- 4,339
- 2,329
So I'm revisiting this topic (can't bump the old thread due to necrobumping rules): https://vsbattles.com/threads/storm-calculation-issues.160914/
I'll put up the key points of the last thread's OP as follows.:
1. Cumulonimbus clouds (which we base storms on) are actually 15 miles in diameter, far below the 20-km radius currently used: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumulonimbus_cloud
2. Flaws with hurricane and storm calculations pointed out in detail. (See OP in last thread)
3. Wattages of hurricane and thunderstorms determined.
4. Baseline thunderstorm wattage calculated.
The intention is to make storm calculations significantly more accurate by providing both a bigger picture of how storms work and helping calculate storms in a more accurate way. However, these proposals were all but rejected because... Reasons... Thing is, there are three other things that I think further necessitates these accuracy improvements.
1. The 20-km value used had been depreciated by our horizon calculations revision.
2. The 20-km value would not be useable in any practical sense since it requires the utmost in perfection in sky conditions, plus there are too many variables involved such as lighting (bright objects such as lightning can be seen much further away), sky clarity, and object size (I mean, the moon can be seen in daylight). Typical clear skies only let you see up to three miles away from yourself into the horizon, and storms are even worse for visibility (with a flight instructor claiming a mile and a government agency even going as far as to say "near-zero". Fog can reduce visibility to less than a kilometer.).
3. The furthest out anyone can hear lightning is 10 miles (16 km): https://www.weather.gov/safety/lightning-science-thunder
Really, going for 12 kilometers in radius instead of 20 is being generous with storm calculations. Death Battle typically measures storms directly when doing their calculations regardless of whether it lines up with irl storms or not, often causing storms to appear smaller than IRL storms.
As I have intended with the last thread, the goals of the changes are as follows.
1. Set in place the use of 12 km as the standard radius for storms instead of 20 km.
2. Determine whether to use total energy output (as current storm calculations do) or wattages (as current hurricane calculations do)
3. Better contextualize storm calculations for everyone.
4. (Optional) Set a baseline for when there are too many unknowns (Wikipedia lists 1 petajoule for thunderstorms, which is 277.777 to 555.555 gigawatts based on the time period a storm lasts (30 to 60 minutes).)
5. (Optional) Add a recommendation to measure storms directly instead where possible.
Will it be tricky? Mmmmeh.... "Storm" is a pretty common keyword found in Tier 7 profiles, and keywords such as "weather manipulation" and "environmental destruction" add more elephants to the room. It's pretty easy to find where to start. Either way, I estimate that accuracy will increase for storm calculations significantly should this go through... Because, you know, second time's the charm..!
I'll put up the key points of the last thread's OP as follows.:
1. Cumulonimbus clouds (which we base storms on) are actually 15 miles in diameter, far below the 20-km radius currently used: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumulonimbus_cloud
2. Flaws with hurricane and storm calculations pointed out in detail. (See OP in last thread)
3. Wattages of hurricane and thunderstorms determined.
4. Baseline thunderstorm wattage calculated.
The intention is to make storm calculations significantly more accurate by providing both a bigger picture of how storms work and helping calculate storms in a more accurate way. However, these proposals were all but rejected because... Reasons... Thing is, there are three other things that I think further necessitates these accuracy improvements.
1. The 20-km value used had been depreciated by our horizon calculations revision.
2. The 20-km value would not be useable in any practical sense since it requires the utmost in perfection in sky conditions, plus there are too many variables involved such as lighting (bright objects such as lightning can be seen much further away), sky clarity, and object size (I mean, the moon can be seen in daylight). Typical clear skies only let you see up to three miles away from yourself into the horizon, and storms are even worse for visibility (with a flight instructor claiming a mile and a government agency even going as far as to say "near-zero". Fog can reduce visibility to less than a kilometer.).
3. The furthest out anyone can hear lightning is 10 miles (16 km): https://www.weather.gov/safety/lightning-science-thunder
Really, going for 12 kilometers in radius instead of 20 is being generous with storm calculations. Death Battle typically measures storms directly when doing their calculations regardless of whether it lines up with irl storms or not, often causing storms to appear smaller than IRL storms.
As I have intended with the last thread, the goals of the changes are as follows.
1. Set in place the use of 12 km as the standard radius for storms instead of 20 km.
2. Determine whether to use total energy output (as current storm calculations do) or wattages (as current hurricane calculations do)
3. Better contextualize storm calculations for everyone.
4. (Optional) Set a baseline for when there are too many unknowns (Wikipedia lists 1 petajoule for thunderstorms, which is 277.777 to 555.555 gigawatts based on the time period a storm lasts (30 to 60 minutes).)
5. (Optional) Add a recommendation to measure storms directly instead where possible.
Will it be tricky? Mmmmeh.... "Storm" is a pretty common keyword found in Tier 7 profiles, and keywords such as "weather manipulation" and "environmental destruction" add more elephants to the room. It's pretty easy to find where to start. Either way, I estimate that accuracy will increase for storm calculations significantly should this go through... Because, you know, second time's the charm..!
