> 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.