tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5627540045038761819.post3665412566935039178..comments2018-07-13T18:47:51.264+03:00Comments on Monthly Weather Review Editors' Blog: Negative resultsDavid Schultzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15897825955377060152noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5627540045038761819.post-73262909114682526632008-04-19T07:26:00.000+03:002008-04-19T07:26:00.000+03:00There are also a series of papers from IHOP by Mar...There are also a series of papers from IHOP by Markowski et al. (2006; DOI: 10.1175/MWR3059.1) and Cai et al. (2006; DOI: 10.1175/MWR2998.1) where the topic was convective initiation failure. <BR/><BR/>As Markowski et al. (2006) point out: "it is not possible to know how the atmosphere would have <BR/>evolved had the processes observed in this case not been operating".<BR/><BR/>These articles, in contrast to those of the highlighted article, offer hypotheses after the analysis . It is reasonable to conclude that science is science no matter if your results are positive or negative; only that you advance the science in some measurable way. <BR/><BR/>Negative is good IF you can draw some information out and put forth a reasonable hypothesisAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com