Sentences with phrase «within error ranges»

The differences in the parameters of the host star are all within the error ranges.

It seems my objections are within the error range of your calculations, so why do you dismiss them as being ridiculous?

«The forecast of 14.58 for 2010 was well within the error range if the final number was 14.52.

Not exact matches

Within a reasonable range of error, the poll data tell a consistent story: two thirds or more of new immigrants are Christian, no more than one fifth affirm any non-Christian faith, and as many as one sixth claim no religious identity at all.

However, the three - point difference from the national average was within the range of sampling error, suggesting that their likelihood of experiencing a dissolved marriage is the same as that of the population at - large.

Considering that most polls have maybe a 4 - 6 % typical error, this result was really quite within the range of possibility for most (although their consistent bias suggests that there really are some fundamental shortcomings).

All these results are within the range of sampling error, but at the very least they...

That's how we flush enough error out of the system so that we can have some confidence that within some limited range of social behavior that we're going to get some degree of accuracy.

First, the tests have a margin of error, which means that a score should be interpreted as lying within a range, not a hard - and - fast number.

The margin for error is 3.5 percent either way, which means there's a 95 percent probability of the truth falling within that range if all voters were surveyed, according to pollster Mason - Dixon.

The 16 planetary candidates have estimated diameters within range of being super-Earths (1.26 to 2.0 times Earth's diameter), given error margins ranging from 25 to 35 percent due to the uncertainty in the size of their host star and of the «depth» of the observed transits (decrease in stellar luminosity) across the surface of the star.

Wherein one method might nail down your percent body fat to within a few decimals, others leave a wider range of error.

Or even if we allow for an error range and say that it is.1 C to.3 C, then every decade must show that increase within that range unless there are elements of natural variation that take us outside of that range.

Also, of course you know that the current numbers are not inconsistent with theory since the difference falls within the predicted error range.

In the case of the 1988 Hansen et al. model, there didn't appear to be any usable estimate of the model's reliability — in other words, how likely is it, that given the proper input, the model gives results within a tolerable range of error.

Thorne claims that he is certain that it is exists within the uncertainties error range.

The graph below shows that, within the range of likely error, the current peak — even the disputed peak at the end — may not be a onetime event.

So please give an example where measurements of any given phenomenon were taken, with a potential error range of the equivalent of + / - 5 % that you stipulated in the initial measurements, where that poor initial data was processed using statistics, and provided an «actual average measurement within + / -.03 %, that was then verified against later, with subsequent more accurate measurements.

The interesting thing is that CO2 is lagging behind temperature (in the ice cores) seems to be 800 + / - 200 years — due to obvious problems with reading scales, that are low resolution, giving up to a 25 % error... However nearly the entire range of the lag falls within the 690 - 990 year range..

«the essential features» - AFAIK every single comparable paleoreconstruction (except the blog science ones) is within the MBH error range.

If — as is the case — the determined trend is within its inherent error range then it can not be distinguished from zero trend.

Each trend datum is within the inherent error range he presents for it.

One might (or might not) argue for such a relation if the models were empirically adequate, but given nonlinear models with large systematic errors under current conditions, no connection has been even remotely established for relating the distribution of model states under altered conditions to decision - relevant probability distributions... There may well exist thresholds, or tipping points (Kemp 2005), which lie within this range of uncertainty.

As far as I can tell, in each of those areas the debate takes basically the same shape as with temperatures: «skeptics» claiming that short - term observations disprove long - term predictions and «realists» saying that the short - term variability is within long - term error ranges.

The distribution of warming rates within the CMIP5 ensemble is not a true indication of a statistical range of prospective warming, as it is a collection of systematic errors.

If you do that, with enough stations, and the change in each is the same within a certain range, it seems to me that that gives you your correction with error bars for that change.

For the Antarctic ice cores they explicitly say that all ice cores are within 5 ppmv of each other, despite all possible errors in the ice cores drilling, storage and measurements... Not bad compared to stomata data with their 63 ppmv range (in one core...).

These mathematical physicists point to a flaw in the whole idea of a «global average temperature», ESPECIALLY in such a small range of LESS THAN ONE DEGREE, which is probably within the range of error of the global - average measurement itself.

.2005 and PS2004), with temperatures within ± 1 standard error (SE) of a reconstruction «scoring» 10 %, and regions within the 5 to 95 % range «scoring» 5 % (the maximum 100 % is obtained only for temperatures that fall within ± 1 SE of all 10 reconstructions).

Total human forcing is averaged at 1.6 W / m2 (range 0.6 to 2.4), which is minuscule and within the range of error of most included and excluded variables.

On the 10fastfingers.com typing test, I reached 111 words per minute (within my average range) with my usual 2 percent error rate.

As previously mentioned it is highly recommended hiring an experienced real estate attorney to take care of the closing as in addition to resolving any legal disputes, they are likely to make use of specialist real estate closing software which will reduce the chances of human error when preparing the settlement statement by means of validating input, ensuring figures are within allowed ranges and automatically calculating figures used throughout the HUD form.