SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
(CNN)This week, a trillion-ton hunk of ice broke off Antarctica.
You probably know that. It was all over the Internet.
Among the details that have been repeated ad nauseam: The iceberg is nearly the size of Delaware, which prompted some fun musing on Twitter about where exactly Delaware is and how anyone is supposed to approximate the square footage of that US state. The ice, which has been named A68, represents more than 12% of the Larsen C ice shelf, a sliver on the Antarctic Peninsula. And most important: None of this has anything to do with man-made climate change.
The problem: That last detail -- the climate one -- is misleading at best.
At worst, it's wrong.
Some scientists think this has a lot to do with global warming.
I spent most of Thursday on the phone with scientists, talking to them about the huge iceberg off Antarctica and what it means. Here are my five takeaways.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/14/world/sutter-iceberg-antarctica-climate-change/index.html
[Warning: CNN autoplay video - Ed]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 18 2017, @11:40AM (1 child)
Once again I reiterate my claim that we have NHST here. You describe hypothesis testing, with an implicit comparison to the null hypothesis.
Those schemes and environmental effects will be just as much a problem with your testing of your model's predictions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18 2017, @02:30PM
NHST is not the same as hypothesis testing, which is not the same as significance testing. What I describe is closest to Fisher's significance testing, there is a huge literature about the mass confusion caused by the mash up of hypothesis testing and significance testing. If you were trained in the last 50 years to do applied stats there is 99% chance you were taught NHST (which is wrong).
The schemes and environmental effects would not be a "problem", they are further parameters to include in the model once discovered. There is no way to do this for the NHST case.