Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,994
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    weatherva
    Newest Member
    weatherva
    Joined

June 2025 Obs/Disco


Torch Tiger
 Share

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, Torch Tiger said:
 A cold front approaches New England Thursday
afternoon/evening, this could trigger a severe weather risk.
While we are looking five days out there is already an area
highlighted to our southwest by SPC for the potential of severe
storms. Quick look, there is instability to tap into, guidance
has MUCAPE values above 2,000 J/kg, steep lapse rates including
mid-level lapse rates of 7C/km, modest effective shear of ~35
knots. The machine-learning at CSU highlights much of the region
with a 15% to 30% chance of severe weather, which is impressive
this far out and will be something that needs to be watched.

download.png

Timing of the front looks a bit slow for us. Needs to speed up a few hours.

  • Like 1
  • 100% 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People engaged in this soc med pastime seem to impulse-down-play when they sense someone's exuberance ... LOL.  Probably? this is a good thing.  Maybe even instinct as a crowd physical means to normalize the group think toward sensibility. You know, stop a rash decision/recourse that takes out the whole tribe..   heh - then again, we have amongst us some sources that really need that because they are known violators of common verbal decency when it comes to porno interpretation of the modeling cinema - 

Be that as it may,  I would be a little concerned in this case that something extraordinary may be be "cooking."  Just keep that on the back "burner" as a non-zero possibility. 

We have in fact gained on this signal's prominence among the multi-method technique, ranging from ens/mass fields, telecons that represent those (numerically), ...operational version both subtle and gross comparisons... etc.  All of them, spanning now 4 consecutive day's worth of runs. 

The confidence is about as maxed out on what it can be against "model climate error" for a D6-10 range.  

I mentioned this yesterday and it is still the case... this is a candidate for a synergistic heat bomb.  One that that by nature of their emergent properties, would be difficult to see coming. Think 'rogue wave' phenomenon in a stormy sea. The wave at least needs the stormy sea within which to occur.  There is some basic identifiable framework required. 

Perhaps this not unlike the quantum Non-Markovian effect. It's a theoretic that the future state of a system is based not just on the quantum presentation, but also the quantum memory of the system.   Having nodal hot dome that's being left to fester, fed by intense insolation over multiple diurnal cycles ... When we say "high launch pad" that isn't merely figurative, that is suspiciously very alike a system's quantum memory "setting the state", and then the non-linear observation takes place. interesting

Sooo... for now, what I suggested yesterday imho is still in place.  

One, we rely mainly on ensemble means.  Part of that ... big signals sometimes deamply as they near - I call this the moon on the horizon effect.  When the signal first detects out at the temporal horizon, looms catastrophically large, but then as it rises into clarity...it becomes just an ordinary expectation.   This is also somewhat analogous to 'boy cry wolf' modeling... because synergistic events take place in the atmosphere, ...we can't expect to catch them predictively just by making sure that every early modeled detection is looks like one. 

Two, synergistics really can't be assessed with any "degree" of certitude ( haha), but in recognizing the basic framework..  yeah.

The other thing to consider is that it won't be 120 here like the Pacific Northwest.   We're still going to be loaded with more atmospheric impurities and other offsets that are normal.  But, setting records across back to back diurnal days or something ...  We'll know if we dealing with a special case if/when

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, kdxken said:

Rafael dever's gone. People are bitching about it when just a month ago all were saying how much they wanted him traded and how much contract we'd have to eat. 

Good move if you ask me.

I would have preferred that they ate some of the deal to got a top prospect back, or a bonafide SP.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, DavisStraight said:

The got a 2024 first round pick back in Tibbs

1) He's hitting 245 in low A ball

2) He's in low A ball and a few if not severla years away

3) Just what they needed...another OF.

Yay:

Prospects TLDR: Tibbs currently has the look of a good platoon outfielder. His projection could shift into more of an everyday role if his defense improves and/or he shows he can hit upper-level lefties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Complete crap.

probably silently speaks volumes about how much they appreciated his antics back in spring training when he attempted to dictate to the organization where/what/how he plays. Just a guess.  I mean yeah ... they'll positive spin the move per protocol and PR as something else, but it's really a go fuck yourself thing

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sey-Mour Snow said:

00z GFS with 7 straight days 97-102 for SNE next week

Still skeptical of that we end up with a big dog heat event, but the signal is definitely there for legit heat at least. I always sit up a little when Tip starts to talk Sonoran heat release.

1 hour ago, Chrisrotary12 said:

Timing of the front looks a bit slow for us. Needs to speed up a few hours.

I’m guessing we fail Thursday

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

probably silently speaks volumes about how much they appreciated his antics back in spring training when he attempted to dictate to the organization where/what/how he plays ... just a guess.  

 

Absolutely...he's a shit-bag. I wanted him gone, but not for a bag of balls. What frustrated me is they valued saving more money over getting any talent back in return. The issue isn't Devers, but rather the continued deemphasis of the collection of premium talent.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Abasolutely...he's a shit-bag. I wanted him gone, but not for a bag of balls. What frustrated me is they valued saving more money out of getting any talent back in return. The issue isn't Devers, but rather the continued deemphasis of the collection of premium talent.

i also wonder if the fact that they swept the Yanks, and took 2/3 in the last two previous series, while Devers was slumping and not really helping them on offense, just might of maybe helped the final inking be a little more legible  ...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

i also wonder if the fact that they swept the Yanks, and took 2/3 in the last two previous series, while Devers was slumping and not really helping them on offense, just might of maybe helped the final inking be a little more legible  ...

I don't think so. You don't move that much money overnight....this was in the works for a bit-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

This move had absoluely zero point zero to do with baseball...non-factor. It was about finances and (frayed) relationships.

heh... it's a billion dollar operation that is a baseball organization - it has something to do with baseball.  

I get it that it's not based on what I just said, but I also didn't say that - I said it helped.   I bet if Devers didn't spend the first month of the season suckin donkey D on offense with historically bad numbers  ... but say, he hit .380 in the span instead, it would have factored some. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

heh... it's a billion dollar operation that is a baseball organization - it has something to do with baseball.  

I get it that it's not based on what I just said, but I also didn't say that - I said it helped.   I bet if Devers didn't spend the first month of the season suckin donkey D on offense with historically bad numbers  ... but say, he hit .380 in the span instead, it would have factored some. 

I disagree. Confident it has nothing to do with it, but we can agree to disagree. The Giants didn't opt to eat 250 million on a whim overnight, so the outcome of the series wasn't a factor- 

It wasn't a baseball decision.....the Sox decision to move him had nothing to do with wins and losses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, dendrite said:

Maybe. 

But .255 babip, .857 ops, in 250ish ABs isn’t enough proof for me that he will be a failure…even if it’s A ball. 

Nothing is proof of anything in A ball....which harkens back to the fact I would want a higher percentage yield trading a player of Dever's caliber. Not to mention they have sold us on "waiting until the youth is ready" to compete for several years, now once it arrives, they cut the teams legs out from underneath it.

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

×
×
  • Create New...