Re: LINK??? n/t
Posted by
Cape_Fear_NC on 8/21/2009, 5:31 am
I guess I'm "boldly going where no man has gone before" eh?
What I'm doing is; as Gianmark alluded to in his post; stating the obvious - this isn't 1938 anymore; nor is it 1958 or 1978 or even 1998.
We've reached the point in technology where we can clearly see and measure the earth's atmosphere in detail. And we have super-computers to run ever more advanced models. Our ability to analyze the atmosphere today is the Space Shuttle compared to the Lindbergh plane of weather forecasting in 1938.
When the models disagree noticeably, it reminds us our imperfections but when ALL the globals (and I don't mean the frigging Bam's) lock on to a single path - you can bet a hurricane is going to head in that direction.
Errors at 3, 4 and 5 days? Of course! But I said: "if a model CLUSTER says "A", one would be a fool to expect "D." That leaves open "B" and "C" because of course we're going to have some error.
If every major model had Bill aimed directly at me - I'd be a total wreck because I'd know there was little room for escape. But since they're ALL pointed as they are - I'm comfortable with saying there's a 0% chance Bill will come anywhere near me.
Could Bill hit NYC? It's possible but so highly unlikely - I'd beg, borrow and steal every dollar I could to bet against it. I'm a RATIONALIST (I'm always aware I can be wrong - and mentally place logical odds on the probability.)
Again, it's that "linear thinking." Storms used to defy forecasts - therefore they will continue to do so. Well, thanks to technology, we're at least sometimes capable of moving beyond that point - as is the case now when model tracks form a "cluster."
If the model tracks are all over the place - then it really isn't a "forecast" to begin with. But our linear-thinking processes will tell us "you see; hurricane so and so didn't do what it was supposed to do therefore the models are unworthy." Even though it wasn't "supposed" to do any one particular thing in the first place!
I know it's more exciting when hurricanes seem to "do their own thing" but unless the models show us some leeway for this to happen (outliers, mixed tracks, etc.) - there's no reason to expect it.
And by the way, it's fascinating how people in general view things in the world. Take models for example. It's evident some see both man and hurricanes as some form of extension of a divine being - but not so a computer model. A computer model is "detached" from the "natural" world and cannot be relied on at all. Well, for those of you who think such - consider this - the computer model is an extension of the human mind. It is our knowledge converted into symbols that get processed by an electronic machine to save us time. The model is not some stand-along entity - it is the combined resources of many men and women and should be looked upon as such. The computer model reflects the success of human ingenuity.
Tim in NC
|
44
In this thread:
Post A Reply
This thread has been archived and can no longer receive replies.