140 Days in England - Matt Haugland
Previous Posts
  • London movies
  • Best of 2005
  • European cities - word association
  • No more Tesco
  • Small World
  • Las Vegas America
  • American Burgers
  • Reading to Norman
  • More to come
  • I'm home?
  • 25 January, 2006

    Research update

    On Day 132 (Dec. 3), entitled "2.5 degree error" I wrote about my progress on the forecast model I've been working on for my Ph.D. I wrote that the average error was around 2.5°C. My goal was to reduce that error to 1.5°C.

    Update: For the months I wrote about on Day 132, the error is now 1.37°C. For some summer months the average error is as low as 0.89°C, with almost every night having an error below 1°C. Perhaps the best part is that there's still room for improvement -- I'm still using the same (bad) soil scheme, the surface properties are identical from month-to-month (which is unrealistic), and advection (a very important process) is completely ignored.

    During November I was thinking "This better improve a lot or else my dissertation is in bad shape". During December I was thinking "Okay, now this is good enough for a pretty good dissertation. Any improvement would be really nice but not necessary." During the past week I've been thinking "I can make millions of dollars from this, I just gotta figure out how".

    So what does this have to do with England? I think my last response is typically American, and might've been a little different if I grew up in England. It's not that my goal in life is to make millions of dollars. But it's something I think I can do.

    I don't get the impression that many Europeans actually believe they can make millions of dollars or euros or whatever. They're either more pessimistic or more realistic or both. They (wich some exceptions of course) seem to think more about the possibility of losing their jobs and needing government assistance than the possibility of making it big. And the ones who have made millions (and I met several there) seem to hang on to it (i.e., not spend it, live in modest houses, etc.) as if they're afraid of losing it.

    I'm not saying either way of thinking is better or worse. They're just different.

    4 Comments:

    At 8:17 PM, Marcian!!! said...

    I dunno, I would think that one is better or worse... and I'll leave you to guess which way I think...

     
    At 2:35 AM, OUWxGirl said...

    Are you leaving out advection for simplicity? When are you, if you are, going to put it back in?

     
    At 5:02 AM, Matt said...

    I originally left out advection because there is no wind near the surface, and thus, no advection.

    However, advection a few tens of meters above the surface, though it doesn't directly affect the near-surface temperature, does affect the incoming longwave radiation, which indirectly affects the surface temperature.

     
    At 6:11 AM, OUWxGirl said...

    Ah ok. Thanks Matt. I was curious.

     

    Post a Comment

    << Home