Simulating Weather

We’ve been enjoying the excellent weather that accompanied us to the UK. The unfortunate Brit weather forecasters who failed to predict this just announced their computer models have confirmed we’re all doomed to Global Warmening in 2014.

Here’s the Brit weather forecast 4 days ago:

…after one of the wettest summers on record, forecasters issued the gloomy prediction that the hottest weather of 2007 may have come and gone.

Temperatures have taken a decisive tumble and are expected to struggle to stay in the low-20s Celsius for the remainder of the week.

“It’s quite possible this could have been the hottest temperature we get this year,” said Tony Conlan, a meteorologist at MeteoGroup UK. “There’s no sign of a heat wave for the next few weeks.”

It’s been warm and sunny ever since, which rather lessens the credibility of this:

….although global warming will be held in check for a few years, it will come roaring back to send the mercury rising before 2014.

This is the prediction of the first computer model of the global climate designed to make forecasts over a timescale of around a decade, developed by scientists at the Met Office.

The new model developed at the Met’s Hadley Centre in Exeter, and described in the journal Science, predicts that warming will slow during the next few years but then speed up again, and that at least half of the years after 2009 will be warmer than 1998, the warmest year on record.

This is politicized junk science.

It’s politicized, because by predicting the weather won’t warm for the next few years, they cover their buts in case global temperatures stays flat (as it has since 1999), while allowing them to continue to howl for their socialist controls of our behavior.

It’s junk science because – as shown by the currently nice Brit weather – it’s impossible to predict discontinuities such as a sudden temperature jump in 2014.

That’s because accurately simulating complex systems is impossible. Processes interact, so for example 10 processes have 100 ways of interacting with each-other and themselves, if you only consider two at a time. But in nature all 10 can interact with each-other, in any sequence, and the number of possible interactions exceeds the number of atoms in the universe.

So you simplify, but that results in unstable models, in which small errors in your starting state or false simplifying assumptions cause massive errors downstream. So in my opinion these folks have either tweaked the input to get the output they wanted, or just discarded all the results they didn’t like.

There goes another Brit institution.

Anyway, Mrs G and I are headed out for a long walk and pub crawl. And this being England, it will now probably rain – this is predicted using Sod’s Law, a far better nonlinear chaotic model than the one the Met Office uses.

UPDATE: The weather was delightful.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: