Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
-----Original Message-----
From: Phys-l [mailto:phys-l-bounces@mail.phys-l.org] On Behalf Of Bill
Norwood via Phys-l
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 9:47 AM
To: Phys-L@phys-l.org
Cc: Bill Norwood <bnorwood111@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Phys-L] depicting uncertainty on maps
Don,
- I think that it would be more productive to try to correlate weather
predictions with marketing needs.
- For example, if winter wear sales has taken a hit, expect more dire
forecasts involving low temperatures, snow, ice, wind etc.
Bill Norwood, U of MD at College Park
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 12:18 PM, Donald Polvani <dgpolvani@verizon.net>
wrote:
In my local area (near Baltimore, MD) the local weather station is nowexpensive presentation time.
putting out "contour area maps" with a range of snow falls specified
within each area (e.g. 1 - 3 in, 3 - 5 in, etc.). This same procedure
could have been used with the experimental NWS page, since the
specified overall area stayed the same with only the internal contour
lines changing from map to map. As a user of the information, it's
simpler for me to just have to look at one map rather than three, and
I should get the same predicted snowfall range for my particular
location. Averaging the low and high values to get the expected value
is pretty simple to do in one's head. Of course putting all the
information on one map also saves the weather person and the TV station
_______________________________________________
Don
-----Original Message-----expresses
From: Phys-l [mailto:phys-l-bounces@mail.phys-l.org] On Behalf Of
John Denker via Phys-l
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 9:33 AM
To: Forum for Physics Educators <Phys-L@Phys-L.org>
Cc: John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>
Subject: [Phys-L] depicting uncertainty on maps
Hi --
Here is a timely example of uncertainty handled in an intelligent way.
Note the contrast:
++ For a point forecast, the National Weather Service routinely
the uncertainty in the amount of snowfall by quoting a range, e.g. 12uncertainty is
to 18 inches. In physics it might be more conventional to write that
as 15±3 inches, but quoting the range is perfectly reasonable also.
-- On a map, the contours and color-coding don't lend themselves to
representing a range.
++ You can do a lot better by putting out *three* maps: lower limit,
nominal, and upper limit. The NWS has an experimental page that
does just that. Here is a screen grab:
https://www.av8n.com/physics/img48/snowfall-map-brackets.png
By way of contrast, note that as usual in the real world, the
neither calculated nor communicated using sig figs or anything like that.
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@mail.phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@mail.phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@mail.phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l