41–50 of 133 posts
> So how did every reliable model we use miss this? That’s for graduate students and researchers to answer in the coming years, because I have no formal idea. Would love to see followup on this. Wish there were some way to like bookmark or something and come back in a few years.
For a weather forecaster this is a really strange take. Anybody who understands what the big words 'climate change' mean, could have predicted this. HAVE predicted this. I personally have predicted this and I'm not even a weather forecaster, I just know what chaos theory is. Adding energy to the system produces a wider range of possible outcomes. This is absolutely one of the possible outcomes. A few degrees less war…
Modelistas continue to struggle with infrequent events. To joke, if they were good at this kind of thing, they'd be in finance (but I'm rolling my eyes at myself even going for this cheap shot).
That's sarcastic, of course. There are a ton of world class programmers working in game dev. And a ton of world class mathematicians working on climate change. Not everyone uses money as their main motivation. Many people choose careers out of passion, or for the good of the world. And the world is a better place because of that, even if those people drive less shiny cars.
For a weather forecaster this is a really strange take. Anybody who understands what the big words 'climate change' mean, could have predicted this. HAVE predicted this. I personally have predicted this and I'm not even a weather forecaster, I just know what chaos theory is. Adding energy to the system produces a wider range of possible outcomes. This is absolutely one of the possible outcomes. A few degrees less war…
I agree with all of this except the first sentence. Weather people understand all this too, but forecasters were genuinely shocked by the speed of the transition from tropical storm to cat 5 - a process that they're used to observing over days suddenly took place within hours. Knowing a thing and seeing/experiencing it directly are very different. I'm shocked myself by the degree of devastation, and suspect the repor…
> So how did every reliable model we use miss this? That’s for graduate students and researchers to answer in the coming years, because I have no formal idea. Would love to see followup on this. Wish there were some way to like bookmark or something and come back in a few years.
As far as I know some models gave the storm a 25% chance of rapid intensification. The actual storm itself just unraveled afterwards.
Isn't this the expected behavior once it made landfall?
> So how did every reliable model we use miss this? That’s for graduate students and researchers to answer in the coming years, because I have no formal idea. Would love to see followup on this. Wish there were some way to like bookmark or something and come back in a few years.
there is already a very good theory. see this interview with an expert from Yale: https://youtu.be/CSVFpval4Dw?si=oelutbqzOGcpI8gm tldr: garbage data into the model, garbage out. Detailed summary from interview: • only 1 hurricane hunter flight was done into this storm. • mexican hurricanes just don’t get as much reporting coverage (historically). For example for atlantic hurricanes, NOAA hurricane hunter airplanes h…
Cloudflare blocked me from accessing it. edit: wow, that was some unexpected downvotes
Can anyone recommend a good one-click firefox extension to open an archive copy of the current page?
For a weather forecaster this is a really strange take. Anybody who understands what the big words 'climate change' mean, could have predicted this. HAVE predicted this. I personally have predicted this and I'm not even a weather forecaster, I just know what chaos theory is. Adding energy to the system produces a wider range of possible outcomes. This is absolutely one of the possible outcomes. A few degrees less war…
It is strange, but it’s not. My friends keep asking me why it seems like the weather predictions are always off lately. I tell them because they have no climate models for the state of the climate that we’re living in right now. They’re all based on past climate. so this weather forecaster is just doing the same thing, he’s trying to predict future events on past performance. What they need to do is start looking rig…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Watts aren’t energy, so no idea what this means.
Radiative forcing is measured in watts per square meter. If you compute the total surface area of the earth [0] in square meters and that by multiply the radiative forcing number, you get watts. [0] technically some layer of the earth between the ground and whatever you define as the edge of the atmosphere.
For a weather forecaster this is a really strange take. Anybody who understands what the big words 'climate change' mean, could have predicted this. HAVE predicted this. I personally have predicted this and I'm not even a weather forecaster, I just know what chaos theory is. Adding energy to the system produces a wider range of possible outcomes. This is absolutely one of the possible outcomes. A few degrees less war…
While I admire your ardor, and agree with you that anthropogenic global warming is a serious problem, your explanation lacks a specific mechanism, and the disrespect you show towards the experts is reprehensible. I found these facts in the article interesting: - This is not actually unprecedented -- hurricane Patricia in 2015 did the same thing, more intensely. - "Sea surface temperatures were close to 31°C over Otis…
The interesting question then is why all the models screwed up so badly. Is it because climate change means the model is now inaccurate, or was this within the baseline (no climate change) error rate of current weather prediction technology?
Quoting the article:
> This rich warm water did not hurt matters at all.
> So how did every reliable model we use miss this?