» climate sensitivity of 3 °C (black line in middle of shaded area), (ii) upper bound of likely range of climate sensitivity of 4.5 °C (red line at top of shaded area)(iii) lower bound of likely range of climate sensitivity of 2 °C (blue line at bottom of shaded area).

That leads to the IPCC conclusion that it is «very likely» that anthropogenic factors have «made a substantial contribution to upper ocean warming» using a method independent of observation estimates of the value of individual fluxes.

I have concentrated on the Bayesian inference involved in such studies, since they seem to me in many cases to use inappropriate prior distributions that heavily fatten the upper tail of the estimated PDF for S. I may write a future post concerning that issue, but in this post I want to deal with more basic statistical issues arising in what is, probably, the most important of the Bayesian studies whose PDFs for climate sensitivity were featured in AR4.

Lyman and colleagues combined different ocean monitoring groups» data sets, taking into account different sources of bias and uncertainty — due to researchers using different instruments, the lack of instrument coverage in the ocean, and different ways of analyzing data used among research groups — and put forth a warming rate estimate for the upper ocean that it is more useful in climate models.

In the present study, satellite altimetric height and historically available in situ temperature data were combined using the method developed by Willis et al. [2003], to produce global estimates of upper ocean heat content, thermosteric expansion, and temperature variability over the 10.5 - year period from the beginning of 1993 through mid-2003...

The accessibility of deep ocean heat to the climate system tells us that the equilibration time relevant to multidecadal climate sensitivity estimates is longer than an interval based on upper ocean measurements, and so sensitivity will be underestimated if only the shorter interval is used.

Domingues et al (2008) and Levitus et al (2009) have recently estimated the multi-decadal upper ocean heat content using best - known corrections to systematic errors in the fall rate of expendable bathythermographs (Wijffels et al, 2008).

NW and Ken, a short answer is that the investigators need to combine evidence of tree - line fluctuations with estimate of past temperature changes to model the spatial extent of the upper treeline zone in order to avoid this problem (by ensuring that only material that was within this zone at any given time is used).

Estimates of the initial CO2 concentration of primary magmas can be used to constrain the CO2 content of the upper oceanic mantle, but these estimates vary greEstimates of the initial CO2 concentration of primary magmas can be used to constrain the CO2 content of the upper oceanic mantle, but these estimates vary greestimates vary greatly4, 5.

Willis et al. (2004) used satellite altimetric height combined with about 900,000 in situ ocean temperature profiles to produce global estimates of upper - ocean (upper 750 m) heat content on interannual timescales from mid-1993 to 2002 (see Figure 4 - 3).

Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute thinks his assumptions show signs of cherry - picking: the report used «upper - bound estimates for warming» (i.e., a rise higher than 2 to 3 degrees Celsius), but lower - bound estimates for the economic cost of reducing emissions.

And the only purely observational study featured in AR4, Forster & Gregory (2006), which used satellite observations of radiation entering and leaving the atmosphere, also gave a best estimate of 1.6 °C, with a 95 % upper bound of 4.1 °C.