(Eastern floods; 02-02; p.3)

Possible prevention?

If it is human activity that sparks off rains like the ones encountered, is open to debate among scientists and even might not be decided at all. On the one hand the Hamburg-based meteorologist Mojib Latif argues that about three-quarters of earth-warming within the last century is caused by human activity which in turn produces such strong shifts in weather. Other scientists however point to the fact that climate changes occur over very long periods of time and if at all discernible, are not caused by human beings. Thus, the aforementioned line of argument is not seen unanimously as proven and applicable to ongoing weather shifts.

Leaving the debate to meteorologists who are professionals in analysing those arguments, one may see a general limit to natural sciences that follow empirical research programmes. Try, observation and analysis, the three classical steps in natural science research, are adequate for testing a hypothesis but do not allow predictions.
An example from the world of physics may illustrate this: Pupils usually learn that different matter of the same mass is accelerated equally by the earth. If this acceleration persists over a defined period of time, the result will be a calculable velocity of the matter. In contrast to that one observes that a parachute falls (luckily) less fast than a stone of the same mass. Does that prove the underlying hypothesis - equal masses are accelerated equally - wrong, not applicable or might there be other variables that have to be taken into account? Following the described research programme, one cannot find an answer. And that is why every prediction based on it has to be considered with care: one cannot exclude that a relevant variable has not been recognised while planning the test.
Exactly that is what makes meteorology not an easy job: in their simulations the scientists have to define relevant and irrelevant criteria. (read on here)