Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,509
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    joxey
    Newest Member
    joxey
    Joined

December 2021 Obs/Disco...Dreaming of a White-Weenie Xmas


40/70 Benchmark
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just now, 40/70 Benchmark said:

The polar domain has been much different than that year....heights IVOF AK haven't been as consistently cratered, either.

Oh I know, just speaking of what has happened. Watching the occasional flake puked out under dim sun on Christmas Eve, while it pounds in places like Fairhaven, MA. That effing sucked. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

Oh I know, just speaking of what has happened. Watching the occasional flake puked out under dim sun on Christmas Eve, while it pounds in places like Fairhaven, MA. That effing sucked. 

Yea, pretty similar in the snow department, despite the pattern not being as horrendous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know most won't take any solace in this, but I do fall back on a small two-fold consolation. I know @Typhoon Tipoften refers to the "dopamine drip" effect in that we impulsively crave the fulfillment of our need for snowfall and model cinema due to a psychological dependence. I think periods like this ultimately act to reduce that to a degree...kind of like a snowfall addict's detox in that its initially the rehab is tremendously painful, but you eventually end up better for it and develop a greater proclivity toward delayed gratification. This also recalibrates our perception and replenishes our enjoyment of the larger, more memorable events that may have seemingly become more ordinary in this age of hyperactivity. Secondly, its also a penance of sorts for having overindulged much of the past couple of decades in that we are now settling the score with the regression gods to a degree...I know I have personally for the past several years, and the larger scale region has as well, albeit to a lesser degree than my specific quadrant of the region.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

I know most won't take any solace in this, but I do fall back on a small two-fold consolation. I know @Typhoon Tipoften refers to the "dopamine drip" effect in that we impulsively crave the fulfillment of our need for snowfall and model cinema due to a psychological dependence. I think periods like this ultimately act to reduce that to a degree...kind of like like a snowfall addict's detox in that its initially the rehab is tremendously painful, but you eventually end up better for it and develop a greater proclivity toward delayed gratification. Secondly, its also a penance of sorts for having overindulged much of the past couple of decades in that we are now settling the score with the regression gods to a degree...I know I have personally for the past several years, and the larger scale region has as well, albeit to a lesser degree than my specific quadrant of the region.

Get that black coat you got from sending in all your Marlboro points, hop in the Regal, and crank it. The 80s are here.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meh... it's all simpler than that.   

Luck, is by definition, a more or less favorable outcome based upon probability.

Forecasting is intrinsic to that - it is by virtue of the science/definitions of "predictability," intrinsically thus based upon probabilities.

Not sure why that facet/logical scope escapes anyone.    

Looking at it more complex:  I wonder if people are getting confused over narrowing the amount of reliance one has upon probability. If one is wholly reliant on probability, they may get rich...they might not.  That is the extend of complexity to that model, though.  Done.  

There is a kind of Relativity in probability and luck.   If one is looking at a system and is predicting a future state of said system based upon observably changing components/analysis, in real time, they are relying on what they see - that is the one and done.  However, there is a dense of array of forces that effect all systems in Nature, that cannot be readily perceived in that way. They more vs less impose changes to outcomes. If so happens to be on the more side, the "odds" ( i.e., luck ) of the result, will not fall in favor of the predictor because the system is "blindly" changing.  If they are less imposing, than the observable, real-time components will tend to lead the result in line with initial predictions. In either case, the reliance is still on probability.

To lower one's reliance on probability, they must improve their ability by having deeper insight... This is usually done by two means: one is to really dig in and ferret out those seductively innocuous, yet discrete forces that 'team up' ( if you will ...), somehow gain sight on what is not readily influencing the systems - thus, limiting reliance upon open chance.   The 2nd way is via wisdom.  There is nothing wrong with the a-priori as a method ( I mean ... don't bother explaining the virtue of that to a Millennial ... heh).  The problem with a-priori is that one runs the risk of being stubbornly locked into presumption.  

The best insight or predictions are some inclusion of both wisdom/experience, together with profounder research. 

It really gets fuzzy, too when emergent properties kick in... where interactions emerge properties that did not exist in the array of primary assumptions.  Now you have primary array, plus 2ndaries...and these 2ndaries may then interact to product tertiary emergent properties... And on and so on, they compound back in and modulate as well.

Genius is the wild-card. It like 'emerges' out of the quantum foam of neuroplastisity and cannot really be explained in and of its self.  We call that "flash of insight" moments. The eureka times.  Einstein used flash of insight like a registry, and then discounted the flashes that were less likely...and he was left with one that was worth proving mathematically - but the flashes of insight happen first.  It's fascinating as a topic, really.. 

Anyway, really all probability is, is a negation of what is unknown, thus making observable what influences a problem.   Kind of like, " ...remove all that is impossible, whatever remains, however seemingly unlikely, must be the truth"   At one end of the sophistication, you have pure guess...at the other, you have an " Occam's Razor " of weather.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Yea, pretty similar in the snow department, despite the pattern not being as horrendous.

The marine air puke has screwed us. These little impulses if they had run into pure arctic air would have way over produced. Not enough contrast in air masses. Get us the consistent cold it will snow. That's a fact Jack cuz Stone Cold says so

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ginx snewx said:

The marine air puke has screwed us. These little impulses if they had run into pure arctic air would have way over produced. Not enough contrast in air masses. Get us the consistent cold it will snow. That's a fact Jack cuz Stone Cold says so

Bad luck?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, dryslot said:

I threw that out there knowing i would get a response, There is no luck involved in any of this, Yes,  Bad pattern, Bad timing.

Wherever there is probability, there is luck, but call it as you wish. More often than not, when you get an NAO block like that, we will not be totally skunked at this latitude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Wherever there is probability, there is luck, but call it as you wish. More often than not, when you get an NAO block like that, we will not be totally skunked at this latitude.

Except when you have a -4 sigma -PNA to deal with, Until we get positive heights out there and in Alaska, We kick the can down the road.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, dryslot said:

Ended up an offset favoring the -PNA

What I am saying is that we likely would have had more snow even if the NAO block had occurred sooner OR later, and was less prominent as the RNA flex ensued...there would have been less deconstructive interference via the compressed flow. That is the chance element of this. Sure, it would have turned to rain for SNE, but there still would have been more snow than was measured in the shredded turds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...