4 ms·

Well honestly you have to start with the science & physics. The 'model' (call it numerical weather prediction) is just a bunch of physics coded up and plugged i

Well honestly you have to start with the science & physics. The 'model' (call it numerical weather prediction) is just a bunch of physics coded up and plugged in together. For instance you have a cloud parameterization model that describes cloud formation & precipitation, which interacts with a land surface model, which interacts with the ocean model etc... These models are just computer code translations of physical equations mainly. You get an equation to model how air (fluid) moves, code it up, set up a numerical process to integrate over a small time step. Depending on how many assumptions you want to make the equation can be relatively simple or highly complex. In short, it's fuckin insane. This has some good stuff in it https://www.ral.ucar.edu/projects/armyrange/references/forecastconf_06/02_wrf.pdf https://www.ral.ucar.edu/projects/armyrange/references/forec...

digler999 10y ago
> In short, it's fuckin insane. Just take a moment to consider the feedback loops: huge cloud cover blocks sunlight, so the ground temperature is cooler, so ground air pressure is lower, which probably acts like a sponge to pull in any nearby clouds, which would then increase chances of precipitation. I would imagine the time of day matters too, because cloud cover at night can trap in radiant heat... fucking insane. I wonder if they put an open bounty on the problem, say for specific geographical regions: find a better prediction scheme for city X, win $Y
- angry_octet 10y ago
  Don't worry, meteorologists are brutally competitive in their own way. They don't say anything, they just put up a chart comparing forecast accuracy.