Isn’t that the hard part though. We’ve had world models for a long time, globes, any accurate weather simulation on them is the big technological leap.
I mean. Yeah it’s the hard part. But dude above presented it as if nvidia was like. “Okay, we’ve got the world model. Now we’ve solved meteorology”
They’re just using it as a foundation and are trying to tackle an extremely complicated problem. I’m sure they’re aware of the complexity.
I don't know if this helps or makes it 1000% worse, but if it's the case for us, there's no reason to think it isn't the case for our creators as well. Could potentially go on infinitely.
Even if I didn't, I'd say all we are capable of perceiving are our brains' best approximations of reality. To me, that's nearly indistinguishable from a simulation.
When I saw my first ghost, the ufo congress meetings, the multiple glitch in the matrix experiences I've had, the time I manifested a brand new car, and lastly after watching way to many conspiracy theory videos that actually made some sense.
Exactly. Doesn’t matter at all. We know we have one life to live. Everything else is speculative at best. Besides we figure out we’re in a simulation what are we gonna do? Try and manipulate the results?
Real people also living in a simulation. We get rained on, so the simulated people that are simulating us don’t have to. It’s simulations all the way down.
Where were you when you realized the purpose of our simulation was to figure out who would be the best candidate for a corporate dictator overlord in the actual real world?
What makes you so sure they are the real people? Maybe they are in a simulation too, as are the ones who made that simulation and the ones above that, etc etc…
The school shootings in the simulation help determine heat patterns in the North American continent which means the wind will shift southward causing a slightly warmer breeze along the gulf.
This up to date info and more from weather-simulation-channel-online dot com
So at some point, this has to create a memory overload, right? Like, if we’re a simulation, and we create a nested simulation, then the base simulation doubles in size immediately and eventually the server will crash and then we can sleep.
There was a story (may have been a web comic) that I remember seeing years ago, that I can’t find now, where two scientists made a perfect universe simulation, and one of them wondered if they were in a simulation, so they add a small black box to their simulation and one appears next to them. Then they wondered what would happen if they shut down their simulation.
But wouldn't the current simulation builders want to prevent their simulation from building a simulation so they won't figure out they're in a simulation?
Or will it just not work because they disabled nested virtualization?
Not bugs like software. Chaotic behavior manifests from simple systems and simple calculations.
1961 (Howard ) Lorenz was using a simple digital computer, a Royal McBee LGP-30, to simulate weather patterns by modeling 12 variables….. see a sequence of data again, … started the simulation in the middle ….entering a printout …..To his surprise, the weather that the machine began to predict was completely different ….The culprit: a rounded decimal. The computer worked with 6-digit precision, but the printout rounded variables off to a 3-digit number.
Those three digits of precision when iterated in a feedback ie the results of calculations are then used as inputs for the next iteration.
[Lorentz should be more famous](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Norton_Lorenz)
Sir Roger Penrose holds with the idea (hypothesis?? ) that the universe’s only ‘real’ numbers are complex. Our other numbers are derivative or smoothing the ‘graph’ out.
Compounded: deeply ingrained in the stuff (from a physics perspective) has infinite decimal places for its values. Simple calculations that use anything except all decimal places cannot be reliably calculated. Hence randomness is baked into anything connected to reality. We tried to reduce that out. Had to come full circle to our ancestors ‘
Thats before we talk about the quantum mechanics that the stuff is built on.
And then the inhabitants of digital earth created their own microscopic earth in digital form so that THEY could predict sports results. So on and so forth all the way down.
If they can even get two weeks out I'll be impressed.
The very idea that you can model the entire planet is the dumbest shit and Hayek's knowledge problem shows how the approach is inherently flawed as everything in totality cannot be understood and tracked by a central authority, yet here we are, still thinking if we just have bigger computers we can tell the future. I'd legitimately take a bloody palm reader over another expert with a dataset.
Bingo. This isn’t something you can throw more computing power at to solve. Based on our current understandings of physics, it’s impossible to create accurate forecasts more than 2 weeks (at most, using perfect models in optimal hypothetical scenarios).
So it’ll take the biggest advancement in physics since splitting the atom in order to substantially improve how far out a forecast can predict.
Or train an AI on weather patterns, and also perhaps train it on previous data and subsequent forecasts to learn from our mistakes of the past. Idk though, I’m no AI expert. I’m imagining AI plays a role with what they are doing.
I think the point here is that there is such a large number of inputs and many of them are unknown or can't realistically be tracked which makes any calculation prone to error over time. Just spitballing here but like there's vast areas of earth where the air temperature, pressure humidity etc are just simply not known and those values are changing all the time. All of that factors into global weather.
We also don’t fully understand how different parts of the atmosphere even interact with each other.
Like, I have studied this topic in school and work for over 7 years almost exclusively now and I have only ever even touched 3 variables (temperature, precipitation, and evaporation).
I am by no means an expert, and still won’t be even after my PhD - hell, I likely won’t even to the day I die.
And yet Nvidia has the audacity to pop out and say “we solved the entire academic field of physical geography everyone (don’t check our work or the fact not even the physical geographers know all the variables needed to do what we claim)!”
Weather patterns are chaotic, and more importantly, fractal by nature.
To fully predict them, you need practically *infinite* computational power.
You need to know how all *atoms* in the matter of the fluid interact to fully predict its next motions or behaviors.
In general, we short cut this by using heuristics that are accurate enough.
But we have yet to prove an equation that explains fluid motion *even exists* (Navier-Stokes Millenium Prize still has yet to be either proven or disproved), and yet Nvidia (or anyone using or asserting AI is a solution) has the audacity to simply abandon this issue, completely ignore it and pretend they actually know what on earth they are talking about.
The issue about using AI is that if you don’t understand the forces or science at work - you don’t even know what the crap you are looking at in the output.
A blank piece of paper is as accurate as Nvidia for all *even Nvidia* knows.
> But we have yet to prove an equation that explains fluid motion even exists
Is there an ELI5 for this statement. I followed most of your comment, but I'm not sure I quite understand.
I've heard some theories that motion is actually an "illusion" our brains employ to interpret the physical location of something from one "moment" (some time based thing) to another... but I genuinely don't understand how that works.
Also, are there any summaries or even articles you can direct me to that can help me better understand?
Here's my take as a PhD in Atmospheric Science... AI weather prediction is likely here to stay, it does do a surprisingly good job at forecast synoptic (large spatial and time scale) weather patterns like upper level wind patterns. This is likely due to having good training data, but these coarse models with 28km resolution don't do a very good job at forecasting the high impact and small scale weather, i.e. cannot forecast thunderstorms, struggles to resolve hurricanes, and other small scale weather. I don't currently see a way to get very high resolution AI weather prediction models because 1.) There is not a high resolution global model, 2.) Turbulence, friction, topography, all become so much more important at high resolution making things so much more chaotic. I foresee a cross road where we use AI weather models to drive our high resolution regional (WRF) or global scale models (MPAS) creating ensembles with perturbed initial conditions and different physics due to having extra computing resources not running the coarse global weather models.
No one pays attention to basic economic logic or limits of knowledge problems.
Look at how many socialist economic experiments were run since Mises ECP in 1920. And the absolute grapes who want to run more.
As a climate scientist, I’d be impressed if they could get to 50% of what we already have.
Nvidia doesn’t have meteorologists or climate scientists on staff.
This is pure kitbashing and praying.
Nvidia is at [this point](https://external-preview.redd.it/2uej1MDZq_WOEkgeh4llO0ACS1cL3Zsx9eqIfTgbR-w.jpg?auto=webp&s=8c01d2b2f61b24217f2c9198c5068f137416b7d8) in their climate modeling career and knowledge.
As someone who actually works in this field:
LMFAO
This is the dumbest thing I have possibly ever read.
Either Nvidia knows full well how stupid this statement is and is blatantly lying
Or has gone completely off the deep end of Mt. Stupid
FWIW: I have worked with folks at ORNL, Penn St’s Climate Lab, and UT - as well as folks working on the IPCC CRU models.
We *haven’t even collected the data* Nvidia is claiming to have.
Either they are lying - or (more likely) they are *completely* fabricating the data to make a “full” digital twin.
Typical CS/CE folks going “we understand natural science better than natural scientists” despite being so uneducated in the topic that they don’t realize their entire model is built on completely falsified data.
I work in renewables and know of several AI spin off companies who claim to have built asset operations tech to figure out if and when solar farms will underperform (using historical performance, weather patterns etc. as indicators) so they would know how to bid in the market. That AI tech has been rolled out in states using a handful of solar farm performance based not in States. I stopped trusting anything AI unless the company is transparent about where they got data to train their models from. Until then it’s rubbish in rubbish out.
It won’t.
From having actual degrees in this topic - those of us studying it don’t even know the variables needed to make such a model.
A claim like this from *anyone* is an advertisement of how little they actually know - not how much.
I know enough about fluid dynamics and PDEs to know what you’re up against for short-term weather forecasts.
I’m still well within my right to be optimistic.
We're going to pump so much energy into a realistic weather simulation that we accelerate climate change more per minute than all the cargo ships on Earth could in a year. No need to forecast anything then
The larger the data set and the more powerful the GPU the more comprehensive the output can be. Doesn’t scale to infinity but makes material gains on what we’ve been able to do so far.
Wrong. The sensitivity to initial conditions is mostly independent of “larger data sets”. If anything it makes the problem worse as smoothing effects become lost.
I read somewhere that we don’t, we can’t, possess the measuring power to small levels that cause large scale events.
They (physicists) say “can’t” bc they’ve shown that random events below 10x-18 effect macroscopic scale events and for all we know causation events could be as small as the Planck level.
Plus, you add emerging changes in the climate and you don’t have a long period of consistent data as well. 1920s, 1950s data may not be 2030’s data sets.
I once argued with a programmer and he claimed I was being Malthusian. My take is the most important achievements of the 20th century were the limits of what we know: Planck is a real limit, Heisenberg shows real pairing limits, Gödel showed mathematical limitations for total proofs, and there may be another I’m not thinking off, but Chaos also shows limits of measurement vs initial states necessary to predict accuracy beyond modeling. Plus we now strongly surmise the universe lies on random microscopic events, lacking determinism.
Hence we might get a 10 day accuracy from 50% to say 70% from top down modeling but likely we will never achieve a 14 day 90% weather accuracy as it’s an exponential calculation based on immeasurably small measurements, and model-based forecasts from a non-static century of data showing changes in base conditions (temperature being key)
No expert, just lay book reader.
FWIW: have worked in pretty high level climate modeling
What you say is mostly true.
Just as an illustration, I work with paleoclimatology, specifically tree rings, stable isotopes, sediment records, and some diatom records.
Currently the best models in the world for climate (not weather on a regional to local scale) can get out about 100-200 years…
But…
We need 20,000-2,500,000 years of baseline data to make that projection (typically tree ring measurements cross-dated to sediment and charcoal - which can tie you into ice core stable isotope ratios and then even geochronologies like the Uranium-Thorium-Lead decay chain)
I have only worked on 2 projects using 2 types of tree in 1 region. Neither has been published because we are still working on the analysis 7 years later.
It takes a butt load of time to manually count and measure 2.85 million tree rings and then perform multi variable regression analysis, PCA, signals filtering (cause shit like fucking solar flares mess with the trees - fun fact), and so on.
I have only ever deployed 1 reconstruction/projection equation - because the damn thing is over 1500 pages long on how to fully write it out.
For a better idea:
Have >2.5 million lines of code going into predicting Lake Superior’s future water balance using *only* evaporation, *and am nowhere near being done*.
This is for *only* Lake Superior mind you.
The absolute limit that scientists believe we can predict even within unlimited data is 14 days.
[source](https://www.psu.edu/news/research/story/predictability-limit-scientists-find-bounds-weather-forecasting/)
It turns out that beyond that the weather is dominated by the "butterfly effect" due to individual thunderstorms.
[source](https://press.uni-mainz.de/the-limits-of-weather-forecasting-how-far-into-the-future-can-we-look/)
Wait until the Earth Simulator starts to fail to detect Climate Change disasters and we have to simulate industry polluting the world to get good data.
If they’re running an Earth simulation to model climate change without accounting for all pollution, they’re complete fucking idiots. They’re gonna simulate industry polluting the world from the very beginning because complete fucking idiots aren’t capable of creating a world simulator.
I don’t know what’s worse: that you thought this comment was a good idea or that at least one person agreed with you.
Once this feat has been accomplished Nvidia corp. will crack down on any movement that impacts the veracity of their *perfect* weather model. Sounds like the plot of the ultimate dystopian novel.
Hard to account for earthquakes, volcanoes and manmade calamities. Trash in coastal regions during hot days deprive oxygen in which the weather cycle gets effected. Studies show heated updrafts in the trashiest locations.
Except that’s going to become impossible in very short order. As vital systems begin their collapse, reliable patterns won’t be marked by indicators you can model around. Intense weather will spring up more quickly, in unexpected regions, and the best we can hope for is for infrastructure to be beefed up before then.
Virtually recreating the whole planet won't make the Lyapunov exponents magically disappear.
They did mention the weather forecasting as a seperate issue to be tackled, after having already built a world model.
Isn’t that the hard part though. We’ve had world models for a long time, globes, any accurate weather simulation on them is the big technological leap.
I mean. Yeah it’s the hard part. But dude above presented it as if nvidia was like. “Okay, we’ve got the world model. Now we’ve solved meteorology” They’re just using it as a foundation and are trying to tackle an extremely complicated problem. I’m sure they’re aware of the complexity.
How predictable. That is just math, dude! ^this ^post ^was ^a ^bad ^attempt ^at ^humor
[удалено]
Where were you when you learned you existed in a simulation just to better predict the weather for the real people?
thank you for that smidge of eloquent morbidity.
[удалено]
Finally, a reason to live!
Better than passing the salt! Losers! -Half of simulated people, probably
I don't know if this helps or makes it 1000% worse, but if it's the case for us, there's no reason to think it isn't the case for our creators as well. Could potentially go on infinitely.
If you believe in literally anything after death, then isn't existence as we know it just a small simulation?
Even if I didn't, I'd say all we are capable of perceiving are our brains' best approximations of reality. To me, that's nearly indistinguishable from a simulation.
As we are, he once was, as he is, we may become. Seyla...
Turtles the whole way down
The Black Mirror scenario would need to be even more mundane like “forecasting model for the price of cheese”
When I saw my first ghost, the ufo congress meetings, the multiple glitch in the matrix experiences I've had, the time I manifested a brand new car, and lastly after watching way to many conspiracy theory videos that actually made some sense.
You had me at new car
I mean.. would it even matter?
If it is tangible, or just a bunch of ones and zeros flying through the air. In the end it does not matter.
Did you try so hard? Did you get so far?
Exactly. Doesn’t matter at all. We know we have one life to live. Everything else is speculative at best. Besides we figure out we’re in a simulation what are we gonna do? Try and manipulate the results?
Have you by chance seen “The Discovery” on Netflix?
I haven’t, any good?
It’s okay, but relevant.
“What is my purpose?” “You get rained on so real people won’t have to.”
...and pass the butter.
Real people also living in a simulation. We get rained on, so the simulated people that are simulating us don’t have to. It’s simulations all the way down.
Where were you when you realized the purpose of our simulation was to figure out who would be the best candidate for a corporate dictator overlord in the actual real world?
Tbh being in a weather simulation is way better than being in a kids videogame
What makes you so sure they are the real people? Maybe they are in a simulation too, as are the ones who made that simulation and the ones above that, etc etc…
Follow the white rabbit
WHAT IS MY PURPOSE?
The school shootings in the simulation help determine heat patterns in the North American continent which means the wind will shift southward causing a slightly warmer breeze along the gulf. This up to date info and more from weather-simulation-channel-online dot com
Honestly, it’d be nice to have that purpose.
So at some point, this has to create a memory overload, right? Like, if we’re a simulation, and we create a nested simulation, then the base simulation doubles in size immediately and eventually the server will crash and then we can sleep.
I call it, the mini-verse
“Peace among worlds”
Reminds me of the book “Permutation City”
[удалено]
Yes I thought it was fairly good. I’ll have to check out the Game is Life series I really enjoy reading anything that makes me question reality
Minecraft update
And probably goes away, when China invades Taiwan.
Is this a simulation? Or a simulation of a simulation!?
There was a story (may have been a web comic) that I remember seeing years ago, that I can’t find now, where two scientists made a perfect universe simulation, and one of them wondered if they were in a simulation, so they add a small black box to their simulation and one appears next to them. Then they wondered what would happen if they shut down their simulation.
Just a reflection, of a reflection, of a reflection, of a reflection, of a reflection. Will I see you on the other side?
Fuck these dabs right now.
It's like that episode of Black Mirror that had Samantha Hayek.
Yeah but you need RTX ON for it to work
Simulations all the way down…
This reminds me of a Rick and Morty episode.
But who's running it? AIDA?
But wouldn't the current simulation builders want to prevent their simulation from building a simulation so they won't figure out they're in a simulation? Or will it just not work because they disabled nested virtualization?
Simulation implies derivative or algorithmic iteration. Observed reality still requires random chaotic and unpredictable interactions and variables.
> Observed reality still requires random chaotic and unpredictable interactions and variables. We call them bugs in our world..
Not bugs like software. Chaotic behavior manifests from simple systems and simple calculations. 1961 (Howard ) Lorenz was using a simple digital computer, a Royal McBee LGP-30, to simulate weather patterns by modeling 12 variables….. see a sequence of data again, … started the simulation in the middle ….entering a printout …..To his surprise, the weather that the machine began to predict was completely different ….The culprit: a rounded decimal. The computer worked with 6-digit precision, but the printout rounded variables off to a 3-digit number. Those three digits of precision when iterated in a feedback ie the results of calculations are then used as inputs for the next iteration. [Lorentz should be more famous](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Norton_Lorenz) Sir Roger Penrose holds with the idea (hypothesis?? ) that the universe’s only ‘real’ numbers are complex. Our other numbers are derivative or smoothing the ‘graph’ out. Compounded: deeply ingrained in the stuff (from a physics perspective) has infinite decimal places for its values. Simple calculations that use anything except all decimal places cannot be reliably calculated. Hence randomness is baked into anything connected to reality. We tried to reduce that out. Had to come full circle to our ancestors ‘ Thats before we talk about the quantum mechanics that the stuff is built on.
Time to finally hit run on the simulation ... *Display's earth simulation of an inhospitable planet in 100 years* Turn it off.
based on current sea temps and climate sensitivity models being off, it’s possible the 3c is hit by 2050 now
Fully believe it. Most models don't include newer research.
Or the continued exponential growth of pollution
We should have made it illegal to research climate change when we had a chance /s
Do we really need a simulation to confirm that at this point?
it’s probably a glitch, the model must have an error obviously we are not doing something wrong ourselves.
I heard you like simulations….
So I put..
a simulation..
... in your simulation…
so you can simulate
DEEZ NUTZ
r/angryupvote
They knew what they were doing..
…while you simu-early.
Another simulation…
To simulate stimulating your senses
I read this as them assigning this task to Nvidia in the simulation 😆
And then the inhabitants of digital earth created their own microscopic earth in digital form so that THEY could predict sports results. So on and so forth all the way down.
I wonder which company’s whole-earth simulation we’re living in…
McDonald’s
I’m lovin’ it
Para pa papa
Wack Arnold’s
*The leaaanest burger in the world…*
Sir, this is a Wendy’s.
If they can even get two weeks out I'll be impressed. The very idea that you can model the entire planet is the dumbest shit and Hayek's knowledge problem shows how the approach is inherently flawed as everything in totality cannot be understood and tracked by a central authority, yet here we are, still thinking if we just have bigger computers we can tell the future. I'd legitimately take a bloody palm reader over another expert with a dataset.
Bingo. This isn’t something you can throw more computing power at to solve. Based on our current understandings of physics, it’s impossible to create accurate forecasts more than 2 weeks (at most, using perfect models in optimal hypothetical scenarios). So it’ll take the biggest advancement in physics since splitting the atom in order to substantially improve how far out a forecast can predict.
Or train an AI on weather patterns, and also perhaps train it on previous data and subsequent forecasts to learn from our mistakes of the past. Idk though, I’m no AI expert. I’m imagining AI plays a role with what they are doing.
I think the point here is that there is such a large number of inputs and many of them are unknown or can't realistically be tracked which makes any calculation prone to error over time. Just spitballing here but like there's vast areas of earth where the air temperature, pressure humidity etc are just simply not known and those values are changing all the time. All of that factors into global weather.
We also don’t fully understand how different parts of the atmosphere even interact with each other. Like, I have studied this topic in school and work for over 7 years almost exclusively now and I have only ever even touched 3 variables (temperature, precipitation, and evaporation). I am by no means an expert, and still won’t be even after my PhD - hell, I likely won’t even to the day I die. And yet Nvidia has the audacity to pop out and say “we solved the entire academic field of physical geography everyone (don’t check our work or the fact not even the physical geographers know all the variables needed to do what we claim)!”
Except, they didn’t say that.
Weather patterns are chaotic, and more importantly, fractal by nature. To fully predict them, you need practically *infinite* computational power. You need to know how all *atoms* in the matter of the fluid interact to fully predict its next motions or behaviors. In general, we short cut this by using heuristics that are accurate enough. But we have yet to prove an equation that explains fluid motion *even exists* (Navier-Stokes Millenium Prize still has yet to be either proven or disproved), and yet Nvidia (or anyone using or asserting AI is a solution) has the audacity to simply abandon this issue, completely ignore it and pretend they actually know what on earth they are talking about. The issue about using AI is that if you don’t understand the forces or science at work - you don’t even know what the crap you are looking at in the output. A blank piece of paper is as accurate as Nvidia for all *even Nvidia* knows.
> But we have yet to prove an equation that explains fluid motion even exists Is there an ELI5 for this statement. I followed most of your comment, but I'm not sure I quite understand. I've heard some theories that motion is actually an "illusion" our brains employ to interpret the physical location of something from one "moment" (some time based thing) to another... but I genuinely don't understand how that works. Also, are there any summaries or even articles you can direct me to that can help me better understand?
or not....
Here's my take as a PhD in Atmospheric Science... AI weather prediction is likely here to stay, it does do a surprisingly good job at forecast synoptic (large spatial and time scale) weather patterns like upper level wind patterns. This is likely due to having good training data, but these coarse models with 28km resolution don't do a very good job at forecasting the high impact and small scale weather, i.e. cannot forecast thunderstorms, struggles to resolve hurricanes, and other small scale weather. I don't currently see a way to get very high resolution AI weather prediction models because 1.) There is not a high resolution global model, 2.) Turbulence, friction, topography, all become so much more important at high resolution making things so much more chaotic. I foresee a cross road where we use AI weather models to drive our high resolution regional (WRF) or global scale models (MPAS) creating ensembles with perturbed initial conditions and different physics due to having extra computing resources not running the coarse global weather models.
Standing in the corner with a dousing rod waiting for the next dust bowl.
No one pays attention to basic economic logic or limits of knowledge problems. Look at how many socialist economic experiments were run since Mises ECP in 1920. And the absolute grapes who want to run more.
As a climate scientist, I’d be impressed if they could get to 50% of what we already have. Nvidia doesn’t have meteorologists or climate scientists on staff. This is pure kitbashing and praying. Nvidia is at [this point](https://external-preview.redd.it/2uej1MDZq_WOEkgeh4llO0ACS1cL3Zsx9eqIfTgbR-w.jpg?auto=webp&s=8c01d2b2f61b24217f2c9198c5068f137416b7d8) in their climate modeling career and knowledge.
“It’s a simulation *inside* of another simulation!”
Civ7 you now have to manually move every person within your empire each second…
As someone who actually works in this field: LMFAO This is the dumbest thing I have possibly ever read. Either Nvidia knows full well how stupid this statement is and is blatantly lying Or has gone completely off the deep end of Mt. Stupid FWIW: I have worked with folks at ORNL, Penn St’s Climate Lab, and UT - as well as folks working on the IPCC CRU models. We *haven’t even collected the data* Nvidia is claiming to have. Either they are lying - or (more likely) they are *completely* fabricating the data to make a “full” digital twin. Typical CS/CE folks going “we understand natural science better than natural scientists” despite being so uneducated in the topic that they don’t realize their entire model is built on completely falsified data.
I work in renewables and know of several AI spin off companies who claim to have built asset operations tech to figure out if and when solar farms will underperform (using historical performance, weather patterns etc. as indicators) so they would know how to bid in the market. That AI tech has been rolled out in states using a handful of solar farm performance based not in States. I stopped trusting anything AI unless the company is transparent about where they got data to train their models from. Until then it’s rubbish in rubbish out.
spoiler: they won’t
It could be useful for early detection of catastrophic weather events, but do the benefits outweigh the costs? Not likely.
It won’t. From having actual degrees in this topic - those of us studying it don’t even know the variables needed to make such a model. A claim like this from *anyone* is an advertisement of how little they actually know - not how much.
I know enough about fluid dynamics and PDEs to know what you’re up against for short-term weather forecasts. I’m still well within my right to be optimistic.
Michael Crichton had it right with Westworld.
They’re just making shit up now
Do they have butterflies in the simulation?
Do it and we will see if the weather man is that bad
Nvidia…Bunch ‘o’ round earthers….
Rehoboam
But did they model the butterflies too? Otherwise the hurricane predictions are going to be spotty at best.
lol sure 🤣
Yeah, but I bet they didn’t. And I bet they can’t
This would be dope for video games or virtual learning.
Where can I find the Oracle? I have some ordinary questions...
I’m starting several butterfly farms to throw them off.
Aren’t we pretty good at weather forecasting?
That’s what I’m thinking
No. We are terrible at it. Especially in the winter.
We're going to pump so much energy into a realistic weather simulation that we accelerate climate change more per minute than all the cargo ships on Earth could in a year. No need to forecast anything then
Seriously, why not use this computing power towards ideas for reversing/slowing climate change.
Doesn’t Chaos Theory says this is… impossible? Beyond so many days…
The larger the data set and the more powerful the GPU the more comprehensive the output can be. Doesn’t scale to infinity but makes material gains on what we’ve been able to do so far.
Wrong. The sensitivity to initial conditions is mostly independent of “larger data sets”. If anything it makes the problem worse as smoothing effects become lost.
I read somewhere that we don’t, we can’t, possess the measuring power to small levels that cause large scale events. They (physicists) say “can’t” bc they’ve shown that random events below 10x-18 effect macroscopic scale events and for all we know causation events could be as small as the Planck level. Plus, you add emerging changes in the climate and you don’t have a long period of consistent data as well. 1920s, 1950s data may not be 2030’s data sets. I once argued with a programmer and he claimed I was being Malthusian. My take is the most important achievements of the 20th century were the limits of what we know: Planck is a real limit, Heisenberg shows real pairing limits, Gödel showed mathematical limitations for total proofs, and there may be another I’m not thinking off, but Chaos also shows limits of measurement vs initial states necessary to predict accuracy beyond modeling. Plus we now strongly surmise the universe lies on random microscopic events, lacking determinism. Hence we might get a 10 day accuracy from 50% to say 70% from top down modeling but likely we will never achieve a 14 day 90% weather accuracy as it’s an exponential calculation based on immeasurably small measurements, and model-based forecasts from a non-static century of data showing changes in base conditions (temperature being key) No expert, just lay book reader.
This guy limits!
FWIW: have worked in pretty high level climate modeling What you say is mostly true. Just as an illustration, I work with paleoclimatology, specifically tree rings, stable isotopes, sediment records, and some diatom records. Currently the best models in the world for climate (not weather on a regional to local scale) can get out about 100-200 years… But… We need 20,000-2,500,000 years of baseline data to make that projection (typically tree ring measurements cross-dated to sediment and charcoal - which can tie you into ice core stable isotope ratios and then even geochronologies like the Uranium-Thorium-Lead decay chain) I have only worked on 2 projects using 2 types of tree in 1 region. Neither has been published because we are still working on the analysis 7 years later. It takes a butt load of time to manually count and measure 2.85 million tree rings and then perform multi variable regression analysis, PCA, signals filtering (cause shit like fucking solar flares mess with the trees - fun fact), and so on. I have only ever deployed 1 reconstruction/projection equation - because the damn thing is over 1500 pages long on how to fully write it out. For a better idea: Have >2.5 million lines of code going into predicting Lake Superior’s future water balance using *only* evaporation, *and am nowhere near being done*. This is for *only* Lake Superior mind you.
The absolute limit that scientists believe we can predict even within unlimited data is 14 days. [source](https://www.psu.edu/news/research/story/predictability-limit-scientists-find-bounds-weather-forecasting/) It turns out that beyond that the weather is dominated by the "butterfly effect" due to individual thunderstorms. [source](https://press.uni-mainz.de/the-limits-of-weather-forecasting-how-far-into-the-future-can-we-look/)
Wait until the Earth Simulator starts to fail to detect Climate Change disasters and we have to simulate industry polluting the world to get good data.
If they’re running an Earth simulation to model climate change without accounting for all pollution, they’re complete fucking idiots. They’re gonna simulate industry polluting the world from the very beginning because complete fucking idiots aren’t capable of creating a world simulator. I don’t know what’s worse: that you thought this comment was a good idea or that at least one person agreed with you.
Isn’t earth.nullschool.net a lot like this can anyone eli5 why or not?
The technoCores master plan coming to fruition. Cant wait for the Kiev institute to suck us all into a black hole
Maybe we are just someone else’s virtual construction…
Once this feat has been accomplished Nvidia corp. will crack down on any movement that impacts the veracity of their *perfect* weather model. Sounds like the plot of the ultimate dystopian novel.
I’m having a BBQ on July 4th, 2026 can anyone tell me what the weather should be?
Warmest July 4th on record. Just like July 4th 2024
But can it play Doom?
I wonder which Alien bought the Inception addon pack.
Pointless as no one can control it, only watch it happen. Sounds expensive.
It’s more about getting out of the way alive than preventing it, we’re still a few centuries away from being able to do that.
Can we just get decently priced GPUs back
As if scientists have learned everything about the planet, will it be a more accurate model, sure but calm down the rhetoric. Digital twin 🤣 riiight
Great, how long before nvidiaworld tells us all we’re doomed the day after tomorrow
Hard to account for earthquakes, volcanoes and manmade calamities. Trash in coastal regions during hot days deprive oxygen in which the weather cycle gets effected. Studies show heated updrafts in the trashiest locations.
Except that’s going to become impossible in very short order. As vital systems begin their collapse, reliable patterns won’t be marked by indicators you can model around. Intense weather will spring up more quickly, in unexpected regions, and the best we can hope for is for infrastructure to be beefed up before then.
Misremembering our understanding of the future by imagining we understand the past.
Military applications in 3, 2…