I make no brag. Indeed I make the point that there will be errors in what I do because there are "known unknowns". The more detailed approach I outline provides for a means to better account for them if and when more data on those unknowns becomes available.Dear Wiggo said:I think you are still missing the point.
Despite not knowing the wind conditions, the estimates, compared to the actually recorded data, is within +/- 2.7%. I consider the confounding factors accuracy mostly irrelevant when your overall accuracy is that close.
I notice too, despite the bragging about segment by segment analysis that you do not provide even a summary of your accuracy.
And again, the point I am making is that even if the data were 100% spot on all the time, will that make a difference?