elektra said:
Or, the data must be interpreted and applied or computer modeled.
Old ice vs new ice?
What about ice with water on it?
Seems I may have brought up much of this in the past. Like what type of sat is used? What type of data is collected.
Certainly a satellite is not using a wooden ruler like reiny daze stated.
Satellites are not even close to being accurate. Why do you think all them there scientists got stuck in the ice down at the Antarctica all those years ago.. They needed real measurments
Do YOU know what the resolution of Satellites measuring Sea Ice?
Do you know which satellite or satellites that you are talking about? It is obvious you do not, that you have never ever bothered to look up and study which satellites are doing what. Other wise you would state now, or then when you made that post, what satellite you were speaking of.
RESOLUTION? You do not realize that resolution has nothing to do with the accuracy of the measurements. Who gives a shit what the resolution is? It has nothing to do with the accuracy which is what I spoke of.
How is the satellite calibrated, how is the laser calibrated. how many points are used in the calibration. You have an instrument that is capable of millions of measurements. How many calibration points are needed? At which position does the satellite need to be calibrated at?
In calibrating a satellite, they need exact measurements, the more, the more accurate, that takes a team of people at the arctic, in every type of weather, every season, winter spring snow summer, there must be a calibration.
Flucuations in the gravitation field of the earth, will effect the measurements, is the satellite calibrated for those fluctuations.
Light snow on top of the ice makes a difference
Old snow makes a difference
new ice and old ice, all different, requiring calibration
And you ask if I know the resolution of the satellite? You do not ask about the calibration and how accurate that calibration is across the entire arctic in all seasons and types of weather.
I guess you never thought, I see you never had the knowledge of measurements to even think of the accuracy and the calibration.
Resolution, sure, which satellite? More data points has nothing to do with accuracy. More data points require more time on earth measuring stuff by hand, not the snow, but the ice.
Water on top of ice, there is such a thing. Broken old ice, frozen with new ice in between the pieces, big difference.
Resolution? Sorry, I was speaking of accuracy. Accuracy is not known from the products delivered by NASA, not without the raw data being released.
And what do you know of me, that you can state I dont know shit about raw data? You know nothing. What I do know, is I have spent my life as an Electric Power Research Institute analyst. I have used scientific instruments to measure stuff. Does that make me an expert, nope, not at all, but it does give me the knowledge to call you an idiot when you went off on your resolution tangent and began linking to wikipedia.
Accuracy, not resolution, sorry you could not figure out on your own how wrong you were, and are. And as a side note, I do carry what we call, a 6" scale, and at that it is calibrated. I work in Nuclear Submarines now, our equipment is calibrated. Your wooden ruler is not allowed and can not be calibrated. The wooden ruler is not used in science. It is not used where accuracy is required.
