I have not had time to read this report, but I have gathered both the short form and long form version of the report and placed links in the University of Miami press release for WUWT readers to have a look and comment. – Anthony
Report Issued Today Examines Improving Long-Term Climate Forecasts
MIAMI — September 8, 2010 — Operational forecasting centers produce climate predictions that provide input for important decisions regarding water management, agriculture, and energy. “Assessment of Intraseasonal to Interannual Climate Prediction and Predictability”, a new report from the National Research Council/National Academy of Sciences, examines current capabilities for making climate predictions — such as seasonal hurricane or longer-term drought forecasts — and identifies opportunities for improvement.
(Here’s a links to: the short form brief: here – long form complete report: NAS_12878 – by chapters here – Source here at NAS – Anthony)
The report finds that operational forecast centers could increase the value of forecasts for officials and researchers by modifying procedures for archiving and disseminating information. In addition, improvements over the next several years to observational capabilities, statistical and dynamical models, and data assimilation systems should permit the forecast systems centers to better understand key processes — such as variables in the atmosphere, ocean, or land surfaces — that could help improve forecasts.
“There is an apparent plateau in our ability to make accurate seasonal forecasts; this report provides a road map to enable both scientific research and technical advancements to go beyond this plateau and produce seasonal forecasts that are of greater societal relevance,” said Ben Kirtman, University of Miami Meteorology and Physical Oceanography professor and co-author of the report. “One of the more daunting challenges in this regard is figuring out how to seamlessly transition research results into real improvements in operational forecasts.”
UM Scientist Ben Kirtman Helps Co-Author Nat’l Academy of Sciences Document
About the University of Miami and its Rosenstiel School
The University of Miami’s mission is to educate and nurture students, to create knowledge, and to provide service to our community and beyond. Committed to excellence and proud of the diversity of our University family, we strive to develop future leaders of our nation and the world. Founded in the 1940’s, the Rosenstiel School of Marine & Atmospheric Science has grown into one of the world’s premier marine and atmospheric research institutions. Offering dynamic interdisciplinary academics, the Rosenstiel School is dedicated to helping communities to better understand the planet, participating in the establishment of environmental policies, and aiding in the improvement of society and quality of life. For more information, please visit www.rsmas.miami.edu
Well, they could start improving their forecasts by reading the Old Farmers Almanac (who seem to do a better job than most…) and toss out the AGW / CO2 driven models that are substantially wrong. Then look out the window for a few decades and learn what real weather is like…
Reports like this would be greatly improved by tossing out most of the jargon.
“There is an apparent plateau in our ability to make accurate seasonal forecasts; this report provides a road map to enable both scientific research and technical advancements to go beyond this plateau and produce seasonal forecasts that are of greater societal relevance,” said Ben Kirtman, University of Miami Meteorology and Physical Oceanography professor and co-author of the report. “One of the more daunting challenges in this regard is figuring out how to seamlessly transition research results into real improvements in operational forecasts.”
Translation: “We hope to improve the accuracy of weather forecasts”
I have read this once, rather quickly, and it will repay very careful reading. It strikes me as a well written, well thought out and objective account of the problems in climatic forecasting with proper emphasis on limitations and problems with current techniques.
A curious awakening. Looking for more funding? Deflecting the failure of the AGW meme? Part of a political out reach? Interest in real science, I think they have forgotten.
EM Smith
I was saying just the same thing yesterday to some co-workers. The Farmer’s Almanac is predicting a very cold winter this year. Anyone taking bets on the FA’s accuracy this year?
Until they correctly factor in space weather, they are shooting in the dark.
Does anyone know what factors are actually used in seasonal forecasts?? current ocean temperatures and jet stream location for example could be relevant but I’m not sure what correlations have ever been found looking ahead a few months.
A “Plateau”??? I don’t think so.
More like a valley.
A chasm, even.
I think all medium/long-term forecasts would be greatly improved by tossing out most of the pseudo-science which underpins it.
We need to have much better data and develop a better knowledge of how deterministic chaos inherent in the system drives the oscillations of changing weather regimes.
This is a hard problem which needs a different approach before it can be solved.
Hey! It is not a plateau! it´s a HOLE, where you have your head!
The report is very interesting and has some good information about the predictability of weather and climate. But, in the end, the pitch is for more research (=Climate Ca$h) so as to “improve” the forecasts, even though they don’t know what the upper limit of the “improvement” will be:
[from p. 13 of the report]
“It is not possible to quantify the true limit of predictability for the climate system.”
It’s refreshing to read about some objective research that doesn’t blame CAGW for climate change. I would like to see the development of a programmed statistical tool that can be used on multi-variant, non-linear data; such as least squares perpendicular to a changing slope. Time and space resolution are the limiting factors for observational models. The accuracy of “what if” assumptions limit the predictability of mechanistic models.
That’s a kind way of saying:
We know very little about weather/climate, and no where near enough to predict it…
“A plateau” a bit of an understatement … it was very obvious to me when I looked at the Met Office world climate prediction that they were almost no better than random guesses (taking last year’s value and guessing the next would be the same).
Moreover, there was a continued bias in the results … a bias that just happened to be equal to the presumed global warming they expected each year!!!!! Thankfully,after 9 abysmal yearly forecasts, the UK Met Office finally had the good grace to admit they couldn’t forecast next year’s world climate.
But what about the decadal forecasts? Of course they don’t like to admit, that with higher levels of noise in the climate signal over longer periods, it is even more difficult to get the decade predictions right, but on the basis of the yearly forecasts I can make this prediction:-
PEOPLE LIKE THE MET OFFICE WILL CONTINUE TO TELL THE WORLD THEY CAN PREDICT THE CLIMATE ONE YEAR AHEAD AND GET IT ABYSMALLY WRONG (AND BY CHANCE RIGHT OCCAISIONALLY) AND STILL SAY THEY CAN PREDICT IT FOR UP TO 9 DECADES
Maybe we need more knowledge about how Earth’s climate really works? WOW what an astounding discovery.
Be nice!
This is an important new humble position and tone from the climate tower of power.
If this is a important step towards reality away from climate fantasy, its a good one!
Maybe they start consulting Pierce Corbin and Bastardi to take a giant leap in forecasting capabilities.
Eddie says:
September 9, 2010 at 5:32 am
Anyone taking bets on the FA’s accuracy this year?
The OFA is hard to beat, as well as the plants & animals that say “Early Winter”.
I would not put my money on AGW/C02 based predictions, or any mono-coded computer system that only agrees with itself/is capable of predicting only warmer/drier conditions from here until the end of time.
Has there been an audit of Accuweather and Weather Action done to see whether they are significantly better at it? And any other set up I don’t know about who does similar??
Why do they feel a need to forecast next years weather anyway?
Except perhaps it saves them from having to go out and find a proper job in the real world.
Rhys Jaggar says:
September 9, 2010 at 7:20 am
==============================
Rhys, this site rates them:
http://www.forecastadvisor.com/
If forecasting has reached a “plateau”, that means this is a good as it gets.
If this is as good as it gets, you might as well just look out the window….
Seasonal??? Here in Sarasota Fl. the early morning forecast for the day is wrong by mid-afternoon about as often as not. Big wrong. Like 6 degrees F for the max., or thunderstorms that don’t materialize, or storms that do materialize but weren’t predicted, or overcast instead of sun.
The insurance industry needs it in order to set rates. Farmers for choosing which crop to plant. Etc.
Rhys Jaggar says:
September 9, 2010 at 7:20 am
“Has there been an audit of Accuweather and Weather Action done to see whether they are significantly better at it? And any other set up I don’t know about who does similar??”
I would guess the audit is ongoing and natural 😉
The farmers, supermarkets and clothiers would not remain long-term customers if the results fell below, say, 50% accuracy (a coin flip such as the Met Office “perform”). Human nature, if not harsh economic reality, would not allow them to recommend such services to their friends either.
“Well, they could start improving their forecasts by reading the Old Farmers Almanac ”
Heh. Indeed.
There are two questions forecasting climatologists must answer. First, are we measuring all of the things we need to measure in order to make skillful long term forecasts? Second, bearing in mind the sensitivity to initial conditions characteristic of chaotic systems, are our measurements sufficiently precise for skillful long range forecasts? The obvious answer to the first question is “We don’t know”. For the second question, “Probably not” would be an honest response. Garbage in, garbage out.