The Problem with Storm/Clouds Calculations

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Stop using the dome point. It's not my main argument.

 

[Kepekley23]

Uh, yes we can. Actually, it's extremely easy to see the end of a small storm.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

You litirally qouted that argument as a point above.


But if I'm getting this right. You are using the horizon as an arbitrary low-ball due to not being able to see that far.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Small, yes. Not one that goes to the horizon.

 

[Antvasima]

Let's all please calm down and postpone this discussion until after DontTalk has properly evaluated the new method. If he is fine with it, I am as well, but I want to make certain, given how high results this would give.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

Small, yes. Not one that goes to the horizon.

But we would see the part it doesn't cover if it was above the horizon directly.

So using that is wrong regardless.

 

[Kepekley23]

Any storm that approaches the horizon is MUCH bigger than just the horizon line, man.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

But if I'm getting this right. You are using the horizon as an arbitrary low-ball due to not being able to see that far.

1. It's not arbitrary.

2. Not just because of that, but because there are several other factors that have to b considered and can't be quantified. What if the environment isn't a fully leveled plane but rather a rocky irregular surface. What if there's fog? What if we can't see the the horizon exactly?

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

It is arbitrary. There is no reason to assume that one specifically.

And the latter doesn't justify it's use. It only makes me more doubtful about storm calcs in general.

 

[Kepekley23]

It is an arbitrary low end because it isn't a correct point of view. Seriously, a "small storm" in scientific terms already stretches to nearly 20 kilometers.

Is a decently large mountain in the horizon only 4 kilometers away or far more than that? If you answer this you'll realize why it's wrong.

If there is fog, if we can't see the horizon - those are all exceptions and have no bearing on the current discussion, which assumes a storm that visibly does stretch to the horizon.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

If storms are so much higher in size than we think there's certainly something else going on because these results we get are not realistic...

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Let's all please calm down and postpone this discussion until after DontTalk has properly evaluated the new method. If he is fine with it, I am as well, but I want to make certain, given how high results this would give.

Seems fine.

 

[BlackeJan]

Let's all please calm down and postpone this discussion until after DontTalk has properly evaluated the new method. If he is fine with it, I am as well, but I want to make certain, given how high results this would give.

 

[Kepekley23]

The results one gets assuming methods other than baseline CAPE approach these results more; but that's secondary.

We shuld try to go to a meteorology forum and ask someone who is actually knowledgeable on storm energy.

 

[Hellbeast1]

Good idea

 

[Antvasima]

We shuld try to go to a meteorology forum and ask someone who is actually knowledgeable on storm energy.

That seems like a very good idea. Help with this from people experienced wih mathematics would be appreciated.

 

[Ugarik]

This thread can be closed now. There's a new one: https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/2444686

 

[Antvasima]

Okay.