Why don't we nuke Rita?

says...

Neither of you guys really knows jack ****.

Actually, I do know Jack ****. He flips burgers at a joint down the road.

A scientist issuing a press release will always talk about what
their model succeeds at predicting. Indeed this may be a very
good model, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be better with
more resolution or a more subtle treatment of the physics.

Higher resolution does not guarantee improvement per se. One often has to give
something up, such as speed of analysis to achieve higher resolution, and it all
gets down to priorities. In some situations achieving higher resolution yields
nothing of analytical value. One need only scan the scanned probe microscopy
literature to find numerous examples of the inefficiency or operating at a
resolution higher than necessary to solve a problem. some researchers can't see
the forest for the trees! Not that I'm not saying that increased resolution is
not desired in weather prediction - I'm saying that improving a method is done
best by looking at the method's weaknesses and attacking those that are most
prominent. The article I referenced describes work that did just that.

This guy is saying, after all, that the improvement is because
his model has better resolution.

That's part of what he says. You miss the rest?

Just upping the resolution of a model without gaining a better
understanding of the approximations you are making (especially
energy sources and sinks) will not necessarily give a result
that is closer to reality.

Agreed.

Now move along and get back to something you clowns are experts
on, like Bobby Julich's personality.

Speak for yourself, clown****er.

Mad Dog wrote:
says...

A scientist issuing a press release will always talk about what
their model succeeds at predicting. Indeed this may be a very
good model, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be better with
more resolution or a more subtle treatment of the physics.

Higher resolution does not guarantee improvement per se. One often has to give
something up, such as speed of analysis to achieve higher resolution, and it all
gets down to priorities. ...

This guy is saying, after all, that the improvement is because
his model has better resolution.

That's part of what he says. You miss the rest?

Just upping the resolution of a model without gaining a better
understanding of the approximations you are making (especially
energy sources and sinks) will not necessarily give a result
that is closer to reality.

Agreed.

Now move along and get back to something you clowns are experts
on, like Bobby Julich's personality.

Speak for yourself, clown****er.

Dude,

You wait for me to write a long explanation of the issues,
then you respond by selectively agreeing with what I say
as if you had written up the explanation yourself, ask
a few suggestive questions that make it sound like you're
an expert, and at the end, call me a clown****er?

I apologize for doubting you. This method of response
shows you must, indeed, be a practicing scientist.

Ben
rbr - It's like work, if you keep the cubical warriors
and leave out the paycheck.

says...

You wait for me to write a long explanation of the issues,
then you respond by selectively agreeing with what I say
as if you had written up the explanation yourself, ask
a few suggestive questions that make it sound like you're
an expert, and at the end, call me a clown****er?

That's not an accurate analysis. But, yes, I did call you a clown****er.
Please note that I did NOT call you a mother****er, a cocksucker, a felcher, a
butt****er or even a wimp. But I did call you a clown****er and if I were in a
more agreeable mood at this point in time, I might even give you a conditional
apology. Alas, I'm not, so I won't.

I apologize for doubting you. This method of response
shows you must, indeed, be a practicing scientist.

I appreciate your humorous perspective and award you a cyber-donut.

rbr - It's like work, if you keep the cubical warriors
and leave out the paycheck.

What, they don't pay you too? You think I do this for fun? You must not have
filled out the forms correctly.

Mad Dog wrote:
Kurgan Gringioni says...

from your link:

"With its high-resolution grid of data points just four kilometers
(about 2.5 miles) apart"

Four kilometers apart. hahahaha!

You're dumber than a box of ****in' rocks. 4K data points on an object the size
of a hurricane is plenty of resolution.



Dumbass -

In chaotic systems, as you well know, small perturbations may yield
large changes, ie. "the Butterfly Effect".

4k resolution. Just an educated guess.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

wrote:

snip

Dude,

You wait for me to write a long explanation of the issues,
then you respond by selectively agreeing with what I say
as if you had written up the explanation yourself, ask
a few suggestive questions that make it sound like you're
an expert, and at the end, call me a clown****er?

I apologize for doubting you. This method of response
shows you must, indeed, be a practicing scientist.

Ben
rbr - It's like work, if you keep the cubical warriors
and leave out the paycheck.


For what it's worth, I thought your analysis was right on. Also, what the
NCAR guy is leaving out is that his model isn't a fully coupled atmosphere-
ocean model. It's an atmospheric simulation. Last time I checked, fully
coupled models had a hard time doing hurricanes since the parameterizations
for the heat and momentum fluxes at high wind speed aren't right, yet.
Which is precisely the point you were making.

Are you denying you have ever ****ed a clown or claiming that you would
never **** a clown again and you were drunk the one time you did? I've
heard that once you go with a chick with huge feet and huge painted-on
smile, you won't go back.

--
Bill Asher

Mad Dog wrote:

But, yes, I did call you a clown****er.

to be fair, he did kind of start it first by calling you a clown, but,
as you have discovered, it's hard to stay annoyed with ben. he must have
been a terror as a small child, i'm guessing.

h

"Jim Flom " wrote ...

Or divine retribution.

proof positive:
NEW YORK - A purported Al Qaeda newscast that promises weekly updates made
its online debut with a report read by a masked man that included video of
Hurricane Katrina - subtitled "divine punishment" - and a message from the
leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,170596,00.html

If Al Qaeda says so (and FoxNews reports it), it must be true.

JF

--
http://spaces.msn.com/members/flomblog/

h squared says...

Mad Dog wrote:

But, yes, I did call you a clown****er.

to be fair, he did kind of start it first by calling you a clown, but,
as you have discovered, it's hard to stay annoyed with ben.

Annoyed? No way! I consider being called a clown a very high form of
complimentation. I thought he was suckin' up.

he must have been a terror as a small child, i'm guessing.

Hey Ben, did you goose your mom when she bent over in the grocery store to pick
up a sack of potatoes? Good way to find out how hard mom can slap, I'll tell
you that.

William Asher says...

Are you denying you have ever ****ed a clown or claiming that you would
never **** a clown again and you were drunk the one time you did? I've
heard that once you go with a chick with huge feet and huge painted-on
smile, you won't go back.

And if she has a tongue like a cow, marry her. It will make you go "wow".

Kurgan Gringioni says...

In chaotic systems, as you well know, small perturbations may yield
large changes, ie. "the Butterfly Effect".

Prove the butterfly effect, buttfly.