Hurricane Forecasting is inaccurate

Kurgan Gringioni said:

From:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/?feed=TopNews&article=UPI-1-20051020-07
084700-bc-us-wilma.xml

Hurricane Wilma baffling prediction models
MIAMI, Oct. 20 (UPI) -- Hurricane Wilma, the strongest hurricane ever
recorded, had winds of 150 mph Thursday morning, but its behavior was
baffling projections about its path.

Forecasters at the National Hurricane Center in Miami said their most
reliable computer projection systems had enormously wide swings on
where the storm could go over several hours Wednesday. At one point,
data indicated it would eventually hit Maine, then it changed to Cuba,
then back to Rhode Island.

<snip><end>

Other forecasting models are having similar problems. They've all
failed at predicting Wilma's behavior.

The one data point every 4 kilometer grid sucks balls and it's not
surprising. That's a very low resolution for a chaotic system. It's a
fiendishly difficult problem to model and the ability to do so won't
be possible with current computing methods.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.
awaiting the arrival of the qbit

You need to start reading the discussions at www.nhc.noaa.gov. The problem
is not the resolution of the models in general but that this particular
storm is being affected by a low pressure system over the Great Lakes.
There are a couple of steering systems that are predicted to interact after
the storm crosses Florida. In general the prediction models do a good job,
but sometimes the solution gets stiffer than others, and then the solutions
from the different models diverge. This is one of those times. (Note that
the article kind of confuses that the situation is not that same model is
producing different tracks, but that the track solutions from several
different models are very different. See the above mentioned website's
discussion archive for more details.)

The models aren't all bad, they aren't all good either but still, weren't
you the one who once claimed nothing is black or white.

It is also not the strongest, but most intense, as determined by the
central pressure.

"You suck!" said the wind field to the eye. "Blow me!" said the eye.

--
Bill Asher

Kurgan Gringioni said:

Other forecasting models are having similar problems. They've all
failed at predicting Wilma's behavior.

If Wilma was a dumbass, you could predict her behavior - please note
the predictability of rbr.

In fact, most newbies don't pick this up, but sometimes all the
regulars but one take an entire month off and that one person posts
for everyone else. Except H squared, 'cause we the rest of us don't
have the sensitivity thing down and we can't ask our wives or
girlfriends as that would require admitting that we are posting to
rbr.

So if everyone but H squared is posting, probably no one here but one
regular with time on his hands and a bunch of newbies. Was H squared
posting in July? Anybody here back then?

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

William Asher said:

Kurgan Gringioni said:

From:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/?feed=TopNews&article=UPI-1-20051020-07
084700-bc-us-wilma.xml

Hurricane Wilma baffling prediction models
MIAMI, Oct. 20 (UPI) -- Hurricane Wilma, the strongest hurricane ever
recorded, had winds of 150 mph Thursday morning, but its behavior was
baffling projections about its path.

Forecasters at the National Hurricane Center in Miami said their most
reliable computer projection systems had enormously wide swings on
where the storm could go over several hours Wednesday. At one point,
data indicated it would eventually hit Maine, then it changed to Cuba,
then back to Rhode Island.

<snip><end>

Other forecasting models are having similar problems. They've all
failed at predicting Wilma's behavior.

The one data point every 4 kilometer grid sucks balls and it's not
surprising. That's a very low resolution for a chaotic system. It's a
fiendishly difficult problem to model and the ability to do so won't
be possible with current computing methods.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.
awaiting the arrival of the qbit

You need to start reading the discussions at www.nhc.noaa.gov. The problem
is not the resolution of the models in general but that this particular
storm is being affected by a low pressure system over the Great Lakes.
There are a couple of steering systems that are predicted to interact after
the storm crosses Florida. In general the prediction models do a good job,
but sometimes the solution gets stiffer than others, and then the solutions
from the different models diverge. This is one of those times. (Note that
the article kind of confuses that the situation is not that same model is
producing different tracks, but that the track solutions from several
different models are very different. See the above mentioned website's
discussion archive for more details.)

Bah,

you all don't get the real reason for these storms:

http://www.weatherwars.info/katrina.htm

The storm pictures there are impressing, though.

Kurgan Gringioni said:

Other forecasting models are having similar problems. They've all
failed at predicting Wilma's behavior.

Will it affect the price of fish in Horotewhenua ?

William Asher said:

You need to start reading the discussions at www.nhc.noaa.gov. The problem
is not the resolution of the models in general but that this particular
storm is being affected by a low pressure system over the Great Lakes.
There are a couple of steering systems that are predicted to interact after
the storm crosses Florida. In general the prediction models do a good job,
but sometimes the solution gets stiffer than others, and then the solutions
from the different models diverge. This is one of those times.

Dumbass -

From:
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=abbu8WGh0WQA&refer=news_index
``Two days before Katrina ripped through the Gulf of Mexico forecasters
were saying it would make landfall at Tallahassee, Florida,'' said Adam
Sieminski, chief energy economist at Deutsche Bank AG in New York. ``It
ended up making landfall south of New Orleans and we know the results.
Hurricane forecasting is still an art not a science.''

<snip><end>

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Ernst Noch wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Bah,

you all don't get the real reason for these storms:

http://www.weatherwars.info/katrina.htm

The storm pictures there are impressing, though.

He's just be pretending to believe they aren't natural and controlled by
the Russians so that you keep believing he's a nut job and they are natural
and you never figure out that they aren't natural and are controlled but
it's not the Russians that are controlling them. Maybe.

Think about it. A radially laced bicycle wheel looks like a hurricane if
you straighten out the rain bands and Tom Simpson died on Mt. Ventoux. Or
was he killed?

--
Bill Asher

Kurgan Gringioni said:

William Asher said:

You need to start reading the discussions at www.nhc.noaa.gov. The
problem is not the resolution of the models in general but that this
particular storm is being affected by a low pressure system over the
Great Lakes. There are a couple of steering systems that are
predicted to interact after the storm crosses Florida. In general
the prediction models do a good job, but sometimes the solution gets
stiffer than others, and then the solutions from the different models
diverge. This is one of those times.

Dumbass -

From:
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=abbu8WGh0WQA&refe
r=news_index ``Two days before Katrina ripped through the Gulf of
Mexico forecasters were saying it would make landfall at Tallahassee,
Florida,'' said Adam Sieminski, chief energy economist at Deutsche
Bank AG in New York. ``It ended up making landfall south of New
Orleans and we know the results. Hurricane forecasting is still an art
not a science.''

<snip><end>

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Read the archived discussions and look at the forecast tracks from the NHC
website. They got Katrina dead-bang on all things considered.

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/KATRINA_graphics.shtml

You can see that the Deutsche Bank AG guy is talking through his hat. The
consensus forecast at three days out had Katrina ripping right through New
Orleans.

Really, you need to go look at the primary data before you can have a
reasonable discussion about this.

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/KATRINA.shtml?

Eyewall replacement cycle forecasting is voodoo. Intensity forecasting is
an art. Track forecasting is much much better.

--
Bill Asher

Kurgan Gringioni said:

Hurricane Wilma baffling prediction models

Quoted message said:

Other forecasting models are having similar problems. They've all
failed at predicting Wilma's behavior.

The one data point every 4 kilometer grid sucks balls and it's not
surprising. That's a very low resolution for a chaotic system. It's a
fiendishly difficult problem to model and the ability to do so won't be
possible with current computing methods.

Dumbass,

Forget the 4 km grid [censored] and the supercomputers.
Just look: Katrina, Rita, Wilma. Scientists have difficulty
predicting their behavior, because as everyone knows,
scientists[*] don't understand women. And to you,
this is news?

Ben

[*] Male scientists, that is. I wouldn't want to be
sexist, now.

Ernst Noch said:

Bah,

you all don't get the real reason for these storms:

http://www.weatherwars.info/katrina.htm

The storm pictures there are impressing, though.

Man,

sometimes I just don't grasp these very clear rules of the english
language. Interestive.

bill says...

Quoted message said:

Maybe if we all start riding our bikes in a big counter-closckwise
circuit, all at the same time, we will be able to "steer" Wilma.

Not unless we glue butterfly wings to the ass-cheek area of our cycling shorts.

William Asher says...

Quoted message said:

Read the archived discussions and look at the forecast tracks from the NHC
website. They got Katrina dead-bang on all things considered.

Since I scan that site from time to time and in fact did as Katrina took aim, I
know you speak the truth.

Quoted message said:

Eyewall replacement cycle forecasting is voodoo. Intensity forecasting is
an art. Track forecasting is much much better.

Although the intensity researchers claim they are making headway. Do I
understand the bottom line correectly that the southeastern seaboard of the US
will be laid to ruin within the next 50 to 100 years???

Mad Dog said:

William Asher says...

Quoted message said:

Read the archived discussions and look at the forecast tracks from the
NHC website. They got Katrina dead-bang on all things considered.

Since I scan that site from time to time and in fact did as Katrina
took aim, I know you speak the truth.

Quoted message said:

Eyewall replacement cycle forecasting is voodoo. Intensity
forecasting is an art. Track forecasting is much much better.

Although the intensity researchers claim they are making headway. Do
I understand the bottom line correectly that the southeastern seaboard
of the US will be laid to ruin within the next 50 to 100 years???

They are making headway. Rita (and Katrina) did precisely what they said
it would in terms of intensity.

As far as the leveling of the SE, that is mainly the effect of god smiting
the wicked sinners in New Orleans who have now undergone a diaspora to
contaminate the whole region.

It is ironic that the diaspora was caused by god's original attempt to
smite them so that a lot of godly people will now get smitten too, but that
is just the way the whole god/smiting/diaspora/irony thing works.

Thus spoke (gratuitous bicycling reference) the weather gods.

--
Bill Asher

Mad Dog said:

bill says...

Quoted message said:

Maybe if we all start riding our bikes in a big counter-closckwise
circuit, all at the same time, we will be able to "steer" Wilma.

Not unless we glue butterfly wings to the ass-cheek area of our cycling shorts.

Dumbass -

You seem to be obsessed with the "butterfly" thing so I'll leave that
out.

Do you deny the notion that in chaotic systems, small perturbations can
cause large scale fluctuations? Do I understand that correctly?

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Quoted message said:

Dumbass,

Forget the 4 km grid [censored] and the supercomputers.
Just look: Katrina, Rita, Wilma. Scientists have difficulty
predicting their behavior, because as everyone knows,
scientists[*] don't understand women. And to you,
this is news?

lol. but on the other hand, somehow you men are able to understand the
distinction between "research associate" vs. "associate research
scientist", something that baffles me.

h
a chick

h squared said:

Quoted message said:

Dumbass,

Forget the 4 km grid [censored] and the supercomputers.
Just look: Katrina, Rita, Wilma. Scientists have difficulty
predicting their behavior, because as everyone knows,
scientists[*] don't understand women. And to you,
this is news?

lol. but on the other hand, somehow you men are able to understand the
distinction between "research associate" vs. "associate research
scientist", something that baffles me.

h
a chick

Generally pedigree (where you went to school, who you did your graduate
work for, and type of degree) are far more important than job title. So a
"research associate" with a degree in physics from CalTech will always be
higher on the totem pole than a "associate research scientist" with a
degree in dance engineering from Viturbo College. People just think job
title is important, which is why the Who's Who folks can make so much money
selling dago-dazzling wall plaques to the dance engineering majors from
Viturbo College.

--
Bill Asher

William Asher said:

h squared said:

Quoted message said:

Dumbass,

Forget the 4 km grid [censored] and the supercomputers.
Just look: Katrina, Rita, Wilma. Scientists have difficulty
predicting their behavior, because as everyone knows,
scientists[*] don't understand women. And to you,
this is news?

lol. but on the other hand, somehow you men are able to understand the
distinction between "research associate" vs. "associate research
scientist", something that baffles me.

h
a chick

Generally pedigree (where you went to school, who you did your graduate
work for, and type of degree) are far more important than job title. So a
"research associate" with a degree in physics from CalTech will always be
higher on the totem pole than a "associate research scientist" with a
degree in dance engineering from Viturbo College. People just think job
title is important, which is why the Who's Who folks can make so much money
selling dago-dazzling wall plaques to the dance engineering majors from
Viturbo College.

--
Bill Asher

Yeah, Ya no dem Dago Wops ain't to brite....Dem wasps dey is da [censored]
Bill C

h squared said:

[email hidden] wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

scientists[*] don't understand women. And to you,
this is news?

lol. but on the other hand, somehow you men are able to understand the
distinction between "research associate" vs. "associate research
scientist", something that baffles me.

h
a chick

The distinction is probably about $20,000 a year, subject to
uncertainties in the initial conditions, which are chaotic.
Everybody can understand that.

But actually, these labels come from university personnel
departments, which often have plenty of women on the staff,
but still are way more opaque than easy [censored] like string
theory or the UCI rulebook.

BTW, both of the titles you gave usually translate into
"lackey that isn't a professor and is paid out of someone's
grant."

Ben
All I know is, if it's my job title, it's the
lower one on the totem pole.

Kurgan Gringioni says...

Quoted message said:

You seem to be obsessed with the "butterfly" thing so I'll leave that
out.

Not obsessed at all. Just making fun of you, penis breath.

Quoted message said:

Do you deny the notion that in chaotic systems, small perturbations can
cause large scale fluctuations? Do I understand that correctly?

I've never denied that. In fact, I've asked you to get out there and flap your
little buttfly wings and send all those horrible storms away from the southern
US. If that doesn't work, perhaps you could call the storms a dumbass and see
if that pertubation is enough to send them packing.

Mad Dog said:

Kurgan Gringioni says...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Do you deny the notion that in chaotic systems, small perturbations can
cause large scale fluctuations? Do I understand that correctly?

I've never denied that. In fact, I've asked you to get out there and flap your
little buttfly wings and send all those horrible storms away from the southern
US. If that doesn't work, perhaps you could call the storms a dumbass and see
if that pertubation is enough to send them packing.

Dumbass -

The term "The Butterfly Effect" is just shorthand for the notion that
in chaotic systems, small perturbations can cause large scale
fluctuations.

But, go ahead and obsess about it if you wish.

cheers,

K. Gringioni.