Sentences with phrase «valid data points»

Those temperatures were actually recorded and are still valid data points.

For the larger 50S — 90S region a trend over 1880 — 2015 can be calculated, at 0.03 °C / decade, if a minimum of 15 % of valid data points is accepted.

With averages over the full array extent based on a minimum of 40 % valid data points, SAT and SST data are available for 1993 - 2015.

Not sure if this is a valid data point, but we bought the 9700's literally the day they became available.

Not exact matches

But the truth is that not all complaints are valid, and not all ideas meritorious; it is the leader's responsibility to make measured, informed decisions, and not to pander to data points of one.

Ever the scientist begging for data on this point, I'd say that another equally valid conclusion from the article linked here is that perhaps the improvement in kids» behavior from improved food and drink is like the link between crime and graffiti.

It is perfectly valid to point out differences in the reliability of data.

Rather, a full motion picture rich with a range of multiple and varied points of data may be required to begin to inform the record of what constitutes valid and reliable evaluation in today's classrooms.

I might point out two conundrums re our API system: (1) Re composition of an API, while many folks (including me) support a reduction in weight for assessment data contributing to an API, the problem is finding or developing valid and reliable measures to contribute to an API to replace the current assessment data weights.

However, remove data requirements on the phone and your point is completely valid.

Oh ok I didn't know about tablets and insurance but my point is still valid it's cheaper that way to just add 14 bucks and use hotspot / tether, cause your using data anyway so you might as well use the data your already paying for instead of opening another contract and you use it when you need it.

Your statements and opinions must be backed up by valid scientific evidence and data from recognized field experts, and your conclusions must point to additional work that might be warranted or new questions and issues that may arise as technology does.

They neglect the pre-1980s temperatures, the post-2000 temperatures, and the recent millennium of historical temperatures — they take a few unidentified data points out of a long series that support their desired point — fail to mention those data points and past trends that refute their point — and assert that they have presented a valid overall picture — in short, cherry - picking.

Both authors even admitted that their reconstructions aren't statistically valid (and that was kind of their point...) and McIntyre, at least, has stated that he regards many studies since then the same way he does the original 1998 paper because they basically use the same datasets and analysis (And I should add that he seems less opposed to the more recent studies, especially those that don't use data he finds suspicious...) They've stated their a priori reasons why they don't like the data they don't like.

The correlation of the monthly data from 1958.17 to 2015.25 comparing only valid data is 75 % with 681 data points.

An enemy can not possibly have a valid point of view and even if they point out that your lat - long coordinates for data are switched, you won't acknowledge it.

It seemed obvious to me that it was Hansen to which Brandon was referring to but Joshua's point about the physics of global warming and the CO2 connection used by AGW supporters being now in conflict with the data (assuming the absence of lags) seemed to be a valid one.

This is obvious for data — if you've collected 1000 data points, it's not valid to pick out 300 of them and report a posterior distribution that ignores the other 700.

Oh, and the third problem as I pointed out in your first post is that this data has had the long cycles messed with so until that is addressed even a valid and rigorous examination seems pretty pointless.

[Stephen McIntyre] Rejected — the data series are discussed and point on authors not valid.

I can't find any place where the «data series are discussed» and the point on authors is «valid» as there is substantial overlap in authors groups (Jones, Bradley, Mann, Briffa,...) The sentence was unchanged in the 2nd Draft:

It is perfectly valid to point out that certain of these predictions are a) typos or made up numbers (take your pick), like the Himalayan glacier vanishing act, b) subject to wide disagreement between models, c) not supported by the data, like Hansen's 1988 model forecast, d) other.

It clearly appears that the data has limitation, and if the points made are valid, needs to be more strongly verified.

But all these data, though valid, do not point in the direction indicated.

The point of this remark is that no one up to present date has conducted any analysis of this sort on the ice core data, therefore my assertion that currently «you have no data of adequate quality from past proxies, so the argument of «unprecedented» growth can not be used» is perfectly valid and is true.

I think some valid points have been made when it comes to questioning the adjustments of the data.

The point I am making has nothing to do with resiting stations, I am addressing the idea that one can expect stations sited within a few miles to produce similar readings, and that homogenisation between such stations could be a valid technique for improving data quality.

This latter point is on the one hand a simple statement of a desideratum, but on the other vital also to valid rights; you will have to make the call as to when the data you have means the invention is plausible.

A quick assessment of accuracy — T - shirt sizing style — can tell you something about the likelihood that the data point is valid.

Salient points of the report included the following (data valid as of report publication):