B Questions about climate and physics

Click For Summary
The discussion addresses the complexities of weather and climate forecasting, highlighting that while short-term weather predictions are unreliable, long-term climatological forecasts can be made using extensive historical data. Participants question the media's claims about climate change leading to increased extreme weather events, arguing that evidence for such phenomena is not universally supported and may be overstated. The concept of event attribution analysis is introduced, with participants noting that while some weather events can be linked to climate change, many cannot, complicating the understanding of causality. The conversation emphasizes the need for better scientific models and tools to improve climate predictions and the importance of distinguishing between scientific facts and media narratives. Overall, the thread underscores the challenges in accurately communicating climate science and the necessity for informed decision-making based on evidence.
  • #31
Thread closed pending moderation.
 
  • Like
Likes accdd, malawi_glenn and jim mcnamara
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Vanadium 50 said:
The second problem is how much tuning should be done on the data. If you had a model good enough to predict 5 hurricanes ina time window and you saw 4 or 6 would this be evidence in favor or against? A supercomputer is not going to tell you the answer to that.

His point is it is inherently probabilistic, as the climate is chaotic. A better supercomputer will give us better probabilities. He knows this from his work on long-term climate change and medium-term climate prediction. When a hurricane is forming, it is impossible to predict what it will do - all you can do is give probabilities of what will happen. Better computers will give better predictions. It is of great practical value to those tasked with preparing for emergencies who are very interested in the probability of if, for example, it will hit Brisbane rather than miss Australia completely.

Just a note about how he does it. The models all require parameters. What he does is change the parameters slightly and run it again. The model must be run many times to get good probabilities - the more times, the better. Faster computers mean better models that can be run more times and get better probabilities. I think further discussion should be in a thread on the computational modelling of chaotic systems.

I don't think there is anything more to discuss, so I have permanently shut the thread.

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes DrClaude and malawi_glenn

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 73 ·
3
Replies
73
Views
16K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
8K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
13K
Replies
28
Views
8K
Replies
18
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
7K