Cucullen: Before you stain your trousers, hippies, you might read the original research. From the article alone it says the yearly precipitation predicted had some pretty big error bars that don't agree with other peoples models. I don't know how he got that 56% number, but if he just ran the model a bunch of times and took the mean value assuming zero mean Gaussian process noise then that number is bogus.
Want to see behind the curtain? Try
It's how we feed the squirrel
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Oct 19 2017 05:35:38
Runtime: 0.124 sec (123 ms)