Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,598
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    PublicWorks143
    Newest Member
    PublicWorks143
    Joined

Octorcher or Roctober 2023 Discussion Thread


Damage In Tolland
 Share

Recommended Posts

48 minutes ago, WinterWolf said:

Too bad and sad that we’re losing a manufacturer.  Where’s that at?  
 

A buddy and I are heading to Epping, NH tomorrow morning to the sled show…heard that snowmobile show is fabulous. So We’ll soon find out. 

I’m at Epping. I’m working at the VAST booth which is in the tent right by the water cross course. Stop by and say hello. The only other AMWX guy I’ve met in person is @dryslotup at the Maine show a few years ago. Attendance was ok Friday night and down today because of the weather. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, mreaves said:

I’m at Epping. I’m working at the VAST booth which is in the tent right by the water cross course. Stop by and say hello. The only other AMWX guy I’ve met in person is @dryslotup at the Maine show a few years ago. Attendance was ok Friday night and down today because of the weather. 

Oh wow lol.  Never been, so don’t know my way round at all. I’ll try to make a point to find it, and say hi for sure. Actually leaving now.  Should be about a 2 hr ride. 
 

Thanks Mreaves! 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Noticed three aspects about the rain this next weekend over the last day(s) of modeling.

... tendency to delay

...tendency to suppress

...tendency to weaken

All of which can be a part of what I have phrased "model magnification" in the past - more specifically, as the 'de'-magnificaiton correction than ensues in future runs, the above list of morphology tends to occur. 

So to spell out the metaphor, when events first emerge out at the outer temporal boundary of 'practical' distance ( beyond which the randomization is too large and overwhelms confidence ), the specter of what the model result is at that point in time, tends to be more amplified than what will actually occur. 

All guidance do this.  GGEM ... EURO ... UKMET ... GFS ... JMA... Kevin's imagination, I have not seen any one of these sources free from blame. The reason they do this, they "see" future events as a result of present input interacting in the processing of the physics, but cannot see all the permutations that have yet to emerge in time.  Some of which directly negatively interfere, but some actually require wave energy of their own; sapping off the domain ... effectively robbing the original specter of what it needs to maintain - this may just be another way of describing negative interference..   Either way, the result is the reduction over time. 

It think it is a natural artifact of the technology.  One that perhaps cannot be avoided, too. Maybe in the future ...all the doubters of 'flying models' will eat crow but until models can see the catalogue of events that are going to happen (will of god type stuff), those "permutations" are yet to occur as part of an uncertain future.  When a given guidance sees a big D9 event, it's just not seeing all the other hindrances that will manifest in time that either cancel or rob, cannot be predetermined.  If we further that thinking ... we may be nearing an end of what these models can really do for us in terms of "really" predicting the future.  I wonder if there is a way to calculate the "uncertainty of emergent future properties" as a function of time - so it grows... Then, at D11 (say..), we might benefit from knowing that the very best the models will ever be able to do, given the atmospheric domain in question is 57% accuracy ...  This type of imagined analytic approach would not rule out or suggest the blind dart scenario, either.  It only says that no matter how well a guidance or a person visualizes D10, once applying the 'uncertainty coefficients' they or technology could not have had more than that 57% certitude. D5 improves to say 77%.  D3, 97.   Daught, hilariously sounding like 'doubt' now-cast is 99.99999999... because there is always some subjective error that is too finite to be seen.   The whole model would eerily agree with one of the baser tenets of Quantum Mechanics, that states that an object cannot be simultaneously measured for it's velocity, or position, in space to exactitude. 

This was going to be a small post ... I've gone and f'ed that up.  I guess if you've read this far, bravo.  But the original intent was to say that those three aspects above are trying to save Saturday.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...