Perfect Weather on the Net
ctwxman continues:
I always like to start at NCEP (National Centers for Environmental Prediction) for a look at the dynamic models. Each is run using somewhat different equations, making them often come up with different, quite contrary solutions. Some of these models, like the GFS are worldwide in their coverage and forecast out an amazing 16 days (note: the word accurately was not used in the last sentence). Once the dynamic models are through, we can massage them against past performance under similar circumstances at specific places. These are the statistical models, referred to as MOS (Model Output Statistic) models. Again, there are somewhat different solutions from different models. If none of these work for you, run your own. There are programs available to allow you to run your own model, specifying the domain, grid spacing, time interval, etc. The most commonly used research model of this type is the MM5, produced at Penn State University. Run it on your PC! Of course, it's freely available and supported. Sometimes, the data you want already exists, but not in the form you'd like to see it. That's where software like GrADS comes in. Put out by the Institute of Global Atmosphere and Society's Center for Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Studies, GrADS claims to be an 'interactive desktop tool that is used for easy access, manipulation, and visualization of earth science data.' I agree with all except 'easy.' I run a version of GrADS on my server in order to produce localized forecast graphics like this that wouldn't otherwise be available. Yes, looking at satellite imagery and radar is a lot of fun... but the real fun is knowing what will be there before you look. And, astoundingly enough, we are significantly more accurate (and I get assaulted significantly less often at the grocery store) than even a few years ago.
Granted, it's not true forecasting, but you can easily add your data to aggregate with other users at Weather Underground and pull radar data from just about anywhere.
Me? I just like to know what's happening NOW, but it's also pretty handy to know what the temp is in your home "server room".
Tying all this historical data back into longer range forecasts would be fun. I've found TV forecasting to be pretty stale and inaccurate. How many of them have real meteorological degrees anyway?
Red sky at night shepards delight. Red sky in the morning shepards warning.
Lot of truth in that saying
Rus
Cheap UK and US VPS
It's a great job... a magnificent physics puzzle, solvable with high level math and some acquired skill.
Coupled with the fact that nobody expects weathermen to be right anyway, must be a great living.
Imagine a nuclear physicist saying, "You know, it's funny, but yesterday all indications were that today was going to be a smooth day for our reactor. How about that, eh?"
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
Also, I have been toying with the idea of writing a script to automatically grade the predictions put out by Wunderground and Weather.com, to see how accurate they are. It would be nice to see if it is really worth it to rely on their 5-day forecast.
Meanwhile, weather forecasters around the world were puzzled Sunday as access to weather data over the internet crawled to a halt. A Whitehouse representative denied rumors of a terrorist attack on the weather infrastructure.
The mysterious cause of the delays in weather data are under investigation.
Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com
those who understand METAR and TAF and those who don't...
e.g.:
(Terminal Airport Forecast of J-F Kennedy Airport)
2002/11/17 09:14
KJFK 170914Z 170913 03021G32KT 6SM -RA BR OVC012
TEMPO 0913 3SM RA BR OVC008
FM1400 02013G20KT 5SM -RA BR OVC012
FM2100 36011KT 5SM -RA BR OVC020
FM0400 34009KT 5SM -RA BR OVC015
Yes, there are a zillion sites that already have the finished forecast, but this is Slashdot. We don't need no stinkin' forecasters!
Find a problem that has already been solved, and re-solve it.
Here in Seattle the weather forcasts are wrong more than they are right.
How the Hell can you screw up a weather forecast for Seattle?
"Tomorrow's weather forecast: 'Rain'"
my pet machine
"It's a great job... a magnificent physics puzzle, solvable with high level math and some acquired skill."
I hate to cast a damp towel on this, but personally, I find this is to be silly self-promotional drivel. What Weather forecasters won't tell you is that anything beyond a 3-5 day forecast is just a guess.
So what? There are a lot of fields in science where most of our knowledge is about making accurate guesses and then seeing how well they fit the reality. It's not just about weather, the same tools can then be used on other complicated dynamic systems.
Their accuracy rates beyond this period go down below 50%; which means that flipping a coin is more accurate.
Really? I'd hardly call predicting the weather a simple case of true-or-false. Otherwise they could simply always give the exact opposite result that the complicated computer simulation gives and arrive at over 50% accuracy.
Though there are some places (like Ireland, I've heard tell) where simply predicting rain every day will be correct 80% of the time.
You are better off saving your CPU cycles for something more valuable, like Primenet (www.mersenne.org), IMHO.
Computer scientists and their everlasting silly infatuation with primes... There are other important research areas, you know.
I run a Davis VantagePro Weather station. It relays data from a sensor cluster up on my roof to a console in my computer room via 900MHz radio. Then Davis' WeatherLink software submists it to weatherunderground and to my own website.
Here's a picture from my street at 11:00 AM from back in late October. Orangish-brownish, although I think this had more to do with the San Diego wildfires burning 10 miles away moreso than weather fronts. ;-)
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.
Actually, Lorenz's first paper on the subject "Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow" was motivated by computer simulations he ran using a set of three highly coupled, non-linear differential equations that represented a simple weather model. The solutions to those equations will yield the very standard butterfly-wing graph, as well as exhibit sensitive dependence. It was on the basis of this model that Lorenz several years later coined the famous "butterfly effect" term. So, it was initially a weather model, and that's what my post referred to.
weathermen and economists. They can have long successful careers without ever being right.
Seattle (and West Coast) accuracy is always going to be lower than you'd like (and lower than the East Coast's, for example) simply as a result of fewer observations.
The rest of the nation gets to see weather data from thousands of weather stations as patterns move from West to East, while Seattle gets its (relatively) skimpy data from satellites and scattered ocean stations.
The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
wind sock
http://tinyurl.com/3t236
Official Site
Short Blurb from Time Magazine
Descriptive Article (with pictures)
Details Regarding its Supercomputer Status
Weather prediction is a standing joke. You are use to it. I am used to it. That's about best that can be done, despite all the high powered computers, mathematical models and and their theories. That's the nature of Chaos. Even when a thunderstorm is raging in the next county and heading in your direction there is no model that will predict if and when it will arrive. The 'meteorologists' at most TV stations use composite radar to 'predict' where storms are heading and when they will get there, and they make their predictions only minutes before hand, not hours or days, weeks or months ahead. I find that I can do exactly the same for the Lincoln area, with exactly the same accuracy, using the Omaha composite radar at www.crh.noaa.gov/radar/loop/DS.p37cr/si.koax.shtm
The best predictor for bad weather on the NOAA website I gave is the one-hour rain loop. But even when it shows a steadily advancing area of wetness, the "Great Wall of Lincoln" has unpredictable effects in diverting or suppressing rainfall. Ditto for snow and tornadoes.
The really arrogant folks are those who use models to predict global weather 50 years from now, even when they limit their 'predictions' to general high temperature 'averages' for regions like North America or Africa. Such dire 'Global Warming' predictions are fueled not by valid math models, because none exist, but by their political agenda. Those kinds of 'predictions' can only be classed as flagrant propaganda, and people willing to fabricate 'scientific' evidence for their political agendas scare me, just as much as folks who pass laws destroying my Constitutional Rights, while claiming to protect those freedoms from the actions of terrorists. They are from the same mold.
Here is a nice java applet demonstrating the Lorenz Attractor.
http://www.exploratorium.edu/complexi
Running with Linux for over 20 years!