Drz1111

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

Well, and the Euro. EE rule.

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.