Quote:
Originally Posted by puckhog
Sorry, but this post is just absurd. Current data shows nothing about what will happen in 10-15 years, it is entirely limited to telling us what the arctic ice extent is at the present time.
|
Satellite imagery and sea ice coverage?
Projections based on observed trends?
Your this is absurd because no one can tell the future doesn't carry much weight.
And no..... Canada, US and other countries aren't watching this closely. I'm not saying it'll happen anytime soon but it's something worth monitoring closely. There's a reason why the US sea ice imagery is "classified".
Quote:
Originally Posted by puckhog
Back to the discussion about these leaked files, some of them would indicate that the assumptions made both in treating the existing data and producing forecasts were done in a way that would produce the desired results. To anyone with any scientific background (including performing a lab or two in junior high) this is simply unacceptable. The scientific process is all about trying to disprove a given hypothesis, if the hypothesis stands up through test after test, then it is considered a theory or law. Many of the scientists involved with 'proving' global warming seem to have forgotten this.
|
Huh? You're confusing your high school lab where you form a hypothesis and try and disprove it with 'projections' based on past and present data.= using modelling tools.
And you're contradicting yourself a bit now. All of a sudden current data is useful? As long as it's contained in a lab.
And your Ovechkin example has a serious flaw .... i.e sample size. Wouldn't you agree his projected points totals after say 41 games might be more accurate based on the trend at that time. Of course there are outside variables all carrying different weight but the point is with the more data available then the better chance of making an accurate projection.
I'm not saying that my projection after half a season will be exactly on the money but the increased sample size will lead to it being a lot closer than your flawed example. But then again they'd both be probably wrong so what's the point?