4 ms·
If merpnderp were to say the null hypothesis is that the longer-term trend (1.2K/century as stated) should continue as expected even into recent decades (or per
by curiousgeorgio 11y ago
If merpnderp were to say the null hypothesis is that the longer-term trend (1.2K/century as stated) should continue as expected even into recent decades (or perhaps "correct" the data for that relationship because we're assuming it's not up for debate), then the data for the past ~20 years would show a departure from that hypothesis, would it not? In that case, the point being shown is different from the null hypothesis, and may be significant. Am I missing something?
- phaemon 11y agoNope, you're missing nothing. That's absolutely correct. The problem (from merpnderp's point of view) is that the data for the past ~20 years doesn't differ significantly from the 30 year (or longer) trend. It's using the lack of significance to mean something significant which is the root of the error.