Irene and Computer predivtive news
 

A funny read: Does anyone know if those computer models are from the same people who bring us Global Warming Hype . ..er, predictions? :rolleyes:

Why so many manufactured horror stories? Is there not enough awful around the globe, that we have to manufacture this kind of bs?

And more on that manufacture, again computers enter the stage with adding a CG preview.. --Just a few days ago the nightly news was showing a computer animation of NYC subways being flooded -- so that everyone can visualize just how terrible it will be.

This, I expect, will be the new norm. HAL, reporting....

The models and the forecast were very accurate. The hype comes from the news outlets selling the "news". Watching the NHS predictions and reading various weather websites (weatherunderground.com) gives a much better idea of the actual storm strength.
The hype was to sell soap and it did very effectively.

:confused:

It is the weather, and rather hard to perfectly predict. The models drew it coming along the east coast 3 to 4 days in advance. They were within 30 or 40 mph of the actual vs. the predicted wind speed. Not much to quibble about.

It was the knuckleheads on the TV that wanted a total disaster. Thankfully there wasn't as much damage as the TV would have wanted.

Actually, considering that the energy goes up with the square of velocity, 30-40mph difference is actually quite a big discrepancy. ...it's huge. ... E=1/2mv²

Lol!

They had a thing on NPR the other day where they were saying that the models are good enough these days to predict the track pretty accurately (and they did really well on Irene), but they still can't predict the intensity worth a crap.

Put in even extremely tiny changes in weather/climate software and you get HUGE variations over times - the butterfly affect its called. I still won't trust the models by the religious global warming activists as simply how many digits you round up or down will make a huge difference in the results.

I thought the track went

Day 1: South Florida
Day 2: North Florida
Day 3 Morning: Charleston
Day 3 Afternoon: just over the NC border
Day 4: Outer banks, 3 days before it actually arrived tere
Models stabilized from that point on

Several years ago a reporter was sitting in a canoe telling how severe the flooding was in a small town. A guy walked across the steet behind her, showing it was no where near as bad as she was pretending. www.youtube.com/watch?v=8slEPV9LyS0


It's about sensationalism and not journalism.
The news orgs send people out to get a story. The better the story, the better ther atta-boy.
If there isn't a story they create one. If the story is lame, they hype it to create sensationalism.
They choose a camera angle and scene that suggests and entire town or county or state is flooded, when it's only one small section of one road.
They'll show a couple houses that are damaged and make it seem that ALL the houses there are damaged, when the damage is limited to just the ones shown.

It's partly their fault for getting away from what was once considered an honored and respectable profession, journalism.

But most of the blame has to fall on the dumbed down general population who wants their info in 5 second sound bites.
A population who reacts to feelings and emotions, not facts and figures.
A population that is perfectly Ok with having someone on the boob tube tell them what to believe and how to react, but won't put the effort into finding out the truth and deciding for themselves. They want tabloid news.

This entire situation is made worse by a gubmint that wants everyone to leave no matter what.

Here, a wild fire now means everyone within 10 miles must evacuate regardless of risk, because it makes it EASIER FOR THEM if there are no people around.
It's a matter of convenience for them and inconvenience for their citizens. this tendency has increased dramatically over the past 10 years from something that kind of made sense ot something that is out of control.

News rooms love disasters. It bumps up the ratings and sells more advertising.
Politicians love disasters. They get free airtime to show how hard-working and compassionate they are.
Last Friday I told several people that this thing was way overblown. All my training in meteorology said this one is a big storm (wind and some flooding) and not a disaster. No one would believe me. The news said... Now the story is "Oh well, better safe than sorry".

Actually, its not as simple are that. There is the storm size as well as maximum wind speed. There is a new model which uses total energy versus maximum sustained wind speed. When IKE hit Houston, it was a CAT 2. When they ran IKE under the energy model, it was about #5 in the past century. The storm surge in IKE was much worse than is usually found in a CAT 2 storm.

Katrina wasn't that bad a storm. It was where it hit, and how vunerable that area was to the storm effects. If a Irene had stayed CAT 2 and it flooded the NY Subways, no one would be talking about Katrina anymore.

Oh, and the primary reason, other than inflation, that storms are so much more damaging, is that there is a lot more development in the coastal areas now.

Even a Cat 2 wouldn't have flooded the subways. The biggest danger to NYC subways would be storm surge and that will depend on how far inland the storm is. If the storm says east of the shore then the surge is low. If it moves farther inland then the wind damage and surge increases but the storm loses more energy. The worst case scenario is if the storm bounces off the coastline, recharges, and then moves back in. That doesn't usually happen that far north. There isn't much concern with wind in Manhattan: concrete and steel doesn't fall apart so there's not much debris.