Weather forcasting

[Ginger Rogers]

Now it seems to me they often get it wrong. In this day and age you would think that they had a more.... accurate means of guestimating.
Why is it that every site i go to has a slightly different forecast for my postcode, and yet they all claim to get their info from the MET office!
We never ever have thunderstorms when they are forecast, if we do we get them hours later than predicted.
I appreciate it's only a FORECAST however, they tell you like it's definite don't they! 'it WILL be sunny with scattered showers' or whatever.

[tkingdoll]

There's a very interesting book that covers this, called Chaos by James Gleik. He basically explains why it's not possible to entirely accurately predict the weather, mostly because even the tinest change in one small area can have a huge knock-on effect. Basically, you'd need sensors every centimetre or closer, covering the whole country, to get even a decent long-range prediction. At present, I believe they're about 60 miles apart.

Edward Lorenz did a huge amount of the groundwork in this field, it might be worth Googling him for more info. He discovered that the difference in resulting weather (on a simulator program) from two almost identical starting points (three decimals places shorter, for example .506127 and .506) was enormous. What it comes down to is, too much data in too many equations with not enough sensors.

However, it's easier to predict short-range weather, because it can be observed more closely. So, tomorrow's forecast is more accurate than next weeks, but even the tiniest perturbation can knock the whole weather sideways.

Very interesting stuff, I'm glad you brought it up. I do wholeheartedly recommend that book.

[Ginger Rogers]

why thanks for that, i've just checked out that book on amazon but the following review somewhat puts me off...

"This isn't your average science book. In parts, it would be better described as a history book. However, when science is explained, it is complicated. Hence, if you only have a passing interest in science, please spend your money elsewhere as a lot of the content of this book will soar over your head.
In fairness, if you are a person who has attained, or is in the process of attaining, a science (or mathematics) degree, you will understand and most likely enjoy this book.
The author delves in to the lives and research techniques of some of the founding theorists in chaos whilst also giving everyday examples of chaos surrounding us.
It is a good read but only if you have a large amount of background knowledge on the subject"

[tkingdoll]

Well, if it helps, I'm not a scientist or a science student, and I did fine. Some of it went over my head a little, but I just glossed over those parts and read the bits I was comfortable with. I did the same with A Brief History of Time and understood about half of it.

Anyway, that's what libraries are for!

[Mojo]

why thanks for that, i've just checked out that book on amazon but the following review somewhat puts me off...Dunno if this is relevant, but the other book the same guy has reviewed is about wrestling. ;)

[vbloke]

I always liked this:

http://www.isleofwightweather.co.uk/live_storm_data.htm