https://vlab.noaa.gov/documents/2381028/3646504/20170905_SJLIN_GFDL_MP.pptx

Slide 3 shows a process map of some of the "microphysics" models in GFS for the water vapor family of effects along with phase state (ice vs liquid) which would also necessitate a temperature solution in the mix.

Slide 23 a nice validation comparison with a hurricane prediction vs measured aftermath.

Not bad but I think it's still a bit behind the European models.

 

https://vlab.noaa.gov/documents/2381028/4283918/13-Pegion-FV3GFS_training.pdf

Discusses how they use randomization patterns in the variables to improve final results with those ensemble averages. Just prior to the ai/ml frenzy.

1 hour ago, blingthinger said:

"microphysics" models

which looks like an invented name for

aka DTMC.

aka all the stuff Winston Churchill ordered destroyed and all the CS folk have spend the last ~80 years reinventing.

So shout out to

https://turinglang.org/docs/getting-started/

Edited January 26, 20251 yr by mSparks

Invented name.

That is some fantastic lizard-brain visual association right there. You saw this

And assumed it was Markov matrix without doing any homework. Here's your cookie:

A list of the micro physics models in GFS:

https://dtcenter.ucar.edu/gmtb/users/ccpp/docs/sci_doc_v2/subpage_overview.html

Take sea ice for example. You can arrive at a step-by-step description of how they factor sea ice into GFS. (fantastic algorithm documentation here btw):

https://dtcenter.ucar.edu/gmtb/users/ccpp/docs/sci_doc_v2/group__gfs__sice__main_ga7ef26147a1c8d851bfaf0a7574ba9fbb.html#ga7ef26147a1c8d851bfaf0a7574ba9fbb

It's based on this peer-reviewed journal paper which is downloadable:

https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atot/17/4/1520-0426_2000_017_0525_artlsi_2_0_co_2.xml

 

It's a similar story for the other models. Lots of physics-based journal articles. No obvious sign of any emoji-based probabilities.

Edited January 26, 20251 yr by blingthinger

9 hours ago, blingthinger said:

assumed it was Markov matrix without doing any homework. 

because its not a life table or decision tree model.

Which doesn't really leave much in the way of alternatives.

Pretty much everything about time stepping models was defined by Andrey Markov in 1856-1922

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrey_Markov

so while your "peer reviewed" paper from 2000 is fine, unless its referencing his seminal works is also some 100 years late to the party.

 

Edited January 26, 20251 yr by mSparks

I wish I could take credit for that paper, among others on that long list NOAA uses. I'm sure many of those authors have been active in the climate discussions too. Shame (for the planet, really) that too many folks slurp up statistics alone.

I'm perfectly happy being late to your party if it means I don't have to

simply because I refused to believe Newton and friends.

Edited January 26, 20251 yr by blingthinger

9 hours ago, blingthinger said:

I wish I could take credit for that paper, among others on that long list NOAA uses.

I think first you will need to start differentiating between a model estimating seasonal variations and models that give <9 hours and <15 day forecasts.

9 hours ago, blingthinger said:

I'm perfectly happy being late to your party if it means I don't have to

 

OTOH, not basing forecasts and estimates on anything related to the real world is the rule rather than the exception to the rule in most climate science, so if that's what floats your boat....

Still not seeing anything CFD related in any of what you posted tho, couple of mathematical models and a timeslicing state model you dont want to call DTMC does not a

https://paveldogreat.github.io/WebGL-Fluid-Simulation/

make.

Is this still going on, wishfull thinking.

Not anymore. Believe it or not sparky is denying science.

Believe it.

37 minutes ago, blingthinger said:

Not anymore. Believe it or not sparky is denying science.

Believe it.

Science is not my reliigion. Its not all true as we keep finding out.

35 minutes ago, mjrhealth said:

true

That's a curious word to use. We can accurately predict a weather pattern many days before it happens with boiled water and melted sand. If you described that capability a couple hundred yrs ago that'd be black magic. Wouldn't have mattered if you floated on water or not: you'd be burned at the stake.

I find that a blend of both 'languages' is the best path forward.

Edited January 27, 20251 yr by blingthinger

2 minutes ago, blingthinger said:

it happens, with boiled water and melted sand. If you described that c

Accurate. Doubt it. Always a best guess, think one weather man said, best they can do is 7 days. But i have watched predictions changed by the hour.  So i can predict the weather in the sahara. Hot. Yet they have had flooding rains and snow. Whoud have thunked it.

2 minutes ago, mjrhealth said:

Doubt it

These days the US Gulf coast is very grateful for hurricane forecasts and more recently, snow predictions. Not only is that your problem, but that attitude is also part of the "problem".

5 hours ago, blingthinger said:

These days the US Gulf coast is very grateful for hurricane forecasts and more recently, snow predictions. Not only is that your problem, but that attitude is also part of the "problem".

Nah. They see big cyclone in sattelite, than its guessing to see what it will do. From moment to moment, or listeing to guy in us talking about snow fall  saying how he would be surprised uf they get what is predicted or the weathermam telling you what a lovely day it will be, if he only looked out the window. I live in the real world where the weather does as it pleases and i have no problem with that. Whay is that a problem.

Didn't think we'd get worse than msparks' ramblings, but here we are...

1 hour ago, blingthinger said:

Didn't think we'd get worse than msparks' ramblings, but here we are...

Well lots of competition, but im not that smart.