It just improves its prediction accuracy.
Not exact matches
But more data from this crucial region is needed to
improve predictions of
just how strong a hurricane might get.
Model simulations can always be
improved by testing
predictions against field data collected from different ecosystems, and Sulman and Phillips are doing
just that: investigating how roots influence soil decomposition and protected forms of carbon in forests that vary in the composition of tree and microbial communities.
They could make fairly good
predictions after watching the bowlers take
just a single step, and if they got to see the pitch up to the moment of release, their accuracy
improved dramatically.
Just as a hypothetical example: If climate scientist will tell me that recent pause in global warming is due to the effect of an inactive sun (which is the reality as reported by following) http://www.spaceweather.com and that they will go back and
improve their models to account for this, then I would be more inclined to believe their other claims... Instead the IPCC doubles down on their
predictions and claim the future effects will be worst than they originally thought?
As with
just about any
prediction, the odds of getting it right
improve considerably with additional data.