On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 10:24:09 -0400, Thomas Giella KN4LF wrote:
>In science you cannot have a consensus. Something either is or isn't.
A better way of saying what I think you mean is that the laws of physics,
biology, etc. are not established by agreement of those who study them.
Rather, our UNDERSTANDING of those principles evolves over time (and
hopefully zeroes in on a more accurate perception) as the collective work of
those human beings who have studied them using scientific methods, shared the
result with others competent to understand and critially review the result.
>The statement points to how politics has entered the world of Science
>whether it be forecasting a solar cycle or global warming.
That's a horse of a different color. :) Weather, of which propagation can be
viewed as a part, IS, indeed, caused by a complex combination of external
forces. The more we know and understand about those forces at any given point
in time, the better the accuracy of our prediction. But it is a prediction,
not a statement of fact.
The global warming that has already occurred has been measured and observed
by the scientific method. FUTURE global warming (and other climate changed)
can be predicted on the basis of careful science, but the accuracy of the
prediction will depend on the knowledge and skill of those doing the
predicting and the accuracy of the mathematical model they use. The great
complexity of the forces and human activity that combine to cause climate
change is so great that even the best and most scientific prediction is still
an educated guess.
>My forecast for cycle 24 is for it to begin in June 2007 and peak at a
>smoothed SSN of 105 in 2012.
Likewise your forecast is an educated guess.
73,
Jim K9YC
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|