> 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.

> 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)