TennTradition

I’ve seen the reference - but what’s a weenie?

It’s surprising there isn’t more flooding in some of the more southern areas of Abaco. Must be elevation but I assumed it was low and thus why there wasn’t any development (much like the east side of Grand Bahama)

It is amazing the age we are entering into regarding the cost of satellites and their resulting proliferation. Basically the data is now unlimited and the effort lies in data analysis and imagination to try to figure out how to make use of it. One of the more interesting combinations I’ve seen is using car counting algorithms to track various companies’ (like retail) activity/sales in advance of earnings returns to allow for investing strategies. Then, pairing this with cell phone tracking to understand the zip codes the shoppers are returning to and the demographics of those zip codes Or, estimating oil storage inventory in floating roof tanks by measuring the area of the ellipse formed on the roof by the sun’s shadow and then rolling this up to regional and global storage trends. It’s a brave new world.

Thanks - see above post. I figured out what I was ‘seeing’.

Alright - going to quote to go full-circle. Watched the CNN clip again and it still looked fully rendered over previous satellite imagery (basically an inundation map I would generate using GIS software) But then I pulled up the article and pulled up the same images and could actually see then that the video was playing tricks on me with regard to the detail I thought I was seeing in the image. I can see the base image is the same radar-imaged view.

@hazwoper Is this the actual image? https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/2204233001 I’ll buy this is advanced satellite imagery. The other satellite image looks rendered based on this. The water seemed much more uniform in color on the CNN clip.

Spoon-feed me. I don’t know where you’re going The only conversation I saw (I believe in the storm watch thread) around it was the posts talking about the fleet of small satellites to peer around clouds. Which seemed to me like an actual attempt to argue it was post-hurricane satellite imagery rather than an inundation map estimated based on surge, which is what it appears to be. I easily could have missed the sarcasm - but if they are being sarcastic about it then I assume someone earlier was arguing it was post-hurricane satellite imagery (laid over a mapped previous satellite imagery) EDIT: I’ll add, yes I’m aware of radar in imagery - but the image I saw in the other thread wasn’t that. It was an inundation map based on elevation inputs and an input water height. I suppose you could argue radar imaging is all rendered anyway. But this didn’t even look that specific.

Wait - are some arguing that’s real? It had to be a rendering based on an assumed sea level change, no? I assume it’s turned into a running joke?