quote:

Originally posted by Cpt.Cocaine Or as a defense lawyer for rape cases.

if she said "yes" and then you inserted...but then said "no" about 40 minutes later...was it 50% rape?

Just a few thoughts... considering I work these folks (well not the Norman, OK office)...but you must not have seen the correction sent out by the office moments after the original LSR was sent (it was 3am and the office was likely consumed in briefings...phone calls...verification and primarily... warning people in the path of the storm):

quote:

PRELIMINARY LOCAL STORM REPORT...CORRECTED NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE NORMAN OK 316 AM CDT FRI APR 23 2010 .TIME... ...EVENT... ...CITY LOCATION... ...LAT.LON .DATE... ....MAG.... ..COUNTY LOCATION..ST.. ...SOURCE. ..REMARKS.. 0250 AM TSTM WND GST VANCE AIR FORCE BASE 36.34N 97.90W 04/23/2010 M81.00 MPH GARFIELD OK ASOS SOUTHWEST WINDS OF 81 MPH MEASURED AT VANCE AFB.

http://kamala.cod.edu/offs/KOUN/1004230816.nwus54.html

Secondly...for the 50% jargon you are throwing around... there are many products that are sent out from each local office. The broad brush ZPF's (IE the text for Chicago only) are area specific...whereas if you were to click on your specific city...or plug in your city to the search...those are point specific.

Difference? Area specific cover 100's and 100's of square miles. You could have an 80% probability of T-Storm activity in southern Cook county... but only 20% on the far northern half of it. Those area forecasts are not going to be specific to probabilities... it is generalize for the area (i.e. broad brushed 50% across the area). If you were to throw in Naperville, IL (for example) to the city search... you would get the exact probabilities for precip ... temperatures ... winds, etc. for that city and that city alone. Our forecasts are based off of gridded input from model data and most importantly... human input/augmentation/decisions.

Lastly...I would go a bit easy on bashing the system you may be trying to get into. I'm not sure how the air force deals with verification...but as a whole, the NWS is making HUGE strides to improve statistics and improve products based on verification. Besides... can any human or computer nail the specific meso to macroscale meteorology to get a 100% verification across all areas? What are the standards for input from 'friends' that say things went wrong... the logistics of data acquisition would be enough to make your head spin. Hell...I believe the bias for the official ASOS locations is +/- 0.3°C. Just saying... If you really want to see the input that the forecasters are putting into the forecast...it is best to look at the gridded products we produce:

http://www.weather.gov/forecasts/wfo/sectors/lot.php

All of the text based products that you read are derived in some fashion from this data.

quote:

Originally posted by tubularbills 81mph wind gust measured at 250am on base. fuck yeah stupid NWS put it down as a non-tstm wind gust, but really, it was a thunderstorm lol.

quote:

Originally posted by _Nut_ Just a few thoughts... considering I work these folks (well not the Norman, OK office)...but you must not have seen the correction sent out by the office moments after the original LSR was sent (it was 3am and the office was likely consumed in briefings...phone calls...verification and primarily... warning people in the path of the storm): http://kamala.cod.edu/offs/KOUN/1004230816.nwus54.html Secondly...for the 50% jargon you are throwing around... there are many products that are sent out from each local office. The broad brush ZPF's (IE the text for Chicago only) are area specific...whereas if you were to click on your specific city...or plug in your city to the search...those are point specific. Difference? Area specific cover 100's and 100's of square miles. You could have an 80% probability of T-Storm activity in southern Cook county... but only 20% on the far northern half of it. Those area forecasts are not going to be specific to probabilities... it is generalize for the area (i.e. broad brushed 50% across the area). If you were to throw in Naperville, IL (for example) to the city search... you would get the exact probabilities for precip ... temperatures ... winds, etc. for that city and that city alone. Our forecasts are based off of gridded input from model data and most importantly... human input/augmentation/decisions. Lastly...I would go a bit easy on bashing the system you may be trying to get into. I'm not sure how the air force deals with verification...but as a whole, the NWS is making HUGE strides to improve statistics and improve products based on verification. Besides... can any human or computer nail the specific meso to macroscale meteorology to get a 100% verification across all areas? What are the standards for input from 'friends' that say things went wrong... the logistics of data acquisition would be enough to make your head spin. Hell...I believe the bias for the official ASOS locations is +/- 0.3°C. Just saying... If you really want to see the input that the forecasters are putting into the forecast...it is best to look at the gridded products we produce: http://www.weather.gov/forecasts/wfo/sectors/lot.php All of the text based products that you read are derived in some fashion from this data.

i wasn't talking about NWS. i was talking about broadcast meteorologists.

do you really think the average joe goes to www.weather.gov to get their weather forecast? of course not. they go to www.weather.com / weatherbug (LOL!), or the news/media/weather channel. i wans't bashing the weather service in any fashion....merely speculating on how the general average joe public may/may not view what they see on the TV.

and, i'm not sure why the noman office did that correction. it was observed by our ASOS (KEND...why they called it "Garfield county ASOS" is behind my knowledge)...also looking at the SPC storm reports they changed "VANCE AFB" to "MEASURED BY EQUIPMENT ON KNOX BLDG IN DOWNTOWN (OUN)" which is also incorrect because they changed the wind speed from 81mph to 88mph....hm...doesn't seem right.

in any case, i didn't even want to get into that discussion, but fucking stuart just HAD to go snooping around

quote:

Originally posted by stren I hate Iceland!

http://www.urbandictionary.com/defi...term=igottaknow

___________________

Set Archive | TA DJ Challenge

quote:

Originally posted by ziptnf http://www.urbandictionary.com/defi...term=igottaknow

and this