|
Outside Asylum Take a walk, smell the roses. Any topic is fine, save people bashing. |
|
|
|
Outside Asylum Take a walk, smell the roses. Any topic is fine, save people bashing. |
|
In Reply to: Re: GW and the 2006 no-hurricane season posted by Bruce from DC on January 2, 2007 at 11:44:09:
others might call "further scientific investigation".We make predictions based on our current understanding of how the world works, and the completeness of our information. If the predictions don't pan out, it means either that our understanding is faulty or our information is incomplete. Seeking to rectify either of those shortcomings isn't considered scientifically disreputable.
Before Galileo dropped the cannon balls off the Tower of Pisa, scientists of the time predicted that they wouldn't hit the ground at the same time. When they did, a lot of work was done trying to explain why. Would you call the theory of gravity "a rationale" developed to explain away a failed prediction?
Weather predictions will (can) never be as accurate as solving t^2=2s/a, due to the complexity and chaotic nature of the system. But that doesn't mean our understanding of the system won't improve over time. Hurricane predictions have never been very accurate, but a lot more attention is being paid to them now that the insurance companies have realized the financial risks they face. And we should keep in mind that just as one swallow doesn't make a spring, one season's weather doesn't make a climate.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- What you call "a new rationale"... - GliderGuider 01/2/0711:58:25 01/2/07 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
