[HN Gopher] 300 meters resolution SF Bay Area Forecast
___________________________________________________________________
300 meters resolution SF Bay Area Forecast
Author : johmathe
Score : 124 points
Date : 2022-10-27 15:40 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (sf.atmo.ai)
(TXT) w3m dump (sf.atmo.ai)
| 2Pacalypse- wrote:
| This is pretty cool if I do say so myself.
|
| What does the picnic data show?
| johmathe wrote:
| It's a forecast of the best spots to have a picnic in the bay
| :) Basically a proxy for the best place and time to be
| outdoors.
| CoffeeOnWrite wrote:
| Very cool.
|
| Pedantic but suggest title rename to say "SF Bay Area" or "inner
| SF Bay Area". SF is just a small portion of the coverage area.
| [deleted]
| 1-6 wrote:
| TIL Mt Diablo gets cold
| latchkey wrote:
| It even snows!
|
| https://www.sfgate.com/weather/article/Mount-Diablo-Bay-Area...
| lispisok wrote:
| If I had to guess they are running the WRF model [1][2]. The AI
| part is post-processing the model output. With a fair amount of
| reading the manual anybody can run their own WRF. WRF scales from
| running on a laptop to supercomputers with 1000s of cores.
|
| [1] https://www.mmm.ucar.edu/models/wrf [2]
| https://github.com/wrf-model/WRF
| milancurcic wrote:
| Having worked with WRF for 13 years now, contributed patches to
| many releases, and built a SaaS business centered on WRF
| (https://cloudrun.co), I still discover new things about it and
| run into interesting scientific and engineering challenges.
| It's not the kind of software that's easily picked up and run
| by a non-expert. It's a large framework that's more niche, more
| obscure, and not as well documented as something like, say,
| Tensorflow. There's still a ton of value to derive from making
| WRF and similar models more usable by non-experts and without
| access to supercomputers.
| RosanaAnaDana wrote:
| I mean up or downsampling is trivial. The question isn't if you
| can make a raster at any resolution, its if you can make a
| raster thats accurate and precise at that resolution.
|
| Its not clear to me that this is either.
| johmathe wrote:
| One of the interesting things the model captures at this
| resolution is the dynamics of the wind going in the bay
| through the golden gate. See for instance: https://sf.atmo.ai
| /wind@37.80911,-122.44543,11.68,36,0,16669...
| zsz wrote:
| The Global Forecast System (GFS), i.e. the model presently
| used at NCEP, has a grid resolution of 18 miles (28 km). It
| is (has been, for years, actually), the second best global
| forecast system, right behind the European ECMWF (sometimes
| outperforming it, but on average slightly underperforming
| it, in terms of accuracy).
|
| I don't know how the ECMWF model works, but even as someone
| who did not study meteorology (but studied electrical
| engineering, which forms the theoretical basis of weather
| forecasting via the Kalman filter), I can say the following
| (having spent a number of years working at NCEP): 1.
| Initial conditions/parameters are fundamental in setting up
| a model run. 2. Forecasts have for a long time relied on
| ensembles, which are repeat model runs with slightly
| varying parameters. The idea of ensembles is, if you run
| enough of them, you will frequently notice one or more
| convergence(s) that various sets of parameters produce,
| e.g. where some sets of parameters predict one movement
| pattern for a hurricane, while others produce a different
| movement pattern. Historically, such discrepancies were
| resolved by actual forecasters, who decided based on their
| knowledge and experience which one was more likely. In
| addition, they also had meetings every morning between
| scientists (developing the model) and forecasters (who
| relied more on general knowledge and experience) and
| involved occasionally heated discussions between the
| groups. But I digress. 3. Considering it involves a chaotic
| system, I cannot say how much value something like deep
| learning might bring to the table that produces consistent
| value above and beyond what's already obtained by using
| ensembles of Kalman predictive filtering. It is however
| noteworthy to point out that if the grid resolution is
| 28,000 meters, then it may not make much sense to set the
| resolution of the model itself substantially lower (like
| 300 meters), because any resulting data is more likely to
| be an artifact of the model itself, rather than reflective
| of real life information. Luckily, this issue has been and
| is being addressed through the development of rigorous
| testing standards, which inform of the inherent quality of
| forecasts produced by a particular model (this is how they
| can assign an objective rank to e.g. the GFS and the ECMWF,
| when forecast quality is generally very close and the model
| producing the most accurate prediction varies between the
| two). To put it plainly, the degree to which the website
| mentioned above has any value is based not on its best
| predictions, but on the overall variance (i.e. how close
| predicted data comes to actual measurements of the same,
| which is necessarily retrospective). 4. That said, it's
| worthwhile to point out that just because it doesn't
| involve a government agency with something like a thousand
| employees, hundreds of scientists (in the case of NCEP
| alone), and very powerful supercomputers, does not
| necessarily mean it's bunk (even if it frequently does).
| For example, I do recall Panasonic (IIRC) showing up out of
| the blue, with its own forecasting system, which was shown
| to be competitive after requisite, rigorous testing. I
| don't remember many details and this was years ago--and its
| disappearance alone is suspect, but it's worth adding for
| completeness.
| johmathe wrote:
| While a good set of initial conditions is indeed
| critical, having a smaller model is helpful for modeling
| micro climates such as the ones you see in the Bay Area.
| At this resolution you can have a much more detailed
| representation of relief and water, which are two of the
| biggest drivers behind the beautiful dynamics we observe
| here.
|
| Kalman filtering is only one part of the process, and
| plays a critical role during the data assimilation part.
| Classical Kalman filtering is optimal for Gaussian
| distributed linear dynamical systems, but needs tweaks
| for non Gaussian distributions and non linear systems.
|
| Classical NWP models for instance will integrate the
| primitive partial differential equations in time and
| space and run various parameterizations (which can be in
| some cases even more expensive than integrating the
| primitive equations). ECMWF on their end use IFS, which
| is a spectral method for solving the PDEs.
|
| The whole process of solving these models accurately has
| definitely been some of the most fascinating science and
| engineering I've had the pleasure to work with. It's
| extremely humbling :)
| lbrindze wrote:
| sure anyone can do it, but it takes a lot of computers to do it
| at a reasonable refresh rate. HRRR is 3km and available for
| free. no super computers required by the end user. then you can
| apply what ever AI/statistical downscaling you want without
| having to try and run a better/more reliable forecast than the
| NWS
| cleandreams wrote:
| Yes, yes, yes. Great. Thanks. Bookmarked!
| Waterluvian wrote:
| A few thoughts from a geographer (be prepared to shoot me):
|
| - Basically every comment is wowed by this, but nobody questions
| what the accuracy is. I, too, can Krig interpolated surfaces to
| any resolution.
|
| - off-nadir view doesn't seem to offer much
|
| - We've been dealing with janky tile loading for like 20 years
| now. I really hope we'll get a much smoother approach for viewing
| these tiles as they load. The dissolve transition hides it a bit,
| but makes the data uncomfortable to view when playing the
| timeseries.
|
| - I'm deeply curious about the Picnic data layer. Can someone
| share the ArcGIS/QGIS model for that one? =D
| _Microft wrote:
| I had been wondering if that was actually something special
| because I thought I remembered that the German Meteorological
| Service ("Deutscher Wetterdienst") offered accurate forecasts
| on a sub-kilometer grid for years already. At least if you are
| ready to spend money on that because that service is not free,
| so maybe that's the innovation here.
| wmeredith wrote:
| Thanks for chiming in. I can make an animation say whatever I
| want. I am very curious about the accuracy.
|
| Unrelated: The site breaks my back button in Chrome, which is
| an unforgivable UI sin.
| johmathe wrote:
| Thanks for the feedback. We will have the back button fixed
| quickly :)
| thot_experiment wrote:
| Same thing in firefox, and pleeease have a units switch.
| Would be infinitely more useful if I could view the site in
| the units my brain normally works in rather than having to
| think about the conversion all the time. Very cool site
| otherwise, also very cool bay area right now.
| johmathe wrote:
| All fixed up and deployed.
| hadlock wrote:
| Few thoughts as a sailor in the SF Bay area.
|
| - Accuracy seems at least somewhat correct.That wedge shape you
| see in the late afternoon sailors call "the wind engine". Local
| sailing magazine Lattitude 38 has a special PDF that talks
| about doing a sailing trip around the bay accounting for this
| local wind phenomenon.
|
| Correct stuff:
|
| - The SF waterfront, out to the edge of the piers is mostly
| calm which is correct
|
| - Berkely, Oakland, Emeryville getting blasted late afternoon
| is correct
|
| - Back side of treasure island, immediately to the east is much
| lower than the west side, particularly near clipper cove
|
| - Vast majority of alameda estuary is dead calm, that's correct
| for this time of year
|
| - There's a big blast of wind between Daly City and OAK
| international where there's a gap in the mountains
|
| Weird stuff:
|
| - Most noticable, is the wind is still strong up to and south
| of the bay bridge. The bay bridge has been described by many as
| "a wall" when it comes to the wind. There's a drop off but it's
| not in line with the bay bridge. At all. at least 45 degrees
| off from true wind speed.
|
| - There's a very windy patch between golden gate coast guard
| station and belvedere, it's usually really patchy wind here but
| I guess if the wind direction is just right it'll blow there
|
| - Pointe Bonita (lighthouse on the west side of gg bridge about
| 2 miles, north coast) they are modeling the gap in the rocks
| there and you can see it funnel through which is neat
|
| It's a cool visualization though, gives you a great idea of
| where the wind is, and more importantly where it won't be.
| There are a bunch of races that start in the bay and head south
| towards Santa Cruz and Monterey so it's nice to better
| visualize where the wind just dies off on the coast as it skips
| over the mountains.
|
| Anyone who wants to see what the wind is like in the bay I
| recommend reaching out to YRA.org they can put you in touch
| with a boat who needs crew most likely. There are races 4-5
| days a week through november all around the bay. It is modeling
| a distinct drop off of wind speed on the south side of the bay
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| Also, as a person with experience sailing on the Bay, this
| model immediately seems unusually accurate. It shows, for
| example, the Angel Island wind shadow moving around correctly
| as it does during the day, which I have never seen in another
| model.
|
| Could anyone with more understanding of meteorology (or OP)
| please explain what is different about this model vs say the
| ECMWF model that you can see in apps like Windy, that are
| supposedly great, but just don't seem to get these features
| right? Those models are incredibly bad when dealing with the
| unusual local geographic features on the bay. What resolution
| are they operating at?
| johmathe wrote:
| Very valuable feedback - thank you!
| [deleted]
| samvher wrote:
| This seems to be a thing with weather models more generally.
| Somewhat relatedly, I've spent quite a bit of time evaluating
| weather models for use in India and Africa, and while
| predictions are easy to find, validation results for the
| predictions are _very_ hard to find. And when you do find them,
| the results are pretty poor, with many models performing worse
| than if you would say "predict temperature on date X to be the
| average observed temperature on the same date in the past 10
| years". But people still sell (and buy) these predictions!
|
| Weather predictions seem to be accepted quite uncritically.
| Perhaps people have a lot of confidence in the smart people
| that built these predictions (a bit like how AI predictions can
| sometimes be accepted uncritically).
| Waterluvian wrote:
| 100% agree. Scientists and engineers all know that you must
| provide validation results, accuracy/uncertainty
| calculations, etc. or your data is just a pretty guess. I
| think weather forecast models are so commoditized and useful
| for laypersons that we've UX'd all of the complexity
| (scrutinizing the data) out of the product. The most scrutiny
| I ever see are people discussing what "Probability of
| Precipitation" values really mean.
|
| My grad thesis advisor encouraged me to actually get the
| Environment Canada models and learn how to run them (they're
| in FORTRAN). I could never make them spit out data consistent
| with what EC publishes. That's probably on me, but it was a
| real eye-opener to this whole domain's complexity.
| lbrindze wrote:
| Given this is in the SF bay there a number of high quality
| observations that you can use to validate the forecast skill
| (unlike India and Africa). I have not bothered doing this
| here since... well that's too much like my day job.
|
| I'm always excited to see new forecast products, generally.
| If I were to guess (as an above comment did) it looks like
| they are applying some dynamic downscaling on top of either a
| custom WRF model (expensive and complicated) or more likely
| already available weather model data like the HRRR, which
| still would represent a 10x resolution increase.
|
| I'm more curious what the refresh rate is. Anyone can get a
| super accurate forecast for the next 3 hours that takes 10
| hours to run, but at that point it's no longer a forecast by
| the time the data is available.
|
| I still think that windy has set the standards as far as
| modern weather visualization goes. Not saying everything has
| to be particles but other things (like the inclusion of
| isobars) is really clean and not trivial to execute.
|
| Either way this has definitely piqued my interests and I will
| be keeping an eye on it, their advisory board looks legit (at
| least in the meteorology end)
| mturmon wrote:
| The website claims to be using DL which may mean less of a
| model-centric approach? The expertise of the people at the
| top of the organization, on this problem, seems a little
| thin, TBH. And, no stated validation results at all?
| Without such details, this is just marketing.
|
| It would be interesting to see how this behaves for longer
| prediction times and across a range of difficult forcing
| conditions off the ocean in the BA.
| lbrindze wrote:
| I agree, this generally left me feeling skeptical. I know
| of Luca Delle Monache on the advisory team, through
| colleagues who have researched under him at Scripps and
| they spoke highly of him. But yes, there is a lot left to
| the imagination here.
|
| With regards to the sfbay specifically I used to work
| with a fairly high resolution wind model for the bay
| (this was a more traditional dynamic based simulation)
| and it worked pretty well overall, but every time a storm
| blew through it would crash. This ultimately had to do
| with the relatively steep terrain in the bay specifically
| (and the physics configurations we were using in the
| actual model).
|
| Even if they are using DL they still need initial and
| boundary conditions. As I said there are a ton of weather
| stations around so I could imagine a DL type approach
| that looked at terrain elevation, and recent + historical
| observations to initialize a forecast, but I still
| imagine that boundary conditions would have to be
| provided by nesting this in a larger model somehow. Then
| again, I'm not a DL expert at all so there are probably
| some newer stuff in this field that I'm just out of date
| on.
|
| Its really expensive to run your own dynamic forecast
| model, at a refresh rate acceptable for an actual
| forecast, at this resolution. That's why I suspected its
| taking existing weather models and downscaling them with
| DL techniques, but I can't really know just by looking.
| mturmon wrote:
| (For clarity, I was referring to the company leadership
| proper, not the advisory team.)
| duanem wrote:
| I've been working with weather models for 10 years and I
| often get asked "How accurate is X?" or "Which model is more
| accurate?" Many people think "accuracy" is a single number or
| a single thing - it is more complex than this and depends on
| your needs.
|
| This chapter on Numerical Weather Predictions [0] is great,
| especially the section on "Forecast Quality and Verification"
| (p777). The eye-opener for me was "Binary/Categorical Event".
| An example of a binary event is rain, one model could predict
| rain correctly but a second model might not predict the rain
| at all. This doesn't mean the second model was completely
| wrong, it still predicted the rain but it predicted the rain
| passing further to the south.
|
| [0] https://www.eoas.ubc.ca/books/Practical_Meteorology/mse3/
| Ch2...
|
| I've also noticed some model are better than other at
| predicting one phenomena while other models might be better
| in certain regions. For example, many people report that
| Canada's GDPS is better at higher latitudes whereas NOAA's
| GFS is better at equatorial regions.
|
| One final note, just because someone is solving an WRF model
| without verifying the results, doesn't mean it's wrong. Many
| numerical techniques and physical models within WRF have been
| validated analytical and experimental models. But it is also
| true that someone can naively setup a WRF model that gives
| bad results.
|
| I use a 900m WRF model that predicts the wind shadow around
| an island and we use it to find the best beach for a picnic -
| and it works. But this same model predicts the general
| pattern of rain but it doesn't get the start and stop time of
| rain correct.
|
| People get fixated on accuracy as a single thing and use it
| as a single basis for argument but to take a quote from the
| chapter [0] above "One of the least useful measures of
| quality is forecast accuracy" (ref. p777, Forecast Quality
| and Verification, third paragraph).
| CalChris wrote:
| > other models might be better in certain regions
|
| The US Navy's COAMPS model is good for littoral regions.
| carabiner wrote:
| Meteoblue was dramatically more accurate in Chamonix last
| spring than the GFS.
| duanem wrote:
| You have to be careful you aren't comparing apples to
| oranges. You might be looking at the Meteoblue MOS
| (statistically corrected) predictions which might be
| based on their regional weather simulation. This regional
| simulation might be nested in a larger global model,
| probably from ECMWF. If you compare this ECMWF model to
| GFS, then you are comparing apples with apples.
|
| I find global models like GFS are great for understanding
| the large scale weather systems. The regional high-
| resolution models, which are usually nested in a global
| model, give better definition of local weather phenomena
| like wind shadows or cooler temperatures in valleys.
|
| Dues to averaging, weather simulations usually have a
| bias error in temperature predictions. These errors are
| corrected using statistics (look up Model-Output-
| Statistics) but is hyper-local, i.e., you loose the big
| picture. This is probably what you're looking at with
| Meteoblue.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| >Basically every comment is wowed by this, but nobody questions
| what the accuracy is
|
| I am very skeptical. Does the San Mateo bridge really block 10
| knot winds for the entire south bay? Similarly, the land
| temperatures all seem the same close to sea level.
| hadlock wrote:
| Tall bridges do weird things to the wind. I can confirm the
| bay bridge at surface level, there is functionally no wind
| for about half a mile downwind from it. Just glassy smooth.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| Most of the san mateo bridge is quite low, especially the
| stretch crossing the bay. This is why I was so shocked it
| had a wind shadow 10+ miles
| hadlock wrote:
| I'm not seeing much of a wind shadow for that bridge,
| particularly at 4pm Friday. Maybe they updated the model
| already. Most of the onshore windflow begins after 11am
| goes from the cold (high pressure) pacific through the gg
| bridge, wraps around the east side of angel island and
| north past Richmond and Vallejo towards the hot (low
| pressure) central valley. South of SFO silicon valley is
| surrounded by tall geographic features and there's not
| much path to hotter (low pressure) zones so it's unusual
| to see high winds there unless there's a special offshore
| wind event coming from the south (most often in the
| winter).
| georgeburdell wrote:
| Not working on my iphone. Slashdotted?
| FullyFunctional wrote:
| Sorry, I'm from the present. How does one change it to Celcius?
| mistrial9 wrote:
| fun - but I am reminded of the excoriation that Windy-dot-com got
| here on YNews when facts-oriented people started comparing the
| visualization to more quantitative sources.. snipes aside, no
| doubts here that they will sell this and be paid for it.
| syntaxing wrote:
| How much computational power does it take to make something like
| this?
| blululu wrote:
| That is impressive. Pretty accurate about the early morning cold
| spots. Not sure how much of this is just matching historical
| trends (SF has a pretty consistent climate), but the level of
| spatial resolution on the data is amazing. Not sure how they did
| it really.
| modo_ wrote:
| Running over in Rodeo valley (Marin) there was a very noticeable
| (and unusual) inversion this morning around 7:30 am. It must have
| been 5-10 degrees colder on the valley floor compared to up
| higher -- after ~100ft of elevation gain up out of the valley it
| warmed up very rapidly.
|
| I don't see that reflected in this map at all fwiw.
| https://sf.atmo.ai/temperature@37.83200,-122.51075,13.53,20,...
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| It's likely because services like these use models as data
| feeds and not live/recorded data.
| anyfoo wrote:
| Growing up in Germany, before I moved to the Bay Area, I was
| wondering why weather apps and widgets were so prolific. Sure,
| knowing the forecast for next weekend was nice, but for anything
| closer I'd just get out of bed and look out of the window. That
| would pretty much tell me what weather it is, and it would
| usually change just slowly over a few days or so.
|
| Then I moved to the Bay Area, and weather does not only change
| quickly, it may also be vastly, _vastly_ different just a short
| distance away. Temperature differentials of 10degC or more within
| just 40 miles are interesting enough that it 's a frequent topic
| of conversation with friends in Germany.
|
| Everything suddenly made sense. The weather widgets. The hoodies:
| Easy to put on or off.
| FullyFunctional wrote:
| Yes. I'm from Denmark, but I check the weather every night
| before stepping out as I have experience 13 C nights where the
| previous night was 20 C. And this is not uncommon.
|
| When I first got here I was stunned by how noticeable nicer the
| weather was when driving from Santa Clara to Palo Alto, and
| more than once have I forgotten to bring a sweater to SF.
| anyfoo wrote:
| Yeah. Living in SF and working in the South Bay, it's common
| in the evening to get into my car sweating, and coming out
| freezing. I _always_ pack a hoodie.
|
| On the bright side, a hoodie is often all I ever need, all
| year long.
| anyfoo wrote:
| Another anecdote: In the South of Germany at least, long
| stretches of sunny days are often followed by sudden
| thunderstorms with equally sudden bursts of rain. That "fact"
| had been so deeply ingrained in me that it was subconscious.
| You'd have a careful feeling if it was hot for too long,
| suddenly you might find yourself running for the next awning to
| escape the torrential rain.
|
| Sunny weather was a bit like building up a sort of pressure,
| that must release violently.
|
| Took a while to let go of that feeling in California. It
| basically rains in winter, and does not rain in summer. Like,
| at all.
|
| (Note that I moved away about a decade ago, climate may have
| changed in the meantime.)
| dan-robertson wrote:
| I hadn't even thought of that until I read this. I had
| thought thunderstorms after hot weather were just a fact of
| life. I guess in places near German latitudes that get
| thunderstorms the hot weather is caused by high pressure
| systems but maybe that isn't really the cause in California.
| barbazoo wrote:
| Coastal weather is often lacking the conditions that
| creates thunderstorms. I live near the coast now too and
| haven't experienced the kind of thunderstorm I know from
| Germany.
| macNchz wrote:
| Depends on the coast I guess...NYC, for example, gets
| some real whopper summer thunderstorms
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wk3Gz9o9yw4&t=12s
| s0rce wrote:
| Midwestern USA has similar stretch of hot summer followed by
| thunderstorms.
| misradeepika wrote:
| I'm loving the picnic mode!!!!
| modzu wrote:
| shameless plug of my little rain map that has the opposite
| approach --
|
| zero interpolation, zero forecasting. just the real data from the
| radar feed in 10 meter resolution at the current time (plus 3
| past snapshots at 1 hour intervals):
|
| https://truweather.link
|
| and the app versions:
|
| https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.conceptual...
|
| https://apps.apple.com/ca/app/truweather/id1537614881
|
| i find it useful because every other weather app is wrong in some
| way ;) instead, it enables you to form your own mental models
| nathancahill wrote:
| Wow, this is the future.
| lostlogin wrote:
| I wish it was.
|
| I see no sign that forecasting has improved at all in my part
| of the world. Auckland, New Zealand.
| pvarangot wrote:
| Literally
| bombela wrote:
| How do you switch to normal (for 97% of humans) units for
| temperature and wind?
| froidpink wrote:
| The heaviest users of wind forecasting use knots
| [deleted]
| pklausler wrote:
| I learned to interpret wind speeds in m/s on a visit to Iceland
| and found it to be an intuitive unit for hiking and other
| outdoor purposes. And 1m/s is pretty close to 2 knots so it's
| easy to convert.
| londons_explore wrote:
| Weather forecasts are so hard for a user to evaluate... Are you
| going to check it every day and remember how many days it was
| right or wrong?
|
| _Please_ can weather providers just publish a headline statistic
| of "Our rain/no rain one day ahead forecast is right 85% of the
| time. That is better than NOAA (80%), Met Office (72%) and
| weather.com (65%)."
| carabiner wrote:
| This is kind of the purpose of the "50% chance of rain" things.
| The process is called calibration and is usually done with
| linear regression, and it means that in historical _forecasts_
| , the _actual_ outcome was rain 50% of the time. Surface precip
| is notoriously hard to predict, so this is what we 've got
| right now.
| londons_explore wrote:
| But they should publish that... And then compare that figure
| to their competitors... To demonstrate to their users that
| their service is actually better, not just has a shinier
| UI...
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| Very interesting data but infuriating UI.
|
| With so much heat map display, why is there no key? For wind,
| red/purple are counterintuitively lower speed than orange and
| yellow?
|
| Also, who do so many applications force oblique views?
| lucasmullens wrote:
| > Also, who do so many applications force oblique views?
|
| I'm able to adjust it by dragging with two fingers on my
| trackpad, which I think is the standard behavior for that
| (albeit hard to discover). But I do agree, it's weird for that
| to be the default.
|
| There's also probably no key because the colors are mostly
| transparent, so it would be hard to make a key easy to
| understand. Labelling the contour lines seems like a reasonable
| approach imo.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| Interesting, I don't get Contour labels on mine, so I have to
| continually reposition to get a sense of the magnitude
| RosanaAnaDana wrote:
| so whats the RMSE and how do we know that?
| nicolashahn wrote:
| I've been wanting this for a long time. Any way I could get it as
| a live updating widget for my Android home screen?
| dopeboy wrote:
| Opportune day you picked to share this, given this nasty cold
| front. Very cool.
| nfriedly wrote:
| What does "300 meters resolution" mean in this context?
| lispisok wrote:
| Weather models divide the atmosphere into cells where each cell
| has it's own forecast. There are several ways to do it but if
| you imagine the cells as cubes, the north-south and east-west
| dimensions of the cube is 300m long. 300m is very high
| resolution for weather models with most running at a few
| kilometers to a few dozen kilometers.
| johmathe wrote:
| It means that the underlying weather data is computed and
| validated at a 300x300 meters resolution. Hope this helps :)
| carabiner wrote:
| How are you doing validation?
| rnk wrote:
| Interesting. Their website has a real "Delos" feel, as in the
| West World corporation. I'd love a narrow cast for my area too.
| You could sell access to these maybe.
| zestyping wrote:
| Is there a Celsius mode?
| asdff wrote:
| This needs to be done for more cities in California, especially
| Los Angeles with its huge geographic area and all the diverse
| micro climates contained within. Sometimes the weather changes
| more than 15 degrees in half as many miles from the coast. It
| therefore doesn't make sense to e.g. check "weather in LA" when
| its going to be somewhat wrong most of the time depending on
| where in LA you happen to be, since the little widget that pops
| up on google search for "weather in LA" doesn't exactly tell you
| where in the 500sq miles of LA they are putting the temperature
| probe.
| sosodev wrote:
| Same thing in San Diego. I feel like the popular weather
| services can't make accurate predictions or even tell what is
| happening most of the time. My iPhone will tell me it's raining
| when it's sunny outside.
| issa wrote:
| I feel like you could make a whole movie about the weather in
| LA. It would change your life. Twice.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| That's true, but an upstate New Yorker would wonder what the
| fine resolution forecast looks like for a place that really
| has weather.
| CalChris wrote:
| Not weather, sun, sun, sun, sun, sun!
| orangepurple wrote:
| Looks amazing! However, this model (like all models by default)
| is not validated and produces garbage unless proven otherwise.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-10-27 23:01 UTC)