Keepitsimple Posted August 21, 2012 Report Posted August 21, 2012 Somewhat humerous article from the BBC weatherman.....but it DOES make one pause as to how accurate Global Warming models can be....... After forecasting weather for the past 12 years, I have to say that sometimes a forecaster does have to go on his or her gut feeling. The computer models aren't perfect. One of the first things you learn when you get into working with computerized weather models is their limitations. Some handle specific kinds of weather better than others. Some over-do it with the rain, while others don't put enough. You learn to look at several models at the same time, comparing them, in order to put together the best forecast you can.One of the biggest limitations forecasters can face is the lack of information. Forecasts along the west coast of the United States and Canada suffer because there aren't many weather stations out to sea, so there's not a lot of validated information to plug into the models. By the time a system has moved across the land for awhile, passing over weather stations so that we know what's actually happening, the computer forecast gets better and better, but its never perfect. That's due to the limitations of a model's resolution. In order to compute the weather, the models essentially treat the atmosphere like blocks of information. The size of the blocks determines what kinds of weather it can pick up. If you want to run a computer model that takes the entire globe into account, or even just one hemisphere, those blocks have to be larger, or it will take days to run the model, instead of just hours. A further complication is that weather models are typically run up to 4 times a day, so that you are putting in new information and getting updated forecasts, and sometimes different model runs can give you completely different forecasts. Other times, some weather feature can show up in one run, disappear for the next run, and then reappear for the run after that. Sometimes, it really comes down to using your judgment. Link: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dailybrew/incorrect-forecast-prompts-bbc-weatherman-apologize-thunderstorms-164725095.html Quote Back to Basics
waldo Posted August 21, 2012 Report Posted August 21, 2012 Somewhat humerous article from the BBC weatherman.....but it DOES make one pause as to how accurate Global Warming models can be....... Link: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dailybrew/incorrect-forecast-prompts-bbc-weatherman-apologize-thunderstorms-164725095.html well... you've outdone yourself Simple! Weather Models are not Climate Models... they're as different as..... weather and climate! Quote
wyly Posted August 21, 2012 Report Posted August 21, 2012 well... you've outdone yourself Simple! Weather Models are not Climate Models... they're as different as..... weather and climate! something simple has never managed to comprehend... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
The_Squid Posted August 21, 2012 Report Posted August 21, 2012 Weather is not the same as climate. If you are going to have an opinion on something, at least do everyone (and yourself) a favour and do a little bit of reading about the subject first. Even a browse through wiki would have informaed you as to what you are talking about enough to not bother posting this drivel.... Quote
MiddleClassCentrist Posted August 22, 2012 Report Posted August 22, 2012 You don't even need a climate model to show that dry, hot days are more likely to occur. Just some simple math skills and some data to do a statistical analysis on. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/08/04/climate-change-real-scientist.html Deniers need to wake up and realize that they are just parroting bs funded by a corporate world that doesn't want to have to pay for any negative effects of their business. Quote Ideology does not make good policy. Good policy comes from an analysis of options, comparison of options and selection of one option that works best in the current situation. This option is often a compromise between ideologies.
GostHacked Posted August 24, 2012 Report Posted August 24, 2012 You don't even need a climate model to show that dry, hot days are more likely to occur. Just some simple math skills and some data to do a statistical analysis on. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/08/04/climate-change-real-scientist.html Deniers need to wake up and realize that they are just parroting bs funded by a corporate world that doesn't want to have to pay for any negative effects of their business. Supports need to understand that there is a huge carbon credit trading system that sees billions of dollars in trade per year. Charging them more does not resolve the problem, they simply pay more to pollute. They don't give a shit. The fines must be huge and the jail terms very long or permanent. But most of the time it's a slap on the wrist and they continue the process of pollution. The motive to keep polluting is money, they make a lot of it, and the fines and lawsuits are not a deterrent. Large companies have large numbers of high payed lawyers. Quote
Wild Bill Posted August 24, 2012 Report Posted August 24, 2012 Did I miss something here? The OP is about an article that mentions how flawed are computer models as to predicting the weather. Instantly, the usual suspects jump in trumpeting at how weather is not climate and implying that makes the writer of the article an idiot. Talk about moving the goal posts! I didn't see any claim that weather and climate were the same. What I saw was an admission that computer models for weather don't work very well. Now, all you folks screaming about the difference with weather and climate. Is it your contention that computer models about climate DO work? If so, please explain why we should trust one and not the other. Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
GostHacked Posted August 24, 2012 Report Posted August 24, 2012 Did I miss something here? The OP is about an article that mentions how flawed are computer models as to predicting the weather. Instantly, the usual suspects jump in trumpeting at how weather is not climate and implying that makes the writer of the article an idiot. Talk about moving the goal posts! I didn't see any claim that weather and climate were the same. What I saw was an admission that computer models for weather don't work very well. Now, all you folks screaming about the difference with weather and climate. Is it your contention that computer models about climate DO work? If so, please explain why we should trust one and not the other. That's a very good question. Quote
wyly Posted August 24, 2012 Report Posted August 24, 2012 (edited) Did I miss something here? The OP is about an article that mentions how flawed are computer models as to predicting the weather. Instantly, the usual suspects jump in trumpeting at how weather is not climate and implying that makes the writer of the article an idiot. Talk about moving the goal posts! I didn't see any claim that weather and climate were the same. What I saw was an admission that computer models for weather don't work very well. Now, all you folks screaming about the difference with weather and climate. Is it your contention that computer models about climate DO work? If so, please explain why we should trust one and not the other. ya you did "miss" something...he made a stupid analogy that weather models are the same as climate models Edited August 24, 2012 by wyly Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
waldo Posted August 24, 2012 Report Posted August 24, 2012 Instantly, the usual suspects jump in trumpeting at how weather is not climate and implying that makes the writer of the article an idiot. what MLW member, 'wyly' said!... and it was the writer of the OP who has been one of those 'usual suspects' quite ready to beak-off about climate models in assorted past MLW threads. you appear quite emboldened - perhaps you should step up and take your own 'usual suspects' stab at climate models. Or at least spend some time using MLW search, hey? Quote
Michael Hardner Posted August 24, 2012 Report Posted August 24, 2012 Talk about moving the goal posts! I didn't see any claim that weather and climate were the same. What I saw was an admission that computer models for weather don't work very well. Now, all you folks screaming about the difference with weather and climate. Is it your contention that computer models about climate DO work? If so, please explain why we should trust one and not the other. Why are we talking about it ? See the thread title. Not all models are the same, or even close necessarily - if weather models are off it doesn't mean climate models are. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
Wild Bill Posted August 24, 2012 Report Posted August 24, 2012 (edited) Why are we talking about it ? See the thread title. Not all models are the same, or even close necessarily - if weather models are off it doesn't mean climate models are. Well Michael, I grew up with software. I still remember writing a program in machine code to make a PDP-8 ring a bell. I would think both kinds of programs would have to be very similar. True, in an academic sense one type does not have to be flawed merely because of flaws with the other but one would be a fool to bet against it. The flaw is because of the quality of the input data. Such data seems to come with much opinion, at times. As for the OP poster having a history in other threads with other aspects of the climate argument, who cares? We are discussing the OP of THIS thread! What's next? Blaming it all on Mike Harris? Edited August 24, 2012 by Wild Bill Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
The_Squid Posted August 24, 2012 Report Posted August 24, 2012 (edited) Did I miss something here? Yes, you certainly did! Instantly, the usual suspects jump in trumpeting at how weather is not climate and implying that makes the writer of the article an idiot. Not the article. The article is true, I am sure. I was talking about the poster. The poster insinuated that weather and climate models are one and the same. but it DOES make one pause as to how accurate Global Warming models can be....... Why would anyone think that the climate models are flawed because of the weather models? That's ignorant. It's like saying that the caribou population must be dying off because the sea otter population is at an all time low! One does not have anything at all to do with the other. Now, all you folks screaming about the difference with weather and climate. Is it your contention that computer models about climate DO work? The contention is that you cannot draw a conclusion about climate models by looking at models for weather. Seems pretty common sense. Edited August 24, 2012 by The_Squid Quote
wyly Posted August 24, 2012 Report Posted August 24, 2012 Well Michael, I grew up with software. I still remember writing a program in machine code to make a PDP-8 ring a bell. I would think both kinds of problems would have to be very similar. True, in an academic sense one type does not have to be flawed merely because of flaws with the other but one would be a fool to bet against it. The flaw is because of the quality of the input data. Such data seems to come with much opinion, at times. As for the OP poster having a history in other threads with other aspects of the climate argument, who cares? We are discussing the OP of THIS thread! What's next? Blaming it all on Mike Harris? but we were addressing the OP you're the one who has shifted the goalposts...weather is not climate, one is short term the other is long term, the models for each are relative...the models are not flawed for weather until someone starts trying to use short term weather models for long term projections , the longer range of the projections the more variables come into play and the same applies for CC models...it's intellectually dishonest to repeatedly compare the two... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
wyly Posted August 24, 2012 Report Posted August 24, 2012 Why would anyone think that the climate models are flawed because of the weather models? That's ignorant. they're being subjective in regards to what is accurate in terms of time...if the weather projection isn't 100% accurate for two weeks from now they claim it's due to a flawed model...but I could make the opposite claim with 100% accuracy for weather 15 minutes from now... what they don't/can't comprehend is time and scale... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
TimG Posted August 25, 2012 Report Posted August 25, 2012 (edited) There is a big difference between weather models and climate models. Weather models are verified against reality constantly so we know they are garbage. Climate models can't be verified against reality so we have no way to know if they are garbage. Our experience with weather models should tell us that climate models are also garbage. But admitting climate models are likely garbage does not get anyone funding. So we are treated to mountains of rationalizations designed to avoid admitting the obvious. Edited August 25, 2012 by TimG Quote
MiddleClassCentrist Posted August 25, 2012 Report Posted August 25, 2012 There is a big difference between weather models and climate models. Weather models are verified against reality constantly so we know they are garbage. Climate models can't be verified against reality so we have no way to know if they are garbage. Our experience with weather models should tell us that climate models are also garbage. But admitting climate models are likely garbage does not get anyone funding. So we are treated to mountains of rationalizations designed to avoid admitting the obvious. Victim of right wing corporate propaganda. How many years of statistically improbably drought and high number of hot days will it take for you change your tune? Environment Canada predicts 100 cm decline in levels for Lakes Michigan and Huron/Georgian Bay (middle lakes) over next 20 - 40 years. It's obvious that humans have an impact on climate. If I go and cut down the forest, less water is held and the area becomes more arid. Quote Ideology does not make good policy. Good policy comes from an analysis of options, comparison of options and selection of one option that works best in the current situation. This option is often a compromise between ideologies.
wyly Posted August 25, 2012 Report Posted August 25, 2012 There is a big difference between weather models and climate models. Weather models are verified against reality constantly so we know they are garbage. Climate models can't be verified against reality so we have no way to know if they are garbage. Our experience with weather models should tell us that climate models are also garbage. But admitting climate models are likely garbage does not get anyone funding. So we are treated to mountains of rationalizations designed to avoid admitting the obvious. that'd more bs..last winter our projected summer weather was to be warmer than usual and the projection was right on the mark...last monday locally the projections were sunny and very warm and rain on friday, nailed it again...these claims of inaccuracy are childish oversimplifications... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
TimG Posted August 25, 2012 Report Posted August 25, 2012 (edited) last winter our projected summer weather was to be warmer than usual and the projection was right on the mark...last monday locally the projections were sunny and very warm and rain on friday, nailed it again...these claims of inaccuracy are childish oversimplifications.horoscope fallacy - you only remember the times when the 'prediction' was correct. the only scientifically valid test of accuracy is a study that looks at ALL predictions and tries to determine if the correct predictions happen more frequently than would be expected by random chance. Edited August 25, 2012 by TimG Quote
wyly Posted August 25, 2012 Report Posted August 25, 2012 horoscope fallacy - you only remember the times when the 'prediction' was correct. the only scientifically valid test of accuracy is a study that looks at ALL predictions and tries to determine if the correct predictions happen more frequently than would be expected by random chance. and it does... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
TimG Posted August 25, 2012 Report Posted August 25, 2012 (edited) and it does...Prove it.http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/02/how-good-are-the-weather-chann.html To my surprise, the forecasts actually turned out to be pretty good - at least for short-term predictions. Precipitation probabilities between 40% and 90% are pretty much spot on, the team concluded, although predictions outside this range did tend to be unreliable. As you might expect, the predictions were worse the further in advance they were, and I wouldn't bother taking much notice of weekly forecasts, with the actual weather varying wildly from the predictions. http://www.questia.com/library/1G1-220459272/red-faced-met-drops-seasonal-forecasts Last year's predictions of a 'barbecue summer' and mild winter left them feeling decidedly under the weather - and yesterday the embarrassed forecasters announced their own solution.They have dropped their long-term seasonal forecasts and will instead publish a monthly prediction for Britain, updated once a week. The climbdown follows a series of major gaffes. The Met Office was ridiculed for claiming the UK was 'odds on for a barbecue summer'. Edited August 25, 2012 by TimG Quote
dre Posted August 25, 2012 Report Posted August 25, 2012 Did I miss something here? The OP is about an article that mentions how flawed are computer models as to predicting the weather. The title of the OP makes the link to climate. You DID miss something. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Wild Bill Posted August 25, 2012 Report Posted August 25, 2012 (edited) The title of the OP makes the link to climate. You DID miss something. Hmmm. Well my good Dr., I'm old! What's your excuse? :P I still haven't learned not to type before I've had my coffee! Edited August 25, 2012 by Wild Bill Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
waldo Posted August 25, 2012 Report Posted August 25, 2012 Weather models are verified against reality constantly so we know they are garbage. horoscope fallacy - you only remember the times when the 'prediction' was correct. the only scientifically valid test of accuracy is a study that looks at ALL predictions and tries to determine if the correct predictions happen more frequently than would be expected by random chance. drops links - waves arms so, your first link offers a most dated 1987 UK Met Office reference 'prediction' one event failure and a more timely 2004-2006 AMS accuracy review of the Weather Channel's 'predictions'... advising weather forecasts beyond a 7 day period tend to be unreliable. Your second link highlights a UK Met Office shift away from unreliable seasonal forecasts in favour of monthly weather forecasts updated weekly. Was your point to highlight there are factors that limit the longer range forecast reliability of weather models? as your links principal focus has been to highlight the UK Met Office, let's allow the Met Office to speak to just how reliable it interprets it's own weather forecasts... feel free to counter with your own, 'TimG reality based verification confirming your stated, "weather model garbage", within the UK Met Office weather forecasts' Quote
Keepitsimple Posted August 26, 2012 Author Report Posted August 26, 2012 Haven't checked in for a few days. I can see that my old friends Wyly and Waldo have been busy. For the record, although I am Simple - I do recognize that weather modelling is different from Climate modelling. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that there is not one single Climate computer model - but as many as 4 - they use different feedback sensitivities and as a result, end up with differing "ranges" as to how much the temperature will rise by a certain date. It's also my understanding that these ranges from the various models are averaged to arrive at a consensus range. Without getting too caught up in the details, is that the general process? Quote Back to Basics
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.