will meterologists become extint?

[Jeff Duda]

The day has already come and gone where a human can no longer outforecast a computer below the mesoscale. Sure, humans can still forecast the s-it out of the synoptic scales, but NWP models are getting better and better, while human forecasting really isn't improving that much. The amount of information available for forecasting at the mesoscale and below is simply too much for a human mind to manage.

 

[Kevin Rimcoski]

They day has already come and gone where a human can no longer outforecast a computer below the mesoscale. Sure, humans can still forecast the s-it out of the synoptic scales, but NWP models are getting better and better, while human forecasting really isn't improving that much. The amount of information available for forecasting at the mesoscale and below is simply too much for a human mind to manage.

I think as a whole of society though we are losing our touch with nature which can also be the reason why humans aren't improving like NWP models. I still believe that a machine can never replicate human intuition and we'll always have that

 

[rdale]

Intuition is just a fancy word for "This matches something in my memory bank"... If your memory bank is great (i.e. you are a meteorologist, or have chased a similar setup in the past) you probably have a good intuition. A computer can beat us all when it comes to that. Intuition can't replace education / experience. Too often I see that term used by social mediarologists with no real value.

 

[Kevin Rimcoski]

Intuition is just a fancy word for "This matches something in my memory bank"... If your memory bank is great (i.e. you are a meteorologist, or have chased a similar setup in the past) you probably have a good intuition. A computer can beat us all when it comes to that. Intuition can't replace education / experience. Too often I see that term used by social mediarologists with no real value.

Haha I kind of like that term. I was kind of assuming those with experience and education though and trusting their guts

 

[Michael Gavan]

While we certainly have a disconnect with nature.... Getting worried about 3 inches of wet snowfall instead of 10 inches of dry snowfall in a forecast at a specific elevation in Appalachia is more representative of that problem, rather than lack of ability to forecast it perfectly. What honestly is going to change your life with 3" versus 10" of snowfall? If your life is thrown into upheaval over that difference, that's a reflection of yourself or of society. Honestly it could be a blizzard outside right now, and I'm pretty sure if I had to go somewhere I know how to handle myself and I also know better than to get caught or put myself in that situation. I certainly don't blame a weather forecaster for getting it wrong. I don't worry that today's forecast temp was off by 5 degrees and it was more like mostly cloudy than partly cloudy. The person who runs to the store to buy bread and milk over snowfall has absolutely no concept of survival or the natural state of things. It's winter...Winter things happen. Be prepared for winter stuff---And by the way, speaking of what's natural, be awestruck that you can buy a strawberry in February---your great-great grandparents would have reacted like the crew of the Serenity.

I don't think humans need to worry about global forecast patterns and mesoscale features like this. We need to understand the concepts and the math, but then allow machines to handle it. It's fine and dandy that you can long division, but calculators are more accurate, faster, and it allows humans to handle more important intuitive and big picture concepts. Let's not sweat the details...We have machines for that.

 

[calvinkaskey]

Computer models continue to overestimate cold outbreaks

FOR YEARS THAT HAS BEEN GOING ON BUT DOES ANYONE DO ANYHING ABOUT IT? No. Im not a meteorologist but I am calling we won't see a high of 0 or less at BGM (Binghamton regional airport his Sunday) and I called it days before everyone else.

While we certainly have a disconnect with nature.... Getting worried about 3 inches of wet snowfall instead of 10 inches of dry snowfall in a forecast at a specific elevation in Appalachia is more representative of that problem, rather than lack of ability to forecast it perfectly. What honestly is going to change your life with 3" versus 10" of snowfall? If your life is thrown into upheaval over that difference, that's a reflection of yourself or of society. Honestly it could be a blizzard outside right now, and I'm pretty sure if I had to go somewhere I know how to handle myself and I also know better than to get caught or put myself in that situation. I certainly don't blame a weather forecaster for getting it wrong. I don't worry that today's forecast temp was off by 5 degrees and it was more like mostly cloudy than partly cloudy. The person who runs to the store to buy bread and milk over snowfall has absolutely no concept of survival or the natural state of things. It's winter...Winter things happen. Be prepared for winter stuff---And by the way, speaking of what's natural, be awestruck that you can buy a strawberry in February---your great-great grandparents would have reacted like the crew of the Serenity.

I don't think humans need to worry about global forecast patterns and mesoscale features like this. We need to understand the concepts and the math, but then allow machines to handle it. It's fine and dandy that you can long division, but calculators are more accurate, faster, and it allows humans to handle more important intuitive and big picture concepts. Let's not sweat the details...We have machines for that.

 

[Kevin Rimcoski]

FOR YEARS THAT HAS BEEN GOING ON BUT DOES ANYONE DO ANYHING ABOUT IT? No. Im not a meteorologist but I am calling we won't see a high of 0 or less at BGM (Binghamton regional airport his Sunday) and I called it days before everyone else.

I think I'm missing the point

 

[Jeff Duda]

Same here.
Seems like Calvin is on a different topic than the rest of us.

 

[StephenHenry]

I pray he never finds out about the NYC snowfall forecasts before the nor'easter a couple weeks ago...

 

[Mark Ellinwood]

There will "always" be a need for human forecasters... just maybe not as much in the traditional sense that people seem to be focusing on. Okay, so one day we could have accurate enough forecasts out to five days that no human input is needed. What about the 6-10 day? 11-15 day? Beyond that? There will seemingly always be a way for humans to edge out the computer output, even if that means having to move the goalposts.

Humans will almost always have an edge in the nowcast as well. There is no way for a computer to catch every individual storm in the exact location at the exact time... there's just not enough available observations, and obs won't be 100% accurate, so even perfected computer software wouldn't be able to produce a perfect forecast. You get something highly sensitive to that kind of stuff like a big sporting event, and you bet a meteorologist with a radar, visible satellite and other obs will be able to outperform a short term model.

As of now, model (and human) day-by-day forecasts beyond 10 days have a hard time just keeping up with a forecast based purely on climo, so I don't think we have anything to worry about for a long time. I'm excited to see how far we can progress in my lifetime, but I'm certainly not worried about getting replaced by a computer.

 

[rdale]

Mark - I'm not following your claim (especially in the second paragraph.) Why would you say that a computer can't watch every storm but a human can? Experience shows the opposite - in big events, humans miss some signs because of the info overload. Computers don't suffer from that... And as Jeff noted - computers already do outforecast humans in the short term model department.

 

[Mark Ellinwood]

Mark - I'm not following your claim (especially in the second paragraph.) Why would you say that a computer can't watch every storm but a human can? Experience shows the opposite - in big events, humans miss some signs because of the info overload. Computers don't suffer from that... And as Jeff noted - computers already do outforecast humans in the short term model department.

Picture if you will...

A computer model pops up a storm 10 miles northwest of Kansas City at 6pm and slides it eastward, staying just north of the city. It found a pocket of higher instability in that area based on a site whose temperature and dew point was running too high, allowing the storm to form there. 6pm rolls around, and the storm forms, but it's actually 10 miles further south when it first pops up on radar. A meteorologist puts out a warning for downtown KC, whereas it would have been north of the city if you were just using the straight model output.

A computer cannot nowcast. It must make complex calculations and then spit out a graphic that people can read and understand. A human can see the storm pop up and can make a nowcast accordingly, as humans do not need to make complex calculations and can follow the storm on the fly.

Computers do NOT already out-forecast humans in the short term department. In fact, it's still really easy to beat the models in instances where model resolution isn't good enough to properly handle 1) a storm between grid points, or 2) handling variables within areas that don't have a good enough topographic resolution. Where the heck is the data to support the models being better than human forecasters?

Companies pay private forecasters thousands of dollars per year for short term forecasts and nowcasts. Why on Earth would they be paying for that if there was a model that could do a better job?

 

[Jeff Duda]

Companies pay private forecasters thousands of dollars per year for short term forecasts and nowcasts. Why on Earth would they be paying for that if there was a model that could do a better job?

Because they are not aware that NWP models with the capability of forecasting individual thunderstorms exist. OR (and this makes a lot of sense from the standpoint of a private sector business owner in the business of forecasting the weather) companies that know about these models haven't told their clients. Why tell your client there's a free way to get almost the same information they pay you for?

Your example is a good one, but it relies on the assumption that a storm has already formed (i.e., advection is generally the only governing force the human uses for the forecast). What about situations requiring accurate forecasts of convective initiation? A human will most certainly be unable to beat an NWP model in that situation.

 

[Mark Ellinwood]

Because they are not aware that NWP models with the capability of forecasting individual thunderstorms exist. OR (and this makes a lot of sense from the standpoint of a private sector business owner in the business of forecasting the weather) companies that know about these models haven't told their clients. Why tell your client there's a free way to get almost the same information they pay you for?

Clients are always looking for a way to cut costs. Forecast models are shared endlessly on social media. If there was something for them to catch onto, I'm confident that they would have. There's no massive conspiracy of private forecasters withholding verification data in order to cover their own asses. I take GREAT pride in the fact that I (like most other mets) can beat NWP at any given lead time. I'm an honest, blunt person... if NWP consistently beat my forecasts, I'd quit forecasting.

Your example is a good one, but it relies on the assumption that a storm has already formed (i.e., advection is generally the only governing force the human uses for the forecast). What about situations requiring accurate forecasts of convective initiation? A human will most certainly be unable to beat an NWP model in that situation.

That's not the point I was trying to make. The point was that, no matter how much the NWP improves, there will always be a way for forecasters to find ways to beat the models. It might not be for a forecast 2-3 hours from now, but in the near term where the minutes count and in the longer range where skill declines, there's always added skill to be had through human input.

 

[rdale]

it's actually 10 miles further south when it first pops up on radar. A meteorologist puts out a warning for downtown KC, whereas it would have been north of the city if you were just using the straight model output.

I also picture the computer recognizing the measurement error, and correcting for it when the warning is issued. How do you think the meteorologist knew there was an error? His training and experience. Not some "feeling" in his gut. Well the computer can be trained to recognize errors too, and also compensate for said errors.

A computer cannot nowcast.

As has been noted already - computers do. They are still early in the development cycle, but they can take a storm that has formed (and even one that has not) and "nowcast" from that. I'd suggest looking up "Warn On Forecast" for more info on what exists now and where it's going. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2009BAMS2795.1

It must make complex calculations and then spit out a graphic that people can read and understand.

No - it doesn't at all. It can spit out an ALL CAPITAL TORNADO WARNING if it wants, or it can notify cell phones in the area of the storm that a tornado is likely to form, and post a note on Twitter. Long before the human met can do all those.

as humans do not need to make complex calculations and can follow the storm on the fly.

And that's a detriment - not a feature The computer can analyze EVERY storm on the radar scope, and storms that aren't even on the screen yet, and see which ones are moving into better/worse environments. A human can do a handful, but if you have 12 supercells out there - the PC will win.

Companies pay private forecasters thousands of dollars per year for short term forecasts and nowcasts. Why on Earth would they be paying for that if there was a model that could do a better job?

Actually those private forecasters are using models that people outside of their environment don't have access to. It's cheaper to pay AW $100K per year than it is to develop a $100M modeling system.

I appreciate your concern for the plight of the human forecaster but I'm just not sure you are up to speed on where things are now (and what that means for the future.)