If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Express)   Super-computer designed to predict the weather for the next 100 years gets it wrong inside 48 hours   (express.co.uk) divider line 96
    More: Amusing, Ann Widdecombe, Met Office  
•       •       •

11770 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Jun 2012 at 9:18 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



96 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-24 08:20:31 AM  
Just goes to show that weather and climate are different things.
 
2012-06-24 09:21:19 AM  
48? Bullshiat, they can't even get today's weather right.

And they never plead 'mea culpa', the bastidges
 
2012-06-24 09:21:29 AM  
i thought the story goes that it's always easier to predict the future the farther out you go? 10,000 years, no sweat. 1000 years, could be. 1 million years, no sweat. 6 years from now, eh.
 
2012-06-24 09:22:34 AM  
Repeat from last week?
 
2012-06-24 09:27:54 AM  
The weather 100 years from now will be... 42.
 
2012-06-24 09:30:46 AM  
How many roads must a man walk down?
 
2012-06-24 09:31:54 AM  
Damnit!
 
2012-06-24 09:33:27 AM  
It's okay. I'm sure the British taxpayer accepts that this massive, pocket-lining, gravy train - which can't predict the weather the next two days, the next week, or the next year - can take it on faith that it will be accurate a century from now.
 
2012-06-24 09:34:21 AM  
What's 6 times 7?
 
2012-06-24 09:35:16 AM  

Honest Bender: Repeat from last week?


Repeat from every week.

SurfaceTension: Just goes to show that weather and climate are different things.


Oh, yeah.
If you predict the weather, you're expected to say whether it rains or not. That's the kind of metric folks understand.
 
2012-06-24 09:37:23 AM  
Mr Hirst said this referred to climate change predictions.

Well, that article was a waste of time.

/unless you don't understand the difference between 2-day weather predictions and 100-year climate predictions
//which they're betting you don't
///looks like they already hooked a few in this thread already
 
2012-06-24 09:41:30 AM  
Sarah Connor can rest easy.
 
2012-06-24 09:43:04 AM  
what a worthless article

They cite one instance where the 2-day forecast was wrong. Whoa, that proves the computer is worthless! Just like one cold day in winter disproves global warming.

Amazing counter-argument: The computer once predicted wind and there was wind. Totally justifies the expense!
 
2012-06-24 09:43:23 AM  
Don't panic, just know where your towel is.
 
2012-06-24 09:43:40 AM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Mr Hirst said this referred to climate change predictions.

Well, that article was a waste of time.

/unless you don't understand the difference between 2-day weather predictions and 100-year climate predictions
//which they're betting you don't
///looks like they already hooked a few in this thread already


They were hooked by the headline.

I seriously doubt the system designed to model the climate in 100 year increments is the same system used to examine jet stream behavior in real time.

Ah, who the fark am I kidding...the drooling idjits could care less. TAXES---DURRRHURRRRRR
 
2012-06-24 09:44:41 AM  
Weather forecasts are pretty complex; reporting them to the public is by no means easy since people don't want to read paragraphs of discussion to understand whether or not it'll rain.

Take snow fall forecasts, for instance; they're a probability distribution over both time and measurement space. It's hard to give the public a set of charts and say, "You're forecast tomorrow has a less than 25% chance of no snow; 5% chance of less than 2" of snow; etc" when all they want is a single probability and maybe an estimated amount.

There're also many different models with their own strengths and weaknesses that forecasters have to deal with. So you multiply the difficulty of communicating probability distributions of weather events to the public because the models don't always produce the same results with some models moving faster/slower and stronger/weaker with particular features over time and space.

If you want to know what the forecasters are thinking, read the "Forecast Discussions" on the National Weather Service pages, the "Hazardous Weather Outlooks", the Storm Prediction Center's Products, and in the winter, the NWS winter weather outlooks. It's more than a temp, cloud cover, and precip prob.
 
2012-06-24 09:45:52 AM  
I think this just goes to show The Great NAME was right about climatology.

/for help with this, see politics tab
 
2012-06-24 09:47:20 AM  
That's okay. If we ask computers to model climate as opposed to weather, they always get it right. So we're cool.
 
2012-06-24 09:48:16 AM  
It's like nobody in weather/climate science has ever heard of the butterfly effect, which was discovered while trying to predict the weather. It's taught to every first-year computer science student.
 
2012-06-24 09:48:42 AM  
Who is going to be around in 100 years to see if the computer was right?
 
2012-06-24 09:49:37 AM  
Not mine, but apropos (I'm guessing; I didn't RFTA):

Although he was a qualified meteorologist, Hopkins ran up a terrible record of forecasting for the TV news program. He became something of a local joke when a newspaper began keeping a record of his predictions and showed that he'd been wrong almost three hundred times in a single year. That kind of notoriety was enough to get him fired. He moved to another part of the country and applied for a similar job. One blank on the job application called for the reason for leaving his previous position. Hopkins wrote, "The climate didn't agree with me."

Submitted by JH

From weatherimages.org
 
2012-06-24 09:53:17 AM  

X-boxershorts: I seriously doubt the system designed to model the climate in 100 year increments is the same system used to examine jet stream behavior in real time.

Ah, who the fark am I kidding...the drooling idjits could care less. TAXES---DURRRHURRRRRR


Yeah, stupid taxpayers...

"Personally, I liked the university. They gave us money and facilities, we didn't have to produce anything! You've never been out of college! You don't know what it's like out there! I've worked in the private sector. They expect results."
 
2012-06-24 09:55:11 AM  

X-boxershorts: I seriously doubt the system designed to model the climate in 100 year increments is the same system used to examine jet stream behavior in real time.


I'd put money on the fact that the journalist who wrote that agenda-driven garbage isn't educated enough to understand that. He probably think the computer was built with a single piece of firmware meant to run a standard NWP model out 100 years. Also, the Met Office (like every other first world center that is not in the US) moved to ensemble forecasting years ago; the article never actually says where the (deterministic) forecast came from, and nobody quoted in the article references the 48-hr forecast.

It's entirely possible that the "journalist" did his "research" by reading about the report put out by the Met Office concerning the computer, going to the Met Office website and looking at the forecast, and then simply assuming the two were connected.
 
2012-06-24 10:00:10 AM  

Oakenshield: That's okay. If we ask computers to model climate as opposed to weather, they always get it right. So we're cool.


Since computers have only been around about 60 years and supercomputers less than 40, we dont have much data to back that up. Not to mention the fact that satellite data have been available for only the last few decades.

Id like to belueve that computer models can accurately predict climate, Im skeptical right now.
 
2012-06-24 10:02:57 AM  
so the billion $ computer is *RUINED* cause of the rain? my iPod Touch can stand up to better punishment!
 
2012-06-24 10:09:24 AM  
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-06-24 10:10:24 AM  
speaking of weather-related disasters, why can't we get a post to the main page about the Waldo Canyon wildfire near Colorado Springs? City of 400,000+ people. and the neighboring town of Manitou Springs was evacuated overnight.

Fire coverage from the Gazette
 
2012-06-24 10:14:50 AM  
what i took away from this is that Britain is spending on their meteorological department and we just keep cutting funding to ours.

hell the stupid useless farking republicans congress wants to close the NOAA and privatize weather forecasting.
 
2012-06-24 10:16:34 AM  

Pick: Who is going to be around in 100 years to see if the computer was right?


People...
 
2012-06-24 10:17:25 AM  

Egalitarian: speaking of weather-related disasters, why can't we get a post to the main page about the Waldo Canyon wildfire near Colorado Springs?


There's nothing there for GW Troofers to hook into. Looks too much like a real story with actual consequences.

I think they should push harder to name major wildfires. It seems like every piddly tropical storm gets at least 24 hours worth of coverage and one idiotic news reporter standing in front of it, and I think it's just because the storms have names. I know they do actually name some wildfires, but that information doesn't really make it out beyond the communities the fires threaten. As stupid as it may sound, if the agencies pushed those names to the media, it would probably boost the story's signal by personalizing the drama of it.
 
2012-06-24 10:25:05 AM  

Animatronik: Oakenshield: That's okay. If we ask computers to model climate as opposed to weather, they always get it right. So we're cool.

Since computers have only been around about 60 years and supercomputers less than 40, we dont have much data to back that up. Not to mention the fact that satellite data have been available for only the last few decades.

Id like to belueve that computer models can accurately predict climate, Im skeptical right now.


And the system we study is undergoing important long term changes from industrial processes.
 
2012-06-24 10:42:42 AM  

X-boxershorts: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Mr Hirst said this referred to climate change predictions.

Well, that article was a waste of time.

/unless you don't understand the difference between 2-day weather predictions and 100-year climate predictions
//which they're betting you don't
///looks like they already hooked a few in this thread already

They were hooked by the headline.

I seriously doubt the system designed to model the climate in 100 year increments is the same system used to examine jet stream behavior in real time.

Ah, who the fark am I kidding...the drooling idjits could care less. TAXES---DURRRHURRRRRR


You can't predict the weather because of the Global Wharrming!
Buy a carbon credit, save the world.
s16.postimage.org
 
2012-06-24 10:43:44 AM  
As they say: "To err is human. You need a computer to really fark things up."
 
2012-06-24 10:43:49 AM  

Honest Bender: Pick: Who is going to be around in 100 years to see if the computer was right?

People...


Don't count your chickens....
 
2012-06-24 10:47:29 AM  

Lord Farkwad: You can't predict the weather because of the Global Wharrming!


Yeah ... nobody said that. So ... yeah.
 
2012-06-24 10:55:36 AM  

SurfaceTension: Just goes to show that weather and climate are different things.


This. So glad we started calling it climate change instead of global warming. This way it's impossible for us to ever be wrong!
 
2012-06-24 10:56:38 AM  
LouDobbsAwaaaay:
It's entirely possible that the "journalist" did his "research" by reading about the report put out by the Met Office concerning the computer, going to the Met Office website and looking at the forecast, and then simply assuming the two were connected.

I'd bet a buck on that...

Lord Farkwad:
You can't predict the weather because of the Global Wharrming!

In a lot of ways, this is true. Climate change could will likely have unanticipated out-of-proportion effects after just a few degrees' mean temperature change. And those effects have their own chain of consequences etc. Always in motion, the future is.
 
2012-06-24 11:03:16 AM  

Contrabulous Flabtraption: So glad we started calling it climate change instead of global warming. This way it's impossible for us to ever be wrong!


Neither "global warming" nor "climate change" reference the day's weather.

/and you're not part of "we" or "us"
 
2012-06-24 11:23:39 AM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Contrabulous Flabtraption: So glad we started calling it climate change instead of global warming. This way it's impossible for us to ever be wrong!

Neither "global warming" nor "climate change" reference the day's weather.

/and you're not part of "we" or "us"


We, he, she, they wumbo.

fc04.deviantart.net
 
2012-06-24 11:32:28 AM  

Lord Farkwad: You can't predict the weather because of the Global Wharrming!
Buy a carbon credit, save the world.
[AAAAAAALLLLLLL GOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRE!]


DRINK!
 
2012-06-24 11:34:13 AM  
 
2012-06-24 11:45:46 AM  

Animatronik: Oakenshield: That's okay. If we ask computers to model climate as opposed to weather, they always get it right. So we're cool.

Since computers have only been around about 60 years and supercomputers less than 40, we dont have much data to back that up. Not to mention the fact that satellite data have been available for only the last few decades.

Id like to belueve that computer models can accurately predict climate, Im skeptical right now.


I am in this camp. I agree climate change occurs. History catalogs it, science has documented it, and the effect of climate change has been found in archeology and anthropology.

I do not believe we can accurately predict its changes at this time. I also question the magnitude humanity has impacted it. I do see the value in improving the science though.

My issue with the carbon credit/green crowd is they want to base policies that would cripple many economies based on rough observations because they accept the position that humans are the primary culprit. It looks more like faith and less like the scientific method.

That crowd also tends to ignore/fail to understand geopolitical realities that make it next to impossible for all people to do anything like restricting emitions next to impossible.
 
2012-06-24 11:48:47 AM  
The problem with weather/climate predication is that we can only measure a tiny fraction of what's going on around the Earth at any given time. Until that changes weather prediction will not be accurate.
 
2012-06-24 11:52:37 AM  

herrDrFarkenstein: Animatronik: Oakenshield: That's okay. If we ask computers to model climate as opposed to weather, they always get it right. So we're cool.

Since computers have only been around about 60 years and supercomputers less than 40, we dont have much data to back that up. Not to mention the fact that satellite data have been available for only the last few decades.

Id like to belueve that computer models can accurately predict climate, Im skeptical right now.

And the system we study is undergoing important long term changes from industrial processes.


no it isn't. Your type just wants us to think so.
 
2012-06-24 11:54:06 AM  
47.

The chimp says it will be 47 today.
 
2012-06-24 12:01:26 PM  
how much C4 would it take to destroy that super computer?
 
2012-06-24 12:03:01 PM  

ultraholland: how much C4 would it take to destroy that super computer?


why destroy it, it would make a great game platform.
 
2012-06-24 12:05:52 PM  
It's not 2015 yet. Give it three years

www.kristensheley.com
 
2012-06-24 12:18:49 PM  

Aikidogamer: Animatronik: Oakenshield: That's okay. If we ask computers to model climate as opposed to weather, they always get it right. So we're cool.

Since computers have only been around about 60 years and supercomputers less than 40, we dont have much data to back that up. Not to mention the fact that satellite data have been available for only the last few decades.

Id like to belueve that computer models can accurately predict climate, Im skeptical right now.

I am in this camp. I agree climate change occurs. History catalogs it, science has documented it, and the effect of climate change has been found in archeology and anthropology.

I do not believe we can accurately predict its changes at this time. I also question the magnitude humanity has impacted it. I do see the value in improving the science though.

My issue with the carbon credit/green crowd is they want to base policies that would cripple many economies based on rough observations because they accept the position that humans are the primary culprit. It looks more like faith and less like the scientific method.

That crowd also tends to ignore/fail to understand geopolitical realities that make it next to impossible for all people to do anything like restricting emitions next to impossible.


What's going to cripple the local economy is Manitou Springs and its tourist attractions plus stuff up and down H24 are SHUT DOWN by a massive fire. A fire made severe by very hot, dry weather, and encouraged by pine beetle infestation which makes trees more vulnerable to burning. Pine beetles which are spreading north because of global warming.

After the massive Hayman fire, Colorado suffered a drop in tourist income. If the Waldo Canyon fire gets out of control, it ain't gonna help.

In purely economic terms, wildfires also burn a lot of timber which could have been sold and made somebody a handsome profit. Not to mention, people losing their houses and insurance taking a big hit. And somebody has to pay for the fire-fighting effort.
 
2012-06-24 01:04:53 PM  
i3.tinypic.com

Just too good to pass up. Sorry 'bout that, Karl.
 
Displayed 50 of 96 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report