Discover – September 2019

(Greg DeLong) #1

50
DISCOVERMAGAZINE.COM


human judgment is really important,”


Henson says.


WHAT ARE THE CHANCES?


The further in the future your picnic


is scheduled, the harder it is to predict


rain or shine. But since the 1950s, ever-


faster computers have been producing


increasingly accurate weather forecasts.


“Many of the world’s largest and most


powerful supercomputers are devoted


to atmospheric research — to forecast-


ing [weather] and to studying climate


change,” Henson says.


According to National Oceanic and


Atmospheric Administration, today’s


five-day forecast is accurate about 90


percent of the time. The seven-day fore-


cast is correct 80 percent of the time, and


a 10-day forecast reflects the weather


that actually occurs about 50 percent of


the time.


What about major events? Based on


National Hurricane Center forecasts


since 2010, a hurricane’s eye made


landfall, on average, just 47 miles from


where a prediction 24 hours earlier said


it would. That’s only about one-sixth


of an average hurricane’s total size.


“Twenty-four hours before a hurricane


strikes land, we’ve already pretty much


nailed down where it will go,” says Judt.


Going out to five days, the error in the


forecasts since 2010 is about 220 miles.


These stats are more impressive when


you consider how much meteorologists


have improved the number of days out to


which an accurate forecast can be made.


For instance, today’s five-day hurricane


forecast is more reliable than the four-


day forecast in the early 2000s, and more


reliable than a three-day forecast in the


1990s. And a 2015 Nature paper revealed


that three- to 10-day forecasts have been


improving by about a day per decade —


meaning a modern six-day forecast is as


accurate as a five-day forecast 10 years ago.


CHAOS RULES


As forecasts improve, one question


naturally arises: How much better can


they get?


Unfortunately, the chaotic nature of


our atmosphere seriously limits our abil-


ity to model it — and therefore to predict


what it will do next. You’ve probably


whether it might storm in their local area.


Although all models are based on


the same physics, each translates those


physics into computer code differently,


says Judt. Some models might prioritize


certain kinds of data — such as wind


speed, temperature and humidity —


over others to generate predictions,


or simulate physical processes slightly


differently than another model. That’s


why two models might spit out slightly


different results, even with exactly the


same starting observations.


THE HUMAN TOUCH


With computers now running the show,


what’s left for human forecasters to do?


In terms of day-to-day weather like


temperatures, perhaps not much. “For


a lot of the routine weather, the forecast


models are so good now that there’s really


not that much that the human forecast-


ers are going to add,” says Schumacher,


who is also an associate professor in the


Department of Atmospheric Science at


Colorado State University.


But don’t think humans are unneces-


sary just yet. “A forecaster might tweak


what the computer tells you if they know


their area really well and they know that


models struggle with a certain kind of


weather situation,” says Henson.


One such situation is precipitation,


which is more challenging to forecast


than temperature, says Matt Kelsch, a


hydrometeorologist at the University


Corporation for Atmospheric Research


in Boulder. “Temperature is a continu-


ous field, meaning there’s a temperature


everywhere,” he explains. “But precipita-


tion is a discontinuous field, meaning


there’s a lot of places there is none, and


then some places that it can be raining or


snowing very hard.” And local geography


— mountain ranges, coastlines or the


Great Lakes — can affect precipitation


in ways that models may not handle well.


Particularly for forecasts within 24 to 36


hours, Kelsch says, a meteorologist’s


experience with the forecasting area


comes into play.


Forecasting high-impact situations


such as hurricanes, tornadoes and


floods is more challenging and comes


with much higher stakes. “Especially


when it comes to extreme weather,


heard that a butterfly flapping its wings


in Hong Kong might cause the weather


to change in New York. The idea of this


“butterfly effect” — in which minuscule


changes can have huge impacts on the


development of a dynamic system — was


coined in 1972 by mathematician and


meteorologist Edward Lorenz.


In practice, this means that a single


weather model run more than once


with even the most subtle differences


in starting conditions can produce very


different predictions. Since no measure-


ment is perfect — every observation has


an associated uncertainty — these small


imperfections can cause big changes in


what a model predicts. These changes get


bigger and bigger the further ahead you


try to predict.


Because of this, the potential predict-


ability limit of weather is about two


weeks, says Henson. “[Lorenz] essen-


tially said there’s just no way you can


predict weather features beyond that


time because those little butterfly wing


flaps and countless other little things


will add up to so many big changes, and


there’s so much uncertainty beyond that


range, that it’s just impossible to say


anything,” he says.


Judt, whose work focuses on the theo-


retical limit of accuracy in weather fore-


casting, says we’ll never be able to predict


thunderstorms more than a couple of


hours in advance, regardless of how good


observations become. For hurricanes and


winter storms, which are much bigger


and therefore easier to spot in advance,


the theoretical limit is two to three weeks


— “so there’s still a couple of days to be


gained, if not a whole week,” he says.


“We could forecast perfectly if we had


perfect knowledge of the atmosphere


and if we had perfect weather models,”


Judt says. But we will never be able to


measure everything about every point in


the atmosphere all the time with ultimate


precision, and our models will never be


flawless. “So we will never be able to


actually achieve perfect forecasts.”


BUILDING A BETTER FORECAST


There are more ways to improve fore-


casts than taking better observations


and improving our weather models.


Understanding how people use forecasts

Free download pdf