Do you have adblock enabled?
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 01:30:47 PM  

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"


Lol...all too easy
 
2012-06-24 01:40:24 PM  

Contrabulous Flabtraption: Lol...all too easy


i49.tinypic.com
 
2012-06-24 01:41:28 PM  

DrPainMD: 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.


It's like you trust the reporting to be accurate. The author of the article clearly doesn't understand the difference between weather and climate.
 
2012-06-24 01:47:08 PM  

AssAsInAssassin: DrPainMD: 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.

It's like you trust the reporting to be accurate. The author of the article clearly doesn't understand the difference between weather and climate.


Basically, this. The "journalist" compared a precipitation forecast on the UK Met Office website with an unrelated report about a UK Met Office supercomputer running a climate model. DrPainMD reads it and actually thinks it's the climate scientists who don't understand climate science, and not the "journalist".

Confirmation bias can be absurd sometimes.
 
2012-06-24 01:48:12 PM  

AcademGreen: 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.


"Will it rain?" is a yes or no question. If you don't know, you don't know.
 
2012-06-24 02:02:54 PM  

paygun: AcademGreen: 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.

"Will it rain?" is a yes or no question. If you don't know, you don't know.


Thank you for that example of the crippling scientific illiteracy plaguing the nation.
 
2012-06-24 02:03:27 PM  
The whole article is bull.

The computers used to try and model climate in a 100 years are NEVER used to predict the weather in two days UNLESS they a completely different software and data set installed. The tools for the two tasks are different.
 
2012-06-24 02:04:37 PM  
We still do not know a ton about the weather. You could have the most powerful supercomputer on the planet, if you're feeding it bad data (or simply not enough data)... it's gonna spit out bad information.
 
2012-06-24 02:08:14 PM  
Clearly the journalists don't understand how climate science works. They think it's about predicting weather, or about modeling the Earth's climate. It's really about scaring people until they hand over all their political power to the climate scientists in a panic.

/then we'll have a perfect worker's paradise
//after all the wreckers and kulaks are put down.
 
2012-06-24 02:15:20 PM  
I started in the computer industry in 1960 and was mentored by an original ENIAC programmer from WWII. One thing she taught me hasn't changed: "GIGO" (garbage in, garbage out).

It's not the computer...it was programmed badly (the equations must be wrong).
 
2012-06-24 02:16:20 PM  

jake3988: We still do not know a ton about the weather. You could have the most powerful supercomputer on the planet, if you're feeding it bad data (or simply not enough data)... it's gonna spit out bad information.


As I understand it, weather is such a highly nonlinear system that for a forecast more than a couple days in the future, it is physically impossible to gather data about the atmosphere at the level of precision necessary to get an accurate forecast. I remember reading g somewhere that for an accurate 14 day forecast, you'd need accurate data on the condition of the atmosphere every cubic foot.
 
2012-06-24 02:16:24 PM  

Tatterdemalian: It's really about scaring people until they hand over all their political power to the climate scientists in a panic.


Climate scientists are alien lizard people who came to earth to scare you with global warming so they could eat your babies.
 
2012-06-24 02:25:47 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: paygun: AcademGreen: 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.

"Will it rain?" is a yes or no question. If you don't know, you don't know.

Thank you for that example of the crippling scientific illiteracy plaguing the nation.


Yes, science means we already know everything. That's what science is.
 
2012-06-24 02:29:10 PM  

Mad_Radhu: As I understand it, weather is such a highly nonlinear system that for a forecast more than a couple days in the future, it is physically impossible to gather data about the atmosphere at the level of precision necessary to get an accurate forecast.


Check it out, another moron who thinks that science isn't magic!
 
2012-06-24 02:42:41 PM  
But can it run Crysis on high settings?
 
2012-06-24 02:51:36 PM  
bu bu buuuutttt global warming computer modeling
 
2012-06-24 02:56:01 PM  

paygun: Yes, science means we already know everything. That's what science is.


You don't have to keep demonstrating scientific illiteracy. We got it the first time.

/though your inability to recognize it is also helpfully demonstrative
 
2012-06-24 03:00:18 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: paygun: Yes, science means we already know everything. That's what science is.

You don't have to keep demonstrating scientific illiteracy. We got it the first time.

/though your inability to recognize it is also helpfully demonstrative


I have the same kind of opinion about you. I won't say what it is, because then I'd have to defend it.
 
2012-06-24 03:01:09 PM  

paygun: I have the same kind of opinion about you. I won't say what it is, because then I'd have to defend it.


Great, have fun with that.
 
2012-06-24 03:08:37 PM  

OnlyM3: bu bu buuuutttt global warming computer modeling


The winning argument is summed up by that comic that says "But what if we make the world a better place for nothing?" but that's just me.

Call me crazy but mixing science with politics makes about as much sense as mixing religion with politics. You don't make either one better.

Give it time and I think most of these climate scientists will figure out they've been used and science as a whole has suffered for it.
 
2012-06-24 03:46:58 PM  

paygun: OnlyM3: bu bu buuuutttt global warming computer modeling

The winning argument is summed up by that comic that says "But what if we make the world a better place for nothing?" but that's just me.

Call me crazy but mixing science with politics makes about as much sense as mixing religion with politics. You don't make either one better.

Give it time and I think most of these climate scientists will figure out they've been used and science as a whole has suffered for it.


And you have the data to prove it. Amirite?
 
2012-06-24 03:50:53 PM  

AssAsInAssassin: And you have the data to prove it. Amirite?


There's no way the climate would naturally fall into its own footprint like that; it's clearly the work of well-choreographed thermite explosions. Wake up sheeple!!!
 
2012-06-24 04:16:44 PM  
It rained when some weather guy said it wouldn't, therefore global warming is a hoax.
 
2012-06-24 04:34:57 PM  
Super-computers can go wrong ?
 
2012-06-24 04:37:12 PM  
(Can) super-computers go wrong ?
 
2012-06-24 04:39:25 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Tatterdemalian: It's really about scaring people until they hand over all their political power to the climate scientists in a panic.

Climate scientists are alien lizard people who came to earth to scare you with global warming so they could eat your babies.


Sure dude, because the things they could actually do (like inflict a global Holodomor) wouldn't be bad enough.

/just keep on farking that chicken
//it'll lay golden eggs if you do it enough, ignore the fact that it isn't moving any more and is crawling with maggots
 
2012-06-24 04:40:05 PM  

wmoonfox: It rained when some weather guy said it wouldn't, therefore global warming is a hoax.


no, it is a hoax because the average increase has been less than one degree Celsius since 1850 and that is not something to worry about.
 
2012-06-24 04:45:29 PM  

Tatterdemalian: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Tatterdemalian: It's really about scaring people until they hand over all their political power to the climate scientists in a panic.

Climate scientists are alien lizard people who came to earth to scare you with global warming so they could eat your babies.

Sure dude, because the things they could actually do (like inflict a global Holodomor) wouldn't be bad enough.

/just keep on farking that chicken
//it'll lay golden eggs if you do it enough, ignore the fact that it isn't moving any more and is crawling with maggots


Beck-like typing detected.
 
2012-06-24 05:28:40 PM  

QuickDirtyOS: (Can) super-computers go wrong ?


I'm not allowed to answer that, Dave
 
2012-06-24 05:32:40 PM  
The Coke machine ate my loony. Therefore, there is no National Debt. It's a giant hoax to steal my money. Like Coke machines.
 
2012-06-24 05:47:12 PM  

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

People...


People who need people.
 
2012-06-24 05:54:43 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: AssAsInAssassin: DrPainMD: 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.

It's like you trust the reporting to be accurate. The author of the article clearly doesn't understand the difference between weather and climate.

Basically, this. The "journalist" compared a precipitation forecast on the UK Met Office website with an unrelated report about a UK Met Office supercomputer running a climate model. DrPainMD reads it and actually thinks it's the climate scientists who don't understand climate science, and not the "journalist".

Confirmation bias can be absurd sometimes.


I'm saying that they don't understand computer science. But, I'm sure their programmers know that you can't get around the butterfly effect, and never will be able to.
 
2012-06-24 05:57:43 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: AssAsInAssassin: DrPainMD: 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.

It's like you trust the reporting to be accurate. The author of the article clearly doesn't understand the difference between weather and climate.

Basically, this. The "journalist" compared a precipitation forecast on the UK Met Office website with an unrelated report about a UK Met Office supercomputer running a climate model. DrPainMD reads it and actually thinks it's the climate scientists who don't understand climate science, and not the "journalist".

Confirmation bias can be absurd sometimes.


You've confirmed that I'm suffering from confirmation bias, based solely on the fact that I disagree with you? Sounds like you don't even know what confirmation bias is.
 
2012-06-24 06:57:40 PM  

Prussian_Roulette: 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.


Hello. I'm a British tax-payer.

FTA:
Despite the recession, the Met Office saw revenues from governments and business hit a record £196.2million, although redundancy costs meant profits slipped slightly from £9.4million to £9.1million.


I fully support government agencies that turn a profit.

/Also, the Daily Express is about level with the Fail in terms of journalistic integrity. Just checked, it's still owned by Dirty Desmond
 
2012-06-24 07:32:01 PM  
still more accurate than Al Roker, though
 
2012-06-24 07:59:03 PM  

DrPainMD: LouDobbsAwaaaay: AssAsInAssassin: DrPainMD: 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.

It's like you trust the reporting to be accurate. The author of the article clearly doesn't understand the difference between weather and climate.

Basically, this. The "journalist" compared a precipitation forecast on the UK Met Office website with an unrelated report about a UK Met Office supercomputer running a climate model. DrPainMD reads it and actually thinks it's the climate scientists who don't understand climate science, and not the "journalist".

Confirmation bias can be absurd sometimes.

You've confirmed that I'm suffering from confirmation bias, based solely on the fact that I disagree with you? Sounds like you don't even know what confirmation bias is.


No, all he's confirmed is that you're yet another AGW denier without any evidence to support your skepticism other than a deliberate misunderstanding of the science. You are a cliche, without anything but denialist talking points and an averarching smugness to bolster your inflated sense of adequacy.
 
2012-06-24 08:25:08 PM  
"More accurate" is not the same thing as "100% perfect, never fail, always completely right dandy-doo accurate." But hey, who's complaining, right?
 
2012-06-24 08:43:09 PM  

AssAsInAssassin: DrPainMD: LouDobbsAwaaaay: AssAsInAssassin: DrPainMD: 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.

It's like you trust the reporting to be accurate. The author of the article clearly doesn't understand the difference between weather and climate.

Basically, this. The "journalist" compared a precipitation forecast on the UK Met Office website with an unrelated report about a UK Met Office supercomputer running a climate model. DrPainMD reads it and actually thinks it's the climate scientists who don't understand climate science, and not the "journalist".

Confirmation bias can be absurd sometimes.

You've confirmed that I'm suffering from confirmation bias, based solely on the fact that I disagree with you? Sounds like you don't even know what confirmation bias is.

No, all he's confirmed is that you're yet another AGW denier without any evidence to support your skepticism other than a deliberate misunderstanding of the science. You are a cliche, without anything but denialist talking points and an averarching smugness to bolster your inflated sense of adequacy.


If you understood anything about science, you would know that it's not up to me to disprove anything; it's up to the allegator to prove the allegation.
 
2012-06-24 08:52:34 PM  
Y'know they tried to make a super computer for psychiatry also.

www.timdrussell.com
Link
 
2012-06-24 09:06:05 PM  

DrPainMD: AssAsInAssassin: DrPainMD: LouDobbsAwaaaay: AssAsInAssassin: DrPainMD: 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.

It's like you trust the reporting to be accurate. The author of the article clearly doesn't understand the difference between weather and climate.

Basically, this. The "journalist" compared a precipitation forecast on the UK Met Office website with an unrelated report about a UK Met Office supercomputer running a climate model. DrPainMD reads it and actually thinks it's the climate scientists who don't understand climate science, and not the "journalist".

Confirmation bias can be absurd sometimes.

You've confirmed that I'm suffering from confirmation bias, based solely on the fact that I disagree with you? Sounds like you don't even know what confirmation bias is.

No, all he's confirmed is that you're yet another AGW denier without any evidence to support your skepticism other than a deliberate misunderstanding of the science. You are a cliche, without anything but denialist talking points and an averarching smugness to bolster your inflated sense of adequacy.

If you understood anything about science, you would know that it's not up to me to disprove anything; it's up to the allegator to prove the allegation.



Indeed, and you've made a rather specific (and somewhat absurd) allegation that would require some form of proof.
 
2012-06-24 09:18:35 PM  

biggusJmanus: What's 6 times 7?


54.
 
2012-06-24 09:29:02 PM  
www.jeffowenartworks.com
 
2012-06-24 09:33:12 PM  

DrPainMD: You've confirmed that I'm suffering from confirmation bias, based solely on the fact that I disagree with you?


More the way in which you disagree with me, than simply the fact that you disagree. You assume something absurd about the breadth of knowledge amongst climate scientists (i.e. they don't understand the implications of chaos theory which were fundamentally discovered in their own field) because you'd like to believe it. It seems to confirm a pre-existing belief you have about climate scientists, therefore you are more prone to believe it, introducing a level of bias.

There happens to be a name for that.
 
2012-06-24 10:07:21 PM  

DrPainMD: If you understood anything about science, you would know that it's not up to me to disprove anything; it's up to the allegator to prove the allegation.


You fatuous doofus. There's normal, rational skepticism, the kind that science thrives on. Then there's hysterical, ignorant, stand-your-ground-at-all-costs skepticism that sticks its fingers in its ears and shrieks "LA LA LA LA LA" and insists that nothing is "provable" in the strictest sense of the word, and refuses to examine the overwhelming evidence in favor of the theory favored by the vast majority of scientists. It's how religion has been so successful. AGW deniers love to accuse proponents of the theory of having a religious-like faith in the science, yet none of them have ever presented any reason to doubt the mountain of evidence that global climate change is real, and caused by the shiat-ton of CO2 we're dumping into the air.

So, stick to your smug, ignorant, one-sided concept of "science," because you've made up your mind, and nothing will ever change it. Certainly not me.
 
2012-06-24 11:15:56 PM  

chuckufarlie: 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.


Gothic sans?
 
2012-06-26 12:05:31 AM  

DrPainMD: AssAsInAssassin: DrPainMD: LouDobbsAwaaaay: AssAsInAssassin: DrPainMD: 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.

It's like you trust the reporting to be accurate. The author of the article clearly doesn't understand the difference between weather and climate.

Basically, this. The "journalist" compared a precipitation forecast on the UK Met Office website with an unrelated report about a UK Met Office supercomputer running a climate model. DrPainMD reads it and actually thinks it's the climate scientists who don't understand climate science, and not the "journalist".

Confirmation bias can be absurd sometimes.

You've confirmed that I'm suffering from confirmation bias, based solely on the fact that I disagree with you? Sounds like you don't even know what confirmation bias is.

No, all he's confirmed is that you're yet another AGW denier without any evidence to support your skepticism other than a deliberate misunderstanding of the science. You are a cliche, without anything but denialist talking points and an averarching smugness to bolster your inflated sense of adequacy.

If you understood anything about science, you would know that it's not up to me to disprove anything; it's up to the allegator to prove the allegation.


Arhennius, Langley...Scientists have known about AGW since the lat 1800's

You're just being a dickhead now.

Link

And gee, with all this new gas development, what effect does Methane (CH4) have on climate change?

Well, fark it all then

Get the fark out of the way asshole. Or die trying to tread water.
 
Displayed 46 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 »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report