Comment by catlifeonmars
5 months ago
>> Then I don’t think you fully grasp the nature of weather.
Is that what you meant by making it personal?
> That aged well. /s
It aged perfectly fine.
5 months ago
>> Then I don’t think you fully grasp the nature of weather.
Is that what you meant by making it personal?
> That aged well. /s
It aged perfectly fine.
You demonstrated absolutely no understanding of the current state of the art, and then made a subjective claim on someone elses' grasp of the subject.
Yes you were making it personal, and yes it was you that was demonstrating the complete and utter lack of grasp of the subject.
I don’t see how disagreeing with you constitutes “a complete and utter lack of grasp of the subject”. That’s hyperbole.
So your claim is that the state of the art weather models are accurate at somewhere between 24h and 2 weeks (unclear based on the other sub threads) and continually improving. Based on this you extrapolate that given enough compute and sensors it would be possible to predict the weather with the same accuracy a month or more out. I think that’s a reasonable claim assuming that (1) the behavior of the system is deterministic and (2) the system behaves the same at both time scales.
Setting (1) aside, I claim that (2) is a wrong assumption. That weather exhibits chaotic behavior and that this likely puts an upper bound on prediction accuracy and the upper bound is less than 1 month.
The state of the art appears to be GraphCast [1] and FengWu [2]. These show promise out past 2 weeks when run against historical data. However, neither model is making actual weather predictions, and both are still in preprint (e.g. methodology has not been peer reviewed). This is super interesting and it’s possible my claim is incorrect, and that the upper bound is further out than the conventional 2 week limit.
[1]: https://arxiv.org/html/2504.20238 [2]: https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.02948
> I don’t see how disagreeing with you constitutes “a complete and utter lack of grasp of the subject”. That’s hyperbole.
Your complaint is that I am applying your measure with the same effort that you did to me.
The current upper bounds are constantly being reviewed, just as with other active areas of research. With that in mind, we don't really know what the final upper bound might be, we can only say with any semblance of surety that the upper bound at any given point in time is limited by our imagination (read: our ability to create new and possible novel ways to model the future)