Using data from one state, Hollenbeck (2009) compared impact estimates based on exit date with those using a sample of entry dates.
We compared impact estimates derived with the autoregressive counterfactual method with estimates obtained by two extrapolation methods.
Then, they added reams of regional data to three well-respected global climate models to compare impacts in the Northeast states.
We test the hypothesis that there should be no significant long-term change in protected areas since 2000 and compare impacts of seasonality, drought, and fire.
Our method also provided an estimate of the magnitude of the impact, which is important in order to compare impacts across heterogeneous studies [ 5].
The availability of county-scale ozone projections made it possible to compare impacts in the urban core with those in outlying areas.
Also, compression after impact tests were conducted to determine the reduction in compressive strength when comparing impacted to non-impacted samples.
Comparing impact measurement with science often ends up with the argument that because social impact can't achieve the precision possible in science we shouldn't do it.
But if we compare impact and harms on communities, the ice "epidemic" is a mere minnow, affecting in the vicinity of 2% of the population compared to the related harm that is caused to the thousands around the nation on the wrong end of alcohol use.
Related sites Earth Impact Database National Air and Space Museum on comparing impact craters British Petroleum Production Geoscience Ltd.
