Drz1111

Cool, but you have issues with language and I'm clarifying for the people in the thread who don't.

bluewave you seem like a bright guy so offering this up more so you know in the future. 'climate normals' is a term of art and is different from 'normal'. 'climate normal' is just a synonym for "average" or "arithmetic mean", but applied to a specific period of time. Generally in climatology when we speak of "normal" in the sense you're using it, we mean conditions that are within 1STDEV of the mean (most climate statistics in most locations are roughly normally distributed, so this conceptually works). In other words, it is common for NY to have below average snow, or above average snow, but still within the "normal" range. A year like 1997-1998, on the other hand, was both below average and not normal. I am aware meterologists use below normal as a shorthand for below average b/c of the NWS terminology and to make it easier to communicate to the public, but it's not a rigorous way to describe it and tends to blur the difference between events that are extraordinary and events that are typical.

That's not what "normal" means.

What is crazy about the bitching on this thread is that six of the last 20 years have had less snow, YTD, than this year. We’re not even more than 1SD below the mean. This is, mathematically, a normal year, albeit below average.

Isn’t that a pretty good look for a pattern change? That’s the start of a disrupted polar vortex

TBF more westerly than god knows how many threats over the last few years.

Going to be a bit breezy for the chasers out there today with all those inverted-V soundings

No posts on what looks to be an cute little severe event this afternoon on the llano estacado? CAMs are pretty enthusiastic about generating some supercells that should be surface-based for at least a couple of hours until they outrun the best surface instability and evolve into elevated clusters. Not like there's going to be a huge tornado outbreak or anything, but its better than nothing . . .

Isn't this a perfectly adequate look for MJJ severe in the Northern Plains?

I don't have access to good Euro data, but eyeballing it based on public stuff it looks like there's a pretty big difference between the Euro and the GFS in terms of whether Friday is a viable chase day.

seems like both the Euro and GFS are seeing some troughiness out west at day 10? I can buy it - there's strong support for low heights in the Maritimes and with the wavelengths this time of year that's not inconsistent with something coming out of the four corners. We shall see.

I think the triple point back in TX looks kind of interesting. Might stay out of the hair of the MCS and has access to some juicy, highly unstable air.

Looks to me like a strong cat 2, might be done intensifying due to dry air downsloping off of the coastal mountains of Vietnam. Either way, an unusually strong storm for that stretch of coast line, normally they get shells that have been shredded by earlier landfalls.

That looks like a typical JTWC "tropical storm" bearing down on Vietnam.

Especially since it took forever to detach from that trough. Sloppy rainmaker typhoon.

Yeah, I think that unless you're going to a desert (or semi-desert), booking travel to a specific 'spot' for an eclipse is an extremely high-risk idea. Better to target a region where you have good mobility within the totality stripe and then make a decision night before as to where you'll be targeting. Not entirely unlike storm chasing. I planned my entire trip within 10 days of the eclipse and had a near-perfect experience. A colleague of mine booked some special camping thing a year in advance and got clouded out. Really, you're 'clear skies' chasing, not eclipse chasing.

I flew into Des Moines, with a return flight scheduled from Omaha, intending to target south of Lincoln. about 5 days ago, it became clear that was a high risk idea. I changed my return flight to Denver and changed my target zone to Grand Island. about 2 days ago, it became clear that wasn't going to work either. Luckily, a hotel opened up in Gothenburg, about 25 minutes east of North Platte. Yesterday, it became clear I was too far east. So I woke up at 4:45 and bolted west. I ended up north of Torrington, WY...and it was SPECTACULAR. Found an elevated bluff on open prairie and could see 20 miles away in every direction but North. Not a cloud in the sky. Perfect, perfect conditions. A steep temperature drop during totality. Gorgeous. Then, while waiting for traffic to clear, I bagged Medicine Bow Peak, which was always on my list. It was a very good day.

Looks like a wet and windy day for some giant cloud rats.

Flooding and mudslides that affect who? This is unpopulated coast for a reason.

1) this cyclone likely will be a nonevent, assuming it makes landfall on the effectively unpopulated coast of Luzon. Weather porn in the best way. 2) surprised this has gotten so strong with what looks like middling ventilation on the north side of the storm

My ex is a reporter for 33/40 out of Birmingham. Yikes.

I think that people who get C-range grades in calc and complain about difficulty finding a job are being a tad willfully blind. When I was in grad school (for a related, but not precisely atmospheric science field), I helped review apps for our program: basically, they used grad students to make the first cut. And here's what I learned: there are a lot of folks with strong interests in meteorology AND excellent grades in all classes, including the various core math classes. I guess what I am trying to say is, if you don't have a 3.5 or better in your major AND core classes as an undergrad, you should find a different career, because there are literally hundreds of more qualified people in line ahead of you for grad school and jobs. Exception maybe if you went to MIT or something and got owned in a math class by a bunch of prodigies, but let me put it this way: if its not immediately apparent from your record why you are TALENTED in the field rather than just enthusiastic, you're going to get tossed in the reject pile before someone important even gets to see your applications/resume/CV. Also, everyone gets good grades in their Masters programs b/c thats just how Masters programs are. There's no curve, no "winnowing out" classes, and showing any effort will get you a B. Employers know this and will take grades in a graduate program with a very large grain of salt. The two things that matter for finding a job or getting into another graduate or postdoc program are: (1) recommendation/word of a professor (2) undergraduate grades. (3) is probably how you interview, (4) is if the guy doing the hiring was in a good mood when he read your app, and bottom of the list is graduate grades. Everyone knows they are a joke.