121–130 of 133 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
i’m not an expert in this area myself. your comment made me curious though. chat gpt (GPT 4) helped me understand better: https://chat.openai.com/share/9448215d-2b65-4611-a634-f1a900...
Those locations are nowhere near Acapulco.
But from time to time we get an event like this, and it really underscores how little we really know. The sheer complexity of the phenomena / the theory we use to contain and understand them, it just seems to misfire spectacularly on occasion.
In a fantasy world, I would like to see weather forecasts that reach several months out, with high reliability. Mapping winds, precipitation, etc, with high spatial and temporal accuracy.
I've always found the relative unreliability of meteorological predictions fascinating. A lot of the time they're spot on (even the notorious "probability of precipitation") and the way we're able to track and predict storm paths is so impressive. But from time to time we get an event like this, and it really underscores how little we really know. The sheer complexity of the phenomena / the theory we use to contain a…
Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding what you're saying but when it says "30% chance" what it is actually saying is "there's a 100% chance of rain in 30% of the coverage area".
Not sure if that makes it more or less accurate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One problem: if you acknowledge climate change on air, you’re risking a lot of flack and even violence from people who are steeped in right-wing science denial: https://www.npr.org/2023/06/27/1184461263/iowa-meteorologist... I agree they need to act but also understand someone not wanting to put themselves or their family at risk.
I feel like acknowledging climate change on Hacker News can produce similar reactions :) I stand by literally everything I said, and would add that I expect another event, let's say half an order of magnitude more horrific, within five years. Due to the nature of what chaos is, there's no telling where and when: could even come out of seemingly nowhere. But it's latent in what the situation is, and is the expression…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As far as I know some models gave the storm a 25% chance of rapid intensification. The actual storm itself just unraveled afterwards.
>The actual storm itself just unraveled afterwards. Isn't this the expected behavior once it made landfall?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I admire your ardor, and agree with you that anthropogenic global warming is a serious problem, your explanation lacks a specific mechanism, and the disrespect you show towards the experts is reprehensible. I found these facts in the article interesting: - This is not actually unprecedented -- hurricane Patricia in 2015 did the same thing, more intensely. - "Sea surface temperatures were close to 31°C over Otis…
technically correct! the best kind of correct!
I've always found the relative unreliability of meteorological predictions fascinating. A lot of the time they're spot on (even the notorious "probability of precipitation") and the way we're able to track and predict storm paths is so impressive. But from time to time we get an event like this, and it really underscores how little we really know. The sheer complexity of the phenomena / the theory we use to contain a…
> even the notorious probability of precipitation Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding what you're saying but when it says "30% chance" what it is actually saying is "there's a 100% chance of rain in 30% of the coverage area". Not sure if that makes it more or less accurate.
This headline could really use the word "hurricane" in it. I had no idea what Otis or Acapulco were, and my initial guess was wildly off: some sort of space probe experienced a catastrophic failure on the way to an asteroid.
I know what Acapulco is, but when reading "Otis" I first think of elevators, which very rarely explode...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> even the notorious probability of precipitation Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding what you're saying but when it says "30% chance" what it is actually saying is "there's a 100% chance of rain in 30% of the coverage area". Not sure if that makes it more or less accurate.
That's not true. For instance: https://www.weather.gov/ffc/pop#:~:text=What%20does%20this%2... .
This headline could really use the word "hurricane" in it. I had no idea what Otis or Acapulco were, and my initial guess was wildly off: some sort of space probe experienced a catastrophic failure on the way to an asteroid.