Slashdot Mirror


Japan Plans 30-Year Supercomputer Forecasts

BaltikaTroika writes "According to a ministry representative, 'Japan is planning ultra long-range 30-year weather forecasts that will predict typhoons, storms, blizzards, droughts and other inclement weather.' Maybe they should tell their secret to my local weatherman, who usually can't even get tomorrow's weather right. Whatever happened to chaos?"

200 comments

  1. Chaos? by TheAngryMob · · Score: 5, Funny

    Whatever happened to chaos?

    Pfft. Chaos is so predictable.

    --

    Don't just game, Dungeoneer
    1. Re:Chaos? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It is, but isn't it true that long-term behaviour can be (roughly) predicted more reliably than the exact weather tomorrow?
      FTA:
      hopes to calculate long-term patterns in the interaction of atmospheric pressure, air temperatures, ocean currents and sea temperatures [...] will help establish predictable routes for typhoons and identify areas that are recurring targets for heavy rains, abundant snow, high waves, heavy winds, scorching heat or crop-threatening droughts. [...] can see what areas are at risk and start thinking about what kind of countermeasures to take [...] These forecasts are only general trends.
      (emphasis mine).
      IIRC, the whole point of chaos and the associated theory is that we can't hope to exactly predict everything (nonlinear dependence on initial conditions, Butterfly Effect, blah blah), but we can look for specific patterns over long periods and use the observations to make vague predictions, which can be helpful.
      There's a high probability that this post contains errors, please correct me :)
    2. Re:Chaos? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      If Steve Ballmer throws a chair in Redmond, three top-ranking Google execs 1000 miles away in Mountain View mysteriously keel over and die...

    3. Re:Chaos? by neonprimetime · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Early warning could enable the government to allocate money and resources to potential disaster areas before disaster strikes.

      Now this would be total chaos. WTF are they thinking? Oh ... the supercomputer says we're going to get hit with a Tsunami in 2024, oh please oh please government start giving us money now so we can squander it early!

    4. Re:Chaos? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you remember, it was replaced by Japan's 5th generation Artificial Intellegence system - which greatly resembles chaos.

    5. Re:Chaos? by OECD · · Score: 1

      Pfft. Chaos is so predictable.

      It is funny how predictable it is that every time there's a story about long-range forecasting, someone will bring up Chaos Theory...

      --
      One man's -1 Flamebait is another man's +5 Funny.
    6. Re:Chaos? by olip · · Score: 1

      especially with the supercomputers I forecast we'll have in 30 years

      [is it me or submission title is ambiguous ?]

    7. Re:Chaos? by theStorminMormon · · Score: 1

      Submission title is definitely ambiguous.

      But the last time I complained about bad grammar making a post unreadable it got modded as flamebait (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=191121&cid=15 715693). Apparently some people are offended by good grammar.

      -stormin

      --
      The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
    8. Re:Chaos? by rjhubs · · Score: 1

      No event is random once you understand the concepts behind what makes the event.

    9. Re:Chaos? by neonprimetime · · Score: 1

      Parent is modded Informative? Now that's funny.

    10. Re:Chaos? by mrxak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because that's what forcasting is all about. We don't know enough of the variables so we have to have to make best estimates on a chaotic system.

      Any predictive computer will ultimately fail, because you can't compress the universe into a computer smaller than that universe, and we are unable to figure out every equation that's being calculated anyway. You might get data that's "good enough" for 30 years, but the deviation will only increase with time. That's why weather predictions are generally only good 3 or 4 days in advance (of course this also depends on where you live, there's some places I've been to where the weather is pretty much a sure thing). Their simplified models of the Earth can estimate about when it'll rain, and about how much, but it's not exact, and any ignored variable could throw the whole thing out of whack. I give them credit for trying though, and maybe we'll see some technological jump out of it.

    11. Re:Chaos? by todd10k · · Score: 1

      tell that to the emperor when the first warp storm hits in about 3000 years

    12. Re:Chaos? by Kwiik · · Score: 1

      Apparently "Submission title" is a noun, and "But" is a proper beginning to a sentance.

      Do not grammar nazi if you can not hold your own. Apparently people with good grammar can easily be correct by those with proper grammar.

      P.s. I'm not claiming to have superior grammar, merely kicking this unit for being a dolt. Somebody should mod this post (my own) and the parent as flamebait - I know I would have if I didn't feel like responding instead. WOoooo Flame wars! Reminds me of my BBS days.

      --
      Vehicle Stars used car search is my current project
    13. Re:Chaos? by Prof.Phreak · · Score: 1

      Pfft. Chaos is so predictable.

      It's funny 'cause it's true.

      Chaotic processes can be predicted with great accuracy for short time into the future, but can't be predicted a long time into the future.

      Random processes cannot be predicted in the immediate future, but generally can be predicted a long time into the future.

      Not only that, but chaotic processes can be controlled with minimal force and be predictable forever.

      --

      "If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy

    14. Re:Chaos? by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Chaotic processes can be predicted with great accuracy for short time into the future, but can't be predicted a long time into the future.

      That entirely depends upon the process in question and the selection of initial variables.

      Sensitivity to initial variables and deviation from the expected path are what makes chaotic functions fun.

      For some equations and parameters the expected path can be estimated with great precision, however move a fraction to the left and they will spin wildly out of control.
      Just look at 2 adjacent points in the mandelbrot set.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    15. Re:Chaos? by Ansonmont · · Score: 1

      three questions

      1) What's in the box?

      2) If a butterfly beats its wings in...

      3) When will a radioactive atom go through decay?

      No real answers to any of those (at least according to Schrodinger (sp?)), but we still know what the half life of radioactive elements. So, maybe supercomputers can't predict that Miami will get whacked on july 19, 2022 but maybe it will help to figure out whether we will still be in the active phase of hurricanes 10 years from now. Or where to plant crops if weather patterns shift...

      -A

    16. Re:Chaos? by version2 · · Score: 1

      Ah, but it's so fun to spend large amounts of money trying to predict the future!

    17. Re:Chaos? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Yes, but *climate* predictions can be accurate for much longer. And there are intermediate levels that fall between climate and weather that are more easily predicted than local weather (and especially than micro-clime weather).

      This is a popularized version of an article that was probably originally written in Japanese. And I doubt that the translator was a climate modeling specialist.

      (OTOH, this *could* just be pork-barrel politics.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    18. Re:Chaos? by Burz · · Score: 1

      Here is a story with a little more background on Earth Simulator's modeling prowess. Near the end, it states that it can predict and track typhoons with very high accuracy:

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1 517946,00.html

    19. Re:Chaos? by shobadobs · · Score: 1

      Any predictive computer will ultimately fail, because you can't compress the universe into a computer smaller than that universe,

      Not if the universe is infinitely complex!

    20. Re:Chaos? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      But he's predicting the paths of those typhoons in real time, not typhoons predicted to occur 10 years from now.

      The predictions won't be at a fine grained level...even if they manage to get the modeled area down in size to an acre (and they'd like even finer) they won't be able to escape chaotic effects. But many chaotic effects can be "summarized", as temperature "summarizes" the speeds of atoms within a particular piece of material. So you may not be able to predict details (a typhoon will strike land near Kyoto at 3:57 PM on Aug 27, 2016), but still be able to predict "intermediate" level results "2016 will have an unusually strong typhoon season, but it will end early and will feature more typhoons at both the small and the large ends, and fewer in the middle").

      Caution: I am not a climate scientist of any sort, much less a climate modeler, so my examples are wholecloth. The process, however, is about right, as I understand it.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    21. Re:Chaos? by theStorminMormon · · Score: 1

      You, sir, are a moron.

      I will quote from my post: I complained about bad grammar making a post unreadable

      So the only dolt here is you. I could care less about proper rules of grammar for their own sake (which is pretty much the definition of a grammar nazi). What's important is being able to communicate. It's hard enough to get your meaning across using only typed words (no facial or voice cues), but mashing the words together in such a way that there's just no coherence severely compounds the problem.

      So maybe you're actually interested in having some pissing contest about who can conform to which standard of proper grammar better, or which standard of grammar is superior (honor vs. honour), but I'll stick to the point that I actually made (and that sailed over your head): bad grammar is a seriously bad thing when it prevents the average reader from understanding what you wrote.

      The only thing more obnoxious than a smug know-it-all is a smug know-it-all that completely missed the point.

      -stormin

      --
      The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
    22. Re:Chaos? by Man+Eating+Duck · · Score: 1

      While it's been many summers since i took physics classes, I understand that certain quantum events ("At what time will this particular atom of a radioactive isotope decay") is in fact truly random. Not because we can't observe / don't know about all the parameters, but because they're inherently and fundamentally random from nature's side, and theoretically impossible to predict.
      I might be wrong, in which case I would love to be corrected by someone more knowledgeable than me :)

      --
      Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors! :)
    23. Re:Chaos? by Man+Eating+Duck · · Score: 1

      How do you conjugate "to grammar nazi"?
      Yes, I'm aware of my .sig :)

      --
      Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors! :)
    24. Re:Chaos? by Kwiik · · Score: 1

      Wow it hurts my head to read what you type, as this is all that I see:
      You, sir, are a moron.

      I will quote to you from my post: I [have] complained about (Strikeout)bad(/strikeout)[poor] grammar making a post unreadable

      (Strikeout)So(/strikeout) The only dolt here is yourself. I could care less about the rules of proper grammar for their own sake (which is (strikeout)pretty much(/strikeout) opposite to the definition of a grammar nazi). What is important is being able to effectively communicate. It is difficult enough to obtain a meaning across using only words which are (with no facial or voice cues). (Strikeout)but(/strikeout) Mashing (strikeout)the(/strikeout) words together in such a way that there is (strikeout)just(/strikeout) no coherence severely compounds (strikeout)the(/strikeout) this problem.

      (strikeout)So(/strikeout) Maybe you are (Strikeout)actually(/strikeout) interested in having (strikeout)some(/strikeout) a pissing contest in regards to who (strikeout)can(/strikeout) is better able to conform to (Strikeout)which(/strikeout) a provided standard of proper grammar (strikeout)better(/strikeout), or which standard of grammar (strikeout)is(/strikeout) may be superior (i.e. honor vs. honour), but I will stick to (Strikeout)the(/strikeout) my point that I (Strikeout)actually(/strikeout) made ((strikeout)and that(/strikeout) which has sailed over your head): (strikeout)bad(/strikeout)poor grammar is a (strikeout)seriously bad thing(/strikeout) serious behavioral difficiency when it prevents (strikeout)the(/strikeout) an average reader from understanding (Strikeout)what you wrote(/strikeout) the text which you have written.

      The only thing which I find to be more obnoxious than a smug know-it-all, is (strikeout)a smug know-it-all that completely missed the point(/strikeout) Dade.

      --
      Vehicle Stars used car search is my current project
  2. Useless indeed by gasmonso · · Score: 0

    Seriously, this is such bad science as to be completely useless. The only result of this will be fear as it will surely predict doom and gloom. Like the submitter said, my weatherman can't even predict tomorrow's weather, muchless 30 years.

    http://religiousfreaks.com/
    1. Re:Useless indeed by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      You may however be able to predict general paterns over a significant period of time. It may be possible to get a pretty good idea of how many typhoons will occur in a given year and how strong they will initially be without knowing their course. Obviously predicting the course and force of typhoons and hurricanes is well ahead of our current capabilities due to knowledge constraints more than computing power.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    2. Re:Useless indeed by mccalli · · Score: 1
      The only result of this will be fear as it will surely predict doom and gloom. Like the submitter said, my weatherman can't even predict tomorrow's weather, muchless 30 years.

      So that's it then, we just stop trying?

      I'm rather presuming this model will be constantly revised with new data and new techniques, and that it's predictions will be altered accordingly. Something has to try and do this, then the state of the art can be improved by building on its strengths and working on its weaknesses.

      Cheers,
      Ian

    3. Re:Useless indeed by gasmonso · · Score: 1

      The problem is not computing power, it's the lack of raw data to feed the computer. There aren't enough sensors collecting data to feed the system to make an accurate calculation. Their effort should be spent on increasing the amount of data collected over the globe to have a significant number of datapoints to analyze. That's the key.

      http://religiousfreaks.com/
    4. Re:Useless indeed by mrxak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      All it takes is one large volcano to erupt and it'll throw off all your predictions. There are plenty of factors involved with the weather outside of normal weather-type things.

    5. Re:Useless indeed by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 1

      Oh, it's not all that useless. Employing a mere pocket calculator, I can often predict the next-morning's contents of my shorts, inputting parameters such as how drunk I am before collapsing on the floor, number of empty cans, and the fine structure constant.

    6. Re:Useless indeed by Billosaur · · Score: 4, Interesting
      You may however be able to predict general paterns over a significant period of time. It may be possible to get a pretty good idea of how many typhoons will occur in a given year and how strong they will initially be without knowing their course.

      You won't be able to "predict" anything; weather is driven by a complex set of forces, of which we have a very incomplete understanding. It isn't just a matter of temperature, pressure, moisture content, UV radiation, and infrared radiation, which are the main variables your local forecaster uses to try and predict weather trends. Solar wind, ground cover, cloud formation, cosmic rays, vulcanism, atmospheric electrodynamics: these are extra variables that influence the weather in ways we can't understand. And just to screw up the mixture a bit more, add global warming.

      You can build more and more sophisticated models and run them on faster and faster hardware, but in the end, you can't really account for all the possible variables to any degree of accuracy. The more variables you add, each with its own degree of accuracy, the more soupy the predictions become. We know in general terms how systems work, but we have no idea how all these forces interact to create weather. I think the Japanese should stick to trying to determine what actually drives the weather and stay out of the prediction business.

      --
      GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
    7. Re:Useless indeed by grub · · Score: 1


      Is that you, Jesus?

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    8. Re:Useless indeed by aminorex · · Score: 1

      And for every sunny day or light spring rain that it predicts, we expect you to take another antidepressant pill.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    9. Re:Useless indeed by pikakilla · · Score: 1

      Not only do random acts of God throw off prediction, but in order to accurately predict the weather, these scientists are going to have to calculate all the possible inputs less they find a "best fit" model that accurately predicts the first 10 years but deviates from the pattern immediately after. A rather challenging task.

    10. Re:Useless indeed by multisync · · Score: 1
      Your site sucks asshole.


      Actually, his site is great. Thanks for commenting on it, I probably wouldn't have bothered to check it out otherwise.
      --
      I don't care why you're posting AC
    11. Re:Useless indeed by stunt_penguin · · Score: 1

      One large volcano? It only takes a fart's worth of air to make a change in the Weather patterns way, way in the future. Butterfly effect, anyone?

      --
      When the posters fear their moderators, there is tyranny; when the moderators fears the posters, there is liberty.
    12. Re:Useless indeed by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 4, Funny
      It isn't just a matter of temperature, pressure, moisture content, UV radiation, and infrared radiation, which are the main variables your local forecaster uses to try and predict weather trends. Solar wind, ground cover, cloud formation, cosmic rays, vulcanism, atmospheric electrodynamics: these are extra variables that influence the weather in ways we can't understand. And just to screw up the mixture a bit more, add global warming.


      That's true. Do you think they're going to install GPS trackers on all the butterflies in the world?
      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    13. Re:Useless indeed by vertinox · · Score: 2, Funny

      All it takes is one large volcano to erupt and it'll throw off all your predictions.

      Don't panic. The 30-Year weather predicting supercomputer predicted this and is designing supercomputer that is powerful enough and specifically built for predicting volcanic activity.

      However, it will take 30 years to do so... Much to relief of weather who were protesting that their livelihoods were at stake.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    14. Re:Useless indeed by richg74 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Somehow, this reminds me of a couple of lines from Shakespeare's Henry IV Part I:

      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you do call for them?
    15. Re:Useless indeed by houghi · · Score: 1
      You won't be able to "predict" anything;


      Yes you will. Perhaps not the prediction you are expection, but still a prediction. Look at how wether prediction works now. They always talk about likelyhood of something going to happen.

      e.g. it will most likely be very warm tomorow in Belgium. The more you go into the future, the larger the margin of error will be. The narrower that error becomes, the better the prediction is.

      I know when predictions were done for two days. Now it is done for 5 days with the same about of accurecy. Even 10 days is not that far of.

      What they will be doing is extend that accurecy. What people look at now when they see the wetherforecast is that they think that these few days predictions are exact. No, they are not. I believe the acurecy is about 80%.

      What they most likely can predict is wether or not it will be a warmer or cooler july and what the trend is. Also most likely they WILL look at what actually drives the weather to get to the predictions.

      You must also look at the amout of space you need to cover in a prediction. When I look at Belgian TV, I only see half of Belgium and even that is devided into several regions with different temperatures.

      When I look at CNN or BBC world, then I see the whole of Europe and suddenly the Netherlands, Belgium and Northern France (up to Paris) have the same temperature.
      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    16. Re:Useless indeed by reverseengineer · · Score: 1
      Weather is a chaotic system, to be sure, but it isn't random. It may in fact be the case that a very minor perturbation of the atmosphere may be the specific trigger for the eventual formation of a hurricane, but obviously there is some measure of regularity to hurricanes- we speak of a "hurricane season," after all, and hurricanes tend to form off the coast of Florida, not off the coast of Greenland.

      If I were asked to predict today's weather where I live in Illinois, I would have predicted "hot and humid with a chance of thunderstorms." Now, today's actual weather is a bit cooler than the average (in part, due to recent thunderstorms), but that's usually going to be an uncannily accurate guess (there's a forecasted 80% chance of T-storms tonight, in fact). If you asked me what the local weather would be on July 19, 2036, I would predict "hot and humid with a chance of thunderstorms." Whether or not the recorded high temperature on that day is 85 or 105 degrees F and whether there actually are thunderstorms is a matter of chaos- but it's far more likely to be hot and humid with a chance of thunderstorms than cold and dry with a chance of snow- even a crude model of the airmasses involved would get this right.

      Of course, past performance is not a guarantee of future results, as they say, and July 19 may be smack in the middle of the Great Drought of '36, or a volcano-induced "Year Without Summer." An outstanding meterological computer model might be able to predict the former based on current data, in which case it has perhaps paid for itself- but likely not the latter.

      --
      "FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
    17. Re:Useless indeed by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Their effort should be spent on increasing the amount of data collected over the globe to have a significant number of datapoints to analyze.

      That is certainly a very important key.

      A much better understanding water vapor's effect upon weather is also crucial factor.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    18. Re:Useless indeed by Jeff+Molby · · Score: 1
      I think the Japanese should stick to trying to determine what actually drives the weather and stay out of the prediction business.
      Isn't step one of the scientific method to form a hypothesis? Sure, it'll be wrong on a lot of things, but they'll learn from it. Version two will be less wrong.

      Quit pissin' on their Cheerios.

    19. Re:Useless indeed by ender_ · · Score: 1

      When I was in college I took a trip with a small class for a question and answer session with Edward Teller at LLNL. He said that one of the most important things in his mind for the scientific community to work on was weather prediction. He believed that being able to accurately forecast the weather months in advance could save countless lives and improve the global economy. He said that this should could be acheivable through improvements in computer simulation, much like the technology they use to simulate hypersonic flows in rocket engines or reactions in a nuclear bomb.

      I believe that what he was saying was basically true. If you can establish months in advance that there will be a late freeze, or drought then you can adjust your agricultural time tables to account for it. Also you can protect people from a lot of natural disasters.

      --
      Bzzt Whir Click
    20. Re:Useless indeed by jaweekes · · Score: 1

      I think the idea is more along the lines of "It's going to get hotter by 5 degrees C in 30 years, and so giving us 15 typhoons in year 25, and 17 in year 30" etc...

      This type of prediction is possible, not the "Japan will get hit with a typhoon on the 15th July, 2015 at 6:37:28am GMT". Global predictions are possible as the small forces that change local weather are not an issue.

      By the way, IANAWP (I am not a weatherperson)

    21. Re:Useless indeed by kimvette · · Score: 1

      Brian: (points at the panic room) Peter, what is that?
      Peter: Well, I got the idea to build a panic room after I saw that movie The Butterfly Effect. I thought, wow, this is terrible. I wish I could escape to a place where this movie couldn't find me.

      (Sorry, it had to be posted, and FWIW I actually like that movie)

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    22. Re:Useless indeed by DroppedPacket · · Score: 2, Funny
      You may however be able to predict general paterns over a significant period of time.

      OK, here it goes:

      Rain followed by Sun
      Cooling trends with possible snow in the upper elevations
      Warming weather after winter followed by hot summer weather
      Godzilla attack
      Occasional typhoon
      Small chance of a tsunami followed by death and destruction

      So either I'm a supercomputer, or this is easier than we thought...

      --
      I am not a resource! I am a free man!
    23. Re:Useless indeed by MrTester · · Score: 1

      I, for one, welcome our self-replicating weather-computer over lords.

      Sorry, I cant help myself. I need therapy.

    24. Re:Useless indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



      Do you think they're going to install GPS trackers on all the butterflies in the world?


      They'll just install several computer-controlled butterflies in strategic locations.

  3. rain across the globe by mvnicosia · · Score: 1

    If a butterfly can cause a rainstorm across the globe, does that mean that Japan will be tracking all creatures big and small for their impact on their 30-year weather forecast? Personally, I don't think anyone wants to know the impact my flatulence has on global warming!

    1. Re:rain across the globe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pass the beans, please!

    2. Re:rain across the globe by s_p_oneil · · Score: 1

      From what I've read (and I may have been reading in the wrong places), most climate/weather scientists don't buy into the butterfly theory. If everyone in the world decided to face in the same direction (i.e. east) and fart at the same time, I doubt it would have even the slightest impact on weather. I believe that the forces that move large air masses and cause storms are powerful enough to drown out the random noise caused by tiny living things.

      I occasionally wonder what would happen if it was large-scale and not random. Here in Atlanta, we have an interstate loop surrounding it (I-285). I always wondered whether it would create a localized low pressure zone if all the cars and trucks drove around it counter-clockwise at high speeds for a few weeks (like when kids get the water to swirl around in a circular pool by all walking around it in the same direction). Would it give a measurable difference in air pressure, or would a fairly slight breeze coming from a larger air movement be enough to blow it all away?

    3. Re:rain across the globe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just wait until a designated MegaMultiNational Inc. employee will ring your bell with all the papers needed to install a specific "detector" in some parts of your body... :)

  4. Investors by TheBogie · · Score: 1

    This information would be very useful for investors. If I had previous knowledge about last year's hurricane season I would have bought up the refineries and made a killing.

    1. Re:Investors by oudzeeman · · Score: 1

      or you could have purchased a warehouse full of plywood and vinyl siding before the post-katrina demmand drove up the prices

    2. Re:Investors by Wornstrom · · Score: 1

      I'll bet the energy companies already have this information. Considering the rather warm winter we just experienced (here at least),
      I look back to the fall when they announced an up to 70% increase in natural gas prices.

      *puts on tinfoil hat*

  5. your weather[wo]man by oudzeeman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    your weatherperson is trying to be fairly specific. I admit to not reading the article, but I do know a little about computer simulation, and I would guess they are looking at larger trends in temperature and storm patterns. Not trying to accurately predict daily temperatures and precipitation like your weatherman (who interprets/puts a local spin on data (s)he gets from noaa).

    1. Re:your weather[wo]man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      your weatherperson is trying to be fairly specific.

      I have a weather animal you insenstive clod!

      I just see if the robins are flying. If they're not then it's too humid, which means it's gonna rain.

    2. Re:your weather[wo]man by sensei85 · · Score: 1

      FTA: But don't plan on locking in sunny weather for that planned family picnic in July 2036. These forecasts are only general trends. The system is being used to look for trouble spots that are likely to experience some kind of disaster (typhoon, flood, draught, etc), and give people a heads-up so that FEMA doesn't drop the ball again. Granted, I probably could have told you that a town on the coast below sea-level was at risk (here comes the flame war), but hey, why let Joe Scientist do it when you can spend a lot of money on really cool computer technology?

  6. Already exists! by andrewman327 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Isn't the Farmers Almanac similar to this, only with a shorter forcast range? And it is more accurate than random guessing. Let's see if this supercomputer can beat it.

    --
    Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
    1. Re:Already exists! by Cycloid+Torus · · Score: 3, Informative
      Not only that, it is available as a download!

      http://www.farmersalmanac.com/weather/weather.html

      --
      Lost in space at an early age. Survived the vacuum. Now rebuilding castle in air.
  7. Forecasts okay now by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 3, Funny
    Maybe they should tell their secret to my local weatherman, who usually can't even get tomorrow's weather right.

    Actually, those days are pretty much gone now. With all the latest computational models for weather, as opposed to what was essentially pattern matching before, I find that the weather forecasts on the whole are pretty accurate out to a few days. As for 30 years, I would be more than a little skeptical since you even have to account for things like solar flares and sunspots, or you get small inaccuracies that will grow more massive the further out you get. But, with the new Hello Kitty Supercomputer Center, perhaps they are able to account for this in their computations.

    1. Re:Forecasts okay now by maximthemagnificent · · Score: 1

      Not where I live! I live in a ski town with its own micro-climate and the forcast is terrible here.
      Timing is the biggest thing they're wrong on, being early or late on temp changes or precipiation
      by a couple of days in either direction.

      Maxim

    2. Re:Forecasts okay now by Jerf · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It might depend where you are.

      In Michigan, sure, sometimes they get a week right.

      On the other hand, sometimes they're so far off you can barely recognize the week. What seems to happen is a lot of storms stall that they don't expect, or they expect something to stall and it doesn't.

      Probably the funniest was the recent "hurricane" over Michigan (about a month ago), which even made Fark. This storm complex stalled for a week and change, and basically every day of the week, the prediction was that it would move away by tomorrow.

      Michigan seems to be at a meeting point for storm systems coming from the West, cold air coming from Canada, and wet, moist air coming from the Gulf. Predicting which will "win" for any given day seems to give the models fits. For example, the worst winter storms for us are when the cold Canadian air meets the warm, moist Gulf air, but predicting exactly where they will meet and drop all the snow seems to have an error bar of several hundred miles (i.e., for a prediction of hitting Lansing, smack dab in the middle of the lower peninsula, you're looking at it actually hitting anywhere from mid-Ohio to the top of the UP.) I've noticed that for predicting precipitation, you're almost better off just watching a couple of hours of the radar loop and making your own prediction.

    3. Re:Forecasts okay now by moro_666 · · Score: 1

      welcome aboard :)

      I'm on malta for now and the dudes over here can't predict anything ... The sea temperature changes mess everything up so the weather forecast is as good as a blind guess, unless you have equipment to predict the temperature games in the sea and in the desert at south, you have no clue what is going down one day later. Yes it was a long sentence.

      Due to the strike at the weather station, there will be no weather tomorrow.

      --

      I'd tell you the chances of this story being a dupe, but you wouldn't like it.
    4. Re:Forecasts okay now by snullbug · · Score: 1

      Those days are alive and well in Iowa. Weather forecasts work pretty much like this:

      a) Summer: If it is hot, predict cooler weather until it happens, then predict warmer weather until it happens. Repeat. If it is dry predict rain until it happens, then predict dryer weather until it happens. Repeat.

      b) Winter: If it is cold, predict a warming trend until it happens, then predict colder weather until it happens. Repeat. If it is not snowing, predict snow until it snows, then predict clearing until it clears. Repeat.

      Seriously. The weathermen will predict "chance of rain tomorrow" for weeks until it rains, then predict dry weather for days until the rain stops. A chimp with a dart board would have a better accuracy rating.

      --
      .......Ya doesn't has to call me Johnson!
    5. Re:Forecasts okay now by NichG · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This gives me an idea for an interesting analysis. I wonder if you take all the weather predictions for the last 20 years or so and compare with the actual weather, if you'd see any patterns when you plot a map of the error as a function of location (and perhaps isolate it to the weather during a particular time of year). If there are particular locations which end up being tipping points, then that tells you something about the dynamics and where you need the highest resolution when you're building your models.

      Probably someone has already done this though.

  8. Chaos is chaos and weather is weather by djupedal · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If there is one thing the Japanese know how to do, it is gather information. And with a few thousand years of weather logs to work from, they became quite handy at accurate short range weather prediction years ago, with nothing more than an abacus.

    What we have here is the 'bullet-train syndrome' at work, where they don't just move from weeks to months, or months to years...they jump to decades. Hubris aside, this is very typical of the Japanese culture and a natural 'next step', actually.

  9. RTFA, submitter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    The results will help establish predictable routes for typhoons and identify areas that are recurring targets for heavy rains, abundant snow, high waves, heavy winds, scorching heat or crop-threatening droughts.
    They're not trying to forecast weather 30 years in the future, they're just looking for statistical trends in locations where hurricanes and such are more likely to occur, based on predictions of the overall global climate. Things like "there are probably going to be 20-40% more typhoons off the east coast of Japan in 10 years", not "watch out, Tokyo is going to be hit by a tsunami on August 12, 2032".
    1. Re:RTFA, submitter by Gospodin · · Score: 1

      Especially since tsunamis aren't caused by weather.

      Speaking of which, maybe the Japanese ought to be trying to forecast seismic phenomena 30 years out instead of weather? Aren't earthquakes a bigger problem for them? I realize seismic forecasting is a pretty inexact science, but so is weather (or even climate) forecasting.

      --
      ...following the principles of Heisenburger's Uncertain Cat...
    2. Re:RTFA, submitter by plumby · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Speaking of which, maybe the Japanese ought to be trying to forecast seismic phenomena 30 years out instead of weather?


      I'm guessing by the statement "The machine tracks global sea temperatures, rainfall and crustal movement to predict natural disasters over the next centuries." that they are already doing this.
    3. Re:RTFA, submitter by houghi · · Score: 1
      Tokyo is going to be hit by a tsunami on August 12, 2032


      I better cancel my holiday right away. Thanks for the warning.
      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    4. Re:RTFA, submitter by QMO · · Score: 1
      Especially since tsunamis aren't caused by weather.
      Aren't they usually caused by crust-movement-type activity?
      As in (from the article):
      The machine tracks global sea temperatures, rainfall and crustal movement to predict natural disasters over the next centuries.

      My (limited) understanding is that attempting to predict seismic activity has always been a major part of the purpose of the machine, and that this 30-year weather thing is an additional (part of the) project.
      --
      Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
    5. Re:RTFA, submitter by LarsWestergren · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Even the article got it wrong, it starts with " Japan is planning ultra long-range 30-year weather forecasts", and later states "Japan's science ministry hopes to calculate long-term patterns in the interaction of atmospheric pressure, air temperatures, ocean currents and sea temperatures", i.e. climate modelling.

      This is nothing new either. Earth Simulator has been used for these things for many years, and was the worlds fastest supercomputer for several years.

      --

      Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die

    6. Re:RTFA, submitter by thelost · · Score: 1
      "Tokyo is going to be hit by a tsunami on August 12, 2032".


      Whaaat? I was gonna vacation in Tokyo that August. Oh well, Fiji it is.
      --
      Promote Charity on Myspace, Show Your Colours!
    7. Re:RTFA, submitter by Gospodin · · Score: 1

      Maybe I should change the subject to "RTFA, poster" — just for me.

      --
      ...following the principles of Heisenburger's Uncertain Cat...
    8. Re:RTFA, submitter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they predict that Tokyo is *not* going to be hit by a tsunami on August 12, 2032, then I'm gonna schedule a trip on exactly that day.

    9. Re:RTFA, submitter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or go to Japan and stay on high ground.

    10. Re:RTFA, submitter by jc42 · · Score: 1

      That tsunami will hit Fiji 3 hours later.

      Try Majorca instead. No tsunami there until March 13, 2047.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    11. Re:RTFA, submitter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thread Subject: RTFA, submitter
      re: Submitted slashdot article entitled "Japan Plans 30-Year Supercomputer Forecasts"
      Title of TFA: "Japan Plans 30-Year Supercomputer Forecasts"

      It seems that he *DID* RTFA, since the title of the article is the same as the submitted title!

      Maybe you should start RTFAs... and start with the title!

  10. Try predicting the past first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I suggest they plug in the historical data and work on correctly predicting what happened. When they have that working, then we can talk about predicting the future. I'll take the whole global warming "crisis" seriously when the models predicting future warming have first accurately explained the past.

  11. RTFA by gerddie · · Score: 1
    Seems like the submitter didin't even bother to read the article.
    ... Japan's science ministry hopes to calculate long-term patterns in the interaction of atmospheric pressure, air temperatures, ocean currents and sea temperatures, ...
    The weather forcast for tomorrow has nothing to do with long-term patterns. Anyway, why oh why do I complain, this is /. after all ...
  12. Actually Useful by Ignignot · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Everyone is going to talk about how the buttefly effect makes this useless, and that is true for any sort of instantaneous weather. However, there are many things that affect weather cycles that are much more predictable. First is El Nino/La Nina which oscillates every few years. Then there are other oceanic oscillators that operate on a decade or longer cycle. Also there is solar output and human output. Add all of these up and you may be able to predict the frequency and severity of storms, the probablility of different weather patterns, etc. You will be able to plan for these events which will be 30 years down the road, and be able to do something about them - like build buildings capable of withstanding stronger typhoons, or rising sea levels, or what have you.

    But never, in no way, will someone be able to tell you if it will rain in 3 weeks, let alone 30 years. I've studied the accuracy of forecasts quite a bit (as an energy analyst), and you can't get much better than climatology once you go 2 weeks out.

    --
    I submitted this story last night, and it didn't get posted.
    1. Re:Actually Useful by Gospodin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So here's something I'm honestly curious about that maybe you could answer: Why did weather forecasting recently go from 5-day or 7-day forecasts to 10-day? Did we get better at prediction, or did we just get more tolerant of error? This change just happened in the past couple of years

      --
      ...following the principles of Heisenburger's Uncertain Cat...
    2. Re:Actually Useful by lawpoop · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "...you can't get much better than climatology once you go 2 weeks out."

      I heard a great quote somewhere along the line: "It isn't decided that far in advance".

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    3. Re:Actually Useful by Ignignot · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you are referring to forecasts in the United States, there are several different forecasts provided by the government which provide the baseline to basically everything you see on TV or hear on the radio or whatever. There is a short term forecast called the AVN/NAV which is intended to aircraft, so they will know how to schedule flights. This has a forecast which provides information on 3 hour intervals and is updated many times a day. Next there is the MRF, which goes out 12 days or so (it has been a few years since I looked at it directly) and is a daily forecast, updated several times a day. It is intended for general use and is basically what you see every day. There are some commercial vendors that put their own spin on things, and plenty of specialized forecasts for things like hurricanes, etc. However, these two are the most important forecasts for anyone in the United States, and have been around since the 90's at least. What you may be seeing is a "keeping up with the Joneses" approach to TV weather forecasting. If one station has 9 days, and the other has 8, which one are you going to watch? While that last day may have no accuracy whatsoever, people would still tend to watch one over the other I think.

      --
      I submitted this story last night, and it didn't get posted.
    4. Re:Actually Useful by Peldor · · Score: 1
      RTFA and you get this quote "Just like the daily forecast, we can't give a percentage for how accurate they are"

      It's just climate research and bad reporting. Nothing new there.

    5. Re:Actually Useful by Ignignot · · Score: 1

      Occasionally there will be a more stable weather pattern which increases the accuracy of the forecast window to make longer range forecasts useful, but typically that's true. However, there are some longer predictions that you can make easily - I can tell you that there will probably be much fewer hurricanes this year than last year, both because last year was extreme, and because the water in the gulf is cool. Things like that don't change rapidly.

      --
      I submitted this story last night, and it didn't get posted.
    6. Re:Actually Useful by rm999 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Can you please explain why the butterfly effect wouldn't mitigate the accuracy of longterm forecasts compared to using statistical analysis of past data? I'm not saying I disagree with you, I just don't understand the reasoning.

    7. Re:Actually Useful by Ignignot · · Score: 1

      The buttefly effect is a problem for a forecast for a particular day or short period, but over a longer period of time it cannot defeat climatology. There are forces in the atmosphere that work to keep the weather in an equilibrium. These are not effected by the butterfly effect in a large way. This is why you can say that it will probably snow this winter, while you can't say if it will snow on Christmas. Since these forces themselves actually change, and it is often possible to estimate how they will change (or at least understand what range they might fall in) you can give seasonal estimations, and estimate what the worst weather you can expect is (given a degree of certainty, like 1 in 100). Typically engineers already do this from historical data when building things like levees. They look back and say, "well the only way that this system will fail is if we get a storm that usually only happens once in 200 years". However, since climate has been changing, historical data might not be the best way to evaluate this risk. Therefore you can use forecasts to provide a better estimate of what you have to prepare for.

      --
      I submitted this story last night, and it didn't get posted.
    8. Re:Actually Useful by asuffield · · Score: 1
      Mostly right, but this bit caught my eye:

      But never, in no way, will someone be able to tell you if it will rain in 3 weeks, let alone 30 years. I've studied the accuracy of forecasts quite a bit (as an energy analyst), and you can't get much better than climatology once you go 2 weeks out.


      It's possible that someday it'll be possible to tell that it'll rain in three weeks. What won't be possible is to tell you *how much* and on *what days*. It's generally much easier to predict the rough sequence of events than it is to predict when they are going to happen (becoming easier as time approaches the event). So it's possible to say "there will be a big hurricane this year" and be fairly certain about that, when you don't have any real idea when or where it'll hit.

      30 years is a long time even for that, though.
    9. Re:Actually Useful by Phleg · · Score: 1

      Disclaimer: IANAM.

      I believe the reason this would "work" is because they're looking at general models. Current methods of weather forecasting let us predict small pockets of weather with acceptable accuracy. What these researchers seem to be trying to do is try and generalize over a larger period of time. Although weather forecasts aren't able to determine "City X will have scattered showers and a temperature of X degrees Fahrenheit" past a two-week threshold (or so), extending the time to decades may still allow us the accuracy of saying "80% of hurricanes in the area will strike the eastern coast of Country X, and 10% of them will have winds exceeding XXX MPH".

      Who knows if it will work, though.

      --
      No comment.
    10. Re:Actually Useful by TrevorB · · Score: 1

      I believe I read somewhere that the effects of quantum mechanics make forcasts beyond 17 days physically impossible, even if you know the exact position and velocity of every molecule in the atmosphere and had a supercomputer the size of the universe and 10^N years of computation time.

    11. Re:Actually Useful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yeah?! Well, I read somewhere that "God does not play DICE" Moran!

  13. Yeah, but... by TechDogg · · Score: 2, Funny

    will that thing be able to predict when Godzilla will strike again? I think that Japenese people need that kind of information, IMHO.

    --
    Got MILF? It does a body good!
    1. Re:Yeah, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think version 2.0 is about to appear real soon now, or something...

  14. Well, I for one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    welcome our advanced future-weather-predicting overlords. It's obligatory!

  15. Too many different theories by DieNadel · · Score: 1

    How are they going to choose between the multitude of different climate-altering theories?

    Take just for example the world's temperature: are we going to have another Ice Age or a Hot Age? Just choosing one of them changes drastically the results of such experiment.

    The data they are using for such experiment is, I believe, reliable (since it is mostly historical data), but the question here is not which dataset to use as input but rather to which function should this input be applied.

    --
    Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
    1. Re:Too many different theories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Hot Age started in the early 70s, Baby.
      The Hot Age started when I got here to start it.
      My hottage started the Hot Age.

      Welcome to the Age of Hot.

      Spicy.

  16. Oh really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe they should tell their secret to my local weatherman, who usually can't even get tomorrow's weather right.

    I've found that over the years weather people have become increasingly good with the daily and even weekly forecasts. 30 year forecast? Maybe not, but perhaps the time has come to lay off the local weather guy. Even in the face of constant ridicule, he's made slow and steady progress and I say that now, in 2006 he's arrived. What do you say folks, can we all stop making fun of weathermen yet?

    1. Re:Oh really? by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      No, actually we shouldn't. There have been numerous times this year (I can think of no less than 8 separate instances off the top of my head) that the 24 hour forcast was abyssmally wrong. Rain when it was supposed to be sunny and visa versa, snowfall estimates off by 300% or more, temperatures off by 10 degrees or more, and the like. When I listen to the 7am news and it's going to be mostly sunny with a 20% chance of showers in my area during the morning, and it's overcast with a steady drizzle from my home and most of the 50 mile commute to the office - which was just down the street from the news station - I call bullshit on the $X million they spent last year. Cut the "meteorologist" a fucking window in his office, and he could probably tack an extra 10% onto his accuracy rating.

      No, we've still got a long way to go. They might be able to predict 10 days to 2 weeks out, but unless you live in SoCal, the accuracy of the latter half are rarely worth the money spent on the RF transmission. (SoCal weather - now there's a racket. 10 months of the year, you could just say "sunny and breezy on the coast, hot in the valley" and be done with it. January and february are a little more tricky, but if you jsut say sunny everyday, you've got a 75% chance of being right anyway, and throw in a "possible showers" and you've got it covered)

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  17. Not again... by Onuma · · Score: 1

    Japanese are planning 30 year forecasts?! That's insanity. This "finding the meanings within The Da Vinci Code" bullshit is going WAY too far!

    --
    What else can happen when an unstoppable force collides with an immovable object?
  18. Tomorrow vs 30 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The difference between predicting tomorrow's weather and the wether over the next 30 years is precision. For tomorrow's weather, you want specifics about whether it is going to rain within a pretty narrow window. If these folks are only aiming for general trends over the next 30 years (e.g. "we expect a 3-5 dry spell starting in about 2 years", "we predict 30% fewer large hurricanes in the late 2010's compared with the early 2010's" etc) it's a different issue. Nobody is claiming they will be able to say "On August 1 2023 Miami will be hit by a category 5 hurricane" or "Osaka will get x.xx inches of rain in February 2011".

    Even if I can't predict what will happen on the next pull of the slot machine, I can still predict that if I play for 12 hours straight I'm pretty much going to end up broke.

    1. Re:Tomorrow vs 30 years by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1
      Even if I can't predict what will happen on the next pull of the slot machine, I can still predict that if I play for 12 hours straight I'm pretty much going to end up broke.
      Yet if you play the right machines (the ones programmed to pay out more often) and you only play progressive machines, you're right that over a 12-hour period you're likely to end up broke. But over several lifetimes, you're likely to end up positive. The hard part is the discipline -- only playing the good machines, and sitting tight until they become available; and keeping at it while the losses pile up before the payout. The not-quite-so-hard-but-still-not-easy part is recognizing which machines to play. This is, of course, assuming you've got the seed cash to cover the investment and living expenses.
      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
  19. Yes another person by sholden · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Who can't see that climate and weather are two different things.

    1. Re:Yes another person by Petersson · · Score: 2, Funny
      Climate or weather, whatever. I'm joining The Big Jump For Nicer Weather in less than 20 hours.

      http://www.worldjumpday.org/

      --
      I'm not insane. My mother had me tested.
  20. It's the journey, not the destination by Bueller_007 · · Score: 1

    The point is likely not to get a 30-year weather prediction system up and running, it's to fund technological research. I'm sure they know damn well that they will never be able to accomplish this 30-year prediction system. I mean, they will probably make a lot of headway on the subject, but basically, the government is just channeling public funds into private companies and universities. Think of it as corporate welfare.

    America does this all the time, but its approach is often military-based. Ever heard of Star Wars?

    Japan, however, does not have the "luxury" of doing a lot of military research, as their constitution specifically forbids war as a means of solving international disputes. So they come up with equally zany schemes, like this one.

  21. Local weatherman accuracy by LordKazan · · Score: 2, Informative

    check the accuracy of the national weather service forecasts - they tend to be highly accurate (temperature +-5 degrees F, other conditions very high accuracy)

    accuracy tends to extend very well out to the 3-day period and acceptably well to the 7-day

    --
    If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
  22. They must have a crystal ball... by Chabil+Ha' · · Score: 1

    because there is so much more to the weather than just analyzing atmospheric trends. For instance, are they taking into consideration the fact that volcano eruptions can play a large part in changing conditions? Maybe their computer will predict eruptions too. Are they taking in considerations of anomolous behaviors from the sun, such as solar flares, etc. that may influence patterns? Or maybe the effect a metorite has while passing through the atmosphere. Now we're predicting things that are independent of anything originating from Earth itself.

    Yeah, must be a crystal ball...

    --
    We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
  23. What the hell? by Capt'n+Hector · · Score: 2, Insightful
    "Whatever happened to chaos?" That's the whole point. That's why you need a supercomputer. From the article:

    The results will help establish predictable routes for typhoons and identify areas that are recurring targets for heavy rains, abundant snow, high waves, heavy winds, scorching heat or crop-threatening droughts.

    This seems very reasonable. They're not trying to predict the weather on the third Tuesday in March, 2025, they're trying to establish long-term trends.
    --
    Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
    Africus aut Europaeus?
    1. Re:What the hell? by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      But isn't the whole point of chaos that you can't predict the outcome no matter how may supoercomputers you throw at it? Those decimal places have to stop at some point in a computer, and the digits beyond that are the seeds of eventual chaos.

    2. Re:What the hell? by aminorex · · Score: 1

      I don't think that's "the whole point" of chaos. There's probably a number of points, such as demonstrating that the limits of the knowable, while real, are not fixed, or providing a source of creative new combinations of matter or ideas, or making that fuzzy sound in a guitar chord, or giving me a cool job title.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    3. Re:What the hell? by kfg · · Score: 1

      This seems very reasonable.

      No. It doesn't.

      Let's take the simplest possible uncertain event, the tossing of a coin. Try to build a model that can predict clustering trends into the future. Go ahead, try it. You can do it on an 8088.

      You can't do it any better on a supercomputer.

      Which is to say you can't do it at all with any amount of computing power, because historical trends of clustering have no effect on future clustering. To a human mind they look like they do, due to our innate tendency to build patterns out of nothing, which might lead you take the project seriously. Casinos make their living off of this.

      There are certain cyclic phenomena that you can sort of, kind of, if you squint real hard and don't expect anything like precision, "predict," like sunspot cycles, at least in the sense that you know they really exist, for now at least. Sunspot cycles are climate and prone to do unexpeted things, resulting in unpredictable solar weather, leading to unpredictable. . .

      Predicting climate by predicting climate rather begs the question, don't you think?

      And then there are the thousands of uncertainties on the coin toss level that can all noticably effect the weather. Not one of these can be predicted, never mind all of them at once.

      Climate prediction models are just very expensive, computerized chickens guts. It's pure scrying. The finding of patterns where there aren't any and trying to match them to future illusory patterns.

      But by falling pray to the Gambler's Fallacy "scientists" believe that they can build a climate prediction model; all they need is more data and to massage the model to match it; a process that it turns out cannot even predict the past the model is specifically built around. It's an endless; and pointless, cycle in its own right.

      These people do not need more data. They need to go back and take Probability 101 again, because they obviously didn't get it the first time around.

      predictable routes for typhoons

      Across the Pacific.

      identify areas that are recurring targets for heavy rains

      The lee side of the mountains on the lee coast.

      abundant snow

      The tops of those mountains.

      high waves

      Cape Horn, where the wind has lots of scope.

      heavy winds

      Where the wind has lots of scope.

      scorching heat

      In the sun.

      or crop-threatening droughts

      On the weather side of the mountains.

      Much beyond that, toss a coin . . and try to predict it.

      KFG

    4. Re:What the hell? by Capt'n+Hector · · Score: 1

      Chaos != Entropy. There IS a difference. The "whole point" of chaos theory is that you CAN extract predictibility from a seemingly entropic system.

      --
      Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
      Africus aut Europaeus?
    5. Re:What the hell? by Capt'n+Hector · · Score: 1

      This is not about tossing a coin. Chaos is by definition deterministic. That means you can predict it. In the same way you can't predict a coin toss before it happens, you CAN predict a coin toss (with a sufficiently large computer, c.f. the article) by observing the coin right as it leaves the hand, as it's flying/spinning/etc through the air. Read the wikiepdia entry on chaos.

      --
      Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
      Africus aut Europaeus?
    6. Re:What the hell? by kfg · · Score: 1

      I've been reading about choas theory since before it was even called that.

      I've also personally measured a lot of coin tosses.

      . . .by observing the coin right as it leaves the hand

      You are confused about the difference between weather and climate. Weather is what you can see "as it leaves the hand." Climate is the "coin toss" before it happens.

      This computer is ostensibly trying to predict climate from past "tosses." Its model is built on statistical analysis, not observational mechanics.

      Even simple weather is as yet unpredictiable. Many times when you think the weatherman "got it right" he didn't really. You are simply engaging in the sort of selective observation that makes cold readers a living. If he says you have a 60% chance of getting hit by a thunderstorm and you do, you count that as a correct "prediction" and if you don't you count it as an incorrect prediction.

      But he didn't predict you would get hit by a thunderstorm at all. He predicted that "someone" vaguely in your area might get hit by a thunderstorm.

      Anytime a "prediction" is couched in terms of chance it is subject to the laws of . . .chance, because the prediction was founded in the first place upon those laws.

      Trust me, the output of this computer is going to be couched in the terms of chance, because they not only cannot observe the coin as it leaves the hand, they do not even have accurate knowledge of the deterministic laws at work after it does so.

      All they have is a statistical analysis of past "trends," but if you actually look at those trends you find that they are, in fact, indistinguishable from chance.

      Predicition is hard business, even about the past, but the past has the advantage of being relatively testable.

      Call me back when their model can predict the past. Before it can do that it isn't ready to even begin predicting the future, except by scrying.

      KFG

  24. Ha! by Timesprout · · Score: 0

    Just wait till Godzilla eats this so called super computer, then once again confusion as to the weather 10 years hence will reign.

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
  25. Japanese priorities out of whack? by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 1

    I certainly hope this doesn't divert resources away from research into giant humanoid robots.

  26. It all depends on your assumptions by MarkusQ · · Score: 3, Funny

    It all depends on your assumptions. Look at Venus. The weather there is dead simple to predict. Heavily overcast, highs in the mid 900's, with poisonous smog in low lying areas through the weekend.

    The only reason the Earth's weather seems hard to predict now is that we haven't (yet) experienced a run-away feedback loop. If you posit that we're starting into one, making accurate daily forecasts thirty years out will be much easier than sticking around to see how well you did.

    --MarkusQ

    1. Re:It all depends on your assumptions by clickety6 · · Score: 1

      It all depends on your assumptions. Look at Venus. The weather there is dead simple to predict. Heavily overcast, highs in the mid 900's, with poisonous smog in low lying areas through the weekend.

      So just like LA in August...

      --
      ----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
    2. Re:It all depends on your assumptions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Look at Venus. The weather there is dead simple to predict. Heavily overcast, highs in the mid 900's, with poisonous smog in low lying areas through the weekend.


      Is it just me, or does Venus sound like L.A. feels?

    3. Re:It all depends on your assumptions by Prof.Phreak · · Score: 1

      The only reason the Earth's weather seems hard to predict now is that we haven't (yet) experienced a run-away feedback loop.

      You mean like building a supercomputer that heats the earth that raises a need for yet hotter supercomputer?

      --

      "If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy

  27. My forecast by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 0

    My 30-year weather forecast: Slightly cloudy with a 20% chance of rain. Highs in the 90s. I'll check this post in 2036 to see how I did.

    --
    This guy's the limit!
    1. Re:My forecast by ReidMaynard · · Score: 1

      Let me add..hot and very humid..due mostly to billions of additional sweaty humans.

      --
      -- www.globaltics.net

      Political discussion for a new world

  28. Easy by revery · · Score: 0

    Long-term weather prediction is really easy. It's getting the computer model of the butterfly right that's really hard...

  29. A Few Things by Hoplite3 · · Score: 4, Informative

    1) The computer will be doing CLIMATE modeling, not weather prediction. That's a different bird. It's like the difference between the average score on a test and your score on the test. Or like describing the flow of heat, but not knowing the underlying collisions that result in the transfer of energy.

    2) Higher precision does help you model chaotic systems longer, but... If you run your model until the difference between your prediction and the actual system is larger than a tolerance, the time when this happens is called the horizon time. If you improve your accuracy (let's say your computer system is perfect and errors only occur in getting the initial state right), you only improve the horizon time as the LOG of your improvement. In an age where quadratic methods are just adequate in scientific computing, this is unbearable.

    3) Another weather (not climate) prediction option is to use a statistical cohort model. Such a model just takes in data and tries to predict what will happen next based on past trends. It doesn't know any physics, and can take a while to train. This means that the cohort you train in London is useless in Paris. Such "models" often beat physical models in predictive ability, but don't give any insight into why. If you want to fly a plane, they're fine. If you want to do science, see (1) or (2).

    Also, this computer is way, way cooler than the one predicting nuclear bomb blasts. But that's, just like, my opinion, man.

    --
    Use the Firehose to mod down Second Life stories!
    1. Re:A Few Things by KylePflug · · Score: 1
      Such "models" often beat physical models in predictive ability, but don't give any insight into why. If you want to fly a plane, they're fine. If you want to do science, see (1) or (2).

      I'm a pilot, and I'm confused...

      Care to elaborate?
    2. Re:A Few Things by aminorex · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sure. A condition of confusion is inherent in being a pilot. You can become less confused by switching to another hobby, such as being a logician, or a gynecologist. Did that help?

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    3. Re:A Few Things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does "statistical cohort" weather forecasting go under another name? Google didn't turn up much. I've often wondered how well you could do weather forecasting for a specific town using memory-based learning AI techniques.

    4. Re:A Few Things by flyneye · · Score: 0

      Thats just it,isnt it?Algorithmically predict ever changing algorithms,weed out the near misses and hope you find pattern in chaos,but whoops,pattern changed,trash the last prediction.Well lets get a Meta computer to thrash out when chaos changes and how then we can predict the predictable prediction,whoops damn we need a Meta meta computer to predict the chaos that inserts the chaos in the chaos.whoops that doesn't seem to predict the chaos that affects the chaotic chaos in the secodary chaos.Roll out the MeTa Meta meta cluster(this will take a cluster so please tax the people more so we can afford it)We will have your answer shortly.
      time passes......
      O.K. The climate is going to change quickly if we don't stop all industry immmediatly.In the United States anyway.A swift redistribution of wealth is needed to offset heatwaves and melting ice caps in 3rd world countries.If the U.S. doesn't stop their looting of the environment,all the children will die.See what climate prediction can tell us!It allows us to pretend we have an important career,pretend to care,pretend we are expert,but mostly it allows us an excuse to claim injury so we can continue to pressure the U.S. to give up sovereignty and let us loot the U.S.for the resources it worked 200+ years to build,and we can just take it without having to work like those fools did.No reason for individuals to accumulate wealth through their own sweat.The Government knows best and no one who is poor should have to toil, after all,Governments are here to care for their people,take care of them,feed them,cloth them,raise their children,provide purpose for the individual.If we can't have what the U.S. has,then neither can they.BTW send money for our META MeTa Meta meta computer,fast!Our air of self righteous intellegence is dissapating!

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    5. Re:A Few Things by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      I'm a pilot, and I'm confused... Care to elaborate?
      In aviation you only care about accuracy. A cohort model of weather prediction provides a more accurate forcast, but gives absolutely no insight into the why and how of it. For a pilot, that's fine. A pilot only wants to know if the weather is going to be conducive to flying. Scientists don't really care what the weather is, their job is to figure out why it's that way.
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    6. Re:A Few Things by letxa2000 · · Score: 1
      AI? I would think this could be done by running Bayesian statistics on current conditions and current conditions of every weather station within X miles. If you want the prediction for tomorrow, run the Bayesian stats that take into account everything within, say, 600 miles. Two days, 1200 miles, etc. I wouldn't be at all surprised that with a sufficiently large historical dataset, Bayesian statistics would be able to do quite well.


      It's amazing how much "smarter" simple statistics can be than our own feeble attempts at intelligence and reasoning.


    7. Re:A Few Things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Memory-based learning is essentially statistics (multiple regression). Throwing Bayesian statistics at it isn't going to help since the model (likelihood function) is ill-specified, unless you are trying to do nonparametric statistics.

    8. Re:A Few Things by KylePflug · · Score: 1

      Gotchya. It's worth noting, though, that even general aviation pilots are trained in a good deal of basic meteorology, and not at all in cohort analysis. Yes, the goal is 'merely' to obtain a functional knowledge of what it will be like, but you will frequently see pilots checking temperature/dewpoint spreads, looking at doppler images, keeping eyes on fronts and whatnot; you won't see them with a hundred printed pages of cohort analysis.

      It may be what the METARs are made from, but the average private pilot is more likely making barely educated guesses based on elementary meteorology than on cohort analysis.

    9. Re:A Few Things by Hoplite3 · · Score: 1

      I think you misunderstand me. The point of cohort analysis versus the more physical differential equation models is that they take known conditions and predict future ones. For short times -- a few days -- both can predict the weather on a grid of locations very well, but neither can be done practically by hand. The data your referring to (doppler images, etc) are the input to these algorithms. If you're getting information from these programs, its coming to you as forecasts -- generalized to cover larger areas.

      I'm not a weather scientist, but the last talk I attended on the subject indicated that these systems can provide very specific climate information in three dimensions. They don't just care where a storm is, but they want to be able to track in detail the evolution of a storm by knowing the full fluid flow. It's probably the coolest and most ambitious computational fluid dynamics project ever undertaken.

      --
      Use the Firehose to mod down Second Life stories!
  30. Damn.. by metushelach · · Score: 1

    There goes my vacation planning for July 2029.

  31. Japanese Research by ch-chuck · · Score: 1

    Maybe they can build it on stuff from the Fifth Generation project.

    --
    try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
  32. Secret by bigtimepie · · Score: 1
    Maybe they should tell their secret to my local weatherman
    Come on... the title itself says they used a super-computer. Just get your weatherman one of those.
  33. Predicting? In Japan? by should_be_linear · · Score: 1

    Considering state of North Korean nuclear program, Japan need only 4-5 year weather forcast computer.

    --
    839*929
  34. Climate vs Weather by NockPoint · · Score: 1
    This is not a weather prediction. This is a fine grain climate prediction.

    Chaos limits weather prediction to around a few weeks. A weather prediction is specific: such as clear today, clouding up overnight and raining tomorrow.

    Chaos does not limit climate prediction. Chaos means that a tiny difference in starting state will grow to a large difference, however, the starting state does not change the statistics of the future states. A climate prediction is not specific: 33% chance of rain on this date.

    The same weather model could be used for both weather prediction and climate prediction. If I did 100 runs of a model starting with 100 slightly different guesses as to the current state of the weather system, the answers would be very similar for about 1 week (that's weather), and if the model is fairly good as modern models are, then the real weather would be fairly close as well. By four weeks all the model runs would be fairly different, and only. If I continued the 100 runs for 30 years of modeled time and collected the statistics, I would have a statistical climate prediction.

    Of course, I could also look at the real climate for the past 30 years and also have have the statistics of climate. So why would I use the computer? The answer is that the climate is changing now, and will be changing faster in the future. It would be valuable to have an idea of the regional impacts of this change. Should London be planning for 40C every summer by 2035? Or 45C?

    -- Sig mirror rorrim giS

  35. Read between the lines by bigtimepie · · Score: 1
    "Japan is planning ultra long-range...typhoons, storms, blizzards, droughts and other inclement weather."
    Now THAT would be a supercomputer! I wonder if it can predict the answer to life?
    1. Re:Read between the lines by flyneye · · Score: 0

      Sounds more like someone exaggerated their math skills and made magnificent claims in order to get funding for a project that would ensure their employment for a time.Same old bullshit,different country.Seems to infect mostly greeny global warming types,but in my years I've seen many types of research facilities pull the same snake oil.Particularly Colleges.
      Whoever believes this computer will accuratly predict weather beyond a couple weeks,go stand on your head in the corner and be counted.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    2. Re:Read between the lines by TheChromaticOrb · · Score: 1
      Now THAT would be a supercomputer! I wonder if it can predict the answer to life?
      42.
      --
      Note to self: get a sig.
    3. Re:Read between the lines by QMO · · Score: 1

      Don't confuse the Earth Simulator with Deep Thought (or the Great Hyperlobic Omnicognate Neutron Wrangler either, for that matter).

      Deep Thought helped design the Earth, not simulate it after the fact.

      --
      Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
  36. Giant Meteor Chaos by digitaldc · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Yeah, but can it predict the gigantic meteor hurling towards Earth at 25 miles per second?

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
  37. In other news... by silverbax · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    In other news, Benjamin Franklin publishes the Poor Richard's Almanac...

  38. Why not reference the AP directly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mark me "Troll"

    Although this story came from the Associated Press, you should think twice about posting a "Science" topic referencing a website that among others, uses "Fox News", "Drudge Report" and "Daily Gut" as serious and unbiased news sources.

    What you'll get at Breitbart.com is most likely what the Bush Administration wants you to get.

  39. Long period weather oscillations... by mikael · · Score: 3, Interesting

    According to this website on paleoclimatology, there are some long period weather oscillations such as:

    the El Niño -Southern Oscillation (ENSO) - 6 to 18 months,

    the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) - 20 to 30 years

    the Pacific-North American Oscillation (PNA) - 3 to 10 years

    the The North Atlantic Oscillation NAO - 5 to 10 years

    the Artic Oscillation (AO)- 5 to 10 years

    the Antartic Oscillation (AAO) - 5 to 10 years

    Paleoclimatologists have the records of weather condifions going back thousands of years using information such as tree rings, snow, lava, and seed deposits.

    If the researchers could develop a long timescale atmospheric simulator that could replicate this data, then maybe they could predict general trends 30 years into the
    future. Although unpredictable events such as earthquakes and volcanos) make things
    bit harder, although they will probably run a large number of possible scenarios
    before making any conclusions.

    --
    Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    1. Re:Long period weather oscillations... by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      "Paleoclimatologists have the records of weather condifions going back thousands of years using information such as tree rings, snow, lava, and seed deposits."

      Don't forget the gold standard of past atmospheres, ice cores.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    2. Re:Long period weather oscillations... by Captain+Sarcastic · · Score: 1

      Do they make any mention of the bi-annual creation of hot air known as the U.S. Federal Elections?

      --
      Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
    3. Re:Long period weather oscillations... by fremsley471 · · Score: 1

      The Arctic Oscillation and the North Atlantic, are roughly the same thing- NAO is the major chord of the AO. Neither of them are true 'oscillations', more statistical averages. The PNA is basically governed by ENSO. Seen little relevance in the AAO (await correction with thanks). PDO is the tricky one- found by a fish scientist (climatologist envy?), it governs the largest energies of any of the systems- but what does it do (ditto on the thanks)? ENSO is the big one- a true hemispheric mass transfer, global teleconnections, on an interannual timescale. Can we predict it? No. Do we know what actually causes it (some good guesses of course)? No. Of course next to volcanism, this is all minor league stuff. The skies are awfully clear right now, and another Pinatoubo, Agung, Krakatoa etc., will make a real difference to climate.

    4. Re:Long period weather oscillations... by MasterC · · Score: 1
      If the researchers could develop a long timescale atmospheric simulator that could replicate this data, then maybe they could predict general trends 30 years into the future.


      The weather is a stochastic system with a limited set of known patterns. Extrapolation doesn't work so well with such systems. If it did the stock market would be closed because the risk would go to near zero.

      On the other hand, I would be interested to see how well their algorithms would predict today's weather from only -30 years, -20 years, -10 years, or -5 years from now. If they can't do good at all for predicting today then 2036 prediction will be meaningless.
      --
      :wq
  40. just in time by 72Nova · · Score: 1

    the simulation will finish in 2036

  41. Supercomputer by certel · · Score: 1

    How is a supercomputer going to predict the weather in 30 years?

    1. Re:Supercomputer by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      it won't, please see all the "climate ain't weather, moron" posts.

  42. Who Needs Supercomputers by aquatone282 · · Score: 1

    . . . when we have Al Gore?

    --
    What?
  43. The usefulness of predictions by Hoser+of+the+Valley · · Score: 1

    Will predicting the weather in 2036 cause the weather in 2036 to change? Not from a Heisenberg/limits of observation way, but from a Toynbee Convector way. Will the prediction suggest an outcome that we don't like, and push us to make changes?

    But of course, we have existing reliable predictions that suggest long-term warming, and we're just squabbling over their accuracy. Maybe instead of looking at this rationally, we should just dress the damn thing up as an oracle and ask it about the meaning of life.

  44. Cyclical Thinking? by pr0digy25 · · Score: 1

    Is it just me or is the title of TFA slightly misleading... Japan Plans 30-Year Supercomputer Forecasts How many others thought they were forecasting the growth of supercomputers of the next 30 years?

    1. Re:Cyclical Thinking? by Mocow · · Score: 1

      yes

      --
      Life is simple, but we insist on making it complicated.
  45. Sort of like WOPR, but for weather! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The simulations are designed to help understand weather large-scale interactions that occur from different climate factors. It's sort of like WOPR - it just computes a whole bunch of what-if scenarios and play them out...

  46. Climate forecast != whether forecast by Kjella · · Score: 1

    Whether forecasts try to accurately predict what will happen.
    Climate forecasts try to accurately predict the probability that something will happen.

    For those of you that don't understand the butterfly effect, it is an ustable element in an overall stable system. Sahara isn't going to become a rain forest just because a butterfly start flapping. So what are climate forecasts for? Obviously not planning your 50th birthday party a few decades in advance.

    Examples:
    Hydro power: More rain, less rain, more unstable, more stable?
    Extreme whether: Zoning, building codes, flood protection, emergency preparations
    Wind: Windmill farms
    Environmentalism: Pollution, effect on wildlife
    Sociopolitical: Changing climate, e.g. if the gulf stream stopped Europe would be a pretty cold place, raising sea levels...
    Argiculture: Sun days, crops

    I'm sure there's plenty more good reasons to keep track of the climate, but they have nothign to do with weather prediction as such.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  47. 30-year WEATHER predictions. by QMO · · Score: 1

    My comptuer can do 30-year weather predictions just fine.
    You have to understand, though, that weather prediction is different than climate prediction.
    You should also realize that my computer is a little slower than the Earth Simulator.

    So, contingent on funding, I'll need a little time.
    I think I can have one ready in about 35 years.

    --
    Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
  48. No Way in Hell by fernandoh26 · · Score: 0

    Bullsh*t, weather is such a chaotic system that any attempts to model it will fail MISERABLY, regardless of computing power.

    I'm certain that even if ever single computing device on the planet worked on this calculation for years and years, there is still no way it could be accurate. The only real way to model it would be to model the entire solar system down to the quantum (perhaps even sub-quantum level). The resultant computing device would need to store information about every single atom in the solar system. What this boils down to is that no one can predict the weather because the machine used to predict it would itself change weather patterns by changing the heat/number of atoms in the solar system.

    Now if you build it way out in the interstellar void.... then maybe.... but it will only predict weather until next week! =P

    --
    Chums up, let's do this!
  49. Will it test political theories too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reminds me of A Mind Forever Voyaging...

  50. what? by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    This sounds incredibly stupid.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  51. 30 year forecast? by mmalove · · Score: 1

    It's all pretty easy to predict after the nuclear war:

    year 16: bleak
    year 17: bleak
    year 18...

    Seriously though, more and more scientists and even politicians are waking up to the fact that humankind is constantly changing its environment. Some are saying that the small rises in global temperatures these past couple years may have triggered the increase in hurricane activity and strength we are seeing. Makes sense to me - from a laymans point of view higher temperature = more energy = stronger storm.

    As we consume more and more energy, and our ability to shape our environment ever increases, I could see a 30 year simulation as being a good tool for arguing for more green policies, but I don't see it being that good for predicting the next "big one". The intelligent practice would be that if you live in an earthquake prone zone, you build things to withstand earthquakes, not wait until just before you think one's going to strike. Same with hurricanes, tsunamies, etc. If you can't construct something that can withstand it, construct something you can move out of harms way.

    --
    You can get 15 minutes of fame, but you can go down in history for infamy.
  52. It's called "hindcasting", actually. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Hindcasting" (i.e. the fun word coined to be the inverse of "forecasting") is used all the time in meteorology and climatology. They buld their models, and then plug in historical data to see how well the models predict the known outcomes. (I suppose it's somewhat like reading the comments on a /. poll and then guessing whether the Dread Pirate Roberts will have won.)

  53. Why Do We Sound So Stupid? by wolff000 · · Score: 1

    I would say this is where the more intellectual people hang out on the web, yet over half our posts seem to come from people with thier heads shoved so far up thier ass they are approaching thier own mouths. Now granteed shoving your head that far up your own ass is a very impressive feat it doesn't have anything to do with /. or its content. Anyways haven't we been predicting weather for years in advance rather accurately for a very long time. The world almanac comes to mind. I know almanacs are just rough estimates and only for the coming year or so but it seems this could be applied to a superccomputer to get rough estimates for even farther ahead. Of course the data won't be 100% but isn't even the tinies bit of a warning better than nothing? I far one feel better knowing that the gov is at least trying then just saying "Screw it, it's weather and we can't predict it." Besides even if the data is completely wrong, data is data and it will be useful to the piont of at least figuring out what we missed. For those that seem to have forgotten the Wright brothers didn't fly on thier first attempt, remember people science is all trial and error we rarely get it right the first time.

    --
    WTF?
  54. Governmental "Chaos" by Diamond+Tree · · Score: 2, Informative

    OTOH, this sounds to me, like the very predictable scenario of "the uncuttable budget". Having lived in Japan for 3 years I learned that government budgets, once granted, are inviolable for *eternity*. Why do you think they still do MagLev research in spite of every one else in the world having long since abandoned it? The budget for MagLev research is uncuttable. Until that money can be absorbed by another department in some face-saving way, MagLev research will continue.

    Probably there's a budget item somewhere that planned for a certain amount of money to be spent on computer-based weather prediction. This budget is now uncuttable. Any bureaucrat who does not spend their full budget is toast - he (most likely it's a 'he') will never be allowed into a position of budgetary authority again.

    If you go to the Ministry of Finance without having spent all your budget you run the significant risk of having it cut the next year. This is a "career-limiting move." Since bureaucrats cannot, at least as a practical matter, be fired by the Prime Minister (remember Reagan firing all the air traffic controllers?) these budgets exist for all time.

  55. The Butterfly Effect by ptelligence · · Score: 1

    I hope there's a butterfly in there somewhere.

  56. Forcasters can't do same day weather forcasts. by Brit_in_the_USA · · Score: 1
    Maybe they should tell their secret to my local weatherman, who usually can't even get tomorrow's weather right.


    Tomorrows weather you say?

    I had a situation two winters ago here in MA (USA) where I checked the weather.com forecast at 8am (which said sunny all day) and by 11pm an inch of snow had already come down.

    That is completely wrong in a 3 hour forecast!

    Now that would not have been so bad if I hadn't just driven my rear wheel drive car to work... :-(
  57. In Soviet Russia... by SteveFoerster · · Score: 1

    ...weather forecasts you.

    --
    Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
  58. Actually by Asprin · · Score: 1


    I don't understand you guys sometimes with all your griping about weather predicitions and TV news and all.

    The factors that affect weather predicitions on a small time scale are different from those that affect weather on long time scales. In fact, 0-48 hours is relatively easy to forecast based on extrapolating local conditions and observations. Long-term trends (on the order of magnitude of years) are also relatively easy to forecast (see The Farmer's Almanac, El Nino and Typhoon cycles etc. for evidence...) The big problem is the middle of those two, between 48 hours and 1 year, where the nonlinear aspects of weather have the most sensitivity to initial conditions.

    P.S. IANAM, but I read a few articles about Chaos and nonlinear dynamics in college. Since I have a degree in physics, that qualifies me to comment on almost anything. ;) (wink, nudge....)


    --
    "Lawyers are for sucks."
    - Doug McKenzie
  59. Rivers and seas boiling! by blueZ3 · · Score: 1

    40 years of darkness, earthquakes, volcanos... the dead rising from the grave... human sacrifice, dogs and cats, living together...

    mass hysteria!

    --
    Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
  60. A computer can not do random event calculations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bet the best they can do is predict tomorrows weather accurately.

    Anon

  61. The local weatherman? You mean NOAA by iamlucky13 · · Score: 1
    which are the main variables your local forecaster uses to try and predict weather trends

    Um, yeah...I'm pretty sure your local forecaster just looks at the temperature, pressure, and humidity maps provided by NOAA and says, "gee, that's high pressure and it's warm and wet. There's low pressure over here so I think that's going to move onshore and it'll be 54 and cloudy with a 62.7% chance of rain." Or depending where you actually get your weather, he just goes to NOAA.gov, types in the zip code, then spends the rest of the day preparing his fancy animations of the jet stream for the 7 o'clock news.

    Anyway, I seriously doubt the scientists involved in this project have any delusions about telling us when good days are for a picnic in upstate New York in July of 2036. Right now we're at the point of predicting El Nino's and La Nina's based on looking at the long term patterns and comparing those to the ocean temperatures. Compared to the fantastic summary, this project is no doubt more along the lines of those predictions, but carried out further and perhaps made a little more specific. Instead of planning for El Nino weather to be slightly warmer and wetter in continental climate areas (if I remember right) this summer, they might tell us to expect average highs in the American midwest to be 1-2 degrees higher with 10% more rainfall than the average during July of 2010.

    Personally, I'm more interested in extending the current 1 week forecasts out to a month or more and increasing the accuracy of short term forecasts. I think it's possible to make reasonable approximations of most of the effects you list. Then again, with articles like this, who knows what they're really up to.

  62. This is a good use of computing power by palindromic · · Score: 1

    What we need are more doomsday predictions about some future event based on a computer model of something with trillions more variables than are actually included...

    Are these the same scientists whose models all conclude that global warming is the result of human activity? That "the debate is over" ?

    I'm running SimEarth right now and by my calculations all these storms are caused by an infestation of hippie non-scientists growing coffee in the shade of an organic ginkgo tree which is causing it to release far less oxygen than it normally would, thus saturating the environment with 'greenhouse gasses' DUDE.

  63. Tsunami? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm going to be darned impressed if they can predict tsunamis based on climate models.

  64. isnt it a bit too much by kasgoku · · Score: 1

    i mean a couple of years is good enough for prepare for a disaster... 30 years...looks like the japanese are up to something.

  65. Thinly veiled attempt by the Japanese... by Sansanjuan · · Score: 1

    They mean to corner the corn market. "My corns are acting up" is a well know precursor to advancing low pressure systems. Armed with 30 years of upcoming "aching corn" knowledge they will be able to target market their national "Corn Crusher" anti-corn product to populations predisposed to this affliction. e.g. "Marsha Brady (Ames, Iowa), you're corns are going to experience throbbiing corn pain Thursday, Aug 2 due to an encroaching low pressure system. Shouldn't you be crushing your corns with Corn Crusher now? Paypal 32Y to Corn Crusher Industries Akido, Japan and we'll rush out our specialized impliments."

  66. Already Being Done by statmobile · · Score: 1

    OK fellas, let's take it easy judging the Japanese on their attempts to model the environment. This stuff is already being done all over the place, especially in the US.

    I'm a PhD student in Statistics, and I do a lot of work with the Environmental Sciences. While I am no expert on their Climate Models, I do use their results frequently with my statistical models. There are essentially two kinds of models

    1. Global Climate Models (GCMs) which are numerical models trying to predict the effects of any potential environmental changes. They're quite useful for going far into the future, but there is no guarantee that they truly reflect what has happened in the past. CCSM is a model I am currently working with right now.

    2. Reanalysis Models which are similar to GCMs, but they take the time to compare its results with actual data observed from the past, making sure that it reflects the trends we have already seen. Bonus is accuracy, but I believe the drawback is how far in the future you can go. NCEP and NARCAAP for some examples I've been working with as well.

    Again, I am no expert of the actual details of the models, but you're free to read their sites to learn more.

  67. Bad journalism by uncadonna · · Score: 1

    Not bad science, just bad journalism.

    Chaos has not gone away, but the objective of the project is not to perdict specific weather events.

    Climate is the aggregate statistics of weather. The fact that we have a word "climate" indicates that such statistics are predictable to some extent. The Japanese are planning to try to get as far as is possible in predicting climate. This is not a thirty year weather prediction, and they know it.

    The fact that there is a language barrier and probably an incompetent journalist in the mix doesn't invalidate the project.

    --
    mt
  68. Errata by kfg · · Score: 1

    In the above, please transpose "lee" and "weather," because Lord knows I did.

    KFG

  69. *Climatological* research by Toon+Moene · · Score: 2, Informative

    > The results will help establish predictable routes for typhoons and identify areas
    > that are recurring targets for heavy rains, abundant snow, high waves, heavy winds,
    > scorching heat or crop-threatening droughts.

    In other words: What are probable areas where these phenomena occur and what are the most probable paths for those phenomena that are moving.

    The reason they take a 30 year period is not that they want to predict the weather 30 years in advance (that's ridiculous), but that they want realistic weather patterns over a 30 year period to match the standard World Meteorological Organization's 30 year period for defining "climate".

    E.g., the current "climate" knowledge of the WMO is (the average of) what happened between 1971 and 2000.

    Hope this helps,

  70. Re: Butterfly Effect by frankie · · Score: 1

    If they're doing this correctly, they aren't looking for individual points or even individual curves. They're (hopefully) trying to see the whole butterfly.

    Any particular chaotic equation with a stable set of forcing constants will end up with a semi-predictable structure. The problem is that the weather's input forces are changing. Even so, you should be able to solve how those changes distort the overall shape, with sufficient computing power.

  71. Ultra long 30 year weather forecasts... by It+doesn't+come+easy · · Score: 1

    ...updated daily.

    --
    The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
  72. Time to screw with the Japanese by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 1

    Everybody, point your vacuum cleaners west!

  73. They have something to worry about by theCat · · Score: 1

    I was about to say "WTF" to this story, then I stopped and thought about it. Clearly they are NOT modeling weather as such, but atmospheric patterns. This isn't even climate modeling; they just want to know what will happen if the sea starts to act in such-n-such a manner at some point. It's the same sort of data mining + modeling that gave us our understanding of the ENSO phenomenon in the southern Pacific. This stuff works.

    I took a look at a map of sea currents and noticed that the Japanese Current is a warm water current trending NE from off of China, and no doubt means a lot to the Japanese fishery, coastal weather, and their overall climate. In light of the issue right now with the similar California Current (ie, it's gone and nobody around here knows where it went) the Japanese are maybe wondering "gee, what would happen to us [and our southern neighbors][and the west coast US] if our offshore warm current failed?"

    In that context, 30 years is shorting things quite a bit, but I suppose with a puny computational engine like the Earth Simulator 30 years is about all one could expect. The interesting bits are probably 50 years out, but having 30 years to practice tuning your model (and building better engines) is likely a good use of the time.

    Maybe they'll be in a good position to tell those of us living in the United States of Denial which coastal region in North America is next in the queue to be smashed into flotsam and washed out to sea. Clearly the Bush administration doesn't care a fig.

    Note to self: subscribe to Earth Simulator RSS feed

    --
    =^..^= all your rodent are belong to us
  74. Chaos? by spudwiser · · Score: 1

    "Whatever happened to chaos?"

    Chaos was defeated in FF1, eesh.

    --
    .cig - what you do after winning a good flame war
  75. Define Chaos by udoschuermann · · Score: 1

    Chaos is just a measure of how much relevant information you lack.

    With all the relevant information at hand we could predict everything and anything.

    --
    --Udo.
  76. Skipping a step? by JohnWasser · · Score: 1

    Sounds like they are trying to make the Graphic Omniscient Device. Don't they have to build a H.A.R.L.I.E. first?

  77. I bet 30 years from now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes - exactly 30 years from now, it will be hot and dry in Sacramento, CA - above 90F
    at 3pm

  78. No way. by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

    Add all of these up and you may be able to predict the frequency and severity of storms, the probablility of different weather patterns, etc.

    And who is going to predict politics, e.g. the CO2 output of the US over the next 30 years?

    I call bullshit. You can't even predict the general climate without taking greenhouse gas emissions into account, let alone specific patterns. So... this is going to depend significantly on e.g. the next elections in the US. Is that outcome included in the simulations? I don't think so.

  79. What was the point of this post? by theStorminMormon · · Score: 1

    Really - what? I thought we'd established that being a grammar nazi for the sake of grammar - with no regard to communcation whatsoever - was of no interest to me. Your post highlights my point precisely. You can either have no regard for communication and end up with writing so gramatically compromised as to be unreadable or (on the other extrem) you can have no regard for communication and be such a grammar nazi that the meaning is lost in a mire of self-important editing.

    Or, you can actually care about meaning. Sure, some people care about meaning AND have great grammar. Kudos to them. But that's like a bonus. Icing on the cake. The point is to convey meaning. Everythign else is superflous. (yes - even spelling sometimes)

    - stormin

    --
    The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
    1. Re:What was the point of this post? by Kwiik · · Score: 1

      Re:The only thing more obnoxious than a smug know-it-all is a smug know-it-all that completely missed the point.

      --
      Vehicle Stars used car search is my current project
    2. Re:What was the point of this post? by theStorminMormon · · Score: 1

      So... what was the point?

      --
      The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.