> That’s not what I said. But ok.

This is what you did say

> Then I don’t think you fully grasp the nature of weather.

Like - how the fck would you know? Even more so, why the fck does your ignorance and inability to think of possibilities, or fully grasp the nature of anything make you think that that sort of comment is remotely appropriate.

You have the uniquely fortunate position to never be able to realise how inept and incompetent you are, but putting that on to other people is definitely only showing everyone your ignorance to the facts of life.

And there was no reply - just downvoting people, like a champ...

▲

habinero 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

No. They're correct and you are not.

Nothing to do with "inability to think of possibilities", it's impossible because of literal physics.

It's like saying perpetual motion machines could exist if we just think outside the box hard enough. No, we don't have them because thermodynamics.

▲

awesome_dude 2 days ago | parent [-]

No, you're conflating something provable with something that isn't.

Chaos theory only describes difficulties, in no circumstance does it describe things as "impossible"

If you don't understand the difference between the two terms, that would explain a lot.

What it means is that it takes more work (Computational Power) to properly model what's happening.

Just because you don't know the answer, doesn't mean there isn't one (as I have repeatedly pointed out).

I get it, you think that you already know everything that is to be known, but, the fact of the matter is you don't, nobody does, and pretending that you do is the real problem.

▲

catlifeonmars 2 days ago | parent [-]

> What it means is that it takes more work (Computational Power) to properly model what's happening.

The issue isn’t computation. It’s measurement. It’s not possible to measure all of the factors that go into weather it will rain on a Tuesday at 3 pm 3 months from now (sorry for the terrible pun). It’s small perturbations in initial conditions.

▲

awesome_dude 2 days ago | parent [-]

You've been wrong about everything else, so why stop there.

The models we have are very coarse, and work for 24 hours (kind of, there are still extreme events that are difficult to be accurate about)

More sensors are being deployed this very second - which will present a finer grained picture.

It's not even at the rocket science part yet

▲

habinero 2 days ago | parent [-]

No. They are, again, correct.

A chaotic system in physics means "a tiny difference in initial conditions leads to large differences in outcome".

You cannot measure precisely enough to make a chaotic system predictable, even if the system is entirely deterministic and you understand all the physics involved.

It doesn't matter how many decimal places of accuracy you have or how many sensors there are, the error in the next decimal place will matter.

Theoretically, I suppose you'd eventually hit quantum effects and the fundamental limits of measurement. But I don't think quantum weather is likely to ever be a thing.

Anyways, the classic chaotic system is a double pendulum. If we can't predict the motion of two sticks, we're not predicting the weather lol.

	▲	awesome_dude 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Pile on all you like, but your gross misunderstanding isn't changing the facts. As has been repeatedly pointed out, we have systems now that are accurate for 24 hours into the future, generally accurate for 72 hours, and mostly accurate for 120 hours That's not "impossible because of chaos", that's "actually happening right now" You're saying it cannot get any better, I'm saying it can That's how wrong you are.

▲

catlifeonmars 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> Your response is you don’t understand it so nobody else should.

Ah I see. I misinterpreted the _you_ in this sentence (to mean me).

My main points still stand though:

1. weather is well understood to exhibit chaotic behavior (in the technical sense, not the colloquial sense) 2. there is an upper bound to accurate (edit: precise) weather forecasting the farther you predict into the future

As an aside, there was no need to get personal. I wasn’t the downvoter but that is very likely why the comment got flagged.

▲

awesome_dude 2 days ago | parent [-]

> As an aside, there was no need to get personal.

You've done nothing but be personal, complaining that it's being returned is hypocritical. You started making personal comments, not me.

> 2. there is an upper bound to accurate (edit: precise) weather forecasting the farther you predict into the future

Quick, everyone, halt all the research into weather prediction, we've already found all the answers. There's no need to look any further, none at all.

Actual answer: Currently we use a statistical model, that (as I previously pointed out currently degrades after about 3 days into the future)

There's absolutely nothing preventing us from making that more accurate, with better models, and algorithms (as I have been saying from the start)

I get that you don't have any understanding of the way that human knowledge is acquired, but that's no reason for you to jump on the internet and yell at people who do.

(Someone should tell Edison to stop at the 90th attempt of his lightbulb, it's clear that there are no answers to the problem he is faced with)

▲

catlifeonmars 2 days ago | parent [-]

> You've done nothing but be personal, complaining that it's being returned is hypocritical. You started making personal comments, not me.

I’m genuinely sorry you feel that way. It wasn’t my intention.

> complaining that it's being returned is hypocritical

I was just responding to your complaint about the downvoting.

▲

awesome_dude 2 days ago | parent [-]

> I’m genuinely sorry you feel that way. It wasn’t my intention.

I really don't think you fully grasp anything at this point in the conversation

> Then I don’t think you fully grasp the nature of weather.

That aged well. /s

	▲	catlifeonmars a day ago \| parent [-]
		>> Then I don’t think you fully grasp the nature of weather. Is that what you meant by making it personal? > That aged well. /s It aged perfectly fine.