- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message

How far out do you expect an accurate weather forecast to get in your lifetime?
Posted on 8/31/16 at 9:33 pm
Posted on 8/31/16 at 9:33 pm
Between the flooding rains and tropical threat of late, the weather has been on the minds of many. The two things that tend to hinder forecasters the most are A) accurate, detailed, and widespread current observations and B) computing power.
It may seem outrageous today, but if you could initialize a model with the exact conditions across the entire globe, you could theoretically predict the weather as far out as you'd like. It is all governed by the laws of nature, so if you know exactly how things are right now, you can determine exactly how they'll progress. In a practical sense, there are outside and relatively unpredictable events that will change things, such as solar dynamics, earthquakes, volcanoes, etc., but getting an accurate prediction 2-3 weeks out is plausible if you can get the current observations and the computing power to handle it.
Even if you break it down to smaller scale events like tornado outbreaks, I think we'll eventually see accurate, 3+ hour advanced notice of future tornado tracks with a mile or two margin of error in the next 25-30 years. It goes back to needing the exact environmental conditions across the relevant area, but once you have that, realistically forecasting a storm and impending tornado is just a matter of crunching the numbers.
It may seem outrageous today, but if you could initialize a model with the exact conditions across the entire globe, you could theoretically predict the weather as far out as you'd like. It is all governed by the laws of nature, so if you know exactly how things are right now, you can determine exactly how they'll progress. In a practical sense, there are outside and relatively unpredictable events that will change things, such as solar dynamics, earthquakes, volcanoes, etc., but getting an accurate prediction 2-3 weeks out is plausible if you can get the current observations and the computing power to handle it.
Even if you break it down to smaller scale events like tornado outbreaks, I think we'll eventually see accurate, 3+ hour advanced notice of future tornado tracks with a mile or two margin of error in the next 25-30 years. It goes back to needing the exact environmental conditions across the relevant area, but once you have that, realistically forecasting a storm and impending tornado is just a matter of crunching the numbers.
Posted on 8/31/16 at 9:34 pm to slackster
You are starting to sound like OWEO with the attention thing. There is ZERO need for this thread......
Posted on 8/31/16 at 9:35 pm to slackster
My Farmers Almanac gives me a look out on the whole year.
Posted on 8/31/16 at 9:36 pm to dukke v
He is back to his old ways now for sure.
Posted on 8/31/16 at 9:37 pm to slackster
I honestly don't expect much from the meteorology field.
Posted on 8/31/16 at 9:37 pm to dukke v
quote:
You are starting to sound like OWEO with the attention thing.
quote:
There is ZERO need for this thread.....
It is a question with some discussion points. I think it is perfectly fine.
quote:
dukke v
Must be shitfaced.
Posted on 8/31/16 at 9:38 pm to slackster
There are how many factors that affect weather? hundreds?
If so, you'd have to basically figure out a way to solve an equation with a hundred unknowns.
We are getting better, but IMO still a very long way to go.
If so, you'd have to basically figure out a way to solve an equation with a hundred unknowns.
We are getting better, but IMO still a very long way to go.
Posted on 8/31/16 at 9:40 pm to slackster
Not at all. You did a good job in the storm thread.... But THIS thread is not needed.... AGAIN.... I don't need all those maps and shite. I have been following these type storms since Camille in 1969...... So take that for what it's worth.... 
Posted on 8/31/16 at 9:40 pm to member12
quote:
I honestly don't expect much from the meteorology field.
I don't either, but when you start to think about why they have trouble it is something that can actually be fixed. It is governed by science, but you need to know to accurately know the original conditions before you can go forward. In order to handle all of that, you need serious computing power, but it can still be done.
Posted on 8/31/16 at 9:41 pm to slackster
Meteorologists take a lot of flack but I'm amazed at how often the forecasts are dead on, even a week or more out.
Posted on 8/31/16 at 9:43 pm to dukke v
quote:
Not at all. You did a good job in the storm thread.... But THIS thread is not needed.... AGAIN.... I don't need all those maps and shite.
I'm not talking about that nor am I trying to defend current models. I'm going past all of that to the actual science and technological capabilities going forward. Think about the possibilities.
quote:
I have been following these type storms since Camille in 1969...... So take that for what it's worth....
3 weeks ago you predicting BR would avoid any significant rain and 4 days later more rain fell in the immediate area than it has ever seen in recorded history.
Posted on 8/31/16 at 9:47 pm to slackster
quote:
Even if you break it down to smaller scale events like tornado outbreaks, I think we'll eventually see accurate, 3+ hour advanced notice of future tornado tracks with a mile or two margin of error in the next 25-30 years. It goes back to needing the exact environmental conditions across the relevant area, but once you have that, realistically forecasting a storm and impending tornado is just a matter of crunching the numbers.
Saw a doctor from noaa talk a year ago and to make a long speech short, he said one of the reasons the weather is not as accurate as it could be is because the weather out in the oceans is not able to be recorded like it is on land. I think the number was 10,000 or maybe 5,000 but for every 5 or 10k weather data reports on land, there is 1 at sea.
Very smart guy to listen speak.
Posted on 8/31/16 at 9:51 pm to motorbreath
quote:
Meteorologists take a lot of flack
Because people are stupid
quote:
'm amazed at how often the forecasts are dead on, even a week or more out.
Because, science
Posted on 8/31/16 at 9:53 pm to Deactived
quote:
Saw a doctor from noaa talk a year ago and to make a long speech short, he said one of the reasons the weather is not as accurate as it could be is because the weather out in the oceans is not able to be recorded like it is on land. I think the number was 10,000 or maybe 5,000 but for every 5 or 10k weather data reports on land, there is 1 at sea.
Yeah that goes back to the initialization problems. It can obviously be fixed, but I'm no sure how practical it is.
I guess the point of the thread is that if money was no object and the world was cooperative, you could devise a network of land and sea observations both in the field and from satellites. Future computing power could do the rest. The possibilities are pretty incredible.
Popular
Back to top

12










