will meterologists become extint?

[calvinkaskey]

How are we doing on winter forecasts as compared to previous years? Latest event showed forecast radar did much better than what the NWS, TWC and all the other forecasters said. 3 inches or so in binghamton ny and surrounding area. Much less than forecast. Forecast radar showed precip 1.5hrs drive to the north in maybe 12 hr loop at the time the warning was issued. Any complaint s about the BGM meterologists? They issued a storm warning during near 40 temp at the highest elevations. Roads r slushy with only 3 inches in like 12 hrs. What in the world? But that is another issue.

 

[Jason Boggs]

Will Mets become extinct??? Umm...I don't think so.

If robots ever do take over forecasting, I have dibs on the R2D2km and C3kmPO model guidance.

 

[Shane Adams]

I think it's time you pulled off the calvin mask to reveal your true self.

 

[JustinPhillips]

LOL, are you for real?

 

[Marcus Diaz]

Has anyone seen Rob Hurkes lately? Anyone?

 

[Michael Gavan]

It's like this. You can chuck a rock into the water and predictably there will be a splash. The splash will be proportional to the rock. But the shape of the rock when it hits the water, and whether there are waves and other factors will impact the outcome of the details of that splash. The details of that splash, every ripple and swirl are your inches of precip or exact temperature in a given location. You can 3D model this all day long and you can get a representation of the results, However you can only know every detail of that splash if you know every detail about the rock and the water it is hitting, speed, direction, orientation, etc.

So, for robots to take over meteorology to the point of exactness necessary for perfection, You would need to completely saturate the environment with sensors. Since those sensors have to consume and release heat, and by existing at all probably change the environment being sampled....The end result is a net loss for everyone, and changing the outcome of what was to happen in the first place. I want to see the pretty lake I'm chucking a rock into....Not a sea and sky full of senors and blinking lights....Just so I know whether I will get 7 inches of dry snow, versus 3 inches of wet snow. Who cares...it will all land on sensors anyway.

 

[rdale]

To take this on a more serious note - I believe "extinct" is clearly incorrect, but in 2115 I can't imagine a country with 100+ NWS WFOs each with 20+ mets doing a daily forecast and hundreds of TV stations with mets. I bet the TV thing is done in the next 50 years at the most. You will need meteorologists to do the research and write the code for the models, but I just don't believe that in 100 years we'll still see a meteorologist putting eyes on the radar to press a button that issues a Tornado Warning. You won't have a meteorologist perusing surface maps to give you today's high. AI will be far too advanced to leave that to humans

 

[Todd Lemery]

A couple of years ago, Newsweek or Time magazine (I don't recall which one) had an interesting article on the trajectory of computing that the world is on. In a nutshell, around 35 years from now, computers will have evolved to a tipping point where they will become self learning and far surpass the ability of the human mind to figure out complex problems that elude us. The result will be dramatic advances in areas such as medicine, aging, manufacturing and I can easily imagine meteorology.
There is still the garbage in, garbage out issues that would have to be worked out obviously, but it isn't too much of a stretch to me that the time a meteorologist or chaser spends pouring over soundings, satellite loops etc..trying to choose the most likely target area for tornados could be reduced to less than a second with a more accurate outcome.

 

[StephenHenry]

Good points about increased sensor fidelity, machine-learning, etc. But I think there's a simpler aspect that's been overlooked. If a robot issues a tornado emergency and then takes no action to save the people in that area, wouldn't it violate the 1st Law of Robotics (i.e. through inaction, allows a human being to come to harm)?!?!?!?!

 

[rdale]

Stephen - I'm not familiar with that "law" but I'm not clear. Right now when people get a tornado warning, there is not an actual meteorologist there telling them where to go. I'd bet many don't even know a tornado warning is NOT automated.

In addition, I have no doubts that in 25 years your smart device will not only alert you to the warning, but show you based on traffic and storm motion where the safest place to go is if you're in the car, and if you're in your home it will tell you what part of your house is most likely to survive. Humans can't do any of that...

 

[Brian G]

The 1st law of robotics is in reference to Isaac Asimov's three laws of robotics. I took it in gest which is what I think it was intended to be. But yeah, it wouldn't surprise me if many tornado warnings were automated within 25 years. The Warn-on-Forecast project is a step in that direction already. It would still be a big leap to completely remove the human element, but at least it is not out of the realm of possibility even if it is slim at best.

 

[Michael Gavan]

My Internet of everything thread is exactly that Rob... Right now we get text alerts, but what if you could get routed away from a 150 car pileup or a supercell.

 

[calvinkaskey]

so no real comment about winter storm warning in place with no precip and 40 degree t

I WOULD HAVE DONE MUCH BETTER JUST LOOKING AT FUTURE RADAR

The 1st law of robotics is in reference to Isaac Asimov's three laws of robotics. I took it in gest which is what I think it was intended to be. But yeah, it wouldn't surprise me if many tornado warnings were automated within 25 years. The Warn-on-Forecast project is a step in that direction already. It would still be a big leap to completely remove the human element, but at least it is not out of the realm of possibility even if it is slim at best.

 

[StephenHenry]

The 1st law of robotics is in reference to Isaac Asimov's three laws of robotics. I took it in gest which is what I think it was intended to be.

Haha yea sorry, a little snark.

All that aside, it is interesting to consider what evolution of the human element in forecasting will be over the next 100 years. I think rdale could be right about the shrinking need for regional WFO offices (and I would be curious if anyone has a counter-argument).

But the idea that "future radar" could currently replace humans in the loop is definitely scifi. And speaking of scifi, this topic makes me think of a great short story that imagines what human science would look like once we aren't capable of understanding the cutting-edge anymore. Calvin maybe you will like this story (no snark, I genuinely love this author).

 

[James Gustina]

Theoretically I could see it happening when models actually are able to resolve even the smallest of eddies or pressure protuberances on the microscale but that it still a very long ways off. It would also require a critically thinking computer to completely replace a human, which is the entire crux of the matter.