Fun
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Science can't predict weather 4 days in advance; correctly.

And it estimates the age of fossils. Don't know which one is more accurate.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
ArishMell · 70-79, M
Both are estimates but the percentage tolerances normal in the natural-sciences calculations give wider error-bands the larger the value calculated.

Meteorologists can't give precise forecasts more than a few days ahead, because they are forecasting gigantic, very dynamic systems covering huge regions. They can't be expected to give to-the-hour all-correct estimates for very small areas whose local weather is affected by what are really very minor perturbations in the overall system's air-flow, pressure, humidity and temperature; further modified by ground conditions like low ranges of hills.

My county can have forecasts of frost, possibly snow, but a ridge rising to about 200m altitude on one side and the sea on the other, means my little patch of it is usually slightly warmer than that inland, over the ridge. The hills will also affect local rainfall but in different ways I don't know.

A typical Atlantic weather system is nearly 1000 miles in diameter, with fronts that are radial features, so will cover much of the British Isles in one go. For the UK, the most accurate forecasts are probably the Shipping Forecasts because these are for sea areas, over which the weather is a lot steadier over huge areas than over land with all its hills etc.

So both meterorology and palaeontology are as accurate as can be sensibly calculated, but sensible calculations always have sensible tolerances and Nature does not work to strict numbers!