Dear Abdul, No no. I consider it a Prize in the spirit of Einstein, given his book about the 2-dimensional creatures living on the surface of a spherical globe, and calculating pi. Imagine them crawling (no need , since it is written), all time embracing Earth... I do not possess it, else I could quote and be more exact ( I remember the formula for pi )

Dear Lena, In my criticism of the Nobel Awards, I consider myself to be the "Greta Thunberg" of natural science - naive but essentially correct. Nature and life on mother earth must have the highest priority over everything else, most of all profit-making enterprise!

Lena J-T Strömberg appear to make a reference to 'The Flatlanders' by Edwin Abbott.

As climate modelling indeed is a variety of physics I do consider it an interesting choice. While several prizes have gone to discoveries that certainly have been of interest, the one this year - while touted as one in climate, is as well about chaos mathematics. So it's indeed a worthy choice. And I have usually been in agreement, even when the choice have been far outside my own field. Such as the first planet found elsewhere by Queloz. The single case where I understand and to some degree agree with the critique was the price for the blue diode. To me that invention sounded a bit more than engineering than anything else.

Now don't get me started on the choices in the literature price, where I got plenty of opinions - so please just don't ask. =)

Anders Forsgren> "while touted as one in climate, is as well about chaos mathematics."

It was indeed a clever decision like a klyvpojke eller a klyvflicka! - Not abandoning the preferred esoteric theories altogether!

About the blue diode ( or LED as the call light-diodes, now), there is a linguistic issue, if comparing with L'heure Bleue.

I read vikipidia, updated 4hours, and about the spin-glass, my lab recently did experiments on something similar, so it's celebrating

Dear Professor. Abdul Malek and Readers,

I remember very heated discussions within the meteorological community, which always came to the conclusion that it is absolutely impossible to even dream of the Nobel Prize being awarded for meteorological work. Now we see that this has happened and whatever the details of a debate trying to assess the true merit of climate models, I am very happy to see this award come to fruition. It should also be remembered that this prize indirectly rewards researchers such as Smagorinsky, Phillips and many other contributors to the extension of Richardson's dream to the climatic scale. I always expect that the future will hold even more surprises and that we will see another Nobel Prize related to meteorology; this time it will be assigned to a scientist who will make an actual weather forecast for three weeks, which is most likely a theoretical predictability limit as suggested by A. Kolmogorov.

Some additional facts about the Richardson Dream are presented by Verle (2020) in the paper: “Richardson’s Dream: Anthropological and Cultural Aspects of Global Research on Climate Change”

“Global changes in the modern world are increasingly transforming social reality and human self-determination in it. In this regard, the study of the human dimension of abstract economic, political and social processes is characterized by increasing relevance as part of a comprehensive global change research (GCR). Based on the philosophical and cultural analysis of the idea of “Forecast Factory” by Lewis Fray Richardson from his work “Weather Prediction by Numerical Process” (1922), the article considers the fundamental connection of modern weather and climate sciences with the economic, social and political trends of our time. In the work, an attempt is made, firstly, to determine the basic principles of this connection in the context of the history and current state of meteorological and climatological studies and, secondly, to characterize their influence on the ideas of modern man about the world and its future. The author offers a working terminology for thematization of some features of science as an aesthetic phenomenon in the aspect of studying the designs of scientific imagination and their systemic social-anthropological effects”.

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-39797-5_83

Janusz Pudykiewicz : Thanks very much for your knowledgeable comment, giving further and new details on this issue, with references. It seems to be a contribution from a informed professional who is involved in research and practical work in this area. I really appreciate your contribution, Sir!

Best regards, Abdul

Very interesting contribution Prof. Janusz Pudykiewicz, as Prof. Abdul Malek says.

Could you please elaborate a little more about the phrase in your post (I unquote) "I always expect that the future will hold even more surprises and that we will see another Nobel Prize related to meteorology; this time it will be assigned to a scientist who will make an actual weather forecast for three weeks, which is most likely a theoretical predictability limit as suggested by A. Kolmogorov."

I just find it very interesting the word 3 weeks weather forecast as Academician A. Kolmolgorov suggested.

Thank you so much in advance.

The discussion of this post ended with the following sentence:

“Was this a century-long ploy by the compliant Nobel Committee to divert attention from the ravages being done to mother earth and her children by greedy corporate capitalism?”

In general, capital is the means of production. All nations produce something. Therefore, all nations support capitalism. The difference is, who owns and controls the capital.

Production is based on necessity as a function of survival. Where, “greed” is a function of ethics. The evolution of a civil society is a function of ethics. And on that note, to help advance the evolution of global civility, perhaps, the Constructal paradigm by way of “The Science of Rights” may help:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356475384_THE_SCIENCE_OF_RIGHTS

The Nobel Committee’s “attention” should highlight those working in the field of ethics, relative to the free responsible use of one’s power, to help “mother earth”.

Dear Professor Pedro L. Contreras E. and Readers,

There is a long way ahead of us to achieve the limit of 3 weeks estimated by Academician Kolmogorov. Some plausible techniques are outlined in the following review paper:

https://www.science.org/content/article/how-far-out-can-we-forecast-weather-scientists-have-new-answer

In my personal opinion the future long term forecast model will require a drastic improvement of the accuracy of numerical methods, better understanding of geophysical turbulence as well as cloud physics and last but not the least the computers (quantum…?) that are much more powerful that the current machines. The Nobel Prize for the group which will produce such a long term forecast will be comparable to the prize given for the discovery of the gravitational waves.

Thank you so much for the reference, the instructive & also kind answer, Prof. Janusz Pudykiewicz

Best Regards to all participants. Feliz Navidad.

Dear all,

When the Noble 2021 for physics was announced, my first thought was that it was very smart of the Prize committee to award the half prize to Prof. Parisi, for his outstanding work.

If it would have been given to only climate modelers, it would have aroused a lot of controversy (imagine what would have happened to the 97+ percent of scientists agreeing with..., or the unanimous scientific consensus...? )

Anyway, good news that it is on the agenda, although a lot needs to be done, at all fronts. Improvements of computational power or numerical methods will not suffice.

My best wishes for 2022 to all of you.

Johan