Slashdot Mirror
Supercomputers Are Driving a Revolution In Hurricane Forecasting (arstechnica.com)
Ars Technica's Eric Berger reports of how dramatic increases in computer power have helped improve the accuracy of hurricane forecasts: Based upon new data from the National Hurricane Center for hurricanes based in the Atlantic basin, the average track error for a five-day forecast fell to 155 nautical miles in 2017. That is, the location predicted by the hurricane center for a given storm was just 155 nautical miles away from the actual position of the storm five days later. What is incredible about this is that, back in 1998, this was the average error for a two-day track forecast. In fact, the annual "verification" report released Wednesday shows that for the hyperactive 2017 Atlantic hurricane season -- which included the devastating hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria -- the National Hurricane Center set records for track forecasts at all time periods: 12-hour, 24-hour, and two-, three-, four- and five-day forecasts.
So where is this "revolution" you speak of?
pr0n and wAr3Z.
looking at goatse
Would Approve.
The 'error' is due to real hurricanes failing to comply with the NHC's demands. Young, budding hurricanes will be imaged and scrutinized in extreme graphic detail to force the fully-grown hurricanes to step into line. Don't even ASK about the NHC's usage of things like 'spinning', 'blowing' and 'torrential showers' to bend poor hurricanes to their will. What, you thought they did those things of their own free will?! The freedom fighters end up on Youtube, but the revolution will not be televised on The Weather Channel.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
The term AI usually is reserved for technologies that replicate what a human can do easily but a computer has yet to successfully perform.
If hurricane prediction could be done well by people, there would be no need for a computer unless there were was not enough people available in the job market to meet demand such as if too many hurricanes occurred simultaneously for humans to track.
That isn't what the term "AI" means.
I assume you either get paid to do this, or you simply can't be bothered to read up on the results from even a single model. Every model has a fairly large range, but - just like the hurricane predictions - that range has narrowed with time. In the 90s, some models even allowed for some cooling - but that result has disappeared as the uncertainty continues to get better. Every single model gives a somewhat different result, but they all now agree on a general upward trend. And when you use CO2 as an independent variable, all of the models agree that this has a very significant effect. Without exception (and if I'm mistaken, please correct me), every single scientist who has planted their stake on the "denial" side of the issue is NOT involved in actually building a climate model.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
So we have 3 extra days to save our stuff before our house gets destroyed.
That isn't what the term "AI" means.
It's exactly what it means - Artificial Intelligence has buggerall to do with iterating rules to reach a result.
How the phrase AI is used these days is a different matter, with it being flung around for any complicated or apparently complicated computer task. Hollywood movies and Murdoch era "journalists" must take much of the blame.
I assume you either get paid to do this, or you simply can't be bothered to read up on the results from even a single model.
It could be both.
Every model has a fairly large range, but - just like the hurricane predictions - that range has narrowed with time.
Our ability to correlate more data points has also increased with time, but there are diminishing returns - you certainly don't get twice as accurate with twice as much data crunched at the same time.
Wrong. Ask anyone who has ever studied AI. The first thing they tell you is that it has shit all to do with what humans can do.
All it is anything that lets a machine make automated decisions. A roomba is an AI.
A depth first search of a game space to determine the next move is an AI.
I would agree that a weather model is not an AI, since it's not making any decisions, merely predicting.
The end result is predicting.
But a weather model makes continues decisions (very much like moving NPCs around in a game) until a prediction is made.
Yet all the climate models agree very closely?
Global climate models have the advantage that they average the temperature for entire world for an entire month to output a single data point. That cancels out a lot of the chaotic details. A hurricane is a local phenomenon, and we're interested in a lot more fine detail which requires getting knee deep in chaos.
"The term AI usually is reserved for technologies that replicate"
What does that have to do with what I was responding to? Have I entered an alternate dimension?
Irma was forecast to go up off the east coast of Florida. Then the track moved westward until it was in the Gulf of Mexico. Then Irma's path moved back east before the storm finally came up the west coast of Florida. This caused many people from the east coast of Florida to evacuate to the west coast of Florida which was directly in the hurricane's path.
The forecasting is still not accurate enough for you to safely evacuate and stay in Florida. The majority of hotel rooms in Florida are on the coast. You can evacuate and find yourself in the direct path of the storm in a hotel on the beach.
While I applaud the efforts of all those involved in improving forecasts, when it comes to evacuations, this still isn't enough. Remember the last hurricane that hit Florida? If you do, you will also remember the gridlock on the highways heading north. The problem was the hurricane was predicted to hit south Florida but it veered north, and rolled over all the people that evacuated or were trying to evacuate. Luckily the storm had weakened.
My point is that 155 miles could mean the difference between some living and some dying because the potential affected area is so large our infrastructure can't handle the millions that are trying to get away from the storm. Additionally, if folks in a major metropolitan area like Miami or Jacksonville are motivated to leave, but the hurricane hits north or south, the folks that really need to leave can't.
I'm not sure what the solution is but we can't kid ourselves into thinking "yay, we are masters of the weather" because we aren't. Not even close.
can make a big difference in the impact.
A self-referential AI feedback loop.
n the 90s, some models even allowed for some cooling ...
In the 1890s? Considering that the late 1990s where amoung the hottest years on record, that does not really sound remotely plausible.
Where did you get your wisdom from? Any links with computer models that once predicted cooling? We have no computers old enough to have any cooling prediction
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
to output a single data point.
The main improvement is not really computers (or models) but the huge amount of data we now have, due to more sensor, more frequent reading of them, satellites and probes dropped by planes.
Of course it is a synergy effect as we now need super super computers to handle all that data.
Chaos is only a part of the problem.
It simply sucks to be in Florida. You have to accept that a hurricane can hit any coast of that small peninsula. Instead of evacuations, you simply need more shelters, but in a country that has no functioning government that seems illusional :D
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Eh, I live in South Florida and I love it. If every several years I have to evacuate for a few days, it's worth the 73 F, breezy nights in January. Honestly, evacuations themselves are often overkill, and local governments down here I think are swinging more around to the idea that a lot of people should just stay where they are located. Your standard concrete block building can handle hurricane force winds, even at Cat 5.
Our ability to correlate more data points has also increased with time, but there are diminishing returns - you certainly don't get twice as accurate with twice as much data crunched at the same time.
IIRC, certainty increases with the logarithm of the data set. To clarify further, that's not certainty of a specific answer, but certainty that the error bars are correct. The closer your dataset actually matches a known distribution, the more you can trust the standard deviations based on that distribution, but there is no promise that more data will reduce the size of a standard deviation.
Listen, same team.
I recall seeing error bars wide enough to include (at least momentary) cooling. If my recollection is faulty, my apologies - whether the warming was very slight or negative is not really germane to my point. The mean trends were always up, even when the low estimates of CO2 output were used. Remember that it wasn't until the late 90s that papers started to appear demonstrating that it was even _possible_ to separate anthropomorphic effects from natural effects.*
I think a reasonable person could still be an AGW skeptic in the 90s - now not so much.
* e.g. "The Potential Effect of GCM Uncertainties and Internal Atmospheric Variability on Anthropogenic Signal Detection", TIM P. BARNETT, et al
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Let us take a moment to remember the Earth Simulator, at its time it was the fastest super computer in the world and built specifically for global weather pattern simulations. Super computers obviously have come a long way since then, but this one specifically marked a major milestone in large computing power.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
FFS, you pop up for every article that mentions the term "AI" to post the same predictable lame insults. Now you're showing up for an article that doesn't even mention the term so you can bash it.
What's wrong? Did an AI steal your lunch when you were in grade school?
AGW is a proffen "science" since 1890 ... or was it 1870?
So no idea about what models and papers you are talking. I at least learned it in school in 1975 ... hard to imagine that schools in other countries were so backyard :D
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
The greenhouse effect was known, but AGW wasn't definitively isolated from natural warming until around the turn of the millenium. Though to be fair, most climate scientists already "knew" it and the ICC was giving greenhouse gas warnings as early as 1990.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Please show me a model that can take the climatic conditions of 1850 and correctly predict the observed climate of 1900.
Are you serious?
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
but AGW wasn't definitively isolated from natural warming until around the turn of the millenium.
In america.
As there is no other warming effect at the work right now, the rest of the world knows since 200 years that we have an increasing AGW problem.
However if you are aware of some "competing non human warming factors", post them, would be interesting :D
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Are you serious? You can't think of any non-human warming factors? I think I've stumbled into a religious or political argument.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
There aren't any non human warming factors on earth since millions of years.
Perhaps you want to check a book about it?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Me? You literally are talking out your ass. You went all rah-rah nationalistic on me, and now you are inventing a new history to support that absurd point of view. I'm beginning to think you are an AGW denier doing some kind of a false flag thing to make people who believe the science look like idiots.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
So, what would be a non human warming factor?
How would it affect the planet over a mere 2 centuries than over ten thousands of years as in history?
You did not bring one so far. No worries, there are none, so spare your time to google/search for it.
The whole AGW debate (the term alone is american) is an american thing, emerging somewhere around 1985 when some idiots in america complained that this all is a hoax. When actually was the IPCC founded? Hu?
An international science agency was founded because America denied AGW ... billions of dollars poured into it just to react to the "suspicion" of anti science american ideologists.
And now: America is turning it around! You see, the IPCC needs to publish this and that like this because they need funding.
Actually: there was never any reason to found or fund that organization. Everything they publish since 30 years are downplayed scenarios about what we can expect to happen in very close future.
And we know that since minimum 100 years.
We live in a time where a scientist has to defend his profession, very sad. Very Sad, indeed.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
How would it affect the planet over a mere 2 centuries than over ten thousands of years as in history?
Now you are talking more sense. Before you were talking millions, when we had an ice age a few thousand years ago. But even over centuries, we have significant warming and cooling events. No one is really sure the exact cause - there are many possible influences. That Wikipedia article lays out the proposed explanations. But the point is, until about 1950 you can't point at humans as being responsible for the majority of the climate change. And while scientists started to strongly suspect human-released greenhouse gasses were influencing the climate, it wasn't until the late 80s when the scale began to be understood - and it wasn't until the late 90s when you could start to isolate the human from the natural causes definitively.
When actually was the IPCC founded?
1988, built upon a prior group formed in 1985. Fits really well with the timeline I outlined above.
An international science agency was founded because America denied AGW
OR, it was founded because that is when the science seemed to indicate the scale of the problem.
And now: America is turning it around!
Yes, it is very frustrating. But telling people lies about the science hurts Americans like me trying to argue for the science.
And we know that since minimum 100 years.
You keep saying this. The claim in total bullshit. They had no idea that mankind was altering the climate in 1918. They barely had the equipment to measure it. A large section of the globe was still unexplored by people who considered themselves followers of science. It doesn't pass anything resembling a sniff test, and you repeating this obvious crap is making it very hard to defend people saying that the science is full of shit. Why would you make this claim?
We live in a time where a scientist has to defend his profession, very sad.
Agreed. So why are you undermining the side you profess to support?
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
If you read nothing else, please at least read this Wikipedia article.
TL/DR:
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Haha,
somewhat amusing and somewhat honourable.
from volcanism to solar variation
Both have right now no real influence on the planet.
generated atmospheric aerosols (e.g., "pollution") could have cooling effects as well.
Obviously. Perhaps one reason why the meme "there is no AGW" got traction.
By the 1990s, as a result of improving fidelity of computer models and observational work confirming the Milankovitch theory of the ice ages
Complete nonsense. For that you don't need a computer model. And: it has nothing to do with CO2 induced global warming, AGW, no matter if you want call the A "artificial" or "anthropogenic".
Milankovitch cycles are bound to the earth orbit and the precession of the earth axis, what has that to do with man made CO2?
Point is: I grew up with "that science".
You did not, so you doubt it.
(Could of course scratch my own nose and think: hm ... I greew up with it, what if it is wrong?)
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Point is: I grew up with "that science".
If you grew up with such certainty, then it was belief but not science. That it turned out to be right is besides the point.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Wow ... insulting ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The science is settled since nearly 200 years.
Welcome in the 21st century.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
First link - no one was disputing the effects of greenhouse gases. The disputes were all about measuring the man-made versus natural levels, and what proportion greenhouse gasses played in the overall climate budget.
Second link - he was an important scientist who helped eventually lead to our current understanding of the climate. His existence certainly does not prove that there was scientific consensus about AGW in the late 19th century. In fact, if you asked Tyndall himself about atmospheric CO2, he would have dismissed it as a minor component of the greenhouse effect compared to water vapor.
I think you are confusing scientific consensus in AGW with scientific consensus in the underlying theories and the basic science that drives the models. The models themselves weren't very good until the 80s, and could not separate man-made from natural warming convincingly until the 90s. They continue to improve, to the point where someone who was merely being skeptical in the 90s would have to be obstinate or a believer in conspiracy to continue in their skepticism.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
The disputes were all about measuring the man-made versus natural levels, and what proportion greenhouse gasses played in the overall climate budget.
There never was a dispute outside of the USA.
he would have dismissed it as a minor component of the greenhouse effect compared to water vapor. ... more CO2 means more warming means more water vapour means more heat ...
Yeah. And where does the water vapour come from?
Oh, heat. Heat/warming induced by CO2. Oh, now you see, we have a self enforcing effect
Who ever had guessed that?
The models themselves weren't very good until the 80s
You don't need a model for that. A model is for predicting how much e.g. the average temperature on the globe will be around 2050 or 2100. Those models might have been bad, but what is the point about that?
If you actually think a bit about it: the average temperature has no predicting power about any particular point on the planet, it is pointless. E.g. we have an extremely cold spring, early summer, in Germany. The winter had record warmths ... again. What has that to do with average temperatures or climate models? Nothing ...
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
There never was a dispute outside of the USA.
Utter jingoistic nonsense. There is no evidence of this claim, yet you keep making it.
Who ever had guessed that?
Lots of people posited it over - as you say - 100 years or so. That does not mean there was scientific consensus.
Those models might have been bad, but what is the point about that?
That's the entire point. Without models you just have unproven theories. Without good models there was no consensus.
the average temperature has no predicting power about any particular point on the planet, it is pointless
I can't agree that it is "pointless". You are right in that it has no predictive power for any particular point on the globe, but it does tell you that there is more energy in the atmosphere. More energy is increasingly being tied to more severe weather, though admittedly this is still somewhat contentious.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.