Tyler Allison
EF5
Originally posted by rdewey
It would be sweet to just get the data, and then use GRLevelWhateva to view the it.
Somehow I think Mr. B would frown on XM doing that
Originally posted by rdewey
It would be sweet to just get the data, and then use GRLevelWhateva to view the it.
Originally posted by Tyler Allison+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tyler Allison)</div><!--QuoteBegin-rdewey
It would be sweet to just get the data, and then use GRLevelWhateva to view the it.
Somehow I think Mr. B would frown on XM doing that[/b]
Originally posted by rdewey
Interpolation, Mr. Kahn... Interpolation... :lol:
Mike has been making it a point to note that GR indeed does interpolate, not smooth. Regardless, there ARE time when turning on "smoothing" helps you see storm structure more clearly. I wish a had a good example readily available, but there are times when turning on "smoothing" does bring out some storm structure. I used to be pretty critical of GR "smoothing", but I've actually grown to like it. Again, however, note that GRs "smoothing" is more like interpolation, since it's not smearing the data. LOL Ask Mike, I think he posted something about it over in the GR forums.
[/b]
This is not exactly true (I hope Mike is reading this)...For example, an unsmoothed bin of 60dbz will show as a 1km long area of purple, regardless of the dbz's in the surrounding bins. If the surrounding bins were near 60dbz, that would be fine. However, if the surrounding bins were 40 dbz then a more accurate reconstruction of reality would be for the purple area to be *much* smaller than 1km. Smoothing accomplishes this.[/b]
This is not exactly true (I hope Mike is reading this)...
The reflectivity bins represent an average reflectivity in that volume. There are really two averages. The average of all reflectors across that sample volume, and the average of all the averages of the samples within that volume (perhaps 32 or 64 samples). Furthermore, the actual volume being sampled isn't exactly 1 degree in diameter (it's a 3D "cone"). the beamwidth represents the half power distance from the center of the beam. The actual volume being sampled is much wider than 1 degree, although beyond 1 degree, the power drops off exponentially and the contribution to the average is less.
That being said, a sample volume showing 60 dBZ before interpolation should, in reality, end up with some values larger than 60 dbz, and some values smaller than 60 dbz after "interpolation" if the effect is to simulate reality as close to possible (like in the cat picture example). The best way to do this is assume that the peak refelctivity is in the very center of that sample, but in reality, that is not always the case. Where this would mostly have issues are for sample volumes representing maximum and minumum values (the former being important if you want to assess peak storm intensity). Median filters will always reduce maxima and increase minima. Dilation filters increase maxima, and erosion filters decrease minima.
greg
[/b]