Why does the Met Office need a new £850million computer to improve forcasting to 10 days

[Gromett]

The imminent ice age predicted in the 1970s was based on media reports and a few scientific reports. The majority of studies reported that the global temperature would increase.

What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

<p>1970s ice age predictions were predominantly media based. The majority of peer reviewed research at the time predicted warming due to increasing CO2.</p>

skepticalscience.com

I wasn't even a teenager when this was going around so I wasn't reading scientific reports

My point was I was brought up on a diet of fear of Nuclear war with Russia and of an ice age... So when I read this book it came as a bit of an eye opener.

I think people who read his books were early members of the public to be interested in Global Warming.

 

[MattR]

I wasn't even a teenager when this was going around so I wasn't reading scientific reports

My point was I was brought up on a diet of fear of Nuclear war with Russia and of an ice age... So when I read this book it came as a bit of an eye opener.

I think people who read his books were early members of the public to be interested in Global Warming.

My point is partly based on responding to the number of people raising issues that they learnt about when they were at school as being counter arguments to climate change.

Some have information based on scare tactics raised by the media.
Some have misunderstood what they werw taught.
Some have information that has been superceded with new investigations and technology

There are also some who claim that the scare tactics used to warn of the dangers of war with the USSR were a hoax. How do they know how close we were to nuclear war? The fact that it didn't happen doesn't mean that we weren't close. With climate change, we have masses of data and reports showing what is happening and there are well referenced predictions of what could happen but many people deny these warnings because they don't match their own opinions.

 

[tonyidle]

I just wanted to respond to this bit separately.
The Greta global doom philosophy is not based on science and these kind of doom mongering scare stories are counter productive. 8 years to save the earth is a ridiculous argument and proves why she should be in school not being lauded by world leaders.

I am not a catastrophist. The earth will not die if we don't move fast enough. We will simply see more flooding, wilder storms and global sea rises that will hit hard in some places and not at all in others.
The sooner we take action the more we can limit these changes. However, it is not an 8 year time limit or we all die type scenario.

Like most debates there are those on the fringe who take extreme views. This happens everywhere whether it is Brexit with extreme remainers and leavers or on climate change with the deniers and catastrophists. The truth is usually somewhere near the middle.

My view is, yes there is climate change outside of the natural cycle and yes it is caused by humans. I think it is a serious issue that does need dealing with, but it is not catastrophic in the next 8 years. The current government targets of 2050 seem reasonable to me. It is 30 years away which is more than enough time to get close to carbon neutral. I don't think we will achieve it but we will get close. If we set the target further out it wouldn't have the immediacy necessary to prompt the required changes and if it was closer it would cause large economic impacts.

I support wind power and other renewable energy sources, I also support EV's and other clean forms of energy use. This is not purely because of Global warming, but because I don't think it is sustainable to keep sending money to the middle east and Russia. I think we have funded their terrorism long enough. I am also fed up of wars fought over oil. Finally digging something up to burn it is incredibly wasteful if we have viable alternatives. Oh and also, I hate noisy, smelly car and lorry engines. I look forward to a time when our transport doesn't stink and make loads of noise.

As a dedicated petrol-head (only in that I have enjoyed years of re-building engines, extracting more power, & etc and being a fan a fan of strokers) I completely agree. Electric cars are a new and exciting development that I won't live to fully enjoy - but the power characteristics!! What's not to like. On a more serious note Greta Thunberg et al believe that a systemic change is required and see Governments doing little or nothing. That may or may not be true but I can't see that profligate consumerism is sustainable long-term and that will only change if government intervenes. That is what I believe is the message from Extinction Rebellion.

 

[Camdoon]

We know what the weather was like 60,000,025 years ago but still cannot forecast it 10 days in advance.

 

[Gromett]

We know what the weather was like 60,000,025 years ago but still cannot forecast it 10 days in advance.

You may be able to tell me what you had for breakfast 10 days ago, but can you tell me what you will have for lunch in 10 days (no cheating )

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[sallylillian]

You may be able to tell me what you had for breakfast 10 days ago, but can you tell me what you will have for lunch in 10 days (no cheating )

Salad

 

[Camdoon]

You may be able to tell me what you had for breakfast 10 days ago, but can you tell me what you will have for lunch in 10 days (no cheating )

Don't know. It's just that I get frustrated when people say the dinosaurs roamed the earth 65m years ago when I read that at the Science Museum 25 years ago so the correct figure is 65m +25.

 

[Coolcats]

We know what the weather was like 60,000,025 years ago but still cannot forecast it 10 days in advance.

You can video what your family was doing 20 years, two weeks two days, two hours or two minutes ago , what you do not know is the arguments they are going to have in an hours time what you can do though is estimate the probability of the argument happening but two days out its unlikely you know what the argument is going to be about or what is going to cause it. A supercomputer however may just be able to do this.

 

[sallylillian]

You can video what your family was doing 20 years, two weeks two days, two hours or two minutes ago , what you do not know is the arguments they are going to have in an hours time what you can do though is estimate the probability of the argument happening but two days out its unlikely you know what the argument is going to be about or what is going to cause it. A supercomputer however may just be able to do this.

I am not playing semantics but the debate is about the juxtaposition of the forecasters inability to forcast the weather in the next x days with any degree of accuracy but scientists are able to say what it was like 300 million years ago and more to the point what it will be in 20 years time. It does not make us deniers because we find that inexplicable.

 

[Gromett]

I am not playing semantics but the debate is about the juxtaposition of the forecasters inability to forcast the weather in the next x days with any degree of accuracy but scientists are able to say what it was like 300 million years ago and more to the point what it will be in 20 years time. It does not make us deniers because we find that inexplicable.

If you came out into your garden and saw a dog turd on the lawn, you would know a dog had pooped there.
If however you came out into your garden and no dog turd was there could you predict that next week there would be one?

Telling what has happened in the past is totally different to predicting what will happen in the future. I am genuinely perplexed that you don't get the difference?

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[DBK]

I am not playing semantics but the debate is about the juxtaposition of the forecasters inability to forcast the weather in the next x days with any degree of accuracy but scientists are able to say what it was like 300 million years ago and more to the point what it will be in 20 years time. It does not make us deniers because we find that inexplicable.

What happened in the past is based on hard evidence, ice and sea bed core samples and the fossil record. The latter recording the extinction of the dinosaurs caused by the object which hit near the Gulf of Mexico, the crater of which they have detected.
What happens in 20 years time is down to forecasts on climate based on trends in temperatures both in the air and the sea. Plus of course trends in the composition of the atmosphere. There are other factors, such as the energy received from the sun, which follows an 11 year cycle but on average this hasn't changed since about the 1950s.
What happens next week is based on predictions on the weather, which isn't the same as climate. These predictions, for example, suggest another storm is coming, which they will call Ellen but they haven't named it officially yet and won't until their predictions are more accurate, which they will be in a day or two I expect.

 

[sallylillian]

What happened in the past is based on hard evidence, ice and sea bed core samples and the fossil record. The latter recording the extinction of the dinosaurs caused by the object which hit near the Gulf of Mexico, the crater of which they have detected.
What happens in 20 years time is down to forecasts on climate based on trends in temperatures both in the air and the sea. Plus of course trends in the composition of the atmosphere. There are other factors, such as the energy received from the sun, which follows an 11 year cycle but on average this hasn't changed since about the 1950s.
What happens next week is based on predictions on the weather, which isn't the same as climate. These predictions, for example, suggest another storm is coming, which they will call Ellen but they haven't named it officially yet and won't until their predictions are more accurate, which they will be in a day or two I expect.

However we are told that the weather extremes we are experiencing and have been around the world are due to climate change which contradicts your statement that weather is not linked to climate. That assocciation has already been declared. Therefore by association if there is uncertainty about weather prediction then there must also be uncertainty about climate prediction?

 

[Gromett]

However we are told that the weather extremes we are experiencing and have been around the world are due to climate change which contradicts your statement that weather is not linked to climate. That assocciation has already been declared. Therefore by association if there is uncertainty about weather prediction then there must also be uncertainty about climate prediction?

Individual weather events cannot be linked to climate change. That is just beyond the capabilities of science. However, the general trend of more frequent and more powerful storms in general can be attributed to climate change. Weather and climate are not the same thing.

 

[MattR]

However we are told that the weather extremes we are experiencing and have been around the world are due to climate change which contradicts your statement that weather is not linked to climate. That assocciation has already been declared. Therefore by association if there is uncertainty about weather prediction then there must also be uncertainty about climate prediction?

Weather vs climate.
Climate is the general conditions over time. Generally, the climate in the UK is cool, damp winters and warm wet summers.

Weather is the local conditions at that time and place. The weather at 08:45 in East Suffolk this morning is bright but overcast, windy, high humidity and around 6oC.

I can predict what the weather will be like tomorrow with little certainty of accuracy but that won't change the climate. If I looked at the weather records over the last few decades, I could get an average set of weather feature records for each February (such as rainfall, temp and wind speed) and see if there's evidence of a trend showing change. Combined with figures from surrounding areas, it could show that over time, there's been a change in our local climate.

Learn

Quick facts, basic science, and information about snow, ice, and why the cryosphere matters The cryosphere includes all of the snow and ice-covered regions across the planet.

nsidc.org

 

[Coolcats]

However we are told that the weather extremes we are experiencing and have been around the world are due to climate change which contradicts your statement that weather is not linked to climate. That assocciation has already been declared. Therefore by association if there is uncertainty about weather prediction then there must also be uncertainty about climate prediction?

Dealing with Climate change requires Science, part of which is dealing with probability and chaos (Chaos theory) There lots of references you can look up, one I quite like is the Double compund pendulum as it is described as a simple example of Chaos

Chaos theory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Oh and weather patterns can be affected by Climate

Muse made a Video about the 2nd Law its a bit dramatic but worthy of a viewing

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Camdoon]

I am not playing semantics but the debate is about the juxtaposition of the forecasters inability to forcast the weather in the next x days with any degree of accuracy but scientists are able to say what it was like 300 million years ago and more to the point what it will be in 20 years time. It does not make us deniers because we find that inexplicable.

My point was only trying to get to the punchline. The joke being that we should not refer to dinosaurs roaming the earth 65m years ago as I was told that fact 25 years ago so we should refer to the dinosaurs being about 65,000,025.
My memory is such that is a good day if I remember to put my pants on unless I intend to go commando.

 

[autorouter]

However we are told that the weather extremes we are experiencing and have been around the world are due to climate change which contradicts your statement that weather is not linked to climate. That assocciation has already been declared. Therefore by association if there is uncertainty about weather prediction then there must also be uncertainty about climate prediction?

For the difference between climate and weather, try this analogy. Watch the water level on a pole stuck in the sea just off the shore. The level goes up and down from one second to the next, as tiny ripples and big waves hit the pole. Can you say exactly what the level will be in 2 seconds? 2 minutes?

Someone says that the tide is coming in, and in 6 hours the level will be on average two metres higher. Is it reasonable to say that, since you can't predict the level two minutes into the future, you are talking nonsense about the tide?

 

[sallylillian]

For the difference between climate and weather, try this analogy. Watch the water level on a pole stuck in the sea just off the shore. The level goes up and down from one second to the next, as tiny ripples and big waves hit the pole. Can you say exactly what the level will be in 2 seconds? 2 minutes?

Someone says that the tide is coming in, and in 6 hours the level will be on average two metres higher. Is it reasonable to say that, since you can't predict the level two minutes into the future, you are talking nonsense about the tide?

An interesting analogy and I appreciate your effort, but whilst I can see your mindset I am unsure how you can correlate a known proven, over centuries of recent history, phenomenon created by the orbit of the planets repeated 4 times daily (approximately and discounting double tidal areas) to references to alleged CO2 outputs 300 million years ago suggesting that spikes such as being currently recorded are unique.

 

[Gromett]

Good explanation here.

How £1bn new supercomputer will transform weather forecasting in UK

Storm Dennis has claimed the lives of four people so far – but can the Met Office's new supercomputer turn the tide in the future?

www.telegraph.co.uk