For once I agree with you on the subject of climate, Chuck :-)
It would be utter madness to treat weather forecasting* as anything other than
scientific guesswork.
I realised the other day why our aviation forecasts have this (for instance), "
PROB 40 TEMPO OVC005". This means that there is a 40% probability that the
cloudbase will temporarily (for a short period, <1hr) be at 500ft. I always
wondered why it was never higher than 40%, but now I realise that it's because
success for a forecaster is achieved at 50%. So there is no point in
forecasting higher than 40%.
I didn't read the bit from the Independent about snow, but I imagine that the
chap is likely to be right, or completely wrong, inasmuch climate will change
drastically whether for the warmer or the colder. We're seeing whacky
conditions now: the last few months has been marked by weather, in the UK,
which I have not seen before. In some ways it seemed similar to the weather we
used encounter in eastern Canada, "big weather" conditions, for want of a
better description. I put this down to climate change.
Chris
On 7 Feb 2012, at 19:54, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> Well, I can't agree with that. Weather is chaotic and forecasts will
> always be subject to error and, sometimes, considerable error.
> Likewise, some Italians want to punish the earthquake forecasters who
> failed to forecast a major quake with considerable loss of life. That's
> an even bigger mystery than weather.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|