Fortran used to predict hurricanes

There is a story from the Associated Press at
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6014028/ and other sites about the use of
Fortran programs to predict hurricanes. Here is an excerpt:

"The programs that model the atmosphere and the high-performance
computers that do this work have revolutionized weather forecasting,
improving our ability to predict the paths of hurricanes and
fluctuations in their intensity.

In fact, the hurricane track error in the National Hurricane Center's
three-day forecasts has been cut in half since 1998, and since last
year the center's meteorologists have been issuing five-day forecasts
with increasing confidence and accuracy.

"It's one of the most remarkable improvements in forecasting that I've
seen in my career," said Russ Elsberry, professor of meteorology at
the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey.

The forecasts aren't perfect, particularly when it comes to long-term
tracking and intensity. A few days ago, Ivan was thought to be headed
for the Florida peninsula. Earlier this month, Hurricane Charley's
intensity unexpectedly jumped just before slamming into Punta Gorda,
Fla.

Still, emergency officials were able to order 2 million people to
evacuate for higher ground once Ivan turned toward the Gulf Coast,
thanks in part to the models run by supercomputers and the confidence
forecasters have in the results.

Improving predictions is not just a matter of buying more hardware,
though that helps. The numerical models themselves undergo continuous
revisions as researchers learn more about the atmosphere and improve
the accuracy of their algorithms.

The models — actually complicated software written in a computer
language called Fortran — attempt to account for everything happening
in the atmosphere on a global basis."

beliavsky@aol.com wrote:
> There is a story from the Associated Press at
> http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6014028/ and other sites about the use of
> Fortran programs to predict hurricanes. Here is an excerpt:

It's also on slashdot, the beacon of eternal wisdom.

Some golden nuggets from the comments:

"The models -- actually complicated software written in a computer
language called Fortran -- attempt to account for everything happening
in the atmosphere on a global basis." Now, this is a scary thought why
on earth would they write the applications in Fortran? I would assume
they would want to have this be a scalable and open platform.


..complicated software written in a computer language called Fortran...

Huh. Not Java, or maybe even Ruby [ruby-lang.org]?



Anyway, no need to worry, the situation is not as bad as the comments
above might imply. There's plenty of answers correcting those
misguided souls. ;-)

--
Janne Blomqvist

beliavsky@aol.com wrote:

> Improving predictions is not just a matter of buying more hardware,
> though that helps. The numerical models themselves undergo continuous
> revisions as researchers learn more about the atmosphere and improve
> the accuracy of their algorithms.

Sure - both causes help.  In late 2002, early 2003 I reran our (then
operational) model on the Storm that caused the flood of Feb 1, 1953.

This couldn't have been done earlier, because the observational data
wasn't encoded electronically (and checked, both for "coding" errors and
meteorological inconsistencies).

The end result was that I was able to reliably forecast the storm 42
hours in advance, yielding the correct sea state surge.

In this event, 1835 people died - mostly because the authorities that
could have instigated evacuation weren't "on duty" on Saturday, the 31st
of January, when the warnings from the Dutch Weather Service were coming in.

A 42 hour warning advance would have meant that authorities would have
been able to act during the previous Friday, with much better effect.

--
Toon Moene - e-mail: toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl - phone: +31 346 214290
Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG  Maartensdijk, The Netherlands
Maintainer, GNU Fortran 77: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/g77_news.html
A maintainer of GNU Fortran 95: http://gcc.gnu.org/fortran/

Janne Blomqvist wrote:
> beliavsky@aol.com wrote:
> 
>
>
> It's also on slashdot, the beacon of eternal wisdom.
>
> Some golden nuggets from the comments:
>
> "The models -- actually complicated software written in a computer
> language called Fortran -- attempt to account for everything happening
> in the atmosphere on a global basis." Now, this is a scary thought why
> on earth would they write the applications in Fortran? I would assume
> they would want to have this be a scalable and open platform.
>
>
>     ...complicated software written in a computer language called Fortran.
.
>
> Huh. Not Java, or maybe even Ruby [ruby-lang.org]?
>
>
>
> Anyway, no need to worry, the situation is not as bad as the comments
> above might imply. There's plenty of answers correcting those
> misguided souls. ;-)
>

Indeedy. I nearly fell off my chair when I saw a post by Richard Maine.
I thought /. was only frequented by pimply-faced youths like myself
(well, not quite, but I've only been using Fortran for about 12 years,
so I count myself as an acolyte).

cheers,

Rich

--
Dr Richard H D Townsend
Bartol Research Institute
University of Delaware

[ Delete VOID for valid email address ]

"Toon Moene" <toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl> wrote in message
news:414a1966$0$3888$4d4ebb8e@news.nl.uu.net...
> beliavsky@aol.com wrote:
> 
>
> Sure - both causes help.  In late 2002, early 2003 I reran our (then
> operational) model on the Storm that caused the flood of Feb 1, 1953.
>
> This couldn't have been done earlier, because the observational data
> wasn't encoded electronically (and checked, both for "coding" errors and
> meteorological inconsistencies).
>
> The end result was that I was able to reliably forecast the storm 42
> hours in advance, yielding the correct sea state surge.
>

Reliably forecast?

> In this event, 1835 people died - mostly because the authorities that
> could have instigated evacuation weren't "on duty" on Saturday, the 31st
> of January, when the warnings from the Dutch Weather Service were coming
in.
>
> A 42 hour warning advance would have meant that authorities would have
> been able to act during the previous Friday, with much better effect.
>

Even if  everyone involved had remained sober, you'll never know. Besides,
your retrospective calculation on the 1835 victims is of little solace to
anyone.

Weather happens.

TGF for groundhogs.

--
You're Welcome,
Gerry T.
______
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." -- Feynman, in The
Pleasure of Finding Things Out.

Toon Moene wrote:
>
> beliavsky@aol.com wrote:
> 
>
> Sure - both causes help.  In late 2002, early 2003 I reran our (then
> operational) model on the Storm that caused the flood of Feb 1, 1953.
>
> This couldn't have been done earlier, because the observational data
> wasn't encoded electronically (and checked, both for "coding" errors and
> meteorological inconsistencies).
>
> The end result was that I was able to reliably forecast the storm 42
> hours in advance, yielding the correct sea state surge.
>
> In this event, 1835 people died - mostly because the authorities that
> could have instigated evacuation weren't "on duty" on Saturday, the 31st
> of January, when the warnings from the Dutch Weather Service were coming i
n.
>
> A 42 hour warning advance would have meant that authorities would have
> been able to act during the previous Friday, with much better effect.
>

That particular and very unfortunate event led to the development of a
lot of
programs (related to both computer (*) and civil engineering) in the
Netherlands.

Come to think of it: it may even be - from far away in history - the
reason
that I am working where I work today ;)

Regards,

Arjen

(*) A lot of these computer programs have been and continue to be
written
in Fortran

> Even if  everyone involved had remained sober, you'll never know. Besides,
> your retrospective calculation on the 1835 victims is of little solace to
> anyone.
>

It is of GREAT solace to people in the future who will have increased
confidence that the model is actually useful and will respond to
warnings to evacuate.  This is EXACTLY how one goes about developing
confidence in a model's ability to accurately reflect what is
occurring in the real world to a sufficient extent that the results
are useful.  Go back and take a look at the projected paths of the
hurricanes this season.  They were just about spot on with their
projections.  I am certain that the death total would have been a
whole lot higher in the absence of computer models of the projected
paths.

Rich Townsend <rhdt@barVOIDtol.udel.edu> writes:

> Indeedy. I nearly fell off my chair when I saw a post by Richard
> Maine. I thought /. was only frequented by pimply-faced youths like
> myself (well, not quite, but I've only been using Fortran for about 12
> years, so I count myself as an acolyte).

Hey, I made the /. front page a few years ago with the announcement
of the CD.  My son (who is also past the pimply-faced stage, though not
by very many years) said he was going to tell me about the /. posting
on the Fortran standard before he noticed my name on it.  :-)
But /. didn't take my later announcement of the FCD; acceptance
is very much a matter of luck and the whims of the editors that
day - that's just the way /. is.

P.S. Yesterday's /. post wasn't probably the top of my form; not that
I'm horribly embarassed by it, but perhaps I'd have done better to just
stay quiet.

--
Richard Maine                       |  Good judgment comes from experience;
email: my first.last at org.domain  |  experience comes from bad judgment.
org: nasa, domain: gov              |        -- Mark Twain

In article <m1u0twoluf.fsf@mlmce0000l22801.local>,
Richard E Maine <nospam@see.signature> writes:
>
> P.S. Yesterday's /. post wasn't probably the top of my form; not that
> I'm horribly embarassed by it, but perhaps I'd have done better to just
> stay quiet.
>

Actually, I found your posts and your questions to be right on target.
I still don't understand the code re-usability argument that OO people
throw out.  I've been re-using my and others codes for years.

--
Steve
http://troutmask.apl.washington.edu/~kargl/

"James Giles" <jamesgiles@worldnet.att.net> writes:

> Paradigms won't buy a cup of coffee.

Particularly not at Starbucks.  :-)

--
Richard Maine                       |  Good judgment comes from experience;
email: my first.last at org.domain  |  experience comes from bad judgment.
org: nasa, domain: gov              |        -- Mark Twain