|
FAO: Sam, Ang, other weather wienies. (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| tubularbills |
| quote: | Originally posted by Meat187
List of TA-related things I want to do during my life:
- Deliver the 'Tunnelling Electron Microscope'-line to Slylee in person
- Have a beer with tubularbills outside while it rains
|
 |
|
|
| igottaknow |
 |
|
|
| Sushipunk |
| So Will, tell me: Why are weather forecasters wrong half the ing time? |
|
|
| Lilith |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sushipunk
So Will, tell me: Why are weather forecasters wrong half the ing time? |
Drunkards |
|
|
| Sushipunk |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lilith
Drunkards |
lol |
|
|
| igottaknow |
| so i take it tbills is off the wagon again. never could understand why ppl can't drink responsibly. |
|
|
| tubularbills |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sushipunk
So Will, tell me: Why are weather forecasters wrong half the ing time? |
it really depends on what your definition of "wrong" is. not to sound like Bill Clinton or anything; but example:
you watch your TV programming in the morning and some douche in a tie standing in front of the map says the following:
Partly CLoudy
High of 32C
Low of 10C
what would you consider wrong? 33C? 35C? 40C? would it be wrong if it rained? or if it was mostly cloudy, not partly?
what if they said, "10% (or whatever fraction you kiwis use) chance of thunderstorms this afternoon"
would it be wrong if other side of town got a storm, but you didn't? in that rationalization, is it possible to have a correct and incorrect forecast at the exact same time but seperated by only a few miles? |
|
|
| tubularbills |
| quote: | Originally posted by igottaknow
so i take it tbills is off the wagon again. never could understand why ppl can't drink responsibly. |
and no one can understand why you enjoy molesting young boys. |
|
|
| ziptnf |
| quote: | Originally posted by igottaknow
so i take it tbills is off the wagon again. never could understand why ppl can't drink responsibly. |
Be sure to mark that down in your little black book filled with all the information about every TA that has ever posted in the cor. |
|
|
| Renzo |
| quote: | Originally posted by tubularbills
it really depends on what your definition of "wrong" is. not to sound like Bill Clinton or anything; but example:
you watch your TV programming in the morning and some douche in a tie standing in front of the map says the following:
Partly CLoudy
High of 32C
Low of 10C
what would you consider wrong? 33C? 35C? 40C? would it be wrong if it rained? or if it was mostly cloudy, not partly?
what if they said, "10% (or whatever fraction you kiwis use) chance of thunderstorms this afternoon"
would it be wrong if other side of town got a storm, but you didn't? in that rationalization, is it possible to have a correct and incorrect forecast at the exact same time but seperated by only a few miles? |
What the ?
Have you considered a career in politics, Will? |
|
|
| Cpt.Cocaine |
| Or as a defense lawyer for rape cases. |
|
|
| tubularbills |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renzo
What the ?
Have you considered a career in politics, Will? |
:stongue:
this is a common theme at most conferences, especially when talking about severe weather.
Example:
when you hear the phrase "50% chance of thunderstorms" what does that mean to you? 50% of your day will encompass a thunderstorm? 50% of the forecast area will experience a thunderstorm at some of the day?
when you watch the weather on the TV, you have to realize that they're talking about a large area of land...then think about how small a thunderstorm or even a tornado is in comparison.
likewise with temperatures. downtown of a city (Example Chicago) would say "high of 75F"...well, it'll be cooler along the lakefront, and warmer in the suburbs. so...if you experience 78F, do you consider your forecast to be wrong? what if you had 75, but your friend in the south side of town had 80... it was the same forecast, but would it be considered 50% wrong? for you, experiencing the 75, it was 100% right....right? |
|
|
|
|
