Off-Topic :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Face it - Our hurricane track prediction abilities suck
Posted by:
The Retroactive Weather Channel
()
Date: September 09, 2017 08:36PM
First they had no clue.
Then the 'consensus' was that it would hit around NC.
Then tracking up the eastern coast of FL.
Then up the middle of the state.
Now up the western side.
Fuck, anyone can change their 'prediction' as it changes course. What kind of shit is that? lol
Then when it's over they'll be like "Nailed it!."
Actual history...
Then the 'consensus' was that it would hit around NC.
Then tracking up the eastern coast of FL.
Then up the middle of the state.
Now up the western side.
Fuck, anyone can change their 'prediction' as it changes course. What kind of shit is that? lol
Then when it's over they'll be like "Nailed it!."
Actual history...
Re: Face it - Our hurricane track prediction abilities suck
Posted by:
meteo 101
()
Date: September 09, 2017 10:57PM
Predicting a hurricane (or any weather pattern) is based on data collection, probability, and complex math.
Because the atmosphere is a gigantically huge system of many numerous moving parts, orders of magnitude more complicated than any machine that we can build, measuring its properties takes a lot of time, effort, and money.
And since the atmosphere is a continuously changing system of millions of variables, you can't use simple math to figure all that data out. We can't just add A + B and determine what the result might be at some point in the future.
Imagine if you rolled a container filled with 1,000 dice. Could anyone tell us what the result might be? No.
So you need to use complicated math and probability, which will tell us that your container result would probably be close to an overall roll average of 3.5.
Close. Some of the time a little more, and some of the time a little less. And even sometimes more than a little more, or sometimes less than a little less. But almost never exactly 3.5.
Now imagine trying to calculate that probability when the number of dice in your container are constantly changing, and the number of sides on each dice are increasing or decreasing. You might have dice in there that have 80 sides, or a few with only 4 sides, or some with 22/7 sides.
Then we need to figure out an answer if we had a containers rolling every second in every square meter of a storm that's 500 miles in diameter.
It's hard, and even more complicated than that. Only more data can help solve it. But it's costly and dangerous to gather more data to be anymore accurate about the outcome.
Because the atmosphere is a gigantically huge system of many numerous moving parts, orders of magnitude more complicated than any machine that we can build, measuring its properties takes a lot of time, effort, and money.
And since the atmosphere is a continuously changing system of millions of variables, you can't use simple math to figure all that data out. We can't just add A + B and determine what the result might be at some point in the future.
Imagine if you rolled a container filled with 1,000 dice. Could anyone tell us what the result might be? No.
So you need to use complicated math and probability, which will tell us that your container result would probably be close to an overall roll average of 3.5.
Close. Some of the time a little more, and some of the time a little less. And even sometimes more than a little more, or sometimes less than a little less. But almost never exactly 3.5.
Now imagine trying to calculate that probability when the number of dice in your container are constantly changing, and the number of sides on each dice are increasing or decreasing. You might have dice in there that have 80 sides, or a few with only 4 sides, or some with 22/7 sides.
Then we need to figure out an answer if we had a containers rolling every second in every square meter of a storm that's 500 miles in diameter.
It's hard, and even more complicated than that. Only more data can help solve it. But it's costly and dangerous to gather more data to be anymore accurate about the outcome.
Re: Face it - Our hurricane track prediction abilities suck
Posted by:
Cap and Trade
()
Date: September 09, 2017 11:02PM
They were right about Global Warming though. We need more Carbon Taxes.
Re: Face it - Our hurricane track prediction abilities suck
Posted by:
uh-oh! gloabal warming?
()
Date: September 09, 2017 11:18PM
You're going to get some disagreement there!
Re: Face it - Our hurricane track prediction abilities suck
Posted by:
exactly
()
Date: September 09, 2017 11:33PM
meteo 101 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Predicting a hurricane (or any weather pattern) is
> based on data collection, probability, and complex
> math.
>
> Because the atmosphere is a gigantically huge
> system of many numerous moving parts, orders of
> magnitude more complicated than any machine that
> we can build, measuring its properties takes a
> lot of time, effort, and money.
>
> And since the atmosphere is a continuously
> changing system of millions of variables, you
> can't use simple math to figure all that data out.
> We can't just add A + B and determine what the
> result might be at some point in the future.
>
> Imagine if you rolled a container filled with
> 1,000 dice. Could anyone tell us what the result
> might be? No.
>
> So you need to use complicated math and
> probability, which will tell us that your
> container result would probably be close to an
> overall roll average of 3.5.
>
> Close. Some of the time a little more, and some
> of the time a little less. And even sometimes more
> than a little more, or sometimes less than a
> little less. But almost never exactly 3.5.
>
> Now imagine trying to calculate that probability
> when the number of dice in your container are
> constantly changing, and the number of sides on
> each dice are increasing or decreasing. You might
> have dice in there that have 80 sides, or a few
> with only 4 sides, or some with 22/7 sides.
>
> Then we need to figure out an answer if we had a
> containers rolling every second in every square
> meter of a storm that's 500 miles in diameter.
>
> It's hard, and even more complicated than that.
> Only more data can help solve it. But it's costly
> and dangerous to gather more data to be anymore
> accurate about the outcome.
^All of this bullshit = exactly what the OP said.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Predicting a hurricane (or any weather pattern) is
> based on data collection, probability, and complex
> math.
>
> Because the atmosphere is a gigantically huge
> system of many numerous moving parts, orders of
> magnitude more complicated than any machine that
> we can build, measuring its properties takes a
> lot of time, effort, and money.
>
> And since the atmosphere is a continuously
> changing system of millions of variables, you
> can't use simple math to figure all that data out.
> We can't just add A + B and determine what the
> result might be at some point in the future.
>
> Imagine if you rolled a container filled with
> 1,000 dice. Could anyone tell us what the result
> might be? No.
>
> So you need to use complicated math and
> probability, which will tell us that your
> container result would probably be close to an
> overall roll average of 3.5.
>
> Close. Some of the time a little more, and some
> of the time a little less. And even sometimes more
> than a little more, or sometimes less than a
> little less. But almost never exactly 3.5.
>
> Now imagine trying to calculate that probability
> when the number of dice in your container are
> constantly changing, and the number of sides on
> each dice are increasing or decreasing. You might
> have dice in there that have 80 sides, or a few
> with only 4 sides, or some with 22/7 sides.
>
> Then we need to figure out an answer if we had a
> containers rolling every second in every square
> meter of a storm that's 500 miles in diameter.
>
> It's hard, and even more complicated than that.
> Only more data can help solve it. But it's costly
> and dangerous to gather more data to be anymore
> accurate about the outcome.
^All of this bullshit = exactly what the OP said.
Re: Face it - Our hurricane track prediction abilities suck
Posted by:
Marilu Mexico
()
Date: September 09, 2017 11:54PM
They stank
Attachments:
Attachments:
Re: Face it - Our hurricane track prediction abilities suck
Posted by:
Exactly
()
Date: September 10, 2017 01:32AM
exactly Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> meteo 101 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Predicting a hurricane (or any weather pattern)
> is
> > based on data collection, probability, and
> complex
> > math.
> >
> > Because the atmosphere is a gigantically huge
> > system of many numerous moving parts, orders of
> > magnitude more complicated than any machine
> that
> > we can build, measuring its properties takes a
> > lot of time, effort, and money.
> >
> > And since the atmosphere is a continuously
> > changing system of millions of variables, you
> > can't use simple math to figure all that data
> out.
> > We can't just add A + B and determine what the
> > result might be at some point in the future.
> >
> > Imagine if you rolled a container filled with
> > 1,000 dice. Could anyone tell us what the
> result
> > might be? No.
> >
> > So you need to use complicated math and
> > probability, which will tell us that your
> > container result would probably be close to an
> > overall roll average of 3.5.
> >
> > Close. Some of the time a little more, and
> some
> > of the time a little less. And even sometimes
> more
> > than a little more, or sometimes less than a
> > little less. But almost never exactly 3.5.
> >
> > Now imagine trying to calculate that
> probability
> > when the number of dice in your container are
> > constantly changing, and the number of sides on
> > each dice are increasing or decreasing. You
> might
> > have dice in there that have 80 sides, or a few
> > with only 4 sides, or some with 22/7 sides.
> >
> > Then we need to figure out an answer if we had
> a
> > containers rolling every second in every square
> > meter of a storm that's 500 miles in diameter.
>
> >
> > It's hard, and even more complicated than that.
>
> > Only more data can help solve it. But it's
> costly
> > and dangerous to gather more data to be anymore
> > accurate about the outcome.
>
>
> ^All of this bullshit = exactly what the OP said.
And still with all of that, it was still way off.
Of course it's going to be more accurate as things progress because you're correcting your fuck ups as you go. By the end you've got it exactly! lol
Now they've got it just barely touching the west coast around Tampa and then hitting the bend as a Cat 1.
Live radar view with most current track:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00DR10T8M/ref=od_aui_detailpages00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
-------------------------------------------------------
> meteo 101 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Predicting a hurricane (or any weather pattern)
> is
> > based on data collection, probability, and
> complex
> > math.
> >
> > Because the atmosphere is a gigantically huge
> > system of many numerous moving parts, orders of
> > magnitude more complicated than any machine
> that
> > we can build, measuring its properties takes a
> > lot of time, effort, and money.
> >
> > And since the atmosphere is a continuously
> > changing system of millions of variables, you
> > can't use simple math to figure all that data
> out.
> > We can't just add A + B and determine what the
> > result might be at some point in the future.
> >
> > Imagine if you rolled a container filled with
> > 1,000 dice. Could anyone tell us what the
> result
> > might be? No.
> >
> > So you need to use complicated math and
> > probability, which will tell us that your
> > container result would probably be close to an
> > overall roll average of 3.5.
> >
> > Close. Some of the time a little more, and
> some
> > of the time a little less. And even sometimes
> more
> > than a little more, or sometimes less than a
> > little less. But almost never exactly 3.5.
> >
> > Now imagine trying to calculate that
> probability
> > when the number of dice in your container are
> > constantly changing, and the number of sides on
> > each dice are increasing or decreasing. You
> might
> > have dice in there that have 80 sides, or a few
> > with only 4 sides, or some with 22/7 sides.
> >
> > Then we need to figure out an answer if we had
> a
> > containers rolling every second in every square
> > meter of a storm that's 500 miles in diameter.
>
> >
> > It's hard, and even more complicated than that.
>
> > Only more data can help solve it. But it's
> costly
> > and dangerous to gather more data to be anymore
> > accurate about the outcome.
>
>
> ^All of this bullshit = exactly what the OP said.
And still with all of that, it was still way off.
Of course it's going to be more accurate as things progress because you're correcting your fuck ups as you go. By the end you've got it exactly! lol
Now they've got it just barely touching the west coast around Tampa and then hitting the bend as a Cat 1.
Live radar view with most current track:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00DR10T8M/ref=od_aui_detailpages00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
Re: Face it - Our hurricane track prediction abilities suck
Posted by:
Doh
()
Date: September 10, 2017 01:43AM
Exactly Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> exactly Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > meteo 101 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Predicting a hurricane (or any weather
> pattern)
> > is
> > > based on data collection, probability, and
> > complex
> > > math.
> > >
> > > Because the atmosphere is a gigantically huge
> > > system of many numerous moving parts, orders
> of
> > > magnitude more complicated than any machine
> > that
> > > we can build, measuring its properties takes
> a
> > > lot of time, effort, and money.
> > >
> > > And since the atmosphere is a continuously
> > > changing system of millions of variables, you
> > > can't use simple math to figure all that data
> > out.
> > > We can't just add A + B and determine what
> the
> > > result might be at some point in the future.
> > >
> > > Imagine if you rolled a container filled with
> > > 1,000 dice. Could anyone tell us what the
> > result
> > > might be? No.
> > >
> > > So you need to use complicated math and
> > > probability, which will tell us that your
> > > container result would probably be close to
> an
> > > overall roll average of 3.5.
> > >
> > > Close. Some of the time a little more, and
> > some
> > > of the time a little less. And even sometimes
> > more
> > > than a little more, or sometimes less than a
> > > little less. But almost never exactly 3.5.
> > >
> > > Now imagine trying to calculate that
> > probability
> > > when the number of dice in your container are
> > > constantly changing, and the number of sides
> on
> > > each dice are increasing or decreasing. You
> > might
> > > have dice in there that have 80 sides, or a
> few
> > > with only 4 sides, or some with 22/7 sides.
> > >
> > > Then we need to figure out an answer if we
> had
> > a
> > > containers rolling every second in every
> square
> > > meter of a storm that's 500 miles in diameter.
>
> >
> > >
> > > It's hard, and even more complicated than
> that.
> >
> > > Only more data can help solve it. But it's
> > costly
> > > and dangerous to gather more data to be
> anymore
> > > accurate about the outcome.
> >
> >
> > ^All of this bullshit = exactly what the OP
> said.
>
>
> And still with all of that, it was still way off.
>
> Of course it's going to be more accurate as things
> progress because you're correcting your fuck ups
> as you go. By the end you've got it exactly! lol
>
> Now they've got it just barely touching the west
> coast around Tampa and then hitting the bend as a
> Cat 1.
>
> Live radar view with most current track:
>
> https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00DR10T8M/ref=o
> d_aui_detailpages00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
Correct link:
https://youtu.be/4YrhMLpU26c
-------------------------------------------------------
> exactly Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > meteo 101 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Predicting a hurricane (or any weather
> pattern)
> > is
> > > based on data collection, probability, and
> > complex
> > > math.
> > >
> > > Because the atmosphere is a gigantically huge
> > > system of many numerous moving parts, orders
> of
> > > magnitude more complicated than any machine
> > that
> > > we can build, measuring its properties takes
> a
> > > lot of time, effort, and money.
> > >
> > > And since the atmosphere is a continuously
> > > changing system of millions of variables, you
> > > can't use simple math to figure all that data
> > out.
> > > We can't just add A + B and determine what
> the
> > > result might be at some point in the future.
> > >
> > > Imagine if you rolled a container filled with
> > > 1,000 dice. Could anyone tell us what the
> > result
> > > might be? No.
> > >
> > > So you need to use complicated math and
> > > probability, which will tell us that your
> > > container result would probably be close to
> an
> > > overall roll average of 3.5.
> > >
> > > Close. Some of the time a little more, and
> > some
> > > of the time a little less. And even sometimes
> > more
> > > than a little more, or sometimes less than a
> > > little less. But almost never exactly 3.5.
> > >
> > > Now imagine trying to calculate that
> > probability
> > > when the number of dice in your container are
> > > constantly changing, and the number of sides
> on
> > > each dice are increasing or decreasing. You
> > might
> > > have dice in there that have 80 sides, or a
> few
> > > with only 4 sides, or some with 22/7 sides.
> > >
> > > Then we need to figure out an answer if we
> had
> > a
> > > containers rolling every second in every
> square
> > > meter of a storm that's 500 miles in diameter.
>
> >
> > >
> > > It's hard, and even more complicated than
> that.
> >
> > > Only more data can help solve it. But it's
> > costly
> > > and dangerous to gather more data to be
> anymore
> > > accurate about the outcome.
> >
> >
> > ^All of this bullshit = exactly what the OP
> said.
>
>
> And still with all of that, it was still way off.
>
> Of course it's going to be more accurate as things
> progress because you're correcting your fuck ups
> as you go. By the end you've got it exactly! lol
>
> Now they've got it just barely touching the west
> coast around Tampa and then hitting the bend as a
> Cat 1.
>
> Live radar view with most current track:
>
> https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00DR10T8M/ref=o
> d_aui_detailpages00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
Correct link:
https://youtu.be/4YrhMLpU26c
Re: Face it - Our hurricane track prediction abilities suck
Posted by:
Gerrymanderer2
()
Date: September 10, 2017 02:52AM
The models are genius created by geniuses monitored and certified by geniuses.
If it weren't for them the entire south would be shitting themselves tonight.
If it weren't for them the entire south would be shitting themselves tonight.
Re: Face it - Our hurricane track prediction abilities suck
Posted by:
Nailed it!
()
Date: September 10, 2017 04:10AM
Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The models are genius created by geniuses
> monitored and certified by geniuses.
>
> If it weren't for them the entire south would be
> shitting themselves tonight.
The 'geniuses' had half the state of Florida and the rest of the east coast shitting themselves for a week waiting for a direct hit by the most powerful Cat 5 eVAR! VA's still under a state of emergency.
1 in 4 FL residents affected. And it turned out to mostly be the WRONG 1 in 4. Now they have another 1 in 4 shitting themselves including some of the first 1 in 4 who moved to where they're now in the new 1 in 4! lol
Yeah, awesome job.
-------------------------------------------------------
> The models are genius created by geniuses
> monitored and certified by geniuses.
>
> If it weren't for them the entire south would be
> shitting themselves tonight.
The 'geniuses' had half the state of Florida and the rest of the east coast shitting themselves for a week waiting for a direct hit by the most powerful Cat 5 eVAR! VA's still under a state of emergency.
1 in 4 FL residents affected. And it turned out to mostly be the WRONG 1 in 4. Now they have another 1 in 4 shitting themselves including some of the first 1 in 4 who moved to where they're now in the new 1 in 4! lol
Yeah, awesome job.
Re: Face it - Our hurricane track prediction abilities suck
Posted by:
XPGV6
()
Date: September 10, 2017 04:16AM
Ha, some people evacuated INTO the path of the hurricane.
Re: Face it - Our hurricane track prediction abilities suck
Posted by:
KKKillary KKKlinton
()
Date: September 10, 2017 08:51AM
Libs! Lol!
Global warming! The sky is falling!
Chicken Little libs!
Global warming! The sky is falling!
Chicken Little libs!
Re: Face it - Our hurricane track prediction abilities suck
Posted by:
2nd grade science is better
()
Date: September 10, 2017 11:09AM
Slack-jawed science deniers get easily confused about scientific predictions. Some events like eclipses are precise and predictable. Some are less so and subject to many factors. Deniers seem to think ALL science rises to the level of a 'Law' or is useless. Yet they drive around in cars and talk on phones they cannot begin to comprehend the science behind. It would be funny if it were not sad.
Lately, in the light of stronger storms and continued record global warmth deniers are now wrapping their little brains around doubt as a tool of science. 'We dont know everything about Climate Change' so we shouldnt make any decisions just yet. Fucking dunces think that Sciences makes conclusions based on fractional doubts verses over overwhelming consensus. I didnt think adults could be so stupid.
Lately, in the light of stronger storms and continued record global warmth deniers are now wrapping their little brains around doubt as a tool of science. 'We dont know everything about Climate Change' so we shouldnt make any decisions just yet. Fucking dunces think that Sciences makes conclusions based on fractional doubts verses over overwhelming consensus. I didnt think adults could be so stupid.
Re: Face it - Our hurricane track prediction abilities suck
Posted by:
Lookey what we gots here
()
Date: September 10, 2017 11:18AM
2nd grade science is better Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Slack-jawed science deniers get easily confused
> about scientific predictions. Some events like
> eclipses are precise and predictable. Some are
> less so and subject to many factors. Deniers seem
> to think ALL science rises to the level of a 'Law'
> or is useless. Yet they drive around in cars and
> talk on phones they cannot begin to comprehend the
> science behind. It would be funny if it were not
> sad.
>
> Lately, in the light of stronger storms and
> continued record global warmth deniers are now
> wrapping their little brains around doubt as a
> tool of science. 'We dont know everything about
> Climate Change' so we shouldnt make any decisions
> just yet. Fucking dunces think that Sciences
> makes conclusions based on fractional doubts
> verses over overwhelming consensus. I didnt think
> adults could be so stupid.
Your irrational need to defend the shitty predictions of this hurricane are bizarre. Bad news for ya sparky - "science" is wrong way more than it's right. A real scientist knows this and accepts it. You, on the other hand, are a fanatic. Kill yourself.
Attachments:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Slack-jawed science deniers get easily confused
> about scientific predictions. Some events like
> eclipses are precise and predictable. Some are
> less so and subject to many factors. Deniers seem
> to think ALL science rises to the level of a 'Law'
> or is useless. Yet they drive around in cars and
> talk on phones they cannot begin to comprehend the
> science behind. It would be funny if it were not
> sad.
>
> Lately, in the light of stronger storms and
> continued record global warmth deniers are now
> wrapping their little brains around doubt as a
> tool of science. 'We dont know everything about
> Climate Change' so we shouldnt make any decisions
> just yet. Fucking dunces think that Sciences
> makes conclusions based on fractional doubts
> verses over overwhelming consensus. I didnt think
> adults could be so stupid.
Your irrational need to defend the shitty predictions of this hurricane are bizarre. Bad news for ya sparky - "science" is wrong way more than it's right. A real scientist knows this and accepts it. You, on the other hand, are a fanatic. Kill yourself.
Attachments:
Re: Face it - Our hurricane track prediction abilities suck
Posted by:
Need more education on science
()
Date: September 10, 2017 11:33AM
^The problem exhibit A. Literally cannot comprehend what was written in English and actually exemplifies it in a blithe, vapid retort. Stunning really.
Slack-jawed science deniers get easily confused about scientific predictions. Some events like eclipses are precise and predictable. Some are less so and subject to many factors. Deniers seem to think ALL science rises to the level of a 'Law' or is useless. Yet they drive around in cars and talk on phones they cannot begin to comprehend the science behind. It would be funny if it were not sad.
Lately, in the light of stronger storms and continued record global warmth deniers are now wrapping their little brains around doubt as a tool of science. 'We dont know everything about Climate Change' so we shouldnt make any decisions just yet. Fucking dunces think that Sciences makes conclusions based on fractional doubts verses over overwhelming consensus. I didnt think adults could be so stupid.
Slack-jawed science deniers get easily confused about scientific predictions. Some events like eclipses are precise and predictable. Some are less so and subject to many factors. Deniers seem to think ALL science rises to the level of a 'Law' or is useless. Yet they drive around in cars and talk on phones they cannot begin to comprehend the science behind. It would be funny if it were not sad.
Lately, in the light of stronger storms and continued record global warmth deniers are now wrapping their little brains around doubt as a tool of science. 'We dont know everything about Climate Change' so we shouldnt make any decisions just yet. Fucking dunces think that Sciences makes conclusions based on fractional doubts verses over overwhelming consensus. I didnt think adults could be so stupid.
Re: Face it - Our hurricane track prediction abilities suck
Posted by:
why do you hate apostrophies
()
Date: September 10, 2017 11:42AM
Need more education on science Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ^The problem exhibit A. Literally cannot
> comprehend what was written in English and
> actually exemplifies it in a blithe, vapid retort.
> Stunning really.
>
> Slack-jawed science deniers get easily confused
> about scientific predictions. Some events like
> eclipses are precise and predictable. Some are
> less so and subject to many factors. Deniers
> seem to think ALL science rises to the level of a
> 'Law' or is useless. Yet they drive around in
> cars and talk on phones they cannot begin to
> comprehend the science behind. It would be funny
> if it were not sad.
>
> Lately, in the light of stronger storms and
> continued record global warmth deniers are now
> wrapping their little brains around doubt as a
> tool of science. 'We dont know everything about
> Climate Change' so we shouldnt make any decisions
> just yet. Fucking dunces think that Sciences makes
> conclusions based on fractional doubts verses over
> overwhelming consensus. I didnt think adults could
> be so stupid.
Hey, reposting your same lame post but this time, in italics. Pure genius. LOL.
Using the scientific method, it's been proven your a rabid, rantng fanatic. You can STFU now. You've been p'wnd.
-------------------------------------------------------
> ^The problem exhibit A. Literally cannot
> comprehend what was written in English and
> actually exemplifies it in a blithe, vapid retort.
> Stunning really.
>
> Slack-jawed science deniers get easily confused
> about scientific predictions. Some events like
> eclipses are precise and predictable. Some are
> less so and subject to many factors. Deniers
> seem to think ALL science rises to the level of a
> 'Law' or is useless. Yet they drive around in
> cars and talk on phones they cannot begin to
> comprehend the science behind. It would be funny
> if it were not sad.
>
> Lately, in the light of stronger storms and
> continued record global warmth deniers are now
> wrapping their little brains around doubt as a
> tool of science. 'We dont know everything about
> Climate Change' so we shouldnt make any decisions
> just yet. Fucking dunces think that Sciences makes
> conclusions based on fractional doubts verses over
> overwhelming consensus. I didnt think adults could
> be so stupid.
Hey, reposting your same lame post but this time, in italics. Pure genius. LOL.
Using the scientific method, it's been proven your a rabid, rantng fanatic. You can STFU now. You've been p'wnd.
Re: Face it - Our hurricane track prediction abilities suck
Posted by:
KKKillary KKKlinton
()
Date: September 10, 2017 11:46AM
Libs are the only ones that deny science as far as I can tell. They cherry pick studies that support their agenda while denying any studies that do not support their agenda. It's quite hilarious.
My grass stayed green all summer long and I never had to water it. Damn global warming is saving water. Call Chicken Little!
My grass stayed green all summer long and I never had to water it. Damn global warming is saving water. Call Chicken Little!
Re: Face it - Our hurricane track prediction abilities suck
Posted by:
Gunlover
()
Date: September 10, 2017 11:59AM
The graphic shows Hurricane Irma compared to 1992's devastating Hurricane Andrew, the costliest hurricane in Florida's history
Damn.
Attachments:
Damn.
Attachments:
Re: Face it - Our hurricane track prediction abilities suck
Posted by:
peep
()
Date: September 10, 2017 12:04PM
.
Attachments:
Attachments:
Re: Face it - Our hurricane track prediction abilities suck
Posted by:
P c retardz
()
Date: September 10, 2017 12:08PM
Just like Al Gores rediculous global warming predictions. They can't even tell the weather 2 weeks ahead but 200 years ahead is "settled science". Climate scientists are well known to be the lowest IQ and sloppiest scientists in the science world.
Re: Face it - Our hurricane track prediction abilities suck
Posted by:
readFAKEY
()
Date: September 10, 2017 12:45PM
I like typing on my magic laptop to people I cannot see about storms I cannot see hundreds of miles away with magic pictures from space about how stupid Science is - LIBTARD! FAKENEWS! HILLARY! OBAMA!LIBTARD! FAKENEWS! HILLARY! OBAMA!LIBTARD! FAKENEWS! HILLARY! OBAMA!LIBTARD! FAKENEWS! HILLARY! OBAMA!LIBTARD! FAKENEWS! HILLARY! OBAMA!LIBTARD! FAKENEWS! HILLARY! OBAMA!LIBTARD! FAKENEWS! HILLARY! OBAMA!LIBTARD! FAKENEWS! HILLARY! OBAMA!LIBTARD! FAKENEWS! HILLARY! OBAMA!LIBTARD! FAKENEWS! HILLARY! OBAMA!LIBTARD! FAKENEWS! HILLARY! OBAMA!LIBTARD! FAKENEWS! HILLARY! OBAMA!LIBTARD! FAKENEWS! HILLARY! OBAMA!LIBTARD! FAKENEWS! HILLARY! OBAMA!LIBTARD! FAKENEWS! HILLARY! OBAMA!LIBTARD! FAKENEWS! HILLARY! OBAMA!LIBTARD! FAKENEWS! HILLARY! OBAMA!LIBTARD! FAKENEWS! HILLARY! OBAMA!LIBTARD! FAKENEWS! HILLARY! OBAMA!LIBTARD! FAKENEWS! HILLARY! OBAMA!LIBTARD! FAKENEWS! HILLARY! OBAMA!LIBTARD! FAKENEWS! HILLARY! OBAMA!LIBTARD! FAKENEWS! HILLARY! OBAMA!LIBTARD! FAKENEWS! HILLARY! OBAMA!LIBTARD! FAKENEWS! HILLARY! OBAMA!LIBTARD! FAKENEWS! HILLARY! OBAMA!LIBTARD! FAKENEWS! HILLARY! OBAMA!LIBTARD! FAKENEWS! HILLARY! OBAMA!LIBTARD! FAKENEWS! HILLARY! OBAMA!LIBTARD! FAKENEWS! HILLARY! OBAMA!LIBTARD! FAKENEWS! HILLARY! OBAMA!
Re: Face it - Our hurricane track prediction abilities suck
Posted by:
well done
()
Date: September 10, 2017 12:48PM
why do you hate apostrophies Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Need more education on science Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ^The problem exhibit A. Literally cannot
> > comprehend what was written in English and
> > actually exemplifies it in a blithe, vapid
> retort.
> > Stunning really.
> >
> > Slack-jawed science deniers get easily
> confused
> > about scientific predictions. Some events like
> > eclipses are precise and predictable. Some are
> > less so and subject to many factors. Deniers
> > seem to think ALL science rises to the level of
> a
> > 'Law' or is useless. Yet they drive around
> in
> > cars and talk on phones they cannot begin to
> > comprehend the science behind. It would be
> funny
> > if it were not sad.
> >
> > Lately, in the light of stronger storms and
> > continued record global warmth deniers are now
> > wrapping their little brains around doubt as a
> > tool of science. 'We dont know everything about
> > Climate Change' so we shouldnt make any
> decisions
> > just yet. Fucking dunces think that Sciences
> makes
> > conclusions based on fractional doubts verses
> over
> > overwhelming consensus. I didnt think adults
> could
> > be so stupid.
>
>
>
> Hey, reposting your same lame post but this time,
> in italics. Pure genius. LOL.
>
> Using the scientific method, it's been proven your
> a rabid, rantng fanatic. You can STFU now.
> You've been p'wnd.
I stupidly thought the italics and underlining might help your comprehension - an exercise in futility Im afraid. You are right everything you say is true you WIN!
congratulations...
-------------------------------------------------------
> Need more education on science Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ^The problem exhibit A. Literally cannot
> > comprehend what was written in English and
> > actually exemplifies it in a blithe, vapid
> retort.
> > Stunning really.
> >
> > Slack-jawed science deniers get easily
> confused
> > about scientific predictions. Some events like
> > eclipses are precise and predictable. Some are
> > less so and subject to many factors. Deniers
> > seem to think ALL science rises to the level of
> a
> > 'Law' or is useless. Yet they drive around
> in
> > cars and talk on phones they cannot begin to
> > comprehend the science behind. It would be
> funny
> > if it were not sad.
> >
> > Lately, in the light of stronger storms and
> > continued record global warmth deniers are now
> > wrapping their little brains around doubt as a
> > tool of science. 'We dont know everything about
> > Climate Change' so we shouldnt make any
> decisions
> > just yet. Fucking dunces think that Sciences
> makes
> > conclusions based on fractional doubts verses
> over
> > overwhelming consensus. I didnt think adults
> could
> > be so stupid.
>
>
>
> Hey, reposting your same lame post but this time,
> in italics. Pure genius. LOL.
>
> Using the scientific method, it's been proven your
> a rabid, rantng fanatic. You can STFU now.
> You've been p'wnd.
I stupidly thought the italics and underlining might help your comprehension - an exercise in futility Im afraid. You are right everything you say is true you WIN!
congratulations...
Re: Face it - Our hurricane track prediction abilities suck
Posted by:
Nailed it!
()
Date: September 10, 2017 02:13PM
well done Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I stupidly thought the italics and underlining
> might help your comprehension - an exercise in
> futility Im afraid. You are right everything you
> say is true you WIN!
>
> congratulations...
Actually, it's just the opposite.
Blind faith believers like you, most of whom have no actual background in "science," tend to believe that "science" is certain and infallible and don't understand that a lot of what's reported in pop media isn't at all what given studies actually indicate as stated by their authors. Most actual scientists aren't nearly as convinced about many various aspects as the faithful believe who take it as absolute gospel.
And they don't understand that "science" doesn't really work by "consensus." Rather it works precisely by "denial." i.e., In order for a hypothesis to be proven, it must withstand rigorous examination and hold true in all cases. If it can be shown not to hold true in some way, then the hypothesis fails and must be revised. It is not a vote. There is no benefit of doubt given because someone thinks that it would be convenient for their purposes if it worked that way. In fact, that iterative process of observation/hypothesis/experimentation/denial/revision is what's called "scientific method."
The problem with making some decisions in this case is that by the time we get to the level of political decisions the underlying science is far removed and proposed actions have little to no relationship to "science."
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I stupidly thought the italics and underlining
> might help your comprehension - an exercise in
> futility Im afraid. You are right everything you
> say is true you WIN!
>
> congratulations...
Actually, it's just the opposite.
Blind faith believers like you, most of whom have no actual background in "science," tend to believe that "science" is certain and infallible and don't understand that a lot of what's reported in pop media isn't at all what given studies actually indicate as stated by their authors. Most actual scientists aren't nearly as convinced about many various aspects as the faithful believe who take it as absolute gospel.
And they don't understand that "science" doesn't really work by "consensus." Rather it works precisely by "denial." i.e., In order for a hypothesis to be proven, it must withstand rigorous examination and hold true in all cases. If it can be shown not to hold true in some way, then the hypothesis fails and must be revised. It is not a vote. There is no benefit of doubt given because someone thinks that it would be convenient for their purposes if it worked that way. In fact, that iterative process of observation/hypothesis/experimentation/denial/revision is what's called "scientific method."
The problem with making some decisions in this case is that by the time we get to the level of political decisions the underlying science is far removed and proposed actions have little to no relationship to "science."
Re: Face it - Our hurricane track prediction abilities suck
Posted by:
math geniuses
()
Date: September 10, 2017 02:24PM
Most trumptards I know couldn't pass a basic calculus class, let alone be qualified to challenge and overturn modern scientific analysis. They probably can't even do algebra.
Re: Face it - Our hurricane track prediction abilities suck
Posted by:
Uxeyt
()
Date: September 10, 2017 02:27PM
math geniuses Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Most trumptards I know couldn't pass a basic
> calculus class, let alone be qualified to
> challenge and overturn modern scientific analysis.
> They probably can't even do algebra.
Neither can most libtards. They just believe what their masters tell them to believe.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Most trumptards I know couldn't pass a basic
> calculus class, let alone be qualified to
> challenge and overturn modern scientific analysis.
> They probably can't even do algebra.
Neither can most libtards. They just believe what their masters tell them to believe.
Re: Face it - Our hurricane track prediction abilities suck
Posted by:
answers in genesis
()
Date: September 10, 2017 03:22PM
Fuck science and math, let's see what the Bible has to say about these hurricanes. Or Trump, he's the president, they should let him make the forecasts.
Re: Face it - Our hurricane track prediction abilities suck
Posted by:
The Libtard Bible
()
Date: September 10, 2017 03:43PM
answers in genesis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fuck science and math, let's see what the Bible
> has to say about these hurricanes. Or Trump, he's
> the president, they should let him make the
> forecasts.
Already been done.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fuck science and math, let's see what the Bible
> has to say about these hurricanes. Or Trump, he's
> the president, they should let him make the
> forecasts.
Already been done.
Re: Face it - Our hurricane track prediction abilities suck
Posted by:
meteo 101
()
Date: September 10, 2017 10:37PM
exactly Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> meteo 101 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Predicting a hurricane (or any weather pattern)
> is
> > based on data collection, probability, and
> complex
> > math.
> >
> > Because the atmosphere is a gigantically huge
> > system of many numerous moving parts, orders of
> > magnitude more complicated than any machine
> that
> > we can build, measuring its properties takes a
> > lot of time, effort, and money.
> >
> > And since the atmosphere is a continuously
> > changing system of millions of variables, you
> > can't use simple math to figure all that data
> out.
> > We can't just add A + B and determine what the
> > result might be at some point in the future.
> >
> > Imagine if you rolled a container filled with
> > 1,000 dice. Could anyone tell us what the
> result
> > might be? No.
> >
> > So you need to use complicated math and
> > probability, which will tell us that your
> > container result would probably be close to an
> > overall roll average of 3.5.
> >
> > Close. Some of the time a little more, and
> some
> > of the time a little less. And even sometimes
> more
> > than a little more, or sometimes less than a
> > little less. But almost never exactly 3.5.
> >
> > Now imagine trying to calculate that
> probability
> > when the number of dice in your container are
> > constantly changing, and the number of sides on
> > each dice are increasing or decreasing. You
> might
> > have dice in there that have 80 sides, or a few
> > with only 4 sides, or some with 22/7 sides.
> >
> > Then we need to figure out an answer if we had
> a
> > containers rolling every second in every square
> > meter of a storm that's 500 miles in diameter.
>
> >
> > It's hard, and even more complicated than that.
>
> > Only more data can help solve it. But it's
> costly
> > and dangerous to gather more data to be anymore
> > accurate about the outcome.
>
>
> ^All of this bullshit = exactly what the OP said.
you should go out and discover a new branch of mathematics then, otherwise you're just more wrong than everyone else.
-------------------------------------------------------
> meteo 101 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Predicting a hurricane (or any weather pattern)
> is
> > based on data collection, probability, and
> complex
> > math.
> >
> > Because the atmosphere is a gigantically huge
> > system of many numerous moving parts, orders of
> > magnitude more complicated than any machine
> that
> > we can build, measuring its properties takes a
> > lot of time, effort, and money.
> >
> > And since the atmosphere is a continuously
> > changing system of millions of variables, you
> > can't use simple math to figure all that data
> out.
> > We can't just add A + B and determine what the
> > result might be at some point in the future.
> >
> > Imagine if you rolled a container filled with
> > 1,000 dice. Could anyone tell us what the
> result
> > might be? No.
> >
> > So you need to use complicated math and
> > probability, which will tell us that your
> > container result would probably be close to an
> > overall roll average of 3.5.
> >
> > Close. Some of the time a little more, and
> some
> > of the time a little less. And even sometimes
> more
> > than a little more, or sometimes less than a
> > little less. But almost never exactly 3.5.
> >
> > Now imagine trying to calculate that
> probability
> > when the number of dice in your container are
> > constantly changing, and the number of sides on
> > each dice are increasing or decreasing. You
> might
> > have dice in there that have 80 sides, or a few
> > with only 4 sides, or some with 22/7 sides.
> >
> > Then we need to figure out an answer if we had
> a
> > containers rolling every second in every square
> > meter of a storm that's 500 miles in diameter.
>
> >
> > It's hard, and even more complicated than that.
>
> > Only more data can help solve it. But it's
> costly
> > and dangerous to gather more data to be anymore
> > accurate about the outcome.
>
>
> ^All of this bullshit = exactly what the OP said.
you should go out and discover a new branch of mathematics then, otherwise you're just more wrong than everyone else.
Re: Face it - Our hurricane track prediction abilities suck
Posted by:
meteo 101 fag
()
Date: September 10, 2017 11:57PM
meteo 101 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> exactly Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > meteo 101 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Predicting a hurricane (or any weather
> pattern)
> > is
> > > based on data collection, probability, and
> > complex
> > > math.
> > >
> > > Because the atmosphere is a gigantically huge
> > > system of many numerous moving parts, orders
> of
> > > magnitude more complicated than any machine
> > that
> > > we can build, measuring its properties takes
> a
> > > lot of time, effort, and money.
> > >
> > > And since the atmosphere is a continuously
> > > changing system of millions of variables, you
> > > can't use simple math to figure all that data
> > out.
> > > We can't just add A + B and determine what
> the
> > > result might be at some point in the future.
> > >
> > > Imagine if you rolled a container filled with
> > > 1,000 dice. Could anyone tell us what the
> > result
> > > might be? No.
> > >
> > > So you need to use complicated math and
> > > probability, which will tell us that your
> > > container result would probably be close to
> an
> > > overall roll average of 3.5.
> > >
> > > Close. Some of the time a little more, and
> > some
> > > of the time a little less. And even sometimes
> > more
> > > than a little more, or sometimes less than a
> > > little less. But almost never exactly 3.5.
> > >
> > > Now imagine trying to calculate that
> > probability
> > > when the number of dice in your container are
> > > constantly changing, and the number of sides
> on
> > > each dice are increasing or decreasing. You
> > might
> > > have dice in there that have 80 sides, or a
> few
> > > with only 4 sides, or some with 22/7 sides.
> > >
> > > Then we need to figure out an answer if we
> had
> > a
> > > containers rolling every second in every
> square
> > > meter of a storm that's 500 miles in diameter.
>
> >
> > >
> > > It's hard, and even more complicated than
> that.
> >
> > > Only more data can help solve it. But it's
> > costly
> > > and dangerous to gather more data to be
> anymore
> > > accurate about the outcome.
> >
> >
> > ^All of this bullshit = exactly what the OP
> said.
>
>
> you should go out and discover a new branch of
> mathematics then, otherwise you're just more wrong
> than everyone else.
Not wrong about anything at all.
Pointing out the OP and the long winded fag who posted after him said the exact same thing was correct.
Not much math involved there buddy, but you can definitely brush up on your reading comprehension.
-------------------------------------------------------
> exactly Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > meteo 101 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Predicting a hurricane (or any weather
> pattern)
> > is
> > > based on data collection, probability, and
> > complex
> > > math.
> > >
> > > Because the atmosphere is a gigantically huge
> > > system of many numerous moving parts, orders
> of
> > > magnitude more complicated than any machine
> > that
> > > we can build, measuring its properties takes
> a
> > > lot of time, effort, and money.
> > >
> > > And since the atmosphere is a continuously
> > > changing system of millions of variables, you
> > > can't use simple math to figure all that data
> > out.
> > > We can't just add A + B and determine what
> the
> > > result might be at some point in the future.
> > >
> > > Imagine if you rolled a container filled with
> > > 1,000 dice. Could anyone tell us what the
> > result
> > > might be? No.
> > >
> > > So you need to use complicated math and
> > > probability, which will tell us that your
> > > container result would probably be close to
> an
> > > overall roll average of 3.5.
> > >
> > > Close. Some of the time a little more, and
> > some
> > > of the time a little less. And even sometimes
> > more
> > > than a little more, or sometimes less than a
> > > little less. But almost never exactly 3.5.
> > >
> > > Now imagine trying to calculate that
> > probability
> > > when the number of dice in your container are
> > > constantly changing, and the number of sides
> on
> > > each dice are increasing or decreasing. You
> > might
> > > have dice in there that have 80 sides, or a
> few
> > > with only 4 sides, or some with 22/7 sides.
> > >
> > > Then we need to figure out an answer if we
> had
> > a
> > > containers rolling every second in every
> square
> > > meter of a storm that's 500 miles in diameter.
>
> >
> > >
> > > It's hard, and even more complicated than
> that.
> >
> > > Only more data can help solve it. But it's
> > costly
> > > and dangerous to gather more data to be
> anymore
> > > accurate about the outcome.
> >
> >
> > ^All of this bullshit = exactly what the OP
> said.
>
>
> you should go out and discover a new branch of
> mathematics then, otherwise you're just more wrong
> than everyone else.
Not wrong about anything at all.
Pointing out the OP and the long winded fag who posted after him said the exact same thing was correct.
Not much math involved there buddy, but you can definitely brush up on your reading comprehension.
Re: Face it - Our hurricane track prediction abilities suck
Posted by:
Inquisitive One
()
Date: September 11, 2017 04:03AM
It is all bullshit! About a quarter of the problem is predicting a hurricane but the remainder is the media trying to sell papers and the Weather Channel's quest for ratings. Even with this hurricane any normal person could have analyzed the raw data and realized that it was not going to be the devastating monster that was being sold on every radio and tv station, newspaper and the WC. Once Irma hit the north coast of Cuba the characteristics of the storm changed dramatically. The atmospheric pressure rose and changed course to a more northerly direction which dramatically increased the probability of an inland trajectory over Florida. The WC coverage was very amusing once the eye of the storm started to self destruct upon landfall at Marco Island because they actually seemed VERY sad that Irma was not going to turn the west coast of Florida into a vast wasteland. Bottom line is that we have a very big problem in the United States and it is not the inability to predict the behavior of hurricanes. It is the media and their inability to sell their product without dramatizing every story.
Re: Face it - Our hurricane track prediction abilities suck
Posted by:
Gerrymanderer2
()
Date: September 11, 2017 04:35AM
You rightards got lucky with Irma but please keep trying to politicize it and under estimate hurricanes. You're the ones they like to fuck up the ass so who are we to tell you to be concerned. Your lives, your property. Plus its fun to see you run and look stupid as they come bigger stronger and more often.
Re: Face it - Our hurricane track prediction abilities suck
Posted by:
Another day, another stupid post
()
Date: September 11, 2017 07:26AM
Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You rightards got lucky with Irma but please keep
> trying to politicize it and under estimate
> hurricanes. You're the ones they like to fuck up
> the ass so who are we to tell you to be concerned.
> Your lives, your property. Plus its fun to see you
> run and look stupid as they come bigger stronger
> and more often.
Except they haven't.
-------------------------------------------------------
> You rightards got lucky with Irma but please keep
> trying to politicize it and under estimate
> hurricanes. You're the ones they like to fuck up
> the ass so who are we to tell you to be concerned.
> Your lives, your property. Plus its fun to see you
> run and look stupid as they come bigger stronger
> and more often.
Except they haven't.
Re: Face it - Our hurricane track prediction abilities suck
Posted by:
sportsjunkies
()
Date: September 11, 2017 08:47AM
Nailed it! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> well done Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > I stupidly thought the italics and underlining
> > might help your comprehension - an exercise in
> > futility Im afraid. You are right everything
> you
> > say is true you WIN!
> >
> > congratulations...
>
>
> Actually, it's just the opposite.
>
> Blind faith believers like you, most of whom have
> no actual background in "science," tend to believe
> that "science" is certain and infallible and don't
> understand that a lot of what's reported in pop
> media isn't at all what given studies actually
> indicate as stated by their authors. Most actual
> scientists aren't nearly as convinced about many
> various aspects as the faithful believe who take
> it as absolute gospel.
>
> And they don't understand that "science" doesn't
> really work by "consensus." Rather it works
> precisely by "denial." i.e., In order for a
> hypothesis to be proven, it must withstand
> rigorous examination and hold true in all cases.
> If it can be shown not to hold true in some way,
> then the hypothesis fails and must be revised. It
> is not a vote. There is no benefit of doubt given
> because someone thinks that it would be convenient
> for their purposes if it worked that way. In
> fact, that iterative process of
> observation/hypothesis/experimentation/denial/revi
> sion is what's called "scientific method."
>
> The problem with making some decisions in this
> case is that by the time we get to the level of
> political decisions the underlying science is far
> removed and proposed actions have little to no
> relationship to "science."
>
>
> src="https://i.pinimg.com/736x/8c/27/03/8c27035e14
> aa8379d1c8b1d5315d12e0--minion-cakes-despicable-me
> -cake.jpg">
I taught Cellular Biology at a local college - sigh. You think you are smart but you are not.
-------------------------------------------------------
> well done Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > I stupidly thought the italics and underlining
> > might help your comprehension - an exercise in
> > futility Im afraid. You are right everything
> you
> > say is true you WIN!
> >
> > congratulations...
>
>
> Actually, it's just the opposite.
>
> Blind faith believers like you, most of whom have
> no actual background in "science," tend to believe
> that "science" is certain and infallible and don't
> understand that a lot of what's reported in pop
> media isn't at all what given studies actually
> indicate as stated by their authors. Most actual
> scientists aren't nearly as convinced about many
> various aspects as the faithful believe who take
> it as absolute gospel.
>
> And they don't understand that "science" doesn't
> really work by "consensus." Rather it works
> precisely by "denial." i.e., In order for a
> hypothesis to be proven, it must withstand
> rigorous examination and hold true in all cases.
> If it can be shown not to hold true in some way,
> then the hypothesis fails and must be revised. It
> is not a vote. There is no benefit of doubt given
> because someone thinks that it would be convenient
> for their purposes if it worked that way. In
> fact, that iterative process of
> observation/hypothesis/experimentation/denial/revi
> sion is what's called "scientific method."
>
> The problem with making some decisions in this
> case is that by the time we get to the level of
> political decisions the underlying science is far
> removed and proposed actions have little to no
> relationship to "science."
>
>
> src="https://i.pinimg.com/736x/8c/27/03/8c27035e14
> aa8379d1c8b1d5315d12e0--minion-cakes-despicable-me
> -cake.jpg">
I taught Cellular Biology at a local college - sigh. You think you are smart but you are not.
Re: Face it - Our hurricane track prediction abilities suck
Posted by:
correction
()
Date: September 11, 2017 08:48AM
*University
Re: Face it - Our hurricane track prediction abilities suck
Posted by:
Gerrymanderer2
()
Date: September 11, 2017 09:21AM
Another day, another stupid post Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You rightards got lucky with Irma but please
> keep
> > trying to politicize it and under estimate
> > hurricanes. You're the ones they like to fuck
> up
> > the ass so who are we to tell you to be
> concerned.
> > Your lives, your property. Plus its fun to see
> you
> > run and look stupid as they come bigger
> stronger
> > and more often.
>
>
> Except they haven't.
That's right. You're right. They haven't.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You rightards got lucky with Irma but please
> keep
> > trying to politicize it and under estimate
> > hurricanes. You're the ones they like to fuck
> up
> > the ass so who are we to tell you to be
> concerned.
> > Your lives, your property. Plus its fun to see
> you
> > run and look stupid as they come bigger
> stronger
> > and more often.
>
>
> Except they haven't.
That's right. You're right. They haven't.
Re: Face it - Our hurricane track prediction abilities suck
Posted by:
Gerry is a loser at life
()
Date: September 11, 2017 02:52PM
Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You rightards got lucky with Irma but please keep
> trying to politicize it and under estimate
> hurricanes. You're the ones they like to fuck up
> the ass so who are we to tell you to be concerned.
> Your lives, your property. Plus its fun to see you
> run and look stupid as they come bigger stronger
> and more often.
Why do you deny science?
-------------------------------------------------------
> You rightards got lucky with Irma but please keep
> trying to politicize it and under estimate
> hurricanes. You're the ones they like to fuck up
> the ass so who are we to tell you to be concerned.
> Your lives, your property. Plus its fun to see you
> run and look stupid as they come bigger stronger
> and more often.
Why do you deny science?
Re: Face it - Our hurricane track prediction abilities suck
Posted by:
97% Consensus!
()
Date: September 11, 2017 02:57PM
Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You rightards got lucky with Irma but please keep
> trying to politicize it and under estimate
> hurricanes. You're the ones they like to fuck up
> the ass so who are we to tell you to be concerned.
> Your lives, your property. Plus its fun to see you
> run and look stupid as they come bigger stronger
> and more often.
-------------------------------------------------------
> You rightards got lucky with Irma but please keep
> trying to politicize it and under estimate
> hurricanes. You're the ones they like to fuck up
> the ass so who are we to tell you to be concerned.
> Your lives, your property. Plus its fun to see you
> run and look stupid as they come bigger stronger
> and more often.
Re: Face it - Our hurricane track prediction abilities suck
Posted by:
compared to what?
()
Date: September 11, 2017 02:57PM
I guess if you took the OP as a non-troll you would have to ask 'compared to what?' Do our prediction abilities suck compared to sometime in the future; to the abilities of Russian forecasters?
For context, at least 6,000 died when a Category 4 hurricane unexpectedly made landfall in Galveston, Tex., on Sept. 8, 1900. Some estimates put the number of deaths closer to 10,000. With no evacuation from the port town, people were sitting ducks. It remains the deadliest storm in U.S. history.
There are several other storms that may have been less powerful than Irma yet caused vastly more deaths. A storm surge from a 1928 hurricane killed more than 1,800 people around Lake Okeechobee, Fla. Separate hurricanes in 1893 each killed more than 1,000 people.
For context, at least 6,000 died when a Category 4 hurricane unexpectedly made landfall in Galveston, Tex., on Sept. 8, 1900. Some estimates put the number of deaths closer to 10,000. With no evacuation from the port town, people were sitting ducks. It remains the deadliest storm in U.S. history.
There are several other storms that may have been less powerful than Irma yet caused vastly more deaths. A storm surge from a 1928 hurricane killed more than 1,800 people around Lake Okeechobee, Fla. Separate hurricanes in 1893 each killed more than 1,000 people.
Re: Face it - Our hurricane track prediction abilities suck
Posted by:
posty
()
Date: September 11, 2017 03:03PM
Today's hurricanes kill way fewer Americans, and NOAA’s satellites are the reason why
http://www.popsci.com/noaa-satellites-storm-predictions
http://www.popsci.com/noaa-satellites-storm-predictions
Re: Face it - Our hurricane track prediction abilities suck
Posted by:
Gerry is a loser at life
()
Date: September 11, 2017 03:05PM
posty Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Today's hurricanes kill way fewer Americans, and
> NOAA’s satellites are the reason why
>
> http://www.popsci.com/noaa-satellites-storm-predic
> tions
Science just ruins everything for libtards.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Today's hurricanes kill way fewer Americans, and
> NOAA’s satellites are the reason why
>
> http://www.popsci.com/noaa-satellites-storm-predic
> tions
Science just ruins everything for libtards.
Re: Face it - Our hurricane track prediction abilities suck
Posted by:
Goatfuckerer2
()
Date: September 11, 2017 03:10PM
Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You rightards got lucky with Irma but please keep
> trying to politicize it and under estimate
> hurricanes. You're the ones they like to fuck up
> the ass so who are we to tell you to be concerned.
> Your lives, your property. Plus its fun to see you
> run and look stupid as they come bigger stronger
> and more often.
Hey Ravi nobody here lives in FL you stupid fuck, how did we get "lucky"? Fuck you are one dumb sand nigger, LMFAO
-------------------------------------------------------
> You rightards got lucky with Irma but please keep
> trying to politicize it and under estimate
> hurricanes. You're the ones they like to fuck up
> the ass so who are we to tell you to be concerned.
> Your lives, your property. Plus its fun to see you
> run and look stupid as they come bigger stronger
> and more often.
Hey Ravi nobody here lives in FL you stupid fuck, how did we get "lucky"? Fuck you are one dumb sand nigger, LMFAO
Re: Face it - Our hurricane track prediction abilities suck
Posted by:
Science is the thing fren
()
Date: September 11, 2017 03:26PM
97% Consensus! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You rightards got lucky with Irma but please
> keep
> > trying to politicize it and under estimate
> > hurricanes. You're the ones they like to fuck
> up
> > the ass so who are we to tell you to be
> concerned.
> > Your lives, your property. Plus its fun to see
> you
> > run and look stupid as they come bigger
> stronger
> > and more often.
>
>
> src="https://accuweather.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/d
> efault/636d7e1/2147483647/resize/590x/quality/90/?
> url=http%3A%2F%2Faccuweather-bsp.s3.amazonaws.com%
> 2Fcb%2Ffe%2F088e4c0745d281de55237aa1b457%2Firma-tr
> acks-atcf-06z-9-3.png">
Consensus in 1900 was that because the swells were landing on the beach at 5 min intervals the storm would be weak - 6000 people died in that storm. Id say we are improving.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You rightards got lucky with Irma but please
> keep
> > trying to politicize it and under estimate
> > hurricanes. You're the ones they like to fuck
> up
> > the ass so who are we to tell you to be
> concerned.
> > Your lives, your property. Plus its fun to see
> you
> > run and look stupid as they come bigger
> stronger
> > and more often.
>
>
> src="https://accuweather.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/d
> efault/636d7e1/2147483647/resize/590x/quality/90/?
> url=http%3A%2F%2Faccuweather-bsp.s3.amazonaws.com%
> 2Fcb%2Ffe%2F088e4c0745d281de55237aa1b457%2Firma-tr
> acks-atcf-06z-9-3.png">
Consensus in 1900 was that because the swells were landing on the beach at 5 min intervals the storm would be weak - 6000 people died in that storm. Id say we are improving.
Re: Face it - Our hurricane track prediction abilities suck
Posted by:
Tower of Babble
()
Date: September 11, 2017 03:57PM
Science is the thing fren Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 97% Consensus! Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > You rightards got lucky with Irma but please
> > keep
> > > trying to politicize it and under estimate
> > > hurricanes. You're the ones they like to fuck
> > up
> > > the ass so who are we to tell you to be
> > concerned.
> > > Your lives, your property. Plus its fun to
> see
> > you
> > > run and look stupid as they come bigger
> > stronger
> > > and more often.
> >
> >
> > >
> src="https://accuweather.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/d
>
> >
> efault/636d7e1/2147483647/resize/590x/quality/90/?
>
> >
> url=http%3A%2F%2Faccuweather-bsp.s3.amazonaws.com%
>
> >
> 2Fcb%2Ffe%2F088e4c0745d281de55237aa1b457%2Firma-tr
>
> > acks-atcf-06z-9-3.png">
>
> Consensus in 1900 was that because the swells were
> landing on the beach at 5 min intervals the storm
> would be weak - 6000 people died in that storm. Id
> say we are improving.
Which is babble and has nothing to do with the improved science and best models resulting in a "97% consensus" that was wrong.
Of course it's better than in the past as far as awareness of what's happening at any given time with sats and everything else. That doesn't mean that we're much better at PREDICTING what the future track will be.
Models are great at calculating and predicting things like defined physical process where X@PnxT= a result. But PREDICTIVE modeling continues to suck at telling the future where there are greater degrees of uncertainty. In fact, there is a whole discipline within "science" related to why that is both at a pure mathematical level and given human nature.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/finance-why-economic-models-are-always-wrong/
-------------------------------------------------------
> 97% Consensus! Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > You rightards got lucky with Irma but please
> > keep
> > > trying to politicize it and under estimate
> > > hurricanes. You're the ones they like to fuck
> > up
> > > the ass so who are we to tell you to be
> > concerned.
> > > Your lives, your property. Plus its fun to
> see
> > you
> > > run and look stupid as they come bigger
> > stronger
> > > and more often.
> >
> >
> > >
> src="https://accuweather.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/d
>
> >
> efault/636d7e1/2147483647/resize/590x/quality/90/?
>
> >
> url=http%3A%2F%2Faccuweather-bsp.s3.amazonaws.com%
>
> >
> 2Fcb%2Ffe%2F088e4c0745d281de55237aa1b457%2Firma-tr
>
> > acks-atcf-06z-9-3.png">
>
> Consensus in 1900 was that because the swells were
> landing on the beach at 5 min intervals the storm
> would be weak - 6000 people died in that storm. Id
> say we are improving.
Which is babble and has nothing to do with the improved science and best models resulting in a "97% consensus" that was wrong.
Of course it's better than in the past as far as awareness of what's happening at any given time with sats and everything else. That doesn't mean that we're much better at PREDICTING what the future track will be.
Models are great at calculating and predicting things like defined physical process where X@PnxT= a result. But PREDICTIVE modeling continues to suck at telling the future where there are greater degrees of uncertainty. In fact, there is a whole discipline within "science" related to why that is both at a pure mathematical level and given human nature.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/finance-why-economic-models-are-always-wrong/
Re: Face it - Our hurricane track prediction abilities suck
Posted by:
Nopers
()
Date: September 11, 2017 04:31PM
I have less gripes about the forecasts than I do about the constant fear mongering by the news media. You would think a million people died from the way they are reporting this storm.
Re: Face it - Our hurricane track prediction abilities suck
Posted by:
lets figure this out together
()
Date: September 11, 2017 04:35PM
Tower of Babble Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Science is the thing fren Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > 97% Consensus! Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/list/40.html
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > You rightards got lucky with Irma but
> please
> > > keep
> > > > trying to politicize it and under estimate
> > > > hurricanes. You're the ones they like to
> fuck
> > > up
> > > > the ass so who are we to tell you to be
> > > concerned.
> > > > Your lives, your property. Plus its fun to
> > see
> > > you
> > > > run and look stupid as they come bigger
> > > stronger
> > > > and more often.
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> >
> src="https://accuweather.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/d
>
> >
> > >
> >
> efault/636d7e1/2147483647/resize/590x/quality/90/?
>
> >
> > >
> >
> url=http%3A%2F%2Faccuweather-bsp.s3.amazonaws.com%
>
> >
> > >
> >
> 2Fcb%2Ffe%2F088e4c0745d281de55237aa1b457%2Firma-tr
>
> >
> > > acks-atcf-06z-9-3.png">
> >
> > Consensus in 1900 was that because the swells
> were
> > landing on the beach at 5 min intervals the
> storm
> > would be weak - 6000 people died in that storm.
> Id
> > say we are improving.
>
>
> Which is babble and has nothing to do with the
> improved science and best models resulting in a
> "97% consensus" that was wrong.
>
> Of course it's better than in the past as far as
> awareness of what's happening at any given time
> with sats and everything else. That doesn't mean
> that we're much better at PREDICTING what the
> future track will be.
>
> Models are great at calculating and predicting
> things like defined physical process where X@PnxT=
> a result. But PREDICTIVE modeling continues to
> suck at telling the future where there are greater
> degrees of uncertainty. In fact, there is a whole
> discipline within "science" related to why that is
> both at a pure mathematical level and given human
> nature.
>
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/finance
> -why-economic-models-are-always-wrong/
You seem to have a very specific complaint - that predictive abilities apropos hurricanes 'suck.' Again the question remains 'compared to what?' Obviously they are far better than even 20 years ago and Im sure you would agree that degree of improvement has saved countless lives.
What is the source of your 'consensus' map I would like to better understand what it is before I comment further on your assessment. When was this map drawn (e.g. how far out from the storm landing?). It seems to me they had an excellent prediction where the storm would land 48 hours before landfall.
Anyway thank you for your opinion and in advance for the source.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Science is the thing fren Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > 97% Consensus! Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/list/40.html
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > You rightards got lucky with Irma but
> please
> > > keep
> > > > trying to politicize it and under estimate
> > > > hurricanes. You're the ones they like to
> fuck
> > > up
> > > > the ass so who are we to tell you to be
> > > concerned.
> > > > Your lives, your property. Plus its fun to
> > see
> > > you
> > > > run and look stupid as they come bigger
> > > stronger
> > > > and more often.
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> >
> src="https://accuweather.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/d
>
> >
> > >
> >
> efault/636d7e1/2147483647/resize/590x/quality/90/?
>
> >
> > >
> >
> url=http%3A%2F%2Faccuweather-bsp.s3.amazonaws.com%
>
> >
> > >
> >
> 2Fcb%2Ffe%2F088e4c0745d281de55237aa1b457%2Firma-tr
>
> >
> > > acks-atcf-06z-9-3.png">
> >
> > Consensus in 1900 was that because the swells
> were
> > landing on the beach at 5 min intervals the
> storm
> > would be weak - 6000 people died in that storm.
> Id
> > say we are improving.
>
>
> Which is babble and has nothing to do with the
> improved science and best models resulting in a
> "97% consensus" that was wrong.
>
> Of course it's better than in the past as far as
> awareness of what's happening at any given time
> with sats and everything else. That doesn't mean
> that we're much better at PREDICTING what the
> future track will be.
>
> Models are great at calculating and predicting
> things like defined physical process where X@PnxT=
> a result. But PREDICTIVE modeling continues to
> suck at telling the future where there are greater
> degrees of uncertainty. In fact, there is a whole
> discipline within "science" related to why that is
> both at a pure mathematical level and given human
> nature.
>
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/finance
> -why-economic-models-are-always-wrong/
You seem to have a very specific complaint - that predictive abilities apropos hurricanes 'suck.' Again the question remains 'compared to what?' Obviously they are far better than even 20 years ago and Im sure you would agree that degree of improvement has saved countless lives.
What is the source of your 'consensus' map I would like to better understand what it is before I comment further on your assessment. When was this map drawn (e.g. how far out from the storm landing?). It seems to me they had an excellent prediction where the storm would land 48 hours before landfall.
Anyway thank you for your opinion and in advance for the source.
Re: Face it - Our hurricane track prediction abilities suck
Posted by:
American Model
()
Date: September 11, 2017 05:08PM
lets figure this out together Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> You seem to have a very specific complaint - that
> predictive abilities apropos hurricanes 'suck.'
> Again the question remains 'compared to what?'
> Obviously they are far better than even 20 years
> ago and Im sure you would agree that degree of
> improvement has saved countless lives.
>
> What is the source of your 'consensus' map I would
> like to better understand what it is before I
> comment further on your assessment. When was this
> map drawn (e.g. how far out from the storm
> landing?). It seems to me they had an excellent
> prediction where the storm would land 48 hours
> before landfall.
>
> Anyway thank you for your opinion and in advance
> for the source.
Compared to reality.
The image is Accuweather's aggregation of the standard predictive models used from about a week to a little less out. You don't have to rely on that specifically. You can go back and find the same in numerous other sources since all rely on the same set of models. It reflects the "consensus" of our best experts and best models at the time. The two most prominent within that being way off. e.g.:
"Wilmoth said the American model shows the storm moving in toward the South Carolina and North Carolina coasts while the European model keeps the storm entirely offshore."
That's why NC and SC declared a state of emergency ~5 days ago and why McAuliffe did 3 days ago still with the expectation that it would move up the east coast.
No, 48 hours out they were still saying up the east coast to middle of the state depending on exactly when you want to count. Of course results improve as things become more certain. lol Everyone ends up with a perfect model as they adjust to reflect reality along the way. That tells you nothing about their original predictive value.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> You seem to have a very specific complaint - that
> predictive abilities apropos hurricanes 'suck.'
> Again the question remains 'compared to what?'
> Obviously they are far better than even 20 years
> ago and Im sure you would agree that degree of
> improvement has saved countless lives.
>
> What is the source of your 'consensus' map I would
> like to better understand what it is before I
> comment further on your assessment. When was this
> map drawn (e.g. how far out from the storm
> landing?). It seems to me they had an excellent
> prediction where the storm would land 48 hours
> before landfall.
>
> Anyway thank you for your opinion and in advance
> for the source.
Compared to reality.
The image is Accuweather's aggregation of the standard predictive models used from about a week to a little less out. You don't have to rely on that specifically. You can go back and find the same in numerous other sources since all rely on the same set of models. It reflects the "consensus" of our best experts and best models at the time. The two most prominent within that being way off. e.g.:
"Wilmoth said the American model shows the storm moving in toward the South Carolina and North Carolina coasts while the European model keeps the storm entirely offshore."
That's why NC and SC declared a state of emergency ~5 days ago and why McAuliffe did 3 days ago still with the expectation that it would move up the east coast.
No, 48 hours out they were still saying up the east coast to middle of the state depending on exactly when you want to count. Of course results improve as things become more certain. lol Everyone ends up with a perfect model as they adjust to reflect reality along the way. That tells you nothing about their original predictive value.
Re: Face it - Our hurricane track prediction abilities suck
Posted by:
yfguv
()
Date: September 11, 2017 05:20PM
American Model Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> lets figure this out together Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > You seem to have a very specific complaint -
> that
> > predictive abilities apropos hurricanes 'suck.'
>
> > Again the question remains 'compared to what?'
> > Obviously they are far better than even 20
> years
> > ago and Im sure you would agree that degree of
> > improvement has saved countless lives.
> >
> > What is the source of your 'consensus' map I
> would
> > like to better understand what it is before I
> > comment further on your assessment. When was
> this
> > map drawn (e.g. how far out from the storm
> > landing?). It seems to me they had an
> excellent
> > prediction where the storm would land 48 hours
> > before landfall.
> >
> > Anyway thank you for your opinion and in
> advance
> > for the source.
>
>
> Compared to reality.
>
> The image is Accuweather's aggregation of the
> standard predictive models used from about a week
> to a little less out. You don't have to rely on
> that specifically. You can go back and find the
> same in numerous other sources since all rely on
> the same set of models. It reflects the
> "consensus" of our best experts and best models at
> the time. The two most prominent within that
> being way off. e.g.:
>
> "Wilmoth said the American model shows the storm
> moving in toward the South Carolina and North
> Carolina coasts while the European model keeps the
> storm entirely offshore."
>
> That's why NC and SC declared a state of emergency
> ~5 days ago and why McAuliffe did 3 days ago still
> with the expectation that it would move up the
> east coast.
>
> No, 48 hours out they were still saying up the
> east coast to middle of the state depending on
> exactly when you want to count. Of course results
> improve as things become more certain. lol
> Everyone ends up with a perfect model as they
> adjust to reflect reality along the way. That
> tells you nothing about their original predictive
> value.
Thank you for your reply. It would be great if we knew the exact track the minute the storm formed - perhaps that day will come in the future! A week out is still well out of our ability to predict a track with great precision, agreed on that. Perhaps I am an optimist seeing that not long ago 2-3 day forecasts were the standard. I think its fair to say that the predictive value of this forecast saved many lives in FL this weekend.
The following is from NOAA
Routine hurricane track forecasts for the Atlantic Basin (the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea) began in 1954 and could only provide information one day into the future. Forecasts were expanded to provide two days advance notice in 1961 and three days in 1964. Three days remained the standard for advance hurricane forecasts through 2002.
In 2003, boosted by the reliability of computer models, NOAA began issuing forecasts out to five days in advance. In addition to helping the public and local officials prepare for impending hurricane landfalls, this recent forecast extension helps the U.S. Navy ensure ships are safely removed from a storm’s path.
https://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/magazine/devast_hurricane/welcome.html#times
-------------------------------------------------------
> lets figure this out together Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > You seem to have a very specific complaint -
> that
> > predictive abilities apropos hurricanes 'suck.'
>
> > Again the question remains 'compared to what?'
> > Obviously they are far better than even 20
> years
> > ago and Im sure you would agree that degree of
> > improvement has saved countless lives.
> >
> > What is the source of your 'consensus' map I
> would
> > like to better understand what it is before I
> > comment further on your assessment. When was
> this
> > map drawn (e.g. how far out from the storm
> > landing?). It seems to me they had an
> excellent
> > prediction where the storm would land 48 hours
> > before landfall.
> >
> > Anyway thank you for your opinion and in
> advance
> > for the source.
>
>
> Compared to reality.
>
> The image is Accuweather's aggregation of the
> standard predictive models used from about a week
> to a little less out. You don't have to rely on
> that specifically. You can go back and find the
> same in numerous other sources since all rely on
> the same set of models. It reflects the
> "consensus" of our best experts and best models at
> the time. The two most prominent within that
> being way off. e.g.:
>
> "Wilmoth said the American model shows the storm
> moving in toward the South Carolina and North
> Carolina coasts while the European model keeps the
> storm entirely offshore."
>
> That's why NC and SC declared a state of emergency
> ~5 days ago and why McAuliffe did 3 days ago still
> with the expectation that it would move up the
> east coast.
>
> No, 48 hours out they were still saying up the
> east coast to middle of the state depending on
> exactly when you want to count. Of course results
> improve as things become more certain. lol
> Everyone ends up with a perfect model as they
> adjust to reflect reality along the way. That
> tells you nothing about their original predictive
> value.
Thank you for your reply. It would be great if we knew the exact track the minute the storm formed - perhaps that day will come in the future! A week out is still well out of our ability to predict a track with great precision, agreed on that. Perhaps I am an optimist seeing that not long ago 2-3 day forecasts were the standard. I think its fair to say that the predictive value of this forecast saved many lives in FL this weekend.
The following is from NOAA
Routine hurricane track forecasts for the Atlantic Basin (the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea) began in 1954 and could only provide information one day into the future. Forecasts were expanded to provide two days advance notice in 1961 and three days in 1964. Three days remained the standard for advance hurricane forecasts through 2002.
In 2003, boosted by the reliability of computer models, NOAA began issuing forecasts out to five days in advance. In addition to helping the public and local officials prepare for impending hurricane landfalls, this recent forecast extension helps the U.S. Navy ensure ships are safely removed from a storm’s path.
https://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/magazine/devast_hurricane/welcome.html#times
Re: Face it - Our hurricane track prediction abilities suck
Posted by:
Gerrymanderer2
()
Date: September 11, 2017 06:04PM
Nopers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have less gripes about the forecasts than I do
> about the constant fear mongering by the news
> media. You would think a million people died from
> the way they are reporting this storm.
Are you including the Florida Republican Governor in that assessment?
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have less gripes about the forecasts than I do
> about the constant fear mongering by the news
> media. You would think a million people died from
> the way they are reporting this storm.
Are you including the Florida Republican Governor in that assessment?
Re: Face it - Our hurricane track prediction abilities suck
Posted by:
Gerrymanderer2
()
Date: September 11, 2017 06:05PM
How about Trumps FEMA Director. They were more frightening in their rhetoric than any other personality. How about the NOAA itself?
Re: Face it - Our hurricane track prediction abilities suck
Posted by:
Outer bands of Irma
()
Date: September 11, 2017 06:05PM
yfguv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thank you for your reply. It would be great if we
> knew the exact track the minute the storm formed -
> perhaps that day will come in the future! A week
> out is still well out of our ability to predict a
> track with great precision, agreed on that.
> Perhaps I am an optimist seeing that not long ago
> 2-3 day forecasts were the standard. I think its
> fair to say that the predictive value of this
> forecast saved many lives in FL this weekend.
>
Now see, if you had just defended the position that our ability to predict hurricane tracks isn't perfect, but is pretty good, I'd have had no problem with your post. Instead, you started mouthing off about the greatness of science, calling everyone who doesn't share your opinion names and acting like you had a clue about real science. Thus, you're a fanatical zealot who's religious belief in science as some kind of dogma is both sad and funny. Stick to pretending to be a 'teacher' at a local 'university' We don't believe that one either.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thank you for your reply. It would be great if we
> knew the exact track the minute the storm formed -
> perhaps that day will come in the future! A week
> out is still well out of our ability to predict a
> track with great precision, agreed on that.
> Perhaps I am an optimist seeing that not long ago
> 2-3 day forecasts were the standard. I think its
> fair to say that the predictive value of this
> forecast saved many lives in FL this weekend.
>
Now see, if you had just defended the position that our ability to predict hurricane tracks isn't perfect, but is pretty good, I'd have had no problem with your post. Instead, you started mouthing off about the greatness of science, calling everyone who doesn't share your opinion names and acting like you had a clue about real science. Thus, you're a fanatical zealot who's religious belief in science as some kind of dogma is both sad and funny. Stick to pretending to be a 'teacher' at a local 'university' We don't believe that one either.
Re: Face it - Our hurricane track prediction abilities suck
Posted by:
fhgfjhgfkf
()
Date: September 11, 2017 06:13PM
yfguv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> American Model Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > lets figure this out together Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > >
> > > You seem to have a very specific complaint -
> > that
> > > predictive abilities apropos hurricanes
> 'suck.'
> >
> > > Again the question remains 'compared to
> what?'
> > > Obviously they are far better than even 20
> > years
> > > ago and Im sure you would agree that degree
> of
> > > improvement has saved countless lives.
> > >
> > > What is the source of your 'consensus' map I
> > would
> > > like to better understand what it is before I
> > > comment further on your assessment. When was
> > this
> > > map drawn (e.g. how far out from the storm
> > > landing?). It seems to me they had an
> > excellent
> > > prediction where the storm would land 48
> hours
> > > before landfall.
> > >
> > > Anyway thank you for your opinion and in
> > advance
> > > for the source.
> >
> >
> > Compared to reality.
> >
> > The image is Accuweather's aggregation of the
> > standard predictive models used from about a
> week
> > to a little less out. You don't have to rely
> on
> > that specifically. You can go back and find
> the
> > same in numerous other sources since all rely
> on
> > the same set of models. It reflects the
> > "consensus" of our best experts and best models
> at
> > the time. The two most prominent within that
> > being way off. e.g.:
> >
> > "Wilmoth said the American model shows the
> storm
> > moving in toward the South Carolina and North
> > Carolina coasts while the European model keeps
> the
> > storm entirely offshore."
> >
> > That's why NC and SC declared a state of
> emergency
> > ~5 days ago and why McAuliffe did 3 days ago
> still
> > with the expectation that it would move up the
> > east coast.
> >
> > No, 48 hours out they were still saying up the
> > east coast to middle of the state depending on
> > exactly when you want to count. Of course
> results
> > improve as things become more certain. lol
> > Everyone ends up with a perfect model as they
> > adjust to reflect reality along the way. That
> > tells you nothing about their original
> predictive
> > value.
>
> Thank you for your reply. It would be great if we
> knew the exact track the minute the storm formed -
> perhaps that day will come in the future! A week
> out is still well out of our ability to predict a
> track with great precision, agreed on that.
> Perhaps I am an optimist seeing that not long ago
> 2-3 day forecasts were the standard. I think its
> fair to say that the predictive value of this
> forecast saved many lives in FL this weekend.
>
> The following is from NOAA
>
> Routine hurricane track forecasts for the
> Atlantic Basin (the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of
> Mexico, and Caribbean Sea) began in 1954 and could
> only provide information one day into the future.
> Forecasts were expanded to provide two days
> advance notice in 1961 and three days in 1964.
> Three days remained the standard for advance
> hurricane forecasts through 2002.
>
> In 2003, boosted by the reliability of computer
> models, NOAA began issuing forecasts out to five
> days in advance. In addition to helping the public
> and local officials prepare for impending
> hurricane landfalls, this recent forecast
> extension helps the U.S. Navy ensure ships are
> safely removed from a storm’s path.
> https://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/magazine/deva
> st_hurricane/welcome.html#times
Great, but still not logical.
Better GUESSING than 100 years ago? Sure.
We can NOT predict the path of a hurricane even 1 day out - proven by Irma.
One of my best friends is in NOAA and I still can see that sometimes they have no fucking idea where a storm is headed AT ALL.
/thread
-------------------------------------------------------
> American Model Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > lets figure this out together Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > >
> > > You seem to have a very specific complaint -
> > that
> > > predictive abilities apropos hurricanes
> 'suck.'
> >
> > > Again the question remains 'compared to
> what?'
> > > Obviously they are far better than even 20
> > years
> > > ago and Im sure you would agree that degree
> of
> > > improvement has saved countless lives.
> > >
> > > What is the source of your 'consensus' map I
> > would
> > > like to better understand what it is before I
> > > comment further on your assessment. When was
> > this
> > > map drawn (e.g. how far out from the storm
> > > landing?). It seems to me they had an
> > excellent
> > > prediction where the storm would land 48
> hours
> > > before landfall.
> > >
> > > Anyway thank you for your opinion and in
> > advance
> > > for the source.
> >
> >
> > Compared to reality.
> >
> > The image is Accuweather's aggregation of the
> > standard predictive models used from about a
> week
> > to a little less out. You don't have to rely
> on
> > that specifically. You can go back and find
> the
> > same in numerous other sources since all rely
> on
> > the same set of models. It reflects the
> > "consensus" of our best experts and best models
> at
> > the time. The two most prominent within that
> > being way off. e.g.:
> >
> > "Wilmoth said the American model shows the
> storm
> > moving in toward the South Carolina and North
> > Carolina coasts while the European model keeps
> the
> > storm entirely offshore."
> >
> > That's why NC and SC declared a state of
> emergency
> > ~5 days ago and why McAuliffe did 3 days ago
> still
> > with the expectation that it would move up the
> > east coast.
> >
> > No, 48 hours out they were still saying up the
> > east coast to middle of the state depending on
> > exactly when you want to count. Of course
> results
> > improve as things become more certain. lol
> > Everyone ends up with a perfect model as they
> > adjust to reflect reality along the way. That
> > tells you nothing about their original
> predictive
> > value.
>
> Thank you for your reply. It would be great if we
> knew the exact track the minute the storm formed -
> perhaps that day will come in the future! A week
> out is still well out of our ability to predict a
> track with great precision, agreed on that.
> Perhaps I am an optimist seeing that not long ago
> 2-3 day forecasts were the standard. I think its
> fair to say that the predictive value of this
> forecast saved many lives in FL this weekend.
>
> The following is from NOAA
>
> Routine hurricane track forecasts for the
> Atlantic Basin (the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of
> Mexico, and Caribbean Sea) began in 1954 and could
> only provide information one day into the future.
> Forecasts were expanded to provide two days
> advance notice in 1961 and three days in 1964.
> Three days remained the standard for advance
> hurricane forecasts through 2002.
>
> In 2003, boosted by the reliability of computer
> models, NOAA began issuing forecasts out to five
> days in advance. In addition to helping the public
> and local officials prepare for impending
> hurricane landfalls, this recent forecast
> extension helps the U.S. Navy ensure ships are
> safely removed from a storm’s path.
> https://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/magazine/deva
> st_hurricane/welcome.html#times
Great, but still not logical.
Better GUESSING than 100 years ago? Sure.
We can NOT predict the path of a hurricane even 1 day out - proven by Irma.
One of my best friends is in NOAA and I still can see that sometimes they have no fucking idea where a storm is headed AT ALL.
/thread
Re: Face it - Our hurricane track prediction abilities suck
Posted by:
certainly understandable
()
Date: September 11, 2017 06:23PM
fhgfjhgfkf Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> yfguv Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > American Model Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > lets figure this out together Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > >
> > > > You seem to have a very specific complaint
> -
> > > that
> > > > predictive abilities apropos hurricanes
> > 'suck.'
> > >
> > > > Again the question remains 'compared to
> > what?'
> > > > Obviously they are far better than even 20
> > > years
> > > > ago and Im sure you would agree that degree
> > of
> > > > improvement has saved countless lives.
> > > >
> > > > What is the source of your 'consensus' map
> I
> > > would
> > > > like to better understand what it is before
> I
> > > > comment further on your assessment. When
> was
> > > this
> > > > map drawn (e.g. how far out from the storm
> > > > landing?). It seems to me they had an
> > > excellent
> > > > prediction where the storm would land 48
> > hours
> > > > before landfall.
> > > >
> > > > Anyway thank you for your opinion and in
> > > advance
> > > > for the source.
> > >
> > >
> > > Compared to reality.
> > >
> > > The image is Accuweather's aggregation of the
> > > standard predictive models used from about a
> > week
> > > to a little less out. You don't have to rely
> > on
> > > that specifically. You can go back and find
> > the
> > > same in numerous other sources since all rely
> > on
> > > the same set of models. It reflects the
> > > "consensus" of our best experts and best
> models
> > at
> > > the time. The two most prominent within that
> > > being way off. e.g.:
> > >
> > > "Wilmoth said the American model shows the
> > storm
> > > moving in toward the South Carolina and North
> > > Carolina coasts while the European model
> keeps
> > the
> > > storm entirely offshore."
> > >
> > > That's why NC and SC declared a state of
> > emergency
> > > ~5 days ago and why McAuliffe did 3 days ago
> > still
> > > with the expectation that it would move up
> the
> > > east coast.
> > >
> > > No, 48 hours out they were still saying up
> the
> > > east coast to middle of the state depending
> on
> > > exactly when you want to count. Of course
> > results
> > > improve as things become more certain. lol
> > > Everyone ends up with a perfect model as they
> > > adjust to reflect reality along the way.
> That
> > > tells you nothing about their original
> > predictive
> > > value.
> >
> > Thank you for your reply. It would be great if
> we
> > knew the exact track the minute the storm formed
> -
> > perhaps that day will come in the future! A
> week
> > out is still well out of our ability to predict
> a
> > track with great precision, agreed on that.
> > Perhaps I am an optimist seeing that not long
> ago
> > 2-3 day forecasts were the standard. I think
> its
> > fair to say that the predictive value of this
> > forecast saved many lives in FL this weekend.
> >
> > The following is from NOAA
> >
> > Routine hurricane track forecasts for the
> > Atlantic Basin (the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of
> > Mexico, and Caribbean Sea) began in 1954 and
> could
> > only provide information one day into the
> future.
> > Forecasts were expanded to provide two days
> > advance notice in 1961 and three days in 1964.
> > Three days remained the standard for advance
> > hurricane forecasts through 2002.
> >
> > In 2003, boosted by the reliability of computer
> > models, NOAA began issuing forecasts out to
> five
> > days in advance. In addition to helping the
> public
> > and local officials prepare for impending
> > hurricane landfalls, this recent forecast
> > extension helps the U.S. Navy ensure ships are
> > safely removed from a storm’s path.
> >
> https://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/magazine/deva
>
> > st_hurricane/welcome.html#times
>
>
> Great, but still not logical.
>
> Better GUESSING than 100 years ago? Sure.
>
> We can NOT predict the path of a hurricane even 1
> day out - proven by Irma.
>
> One of my best friends is in NOAA and I still can
> see that sometimes they have no fucking idea where
> a storm is headed AT ALL.
>
> /thread
huh, whats not 'logical' - I agree with you we cannot predict with much accuracy a week out and I share with you the hope we can some day do so with much accuracy. I also stated that improvements over the last 20-100 years have saved lives - that is a simple fact not argument logical or not.
I provided some background on the history of predicting hurricanes for those interested.
You seem frustrated by the current limitations in prediction - perhaps you have personal experience with hurricanes and the shortcomings of current meteorological capabilities. Certainly understandable if you have been through this kind of event...
-------------------------------------------------------
> yfguv Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > American Model Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > lets figure this out together Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > >
> > > > You seem to have a very specific complaint
> -
> > > that
> > > > predictive abilities apropos hurricanes
> > 'suck.'
> > >
> > > > Again the question remains 'compared to
> > what?'
> > > > Obviously they are far better than even 20
> > > years
> > > > ago and Im sure you would agree that degree
> > of
> > > > improvement has saved countless lives.
> > > >
> > > > What is the source of your 'consensus' map
> I
> > > would
> > > > like to better understand what it is before
> I
> > > > comment further on your assessment. When
> was
> > > this
> > > > map drawn (e.g. how far out from the storm
> > > > landing?). It seems to me they had an
> > > excellent
> > > > prediction where the storm would land 48
> > hours
> > > > before landfall.
> > > >
> > > > Anyway thank you for your opinion and in
> > > advance
> > > > for the source.
> > >
> > >
> > > Compared to reality.
> > >
> > > The image is Accuweather's aggregation of the
> > > standard predictive models used from about a
> > week
> > > to a little less out. You don't have to rely
> > on
> > > that specifically. You can go back and find
> > the
> > > same in numerous other sources since all rely
> > on
> > > the same set of models. It reflects the
> > > "consensus" of our best experts and best
> models
> > at
> > > the time. The two most prominent within that
> > > being way off. e.g.:
> > >
> > > "Wilmoth said the American model shows the
> > storm
> > > moving in toward the South Carolina and North
> > > Carolina coasts while the European model
> keeps
> > the
> > > storm entirely offshore."
> > >
> > > That's why NC and SC declared a state of
> > emergency
> > > ~5 days ago and why McAuliffe did 3 days ago
> > still
> > > with the expectation that it would move up
> the
> > > east coast.
> > >
> > > No, 48 hours out they were still saying up
> the
> > > east coast to middle of the state depending
> on
> > > exactly when you want to count. Of course
> > results
> > > improve as things become more certain. lol
> > > Everyone ends up with a perfect model as they
> > > adjust to reflect reality along the way.
> That
> > > tells you nothing about their original
> > predictive
> > > value.
> >
> > Thank you for your reply. It would be great if
> we
> > knew the exact track the minute the storm formed
> -
> > perhaps that day will come in the future! A
> week
> > out is still well out of our ability to predict
> a
> > track with great precision, agreed on that.
> > Perhaps I am an optimist seeing that not long
> ago
> > 2-3 day forecasts were the standard. I think
> its
> > fair to say that the predictive value of this
> > forecast saved many lives in FL this weekend.
> >
> > The following is from NOAA
> >
> > Routine hurricane track forecasts for the
> > Atlantic Basin (the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of
> > Mexico, and Caribbean Sea) began in 1954 and
> could
> > only provide information one day into the
> future.
> > Forecasts were expanded to provide two days
> > advance notice in 1961 and three days in 1964.
> > Three days remained the standard for advance
> > hurricane forecasts through 2002.
> >
> > In 2003, boosted by the reliability of computer
> > models, NOAA began issuing forecasts out to
> five
> > days in advance. In addition to helping the
> public
> > and local officials prepare for impending
> > hurricane landfalls, this recent forecast
> > extension helps the U.S. Navy ensure ships are
> > safely removed from a storm’s path.
> >
> https://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/magazine/deva
>
> > st_hurricane/welcome.html#times
>
>
> Great, but still not logical.
>
> Better GUESSING than 100 years ago? Sure.
>
> We can NOT predict the path of a hurricane even 1
> day out - proven by Irma.
>
> One of my best friends is in NOAA and I still can
> see that sometimes they have no fucking idea where
> a storm is headed AT ALL.
>
> /thread
huh, whats not 'logical' - I agree with you we cannot predict with much accuracy a week out and I share with you the hope we can some day do so with much accuracy. I also stated that improvements over the last 20-100 years have saved lives - that is a simple fact not argument logical or not.
I provided some background on the history of predicting hurricanes for those interested.
You seem frustrated by the current limitations in prediction - perhaps you have personal experience with hurricanes and the shortcomings of current meteorological capabilities. Certainly understandable if you have been through this kind of event...
Re: Face it - Our hurricane track prediction abilities suck
Posted by:
uyrfuyfuyfif
()
Date: September 11, 2017 06:28PM
certainly understandable Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> fhgfjhgfkf Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > yfguv Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > American Model Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > lets figure this out together Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > >
> > > > > You seem to have a very specific
> complaint
> > -
> > > > that
> > > > > predictive abilities apropos hurricanes
> > > 'suck.'
> > > >
> > > > > Again the question remains 'compared to
> > > what?'
> > > > > Obviously they are far better than even
> 20
> > > > years
> > > > > ago and Im sure you would agree that
> degree
> > > of
> > > > > improvement has saved countless lives.
> > > > >
> > > > > What is the source of your 'consensus'
> map
> > I
> > > > would
> > > > > like to better understand what it is
> before
> > I
> > > > > comment further on your assessment. When
> > was
> > > > this
> > > > > map drawn (e.g. how far out from the
> storm
> > > > > landing?). It seems to me they had an
> > > > excellent
> > > > > prediction where the storm would land 48
> > > hours
> > > > > before landfall.
> > > > >
> > > > > Anyway thank you for your opinion and in
> > > > advance
> > > > > for the source.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Compared to reality.
> > > >
> > > > The image is Accuweather's aggregation of
> the
> > > > standard predictive models used from about
> a
> > > week
> > > > to a little less out. You don't have to
> rely
> > > on
> > > > that specifically. You can go back and
> find
> > > the
> > > > same in numerous other sources since all
> rely
> > > on
> > > > the same set of models. It reflects the
> > > > "consensus" of our best experts and best
> > models
> > > at
> > > > the time. The two most prominent within
> that
> > > > being way off. e.g.:
> > > >
> > > > "Wilmoth said the American model shows the
> > > storm
> > > > moving in toward the South Carolina and
> North
> > > > Carolina coasts while the European model
> > keeps
> > > the
> > > > storm entirely offshore."
> > > >
> > > > That's why NC and SC declared a state of
> > > emergency
> > > > ~5 days ago and why McAuliffe did 3 days
> ago
> > > still
> > > > with the expectation that it would move up
> > the
> > > > east coast.
> > > >
> > > > No, 48 hours out they were still saying up
> > the
> > > > east coast to middle of the state depending
> > on
> > > > exactly when you want to count. Of course
> > > results
> > > > improve as things become more certain. lol
> > > > Everyone ends up with a perfect model as
> they
> > > > adjust to reflect reality along the way.
> > That
> > > > tells you nothing about their original
> > > predictive
> > > > value.
> > >
> > > Thank you for your reply. It would be great
> if
> > we
> > > knew the exact track the minute the storm
> formed
> > -
> > > perhaps that day will come in the future! A
> > week
> > > out is still well out of our ability to
> predict
> > a
> > > track with great precision, agreed on that.
> > > Perhaps I am an optimist seeing that not long
> > ago
> > > 2-3 day forecasts were the standard. I think
> > its
> > > fair to say that the predictive value of this
> > > forecast saved many lives in FL this weekend.
>
> > >
> > > The following is from NOAA
> > >
> > > Routine hurricane track forecasts for the
> > > Atlantic Basin (the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of
> > > Mexico, and Caribbean Sea) began in 1954 and
> > could
> > > only provide information one day into the
> > future.
> > > Forecasts were expanded to provide two days
> > > advance notice in 1961 and three days in
> 1964.
> > > Three days remained the standard for advance
> > > hurricane forecasts through 2002.
> > >
> > > In 2003, boosted by the reliability of
> computer
> > > models, NOAA began issuing forecasts out to
> > five
> > > days in advance. In addition to helping the
> > public
> > > and local officials prepare for impending
> > > hurricane landfalls, this recent forecast
> > > extension helps the U.S. Navy ensure ships
> are
> > > safely removed from a storm’s path.
> > >
> >
> https://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/magazine/deva
>
> >
> > > st_hurricane/welcome.html#times
> >
> >
> > Great, but still not logical.
> >
> > Better GUESSING than 100 years ago? Sure.
> >
> > We can NOT predict the path of a hurricane even
> 1
> > day out - proven by Irma.
> >
> > One of my best friends is in NOAA and I still
> can
> > see that sometimes they have no fucking idea
> where
> > a storm is headed AT ALL.
> >
> > /thread
>
> huh, whats not 'logical' - I agree with you we
> cannot predict with much accuracy a week out and I
> share with you the hope we can some day do so with
> much accuracy. I also stated that improvements
> over the last 20-100 years have saved lives - that
> is a simple fact not argument logical or not.
>
> I provided some background on the history of
> predicting hurricanes for those interested.
>
> You seem frustrated by the current limitations in
> prediction - perhaps you have personal experience
> with hurricanes and the shortcomings of current
> meteorological capabilities. Certainly
> understandable if you have been through this kind
> of event...
nope
just pointing out, again, that the OP is correct any way you slice it
pay close attention to the title "hurricane track prediction" - we can not do that even 1 day out - even hourly if you are honest
so my point is that all this back and forth between posters is fucking stupid
OP is right
-------------------------------------------------------
> fhgfjhgfkf Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > yfguv Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > American Model Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > lets figure this out together Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > >
> > > > > You seem to have a very specific
> complaint
> > -
> > > > that
> > > > > predictive abilities apropos hurricanes
> > > 'suck.'
> > > >
> > > > > Again the question remains 'compared to
> > > what?'
> > > > > Obviously they are far better than even
> 20
> > > > years
> > > > > ago and Im sure you would agree that
> degree
> > > of
> > > > > improvement has saved countless lives.
> > > > >
> > > > > What is the source of your 'consensus'
> map
> > I
> > > > would
> > > > > like to better understand what it is
> before
> > I
> > > > > comment further on your assessment. When
> > was
> > > > this
> > > > > map drawn (e.g. how far out from the
> storm
> > > > > landing?). It seems to me they had an
> > > > excellent
> > > > > prediction where the storm would land 48
> > > hours
> > > > > before landfall.
> > > > >
> > > > > Anyway thank you for your opinion and in
> > > > advance
> > > > > for the source.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Compared to reality.
> > > >
> > > > The image is Accuweather's aggregation of
> the
> > > > standard predictive models used from about
> a
> > > week
> > > > to a little less out. You don't have to
> rely
> > > on
> > > > that specifically. You can go back and
> find
> > > the
> > > > same in numerous other sources since all
> rely
> > > on
> > > > the same set of models. It reflects the
> > > > "consensus" of our best experts and best
> > models
> > > at
> > > > the time. The two most prominent within
> that
> > > > being way off. e.g.:
> > > >
> > > > "Wilmoth said the American model shows the
> > > storm
> > > > moving in toward the South Carolina and
> North
> > > > Carolina coasts while the European model
> > keeps
> > > the
> > > > storm entirely offshore."
> > > >
> > > > That's why NC and SC declared a state of
> > > emergency
> > > > ~5 days ago and why McAuliffe did 3 days
> ago
> > > still
> > > > with the expectation that it would move up
> > the
> > > > east coast.
> > > >
> > > > No, 48 hours out they were still saying up
> > the
> > > > east coast to middle of the state depending
> > on
> > > > exactly when you want to count. Of course
> > > results
> > > > improve as things become more certain. lol
> > > > Everyone ends up with a perfect model as
> they
> > > > adjust to reflect reality along the way.
> > That
> > > > tells you nothing about their original
> > > predictive
> > > > value.
> > >
> > > Thank you for your reply. It would be great
> if
> > we
> > > knew the exact track the minute the storm
> formed
> > -
> > > perhaps that day will come in the future! A
> > week
> > > out is still well out of our ability to
> predict
> > a
> > > track with great precision, agreed on that.
> > > Perhaps I am an optimist seeing that not long
> > ago
> > > 2-3 day forecasts were the standard. I think
> > its
> > > fair to say that the predictive value of this
> > > forecast saved many lives in FL this weekend.
>
> > >
> > > The following is from NOAA
> > >
> > > Routine hurricane track forecasts for the
> > > Atlantic Basin (the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of
> > > Mexico, and Caribbean Sea) began in 1954 and
> > could
> > > only provide information one day into the
> > future.
> > > Forecasts were expanded to provide two days
> > > advance notice in 1961 and three days in
> 1964.
> > > Three days remained the standard for advance
> > > hurricane forecasts through 2002.
> > >
> > > In 2003, boosted by the reliability of
> computer
> > > models, NOAA began issuing forecasts out to
> > five
> > > days in advance. In addition to helping the
> > public
> > > and local officials prepare for impending
> > > hurricane landfalls, this recent forecast
> > > extension helps the U.S. Navy ensure ships
> are
> > > safely removed from a storm’s path.
> > >
> >
> https://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/magazine/deva
>
> >
> > > st_hurricane/welcome.html#times
> >
> >
> > Great, but still not logical.
> >
> > Better GUESSING than 100 years ago? Sure.
> >
> > We can NOT predict the path of a hurricane even
> 1
> > day out - proven by Irma.
> >
> > One of my best friends is in NOAA and I still
> can
> > see that sometimes they have no fucking idea
> where
> > a storm is headed AT ALL.
> >
> > /thread
>
> huh, whats not 'logical' - I agree with you we
> cannot predict with much accuracy a week out and I
> share with you the hope we can some day do so with
> much accuracy. I also stated that improvements
> over the last 20-100 years have saved lives - that
> is a simple fact not argument logical or not.
>
> I provided some background on the history of
> predicting hurricanes for those interested.
>
> You seem frustrated by the current limitations in
> prediction - perhaps you have personal experience
> with hurricanes and the shortcomings of current
> meteorological capabilities. Certainly
> understandable if you have been through this kind
> of event...
nope
just pointing out, again, that the OP is correct any way you slice it
pay close attention to the title "hurricane track prediction" - we can not do that even 1 day out - even hourly if you are honest
so my point is that all this back and forth between posters is fucking stupid
OP is right
Re: Face it - Our hurricane track prediction abilities suck
Posted by:
American Model
()
Date: September 11, 2017 06:34PM
Outer bands of Irma Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> yfguv Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Thank you for your reply. It would be great if
> we
> > knew the exact track the minute the storm formed
> -
> > perhaps that day will come in the future! A
> week
> > out is still well out of our ability to predict
> a
> > track with great precision, agreed on that.
> > Perhaps I am an optimist seeing that not long
> ago
> > 2-3 day forecasts were the standard. I think
> its
> > fair to say that the predictive value of this
> > forecast saved many lives in FL this weekend.
> >
>
>
> Now see, if you had just defended the position
> that our ability to predict hurricane tracks isn't
> perfect, but is pretty good, I'd have had no
> problem with your post. Instead, you started
> mouthing off about the greatness of science,
> calling everyone who doesn't share your opinion
> names and acting like you had a clue about real
> science. Thus, you're a fanatical zealot who's
> religious belief in science as some kind of dogma
> is both sad and funny. Stick to pretending to be
> a 'teacher' at a local 'university' We don't
> believe that one either.
^ I didn't write this but I could have. haha
Pretty much sums it up.
"Science" does not imply certainty.
Because there is a "97% consensus" that does not mean near certainty or 97% accuracy.
Presenting "science" and a "consensus" in that way that's typically done is disingenuous and any legit scientist would never accept that presentation being applied to their work or in any other context.
-------------------------------------------------------
> yfguv Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Thank you for your reply. It would be great if
> we
> > knew the exact track the minute the storm formed
> -
> > perhaps that day will come in the future! A
> week
> > out is still well out of our ability to predict
> a
> > track with great precision, agreed on that.
> > Perhaps I am an optimist seeing that not long
> ago
> > 2-3 day forecasts were the standard. I think
> its
> > fair to say that the predictive value of this
> > forecast saved many lives in FL this weekend.
> >
>
>
> Now see, if you had just defended the position
> that our ability to predict hurricane tracks isn't
> perfect, but is pretty good, I'd have had no
> problem with your post. Instead, you started
> mouthing off about the greatness of science,
> calling everyone who doesn't share your opinion
> names and acting like you had a clue about real
> science. Thus, you're a fanatical zealot who's
> religious belief in science as some kind of dogma
> is both sad and funny. Stick to pretending to be
> a 'teacher' at a local 'university' We don't
> believe that one either.
^ I didn't write this but I could have. haha
Pretty much sums it up.
"Science" does not imply certainty.
Because there is a "97% consensus" that does not mean near certainty or 97% accuracy.
Presenting "science" and a "consensus" in that way that's typically done is disingenuous and any legit scientist would never accept that presentation being applied to their work or in any other context.
Re: Face it - Our hurricane track prediction abilities suck
Posted by:
coming right now
()
Date: September 11, 2017 06:38PM
uyrfuyfuyfif Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> certainly understandable Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > fhgfjhgfkf Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > yfguv Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > American Model Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > lets figure this out together Wrote:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You seem to have a very specific
> > complaint
> > > -
> > > > > that
> > > > > > predictive abilities apropos hurricanes
> > > > 'suck.'
> > > > >
> > > > > > Again the question remains 'compared to
> > > > what?'
> > > > > > Obviously they are far better than even
> > 20
> > > > > years
> > > > > > ago and Im sure you would agree that
> > degree
> > > > of
> > > > > > improvement has saved countless lives.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What is the source of your 'consensus'
> > map
> > > I
> > > > > would
> > > > > > like to better understand what it is
> > before
> > > I
> > > > > > comment further on your assessment.
> When
> > > was
> > > > > this
> > > > > > map drawn (e.g. how far out from the
> > storm
> > > > > > landing?). It seems to me they had an
> > > > > excellent
> > > > > > prediction where the storm would land
> 48
> > > > hours
> > > > > > before landfall.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Anyway thank you for your opinion and
> in
> > > > > advance
> > > > > > for the source.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Compared to reality.
> > > > >
> > > > > The image is Accuweather's aggregation of
> > the
> > > > > standard predictive models used from
> about
> > a
> > > > week
> > > > > to a little less out. You don't have to
> > rely
> > > > on
> > > > > that specifically. You can go back and
> > find
> > > > the
> > > > > same in numerous other sources since all
> > rely
> > > > on
> > > > > the same set of models. It reflects the
> > > > > "consensus" of our best experts and best
> > > models
> > > > at
> > > > > the time. The two most prominent within
> > that
> > > > > being way off. e.g.:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Wilmoth said the American model shows
> the
> > > > storm
> > > > > moving in toward the South Carolina and
> > North
> > > > > Carolina coasts while the European model
> > > keeps
> > > > the
> > > > > storm entirely offshore."
> > > > >
> > > > > That's why NC and SC declared a state of
> > > > emergency
> > > > > ~5 days ago and why McAuliffe did 3 days
> > ago
> > > > still
> > > > > with the expectation that it would move
> up
> > > the
> > > > > east coast.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, 48 hours out they were still saying
> up
> > > the
> > > > > east coast to middle of the state
> depending
> > > on
> > > > > exactly when you want to count. Of
> course
> > > > results
> > > > > improve as things become more certain. lol
>
> > > > > Everyone ends up with a perfect model as
> > they
> > > > > adjust to reflect reality along the way.
> > > That
> > > > > tells you nothing about their original
> > > > predictive
> > > > > value.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for your reply. It would be
> great
> > if
> > > we
> > > > knew the exact track the minute the storm
> > formed
> > > -
> > > > perhaps that day will come in the future!
> A
> > > week
> > > > out is still well out of our ability to
> > predict
> > > a
> > > > track with great precision, agreed on that.
>
> > > > Perhaps I am an optimist seeing that not
> long
> > > ago
> > > > 2-3 day forecasts were the standard. I
> think
> > > its
> > > > fair to say that the predictive value of
> this
> > > > forecast saved many lives in FL this
> weekend.
> >
> > > >
> > > > The following is from NOAA
> > > >
> > > > Routine hurricane track forecasts for
> the
> > > > Atlantic Basin (the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of
> > > > Mexico, and Caribbean Sea) began in 1954
> and
> > > could
> > > > only provide information one day into the
> > > future.
> > > > Forecasts were expanded to provide two days
> > > > advance notice in 1961 and three days in
> > 1964.
> > > > Three days remained the standard for
> advance
> > > > hurricane forecasts through 2002.
> > > >
> > > > In 2003, boosted by the reliability of
> > computer
> > > > models, NOAA began issuing forecasts out to
> > > five
> > > > days in advance. In addition to helping the
> > > public
> > > > and local officials prepare for impending
> > > > hurricane landfalls, this recent forecast
> > > > extension helps the U.S. Navy ensure ships
> > are
> > > > safely removed from a storm’s path.
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/magazine/deva
>
> >
> > >
> > > > st_hurricane/welcome.html#times
> > >
> > >
> > > Great, but still not logical.
> > >
> > > Better GUESSING than 100 years ago? Sure.
> > >
> > > We can NOT predict the path of a hurricane
> even
> > 1
> > > day out - proven by Irma.
> > >
> > > One of my best friends is in NOAA and I still
> > can
> > > see that sometimes they have no fucking idea
> > where
> > > a storm is headed AT ALL.
> > >
> > > /thread
> >
> > huh, whats not 'logical' - I agree with you we
> > cannot predict with much accuracy a week out and
> I
> > share with you the hope we can some day do so
> with
> > much accuracy. I also stated that improvements
> > over the last 20-100 years have saved lives -
> that
> > is a simple fact not argument logical or not.
> >
> > I provided some background on the history of
> > predicting hurricanes for those interested.
> >
> > You seem frustrated by the current limitations
> in
> > prediction - perhaps you have personal
> experience
> > with hurricanes and the shortcomings of current
> > meteorological capabilities. Certainly
> > understandable if you have been through this
> kind
> > of event...
>
>
> nope
>
> just pointing out, again, that the OP is correct
> any way you slice it
>
> pay close attention to the title "hurricane track
> prediction" - we can not do that even 1 day out -
> even hourly if you are honest
>
> so my point is that all this back and forth
> between posters is fucking stupid
>
> OP is right
Oh - didnt realize you were the OP - complete retard.
-------------------------------------------------------
> certainly understandable Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > fhgfjhgfkf Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > yfguv Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > American Model Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > lets figure this out together Wrote:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You seem to have a very specific
> > complaint
> > > -
> > > > > that
> > > > > > predictive abilities apropos hurricanes
> > > > 'suck.'
> > > > >
> > > > > > Again the question remains 'compared to
> > > > what?'
> > > > > > Obviously they are far better than even
> > 20
> > > > > years
> > > > > > ago and Im sure you would agree that
> > degree
> > > > of
> > > > > > improvement has saved countless lives.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What is the source of your 'consensus'
> > map
> > > I
> > > > > would
> > > > > > like to better understand what it is
> > before
> > > I
> > > > > > comment further on your assessment.
> When
> > > was
> > > > > this
> > > > > > map drawn (e.g. how far out from the
> > storm
> > > > > > landing?). It seems to me they had an
> > > > > excellent
> > > > > > prediction where the storm would land
> 48
> > > > hours
> > > > > > before landfall.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Anyway thank you for your opinion and
> in
> > > > > advance
> > > > > > for the source.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Compared to reality.
> > > > >
> > > > > The image is Accuweather's aggregation of
> > the
> > > > > standard predictive models used from
> about
> > a
> > > > week
> > > > > to a little less out. You don't have to
> > rely
> > > > on
> > > > > that specifically. You can go back and
> > find
> > > > the
> > > > > same in numerous other sources since all
> > rely
> > > > on
> > > > > the same set of models. It reflects the
> > > > > "consensus" of our best experts and best
> > > models
> > > > at
> > > > > the time. The two most prominent within
> > that
> > > > > being way off. e.g.:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Wilmoth said the American model shows
> the
> > > > storm
> > > > > moving in toward the South Carolina and
> > North
> > > > > Carolina coasts while the European model
> > > keeps
> > > > the
> > > > > storm entirely offshore."
> > > > >
> > > > > That's why NC and SC declared a state of
> > > > emergency
> > > > > ~5 days ago and why McAuliffe did 3 days
> > ago
> > > > still
> > > > > with the expectation that it would move
> up
> > > the
> > > > > east coast.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, 48 hours out they were still saying
> up
> > > the
> > > > > east coast to middle of the state
> depending
> > > on
> > > > > exactly when you want to count. Of
> course
> > > > results
> > > > > improve as things become more certain. lol
>
> > > > > Everyone ends up with a perfect model as
> > they
> > > > > adjust to reflect reality along the way.
> > > That
> > > > > tells you nothing about their original
> > > > predictive
> > > > > value.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for your reply. It would be
> great
> > if
> > > we
> > > > knew the exact track the minute the storm
> > formed
> > > -
> > > > perhaps that day will come in the future!
> A
> > > week
> > > > out is still well out of our ability to
> > predict
> > > a
> > > > track with great precision, agreed on that.
>
> > > > Perhaps I am an optimist seeing that not
> long
> > > ago
> > > > 2-3 day forecasts were the standard. I
> think
> > > its
> > > > fair to say that the predictive value of
> this
> > > > forecast saved many lives in FL this
> weekend.
> >
> > > >
> > > > The following is from NOAA
> > > >
> > > > Routine hurricane track forecasts for
> the
> > > > Atlantic Basin (the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of
> > > > Mexico, and Caribbean Sea) began in 1954
> and
> > > could
> > > > only provide information one day into the
> > > future.
> > > > Forecasts were expanded to provide two days
> > > > advance notice in 1961 and three days in
> > 1964.
> > > > Three days remained the standard for
> advance
> > > > hurricane forecasts through 2002.
> > > >
> > > > In 2003, boosted by the reliability of
> > computer
> > > > models, NOAA began issuing forecasts out to
> > > five
> > > > days in advance. In addition to helping the
> > > public
> > > > and local officials prepare for impending
> > > > hurricane landfalls, this recent forecast
> > > > extension helps the U.S. Navy ensure ships
> > are
> > > > safely removed from a storm’s path.
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/magazine/deva
>
> >
> > >
> > > > st_hurricane/welcome.html#times
> > >
> > >
> > > Great, but still not logical.
> > >
> > > Better GUESSING than 100 years ago? Sure.
> > >
> > > We can NOT predict the path of a hurricane
> even
> > 1
> > > day out - proven by Irma.
> > >
> > > One of my best friends is in NOAA and I still
> > can
> > > see that sometimes they have no fucking idea
> > where
> > > a storm is headed AT ALL.
> > >
> > > /thread
> >
> > huh, whats not 'logical' - I agree with you we
> > cannot predict with much accuracy a week out and
> I
> > share with you the hope we can some day do so
> with
> > much accuracy. I also stated that improvements
> > over the last 20-100 years have saved lives -
> that
> > is a simple fact not argument logical or not.
> >
> > I provided some background on the history of
> > predicting hurricanes for those interested.
> >
> > You seem frustrated by the current limitations
> in
> > prediction - perhaps you have personal
> experience
> > with hurricanes and the shortcomings of current
> > meteorological capabilities. Certainly
> > understandable if you have been through this
> kind
> > of event...
>
>
> nope
>
> just pointing out, again, that the OP is correct
> any way you slice it
>
> pay close attention to the title "hurricane track
> prediction" - we can not do that even 1 day out -
> even hourly if you are honest
>
> so my point is that all this back and forth
> between posters is fucking stupid
>
> OP is right
Oh - didnt realize you were the OP - complete retard.
Re: Face it - Our hurricane track prediction abilities suck
Posted by:
Inquisitive One
()
Date: September 12, 2017 04:48AM
Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You rightards got lucky with Irma but please keep
> trying to politicize it and under estimate
> hurricanes. You're the ones they like to fuck up
> the ass so who are we to tell you to be concerned.
> Your lives, your property. Plus its fun to see you
> run and look stupid as they come bigger stronger
> and more often.
HMMM! Maybe a case of dementia! Prior to this year there has not been a land fall of a major hurricane for the past ten years!
-------------------------------------------------------
> You rightards got lucky with Irma but please keep
> trying to politicize it and under estimate
> hurricanes. You're the ones they like to fuck up
> the ass so who are we to tell you to be concerned.
> Your lives, your property. Plus its fun to see you
> run and look stupid as they come bigger stronger
> and more often.
HMMM! Maybe a case of dementia! Prior to this year there has not been a land fall of a major hurricane for the past ten years!
Re: Face it - Our hurricane track prediction abilities suck
Posted by:
latest Talking point
()
Date: September 12, 2017 07:49AM
Face it - We Are Terrible At Understanding Reality
Dark matter constitutes 84.5% of total mass, while dark energy plus dark matter constitute 95.1% of total mass–energy content.
Dark matter constitutes 84.5% of total mass, while dark energy plus dark matter constitute 95.1% of total mass–energy content.
Re: Face it - Our hurricane track prediction abilities suck
Posted by:
Our hurricane track prediction a
()
Date: September 12, 2017 08:13PM
Our hurricane track prediction abilities suck
true
true
Re: Face it - Our hurricane track prediction abilities suck
Posted by:
huurrr
()
Date: September 12, 2017 09:59PM
Our hurricane track prediction a Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Our hurricane track prediction abilities suck
>
>
> true
Compared to what they were 50 years ago, they're miraculous. Compared to what they were 200 years ago, no one then could even understand it.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Our hurricane track prediction abilities suck
>
>
> true
Compared to what they were 50 years ago, they're miraculous. Compared to what they were 200 years ago, no one then could even understand it.