The mathematical model for a projectile is simple and the parameters involved (weight of the shell, gravity, energy in the charge, launch angle and direction, wind speed) can all be measured with great precision. The target is rarely struck on the first shot though. The spotter's job is to give the gunner feedback so that he can learn from his missed shot and correct the error that the mathematical model predicts.
The mathematical model describing the flight of the artillery shell is well understood, the few parameters are easily and accurately quantified but the model's prediction is inevitably wrong.
Compare this to a climate model. There are a vast number of parameters some of which are not even known. Many of these parameters are not easily quantifiable and yet climate scientists are staking their reputations on them. The models are said to be accurate even though there really isn't a way to test them.
How can anyone defend these models with a straight face??
Tags: