Gold and Silver Juniors, Mid-tiers and Producers Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold and Silver Juniors, Mid-tiers and Producers

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: yard_man who wrote (14761)	6/29/2006 8:46:16 PM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (3) of 78417

Harnessing one million computers one can predict weather in a smallish area, say 20 X 20 kilometres to an accuracy of 95% to 10 days out. Right now weather can be predicted over a 10 k cell size about 72 hours out to 75% accuracy. The large 10K cell is to account for local variations. For the 20K cell, it could be broken down to 1K cells with the same accuracy, which is much, much better than the present score. We can say this with confidence as prediction is a simple matter of plugging into the variables and modeling forward. It always has been known to be such. We have until recently lacked the access to sufficient computing horsepower in order to do it. It was predicted that this sort of accuracy could be achieved since 1955 and Laplace inuited it was possible about 228 years ago. The illusion that weather is a chaotic system can be intuitively seen to be false. You have to grasp that the butterfly wing hypothesis is hooey. Granted chaotic or hard to determine systems do exist. Like decks of cards. But weather is not such a system. It is an immense system that does not oscillate quickly or chaotically. A hurricane could if the system were chaotic or affected by many many cycles as in some fourier nightmare, suddenly die out in mid blow. They don't. They start in logical way, build in a logical way and die out gradually in a predictable pattern. Weather has many many heat and pressure inputs, and many many outputs that recycle back into the cell. But these flows are eminently predictable. They do not depend on starting conditions one iota. You do not change an immense the system by adding one input to 1 billion. The basic momentum of the system militates against this. It is an averaging system, not a fragile one. Add interdependent variables to a system with random vectorial effect and it gains stabilizing inertia, rather than gaining potentially oscillatory energy that seeks to unbalance it. It is not knife edge at any point, but widely stable. Hamiltonian dynamics was thought to be a problem back in the 50's. Scientists debated it vis a vis weather for a while. One thing that has not been tried is to do statistics on "a million contiguous cells" and try to regress these stats for the new model in an "interplay" alogrithm. What you do is do the stats on each cell for as far back as you have data. Then you compare the new data factorially for each cell, doing non linear regression for each cell, then modulating this by comparison to the other cells.. inverse fourier. EC<:-}

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next