Where is FE's alert notice about hurricane Lee

REs has given alert notice about hurricane Lee. See here https://www.iweathernet.com/interactive-radar They say it will affect North east US, massachussets and maine. They predict it will slightly touch cape cod at around 7 A.M EST, Saturday, 16 Sept, 2023 and landfall at Maine US and New Burnswick, Canada around 4 pm EST Saturday, 16 Sept, 2023. What do FEs have to say about it?

I hope they bought plenty of snacks and filled up their gas tanks.

good ol' mercator

Good news for the OP. FE has maps that are used for tracking hurricanes where ever they form and start moving.

There are specialized airplanes that fly through and around the hurricane and the motion is tracked on a flat map only available in FE.

REers are sadly mistaken when they don't pay attention to FE hurricane progress because they may not obtain proper supplies to weather the storm.

Keep your eye to the TV or PC and follow advice given by experts who properly track the storm.

REs has given alert notice about hurricane Lee. See here https://www.iweathernet.com/interactive-radar They say it will affect North east US, massachussets and maine. They predict it will slightly touch cape cod at around 7 A.M EST, Saturday, 16 Sept, 2023 and landfall at Maine US and New Burnswick, Canada around 4 pm EST Saturday, 16 Sept, 2023. What do FEs have to say about it?

Shaking My Head...

First off, you've tipped your hand by mentioning that basically all weather people are globalist climate change nutters.

Second of all, for these same obvious reasons, having a globalist climate change nutter monopoly on weather news means that Flat Earth types probably don't get hired to forecast the weather.

Third of all, those storm forecasts are always ALWAYS overblown. In some cases, outright fraud occurs. Watch.

You can clearly see that the people in the background are not struggling at all. They always pull this crap!

Skip to about 0:33. Cooper is "standing" on his knees. The other guy is standing properly.

In college, I went to get lunch, and they tried to trap me in the basement during a hurricane warning. I told them "Get The Fuck Outta My Way" and pushed past them. My dorm was uphill from the cafeteria. It turned out to be a slight wind and shower. While all those tools were sitting in the cafeteria being herded around like animals, I got to watch anime with my friends.

So, what does FE have to say? Well, first off, meteorology is an art not a science. You have a probability web that shows about 6 or 10 different paths. They have no idea. They choose the worst one, then change their choice at the last second and tell us they "predicted" the path. No, they kinda used minute by minute data to keep adjusting. Must be nice to be trusted even when you get it wrong over and over again.

I can sometimes use hunches to predict storms. It's usually pretty accurate, alot more accurate than the alarmist predictions they always give. I use a combination of my feelings and hunches, wind speed predictions, and wind direction predictions. If the the wind speed is not even at hurricane speed (90 mph), and they say "this is gonna be the storm of the century!!!" then I say, "Yeah right!" and shut it off. My mom always believes these alarmist goofballs, or at least wastes hours watching that crap.

Northeastern Coast, you say? My folks are currently in New Jersey. At 4pm there will be a high surf and riptide advisory, but no winds even exceeding 20 mph. Remember, hurricanes are a higher speed than that. This is a tropical storm here.

What about Mass and Maine?

Well, from the looks of this, I don't think I buy their forecast (my projection in green). I think it might corkscrew back the slightest bit east, trash the crap out of Halifax, head out toward the ocean, and hit St John's instead. I also don't think the "hurricane" is strong enough to do major damage outside the coasts. 
They always talk about how "Oh no! It's gonna make landfall and just keep going and going!" Sorry, but when storms make landfall, momentum declines. Not just that, but the water is diminished, leaving only wind. Soil tends to absorb the impact of waves and slow winds a bit. These islands often act as buffers, so it's not very likely to me that it will just happen to slide all the way down the inlet.



Regardless of warnings, the future doesn't scare me at all...

Quote from: oceanographer_rai on September 15, 2023, 07:00:51 AM

REs has given alert notice about hurricane Lee. See here https://www.iweathernet.com/interactive-radar They say it will affect North east US, massachussets and maine. They predict it will slightly touch cape cod at around 7 A.M EST, Saturday, 16 Sept, 2023 and landfall at Maine US and New Burnswick, Canada around 4 pm EST Saturday, 16 Sept, 2023. What do FEs have to say about it?

Shaking My Head...

First off, you've tipped your hand by mentioning that basically all weather people are globalist climate change nutters.

Second of all, for these same obvious reasons, having a globalist climate change nutter monopoly on weather news means that Flat Earth types probably don't get hired to forecast the weather.

Third of all, those storm forecasts are always ALWAYS overblown. In some cases, outright fraud occurs. Watch.

You can clearly see that the people in the background are not struggling at all. They always pull this crap!

Skip to about 0:33. Cooper is "standing" on his knees. The other guy is standing properly.

In college, I went to get lunch, and they tried to trap me in the basement during a hurricane warning. I told them "Get The Fuck Outta My Way" and pushed past them. My dorm was uphill from the cafeteria. It turned out to be a slight wind and shower. While all those tools were sitting in the cafeteria being herded around like animals, I got to watch anime with my friends.

So, what does FE have to say? Well, first off, meteorology is an art not a science. You have a probability web that shows about 6 or 10 different paths. They have no idea. They choose the worst one, then change their choice at the last second and tell us they "predicted" the path. No, they kinda used minute by minute data to keep adjusting. Must be nice to be trusted even when you get it wrong over and over again.

I can sometimes use hunches to predict storms. It's usually pretty accurate, alot more accurate than the alarmist predictions they always give. I use a combination of my feelings and hunches, wind speed predictions, and wind direction predictions. If the the wind speed is not even at hurricane speed (90 mph), and they say "this is gonna be the storm of the century!!!" then I say, "Yeah right!" and shut it off. My mom always believes these alarmist goofballs, or at least wastes hours watching that crap.

Northeastern Coast, you say? My folks are currently in New Jersey. At 4pm there will be a high surf and riptide advisory, but no winds even exceeding 20 mph. Remember, hurricanes are a higher speed than that. This is a tropical storm here.

What about Mass and Maine?

Well, from the looks of this, I don't think I buy their forecast (my projection in green). I think it might corkscrew back the slightest bit east, trash the crap out of Halifax, head out toward the ocean, and hit St John's instead. I also don't think the "hurricane" is strong enough to do major damage outside the coasts. 
They always talk about how "Oh no! It's gonna make landfall and just keep going and going!" Sorry, but when storms make landfall, momentum declines. Not just that, but the water is diminished, leaving only wind. Soil tends to absorb the impact of waves and slow winds a bit. These islands often act as buffers, so it's not very likely to me that it will just happen to slide all the way down the inlet.



Regardless of warnings, the future doesn't scare me at all...

I am sorry but I am comfortable with someone's bad mathematical calculations than with someone's hunches and guesses or feelings because one day the mathematician will learn to do correct maths. So, please let me stick with weather predictions from guys who did some maths. Even if each calculations is slightly off.

 Also, please dont give shits like FE weather people flys into hurricane with planes and drones and etc. If they do, make the measurements and data available to public. Lets crunch in some numbers and find out the flatness.
 
If you say FE's do maths, show the maths. I am curious what numerical model do FE weather forecast people use. RE are openly showing their maths in numerical weather forecast model like ECMWF, GFS, ICON. There is no secret here in this maths code. The link to ECMWF code is https://github.com/ecmwf NASA is not hiding anything. I suggest you try using it yourself. If you want the real time data download it here in this link (https://www.ecmwf.int/en/forecasts/access-forecasts/data-delivery) and debunk the roundness.

Else say flat earth is your religion and I will shut up because logic has no place there. I have no capacity to describe an ocean to a frog that lives in a pond.

Contrary to the idea of a single mapped out pathway, this is what storm predictions really look like at their end.



They call it a spaghetti model, because the strands can go any number of ways.

"Doing the math"? Their guess is literally as good as mine!

The path they took? It is based purely on the idea of sensationalism. "Look, it's gonna go all the way up this channel and hit Massachusetts & Maine."

Yes, it could. But you can see from that spaghetti model, only the light green path takes that perfect route.  Most of these either skim the coast, hit Halifax or St John, while some don't hit a damn thing.

So, the math. It looks like there is a 1 in... I counted about 15 or 17. The majority of paths do not take this route.

You have not done the math. This is the math. Spaghetti model puts probability well against it.

 They just picked it because they can make alot of people worry about climate.

Contrary to the idea of a single mapped out pathway, this is what storm predictions really look like at their end.



They call it a spaghetti model, because the strands can go any number of ways.

"Doing the math"? Their guess is literally as good as mine!

The path they took? It is based purely on the idea of sensationalism. "Look, it's gonna go all the way up this channel and hit Massachusetts & Maine."

Yes, it could. But you can see from that spaghetti model, only the light green path takes that perfect route.  Most of these either skim the coast, hit Halifax or St John, while some don't hit a damn thing.

So, the math. It looks like there is a 1 in... I counted about 15 or 17. The majority of paths do not take this route.

You have not done the math. This is the math. Spaghetti model puts probability well against it.

 They just picked it because they can make alot of people worry about climate.

From a global wether satellite.

No.

It's a model.

First off, we have a Mode 7 style angled map (base layer). Like this.


Then there are gridlines to depict latitude and longitude (layer 2).
Then (actually, this is more a layer 0, belore the landmasses), we have the water layers, colored light blue.
Layer 3 is a sort of cloud layer
Layer 4 is spaghetti lines.

There's no satellite here. Just a computer graphic.
 
Watch. I'll do it myself.



If you literally can't tell something done on the computer from analysis from a satellite, I dunno what to tell you.



All just layers.

Took 20 minutes to make this. Only things I didn't do was add more surrounding clouds and a slant to the map. And that's mainly because I dunno how to do that on GIMP. 

No satellite here. It's SNES era Mode 7 slant.

Contrary to the idea of a single mapped out pathway, this is what storm predictions really look like at their end.

Yes, it's called chaos theory.
They can make predictions, and try to determine the more likely paths.
The further into the future you go, the more they diverge.

They also have different models, some of which are incredibly simple.
The simplest is literally a straight line assuming it continues doing the average of what it has done over the past 12 hours.

Without providing the legend to show what line means what, that graph is useless other than getting the general idea that it will go north, and likely go near Halifax

It is also important to note that not only those locations directly in the path of the eye of the storm will be effected.

The path they took? It is based purely on the idea of sensationalism. "Look, it's gonna go all the way up this channel and hit Massachusetts & Maine."

No, its based upon observations and data.
And now we can see how close it is.

And as above, you need to understand that not only those locations directly in the path of the eye are affected.
They didn't say it will hit Maine et al, they said it will affect Maine et al.

No.

It's a model.
...
There's no satellite here. Just a computer graphic.
 
Watch. I'll do it myself.

If you literally can't tell something done on the computer from analysis from a satellite, I dunno what to tell you.

It looks like it may have a satellite image as part of the layer.
But the point is they get the data from weather sattelites.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 17, 2023, 04:25:02 PM

Contrary to the idea of a single mapped out pathway, this is what storm predictions really look like at their end.

Yes, it's called chaos theory.
They can make predictions, and try to determine the more likely paths.
The further into the future you go, the more they diverge.

Chaos theory is bogus crap. The chaos theory peddlers are all globalists (surprise surprise!) who want you to buy that their random musings are somehow completely under control, and they can accurately determine from random spaghetti threads what the future holds.
In other words, the secular globalists tell us that the universe has no divine intelligent design, it just kinda arose out of the equivalent of a soup that no decent cook would brew because it's the taste and texture of fresh vomit and mixes together everything without rhyme or reason. Sure, if we can also believe that they have no idea what weather will be tomorrow, much less that in 50 years Earth will die if we do not immediately change our energy and transportation models.

So either chaos theory exists, and we have to dismiss any pretensions of being able to predict the future, as a butterfly in the Amazon can totally change things one moment to the next. Or intelligent design exists, and the weather can be predicted because God makes the universe run as a system. Pick one. You can't have both.

On the other hand, I can have both. I can believe in a God makes decisions, and thus rather than some pattern or random chance, we have order but also a sense of whim. Neither a pattern nor chance involves that sort of agency.

They also have different models, some of which are incredibly simple.
The simplest is literally a straight line assuming it continues doing the average of what it has done over the past 12 hours.

That's called oversimplifying chance into destiny.

These are oversimplifying spaghetti in order to convince the public that the weather forecasters are all-seeing sages. They might even delay the latest projection if it turns out to be a big bust.

https://www.accuweather.com/en/hurricane/hurricane-lee-to-restrengthen-as-accuweather-forecasters-outline-impacts-for-us-canada/1577689

They predicted it would go up to a category 5 storm. They also talked about "winds up to 111 mph."  The few times I checked, the "up to" part was a major stretch, as it was in tropical storm speed, around 18 to 35 mph.

https://www.accuweather.com/en/hurricane/atlantic/lee-2023

Same website. It did indeed take the path they predicted, but guess what? The intensity increase was wrong. It basically ended last night at 11pm. All these sensational "Boston Braces for Storm" reports, and it skims near Halifax and part of Maine, heads toward the ocean and just kinda peters out.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 17, 2023, 04:25:02 PM

The path they took? It is based purely on the idea of sensationalism. "Look, it's gonna go all the way up this channel and hit Massachusetts & Maine."

No, its based upon observations and data.
And now we can see how close it is.

It was based on sensationalism. And you mean "was." Ended last night at 11.

If weather people were really making accurate predictions, you could give them a series of personal statistics, and they could beat any palm reader for your love life or your business. Only, two months later, despite these same perfect statistics, you manage to lose your job and screw up your relationship.

And still, they declare they can see what will happen 30 years in the future.

https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/50-years-of-failed-doomsday-eco-pocalyptic-predictions-the-so-called-experts-are-0-50/

They didn't say it will hit Maine et al, they said it will affect Maine et al.

By affect, do you mean "Blow someone's hair a bit?" I looked at about 15 pictures, and none of them had any smashed buildings, just some trees that were too sissy falling down.

The point is, even if the path were identical to what they mentioned, they predicted a category 5 hurricane when it was only actually a category 1 tropical storm by the time it got anywhere. The trajectory is not nearly as important as the difference between projected power and actual power. They insisted it was a "hurricane" when you could clearly see that it was a tropical storm.

So how many died from this oh so dangerous storm?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tropical-storm-lee-death-maine-hurricane-cyclone-strong-winds-heavy-rain-new-england-canada/
One person (mainly, he was out driving in a storm, and a tree fell on his vehicle, and then it sounds like power lines also fell on his vehicle, cuz God wanted to be sure he was not only crushed but electrocuted). Can we stop all the alarmism already? Yes, that person's family suffered a tragic loss. Does it justify all the stress you just gave people in prep for this storm? Hell no.

Curious if FE has an explanation why hurricanes never cross the equator... Celestial currents?

taht's a good point

if the sun were low
wouldn't the sun's "wake" pull huricanes along?
why only in the fall?
why not every day?

and if seasonal, if the sun had orbital rings for summer-winter, shouldn't there be a southern outter right hurricane season when northerners feel winter?

Chaos theory is bogus crap.

You not liking it doesn't make it crap.
There are plenty of simple experiments you can do to demonstrate chaos theory.
Perhaps the simplest is a double pendulum.

they can accurately determine from random spaghetti threads what the future holds.

Again, that spaghetti is a bunch of different models, not all created equally.

And they do not say they can predict the future perfectly.
Instead, short term predictions are quite accurate, but as you go further into the future it becomes less and less accurate.

In other words, the secular globalists tell us that the universe has no divine intelligent design

All rational people say that.
Because there is not a shred of evidence to such delusional BS, and such delusional does not help in any way.
But this isn't the thread for it.
If you want to discuss your irrational hatred of no need for a god, do it elsewhere.

So either chaos theory exists, and we have to dismiss any pretensions of being able to predict the future, as a butterfly in the Amazon can totally change things one moment to the next. Or intelligent design exists, and the weather can be predicted because God makes the universe run as a system. Pick one. You can't have both.

I pick neither, as both are pure BS.
Chaos theory does not mean you cannot predict the future.
It means with events governed by it, it becomes less predictable the further into the future you are.
e.g. you can get a good idea if it will rain tomorrow in your city.
But you have no idea if it will rain exactly 1 year from now in your city.

We do not need your imaginary fiend to be able to predict things.
If anything, an intelligent being controlling it means you can't predict it.
It would mean there aren't a series of events leading up to it raining which you can use to predict rain; instead, your evil POS just decides it is time for rain.

They predicted it would go up to a category 5 storm. They also talked about "winds up to 111 mph."  The few times I checked, the "up to" part was a major stretch, as it was in tropical storm speed, around 18 to 35 mph.

No, they said it had gone up to that.
And relying upon you just checking some wind speeds, rather than actually looking at all of them is incredibly dishonest.

All these sensational "Boston Braces for Storm" reports, and it skims near Halifax and part of Maine, heads toward the ocean and just kinda peters out.

And of course, you just ignore all the damage it causes.

It was based on sensationalism.

Repeating the same lie wont help you.

If weather people were really making accurate predictions, you could give them a series of personal statistics, and they could beat any palm reader for your love life or your business.

No, you couldn't.
Because people don't work the same as weather.

They are not magically looking into the future.
Instead, they are making predictions based upon models and observed data.

And still, they declare they can see what will happen 30 years in the future.

At a vastly different scale.

By affect, do you mean "Blow someone's hair a bit?" I looked at about 15 pictures, and none of them had any smashed buildings, just some trees that were too sissy falling down.

Again, wilful ignorance of reality and not checking what is actually happening.
These aren't just sissy trees falling. They are quite substantial trees which can cause serious damage.

So how many died from this oh so dangerous storm?

And if they decided that it is not going to be a significant storm, that it wont cause any serious damage or harm anyone, and then it was a major storm and lots of people died, you would then go off at them for that.

Again, the predictions are not perfect. Would you rather the err on the side of caution to try to prevent deaths, or just tell everyone it will be fine and let them die?

Curious if FE has an explanation why hurricanes never cross the equator... Celestial currents?

Do we know that?

Or are we told that by the same fake news media that tried to cover up Fauci's indiscretions while the COVID narrative went on?
https://www.congress.gov/117/meeting/house/114270/documents/HHRG-117-GO24-20211201-SD004.pdf
(Congress itself admits he may have sorta kinda lied to everyone, while the "trust the science" mantra was repeated)
https://www.peta.org/blog/fauci-niaid-puppies-animal-testing/
(I personally showed an article of this to PETA. Looks like they verified it)


After all, there are vast swaths of ocean that never make headlines at all!

So the list of things the news doesn't tell us is actually pretty long. But let's find out what makes hurricanes, shall we?

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/how-hurricanes-form.html

As this weather system moves westward across the tropics, warm ocean air rises into the storm, forming an area of low pressure underneath. This causes more air to rush in. The air then rises and cools, forming clouds and thunderstorms. Up in the clouds, water condenses and forms droplets, releasing even more heat to power the storm.

A hurricane is formed by changes in pressure and temperature, like so.

wouldn't the sun's "wake" pull huricanes along?
why only in the fall?
why not every day?

So, why only in the fall? Because too hot or too cold, and a hurricane won't form. I imagine the don't tend to form near the North Pole (too close to winter weather) , and if you've been following along, you know why they don't tend to move across equator (shifting temperature near the equator to more summerlike weather).

This just in! Hurricanes happen every season.
https://www.noaa.gov/stories/tropical-storms-and-hurricanes-in-winter-and-spring
They also actually form sometimes in the equator.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tropical_cyclones_near_the_Equator

More proof you have either been lied to or don't know what you are talking about.

Quote from: Kami on September 18, 2023, 12:04:57 PM

Curious if FE has an explanation why hurricanes never cross the equator... Celestial currents?

Do we know that?

Or are we told that by the same [...] media that tried to cover up Fauci's indiscretions while the COVID narrative went on?

Nope, pretty sure I have not yet hear mainstream media talk about the physics of hurricanes. Or why they rotate the other direction in the southern hemisphere. Or why they don't cross the equator. In RE, you can explain all that with the coriolis force. Also, hurricanes are kinda big. Hard to lie about where they are...

They also actually form sometimes in the equator.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tropical_cyclones_near_the_Equator

I hope you know that 'forming near the equator' and 'crossing the equator' are two different things...

I hope you know that 'forming near the equator' and 'crossing the equator' are two different things...

I think life would be easier if you knew how to listen and understand things. I wouldn't have to repeat explanations so damned much.

Hot and cold overlap forms hurricanes. Remember?



So, the equator is like this... Warmest overall near the equator, colder and as you get away from the equator.
So a mix of hot and cold air rapidly changes from cool(ish) to warm back to cool(ish). Temperature change destabilizes the thing.

I also think it's funny how neither side of the map goes near 90 degrees, and how there are 15 degrees more visible up north than south. Almost as though real estate on this map is being hidden.

mercator!

amaaaazing!



which way does the sun fly on a mercator map?

Anyway, Lee’s here (UK), to be followed by Nigel Friday.

Now US imports have always been a mixed bag, poverty food outlets against Tom Waits, tax dodging coffee chains versus the coyote V8 that goes in the AC Cobra, and it could be argued that they, especially Nigel, are not American, but as they are coming across the Atlantic, have stupid names, are big loud and destructive and we have no control of them, it sounds like a duck so it’s American.

So, I’m going to get blown about and soaked, whilst dodging Bulmabriefs posts, as I’m sick of his sycophantic groveling to the forces that are happy for these things to get worse to boost their profits, presumably hoping that clinging to their coattails singing hosannas something might trickle down on his upturned adoring face.
Morons and more rain, it’s going to be a shit week.   

Quote from: Kami on September 18, 2023, 12:04:57 PM

Curious if FE has an explanation why hurricanes never cross the equator... Celestial currents?

Do we know that?

It is a simplification.

Hurricanes form in particular regions, with Earth's rotation being a key factor.
This means they don't really have much strength right at the equator, and crossing the equator works to undo them.
So while they can cross, they don't last long after that.

But let's find out what makes hurricanes, shall we?
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/how-hurricanes-form.html

Quote

As this weather system moves westward across the tropics, warm ocean air rises into the storm, forming an area of low pressure underneath. This causes more air to rush in. The air then rises and cools, forming clouds and thunderstorms. Up in the clouds, water condenses and forms droplets, releasing even more heat to power the storm.

A hurricane is formed by changes in pressure and temperature, like so.

You left out a very important part, the rotation of Earth, needed to keep the air going around in a circle, to form the hurricane.

So, the equator is like this... Warmest overall near the equator, colder and as you get away from the equator.

Only if you focus on the yearly average and ignore what the actual temperature is.
In July, it is hottest north of the equator, by a substantial amount.
In December, it is hottest south of the equator, again by a substantial amount.

I also think it's funny how neither side of the map goes near 90 degrees, and how there are 15 degrees more visible up north than south. Almost as though real estate on this map is being hidden.

Because you don't understand how the map works?
There is more to the north than the south, because there is more land that a lot of people care about there.
But you can find versions that are equal.

The reason they don't go to 90 is that that would require an infinite amount of space.

Contrary to the idea of a single mapped out pathway, this is what storm predictions really look like at their end.



They call it a spaghetti model, because the strands can go any number of ways.

"Doing the math"? Their guess is literally as good as mine!

The path they took? It is based purely on the idea of sensationalism. "Look, it's gonna go all the way up this channel and hit Massachusetts & Maine."

Yes, it could. But you can see from that spaghetti model, only the light green path takes that perfect route.  Most of these either skim the coast, hit Halifax or St John, while some don't hit a damn thing.

So, the math. It looks like there is a 1 in... I counted about 15 or 17. The majority of paths do not take this route.

You have not done the math. This is the math. Spaghetti model puts probability well against it.

 They just picked it because they can make alot of people worry about climate.

You think maths is everyone doing one plus one equals two and everyone getting same answer! Ask your 10 friends to measure the length of your table as accurate as they can upto millimeter or even a micrometer. And see how many answers they come up with. The point is the answers will be close but not the same.

The maths of hurricanes is the same maths an aerodynamic engineer uses to calculate drag on a racing car, boats and ships and also in rockets. The governing equation is called Navier Stokes Equation. It is a non linear partial differential equation. Now the nature of this equation is that a small difference in the initial and boundary condition causes huge differences in the solution for times far away from initial condition. Yet the statistics of the solution are predictable even when the individual solutions vary with the small perturbation in the initial and boundary conditions.

That is why they are showing quite a few number of paths of hurricanes. I actually appreciate them doing so, because it gives more confidence that the predictions are correct. Its like having a confidence in the measurement of a table's length when 5 measurements say they are 10.1, 10.2, 9.99, 9.98 and 10. If I only get one measurement that says its length is 10 I have more reasons to doubt if the measurement is wrong or if there is instrumental or observational bias.

This kind of maths with multiple answers to one question is not only in Physics its in economics, biology, medicine, everywhere. Ask an economist what will be the inflation rate next year and he will give you no one precise number but a range.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 17, 2023, 04:25:02 PM

Contrary to the idea of a single mapped out pathway, this is what storm predictions really look like at their end.



They call it a spaghetti model, because the strands can go any number of ways.

"Doing the math"? Their guess is literally as good as mine!

The path they took? It is based purely on the idea of sensationalism. "Look, it's gonna go all the way up this channel and hit Massachusetts & Maine."

Yes, it could. But you can see from that spaghetti model, only the light green path takes that perfect route.  Most of these either skim the coast, hit Halifax or St John, while some don't hit a damn thing.

So, the math. It looks like there is a 1 in... I counted about 15 or 17. The majority of paths do not take this route.

You have not done the math. This is the math. Spaghetti model puts probability well against it.

 They just picked it because they can make alot of people worry about climate.

You think maths is everyone doing one plus one equals two and everyone getting same answer! Ask your 10 friends to measure the length of your table as accurate as they can upto millimeter or even a micrometer. And see how many answers they come up with. The point is the answers will be close but not the same.

Sounds like everything below a cm is bullshit. Which I already concluded when someone told me about a billionth of a meter  "bulge". Look if the human eye can't see it, other than bacteria, virus, and nanobots, it isn't there.

But more importantly, I learned about getting the right answer in math class. When there is imprecision like that, you usually round it to the nearest whole number, or the last two decimal points.

You've obviously been learning math under Common Core where feelings are more important. As in, the actual temperature doesn't matter, it's the wind chill or heat index feelings. And then later, when nobody is watching, we're going to pretend winter didn't happen and use those higher numbers for summer.

Yes, older math wanted a consistent answer. I'm sure it was very conformist that way. It also emphasized intellectual honesty though, and didn't try to rearrange the answer to appease the kid whose mom abused him and was struggling to read and do math, or the LD kid who maybe couldn't read the word problems.

Math doesn't care! Suck it up and figure out the right answer. Life is tough, but math isn't about your feelings.  You can cry after class.

Math is supposed to have objective answers. Then fuzzy brained government types changed it and now everything is subjective. Should we decide maybe two and two is five?

Attention! Hurricane Lee left the building. Tropical storm Ophelia is dropping shitloads of rain on North Carolina. Invest 90 is making some lightning out there, and will probably curve to the east.

This has been your FES weather advisory.

Quote from: oceanographer_rai on September 23, 2023, 06:02:47 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 17, 2023, 04:25:02 PM

Contrary to the idea of a single mapped out pathway, this is what storm predictions really look like at their end.



They call it a spaghetti model, because the strands can go any number of ways.

"Doing the math"? Their guess is literally as good as mine!

The path they took? It is based purely on the idea of sensationalism. "Look, it's gonna go all the way up this channel and hit Massachusetts & Maine."

Yes, it could. But you can see from that spaghetti model, only the light green path takes that perfect route.  Most of these either skim the coast, hit Halifax or St John, while some don't hit a damn thing.

So, the math. It looks like there is a 1 in... I counted about 15 or 17. The majority of paths do not take this route.

You have not done the math. This is the math. Spaghetti model puts probability well against it.

 They just picked it because they can make alot of people worry about climate.

You think maths is everyone doing one plus one equals two and everyone getting same answer! Ask your 10 friends to measure the length of your table as accurate as they can upto millimeter or even a micrometer. And see how many answers they come up with. The point is the answers will be close but not the same.

Sounds like everything below a cm is bullshit. Which I already concluded when someone told me about a billionth of a meter  "bulge". Look if the human eye can't see it, other than bacteria, virus, and nanobots, it isn't there.

But more importantly, I learned about getting the right answer in math class. When there is imprecision like that, you usually round it to the nearest whole number, or the last two decimal points.

You've obviously been learning math under Common Core where feelings are more important. As in, the actual temperature doesn't matter, it's the wind chill or heat index feelings. And then later, when nobody is watching, we're going to pretend winter didn't happen and use those higher numbers for summer.

Yes, older math wanted a consistent answer. I'm sure it was very conformist that way. It also emphasized intellectual honesty though, and didn't try to rearrange the answer to appease the kid whose mom abused him and was struggling to read and do math, or the LD kid who maybe couldn't read the word problems.

Math doesn't care! Suck it up and figure out the right answer. Life is tough, but math isn't about your feelings.  You can cry after class.

Math is supposed to have objective answers. Then fuzzy brained government types changed it and now everything is subjective. Should we decide maybe two and two is five?

What about units? 100.8 km is 100800  meters ! and it may actally be 100800.01 m rounded up but again it is 10080001 cm Where do you round up?

if everything below cm is bullshit how do you think microchips are made? with nanometer precision? a nanometer is 0.0000001 cm. You computer, mobile,  TV all have those chips. Precision depends on scale. Scale depends on the physical process. Move the microchip etching device just a fraction of mm your chip doesnt work. Move a car by 10 cm, nothing happens.

You seem to lack understanding of basic statistics. To make you understand, weather forecast is partially like trying to tell how many heads will you get when you toss coin 1000 times. (Thats why they say results from ensemble of models. Also model means numerical model, a mathematical model okay. ) Sometimes there are rounding up like you are thinking and the apriori is coin tossed 1001 times rather than 1000 times. So the answer varies but are near same.

Anyways, have a good weekend. I did not learn statistics and fluid dynamics in a single day. So if you dont understand anything i said i dont blame you. And yeah I cried a lot taking those classes 😂😂😂

Fluid dynamics?

Bmba has yet to learn how a triangle and circle works

Sounds like everything below a cm is bullshit. Which I already concluded when someone told me about a billionth of a meter  "bulge". Look if the human eye can't see it, other than bacteria, virus, and nanobots, it isn't there.

You not being able to see it doesn't mean it isn't there.
CPUs are fabricated using nm scale processes.
To the human eye, it just looks like a block of silicon, but it works vastly differently to a block of silicon.

But more importantly, I learned about getting the right answer in math class. When there is imprecision like that, you usually round it to the nearest whole number, or the last two decimal points.

Then you fail to understand what the "right" answer is.
What you want to do is conduct more than one measurement to get an idea of the uncertainty. You then use that uncertainty to determine how it should be presented.

If you want the "right" answer for a hurricane, don't predict it. Sit back and observe what it does and then just report that.

Math is supposed to have objective answers.

And it still does, regardless of your claims.
If you use a model, with the same input parameters, you will get the same outputs.
The model doesn't care what your feelings are.
However, different models can give different answers.
And putting in slightly different inputs to the model can give different answers.
Because it is a prediction, you can give a confidence level to it.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 23, 2023, 06:55:27 AM

Sounds like everything below a cm is bullshit. Which I already concluded when someone told me about a billionth of a meter  "bulge". Look if the human eye can't see it, other than bacteria, virus, and nanobots, it isn't there.

You not being able to see it doesn't mean it isn't there.
CPUs are fabricated using nm scale processes.
To the human eye, it just looks like a block of silicon, but it works vastly differently to a block of silicon.

So today, I was gonna go to church. Instead, something very humbling happened. On about Friday, my cellphone (actually, I share it with my dad) did an emergency beep, and warned of flooding conditions. All of this meant that by Sunday, trees were downed, and they decided to cancel the service. So I stayed in and watched In Touch with Dr Charles Stanley (he has a PhDiv, not a medical doctorate).  He talked about intimacy with God, and how there are three reasons for lack thereof.  Actually, I'm gonna scratch out one, as it's an excuse.

• Pride
• Rebellion
• Hurriedness (not having time for religion)

I think I mentioned nanomachines or whatever earlier, so yea wires and such that are so tiny that lines and lines of embedded information can be added.

There's supposedly an entire Bible made to fit on the tip of a pen.
https://www.cnn.com/2015/07/06/middleeast/israel-worlds-smallest-bible/index.html
But you can't actually read that.

Think about the first one. You think that because in a lab with special equipment and that people work with nanodevices, that science knows there is a bulge so tiny that you'd have to crawl along the ground with a microscope trying to search for this bulge. And the people in charge of the narrative want you to crawl on the ground... as a slave.



Science didn't do that. They made it up. To push an agenda.  You're playing along because of the Wizard's First Rule.
People are stupid. They can be made to believe any lie because either they want to believe it's true or because they are afraid it's true.

You want to live in a world where science is all powerful, and can blow millions up with nukes. Where all the myths and legends have been explained away, because you think that religion is the source of all violence (hate to break it to ya, but people have killed each other literally over wearing the wrong color outfit).

Quote

But more importantly, I learned about getting the right answer in math class. When there is imprecision like that, you usually round it to the nearest whole number, or the last two decimal points.

Then you fail to understand what the "right" answer is.
What you want to do is conduct more than one measurement to get an idea of the uncertainty. You then use that uncertainty to determine how it should be presented.

If you want the "right" answer for a hurricane, don't predict it. Sit back and observe what it does and then just report that.

Practice what you preach! You (guys) were the one who insisted we all listen to weather people when they narrowed down the spaghetti to a single option. I was the one who mentioned we look at all the options. And then I heard a bunch of garbage from you guys about how the weather people know best, and it has to be the right one because it's been on this path so far.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 23, 2023, 06:55:27 AM

Math is supposed to have objective answers.

And it still does, regardless of your claims.
If you use a model, with the same input parameters, you will get the same outputs.
The model doesn't care what your feelings are.
However, different models can give different answers.

The reason the model looks right, is because they projected it that way, every step of the way. If Hurricane Lee actually mostly hit Halifax, but they needed the model to show that actually went on the path they projected, if there was a tiny bit of spillover, I am 100% certain whey say it hit the inside path, and cover up any damage to Halifax. Or they'd pretend that the hurricane hit the opposite side of that island. Trees on that island look like they were hit from the front, not from the back? Don't be absurd! It came in through the channel and that's that!

Also, with the same input, two calculators can get wildly different answers.

Solve for 86+85+84/3 using this calculator.
https://www.calculator.net/
Now find an old pocket calculator, the kind teachers use.

The old calculators won't do order of operations, while most computer calculators will. Same model (base 10) same input, but one of these calculators does averages easy (because it doesn't do order of operations), and one requires you total first or use parentheses. Even with the same model and input, if your assumptions are wrong, the answer can still be wrong. Just as with the same same model and input, if you don't understand that dividing decimals or fractions inverts the process, and you're wrong.

ATTENTION! ATTENTION!

There are thunderstorms in the Southeastern Gulf of Mexico.

That invest thingy is now tropical storm Phillipe. The Bermuda triangle sucks right now.

This has been your official FES weather alert.

He talked about intimacy with God, and how there are three reasons for lack thereof.

You left out the other ones:
Not being introduced to the fictional creature at a young enough age or during some period of vulnerability for you to fall for that BS.
Or being intelligent enough to see through the lies and dismiss it as BS.

This does not require pride nor rebellion.

Asking why people don't believe in a god is the wrong question.
It presumes as a starting point that believing in it is the default.
It is like asking why people don't believe in big-foot or Santa.

The question you should ask is why people do believe in a god.

Why do you feel the need to insert your imaginary fiend into almost every topic?

Think about the first one. You think that because in a lab with special equipment and that people work with nanodevices, that science knows there is a bulge so tiny that you'd have to crawl along the ground with a microscope trying to search for this bulge.

No. I'm not saying anyone has measured the bulge over such a tiny area.
Again, I used it as an example to show how your inability to detect something at such a small scale doesn't mean it isn't there.

If you want to see the curve, you need to look at the larger scale.

People are stupid. They can be made to believe any lie because either they want to believe it's true or because they are afraid it's true.

And you are a great example of that.

You want to live in a world where science is all powerful, and can blow millions up with nukes. Where all the myths and legends have been explained away, because you think that religion is the source of all violence (hate to break it to ya, but people have killed each other literally over wearing the wrong color outfit)

You sure do love clinging to fantasies don't you?
Stop trying to invent things about me to try and attack it.

Practice what you preach! You (guys) were the one who insisted we all listen to weather people when they narrowed down the spaghetti to a single option.

Says who?
We were the ones who wanted people to be prepared and safe.
To take precautions so they don't die.

That doesn't require us to say that this one particular path is the only possible path.

You are the one who wanted to act like no one has any idea where it is going and we should just ignore it.

The reason the model looks right, is because they projected it that way, every step of the way.

They project its path, and then update the projection as it moves on.
That shouldn't be surprising.
What you should do is compare the initial predictions of the various models with the observed path. See how each model went.
Then do it again for another time point, and then again for another storm.

Also, with the same input, two calculators can get wildly different answers.

Solve for 86+85+84/3 using this calculator.
https://www.calculator.net/
Now find an old pocket calculator, the kind teachers use.

The old calculators won't do order of operations, while most computer calculators will. Same model (base 10) same input, but one of these calculators does averages easy (because it doesn't do order of operations), and one requires you total first or use parentheses. Even with the same model and input, if your assumptions are wrong, the answer can still be wrong. Just as with the same same model and input, if you don't understand that dividing decimals or fractions inverts the process, and you're wrong.

Yes, because they internally use different models.
If you want a good one, try one which relies upon implicit multiplication.
e.g. something of the form 1/2x, which can be interpreted as 1/(2*x), or (1/2)*x

Your example is just a case of using a calculator which doesn't allow you to enter multiple things and calculate it at once.

A simple calculator takes your "solve for..."
As actually being ((86+85)+84)/3

It doesn't store what you have typed in.
You get to do a single operation at once.
You take 86+85. This is 171.
You then take this 171 and add 84, to get 255.
You then divide by 3 to get 85.

Other calculators you do it all at once.
i.e. you put in the entire expression and then calculate it.

You can even do this with the calculator in windows.
If you type it all in and hit enter once, you calculate:
86+85+84/3

If instead you type in each number and hit enter from the second number after, you are calculating in steps like the simple one.

The old calculators don't do order of operations, because they allow you to do a single operation at once. Not multiple.
For that, because it is only doing one operation at a time, that is you finding the total before averaging.

That isn't a different model, that is you failing to understand how the calculator works.

Also, base 10 is not the only part of the model.
The order of operations is also part.
If it just does 1 calculation at a time, getting the result after each, or allows you to enter a more complicated expression is also a part of the model of the calculator.