<It has been known for 50 years that all it takes to predict weather accurately long range is taking into account millions of micro factors and projecting them scientifically forward. The butterfly effect, that says weather is a highly unstable chaotic system is nonsense. It takes so much time for weather to develop over thousands of miles, that we can see it is exactly the opposite. It is very stable and very predictable. >
I'd be VERY interested in Koan's or his son's response to the above assertion.
From Glick:
"Modern weather modesl work with a grid of points on the order of sixty miles apart, and even so, some startling data has to be guessed, since ground stations and satellites cannot see everywhere. Bus suppose the eearth could be covered with sensors spaced one foot apart, rising at one-foot intervals all the way to the top of the atmosphere. Suppose every sensor gives perfectly accurate readings of temp. pressure, humidity, and any other quantity a meteorologist would want. Precisely at noon an infinitely powerful computer takes all the data and calculates what will happen at each point @ noon, 12:01, 12:02, 12:03, etc.... the computer will still be unable to to predict whether Princeton, N.Y will have sun or rain one month away..."
Note, he's not saying things can't or shouldn't be made better.... but the assertion that weather isn't "chaotic" and is "very predictiable" and especially the comment about 50 years ago (Chaos theory essentially not relevant to weather) is (very) old school and outmoded from what I've heard.
That said, all the more reason to throw money at it OF COURSE!
DAK |
