Jump to content

Moderately Unstable

Meteorologist
  • Posts

    306
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Moderately Unstable

  1. Haha, well, I DID go to school for Meteo, and hold a degree, and STILL don't work in the field. You'll encounter that a lot--there are way more METs than jobs. If you don't have a masters, or experience, don't expect to get into the NWS or similar (it isn't like it was in the 80s). Many other met jobs in the private sector don't involve forecasting and/or pay very poorly--even some in television. The fact is, computer tech has gotten REALLY GOOD, and you only need so many people to make the models, run the models, and forecasters to interpret the models for a given region and specific niche. Whether you're talking airlines, trading markets, forecasting companies, television, government--it is VERY competitive. I went to PSU--they have a very large program. Every year, they graduate many dozens of METs, just at PSU, every single year. There are lots of MET schools, multiply that out, then consider that a tv station may have 3-6 mets, NWS office may have 10-20. To reiterate--many mets don't work as mets. It is a very fun field, and when it WAS more of a niche major, getting a B.S was sufficient to get a good job either at the NWS or private sector. That is no longer the case. And this is not even accounting for the importance of connections--who you know matters as much as, and often more, than what you know. That's true in most competitive skilled fields, and meteo is no exception. When I was in HS, I volunteered at the Franklin Institute. My supervisor was a met grad--he didn't like talking about meteo though (I got the sense he was a bit upset at not working in meteo). Little did I realize then that that's the norm rather than exception. I've also run into many mets since graduating, who do not work in MET. So, to get around all of that I tried to go to grad school, changed my focus from forecasting to climate change, etc etc. But, I wasn't as motivated because even though climate science is very important, I got into weather bc of severe weather forecasting/winter storms etc. So, I didn't do well there, had some issues of my own, and left. Over several years, I reoriented myself with completely unrelated work, while transitioning to pursuing a masters in comp sci. I miss meteo immensely, particularly doing research, and to this day, I wish I'd worked harder during my grad school stint--it is perhaps the single greatest regret of my life. But the fact remains that hobbies and passions have to intersect with job demand and money, to actually be worth it. I could re-apply to grad schools, retake the GRE, etc. But, I already got into another masters program in comp sci, and it makes more sense for me at this point. Therefore, when considering whether to go to school for meteo, or go back to school for meteo, your real first question should be, if you do that, what exactly do you want to do with it when you graduate? After you answer that, do some research and find out how many actual jobs entail that requirement. Perhaps you'll be in the top 20% of your class, and be part of the group that then does not want to go to grad school, but if not, you will have competition. You will also face competition from students who may attend other schools (which may hold higher reputations), from current mets that hold degrees and want to work in the field and have taken other jobs to hold them over while they look, etc. And some employers would indeed ask and scrutinize why you did not initially pursue meteo, why "now", even in holding a degree. Others would not. Also, as both a business manager, and a card carrying meteorologist, I can also tell you...in every profession, meteo included, we don't hire people solely based on their credentials. We look at your whole resume, your cover letter, we talk to you to see how you could fit in with our team, see what you actually know, how long you'd probably want to stay, and get a sense of your personality (aka, an interview). One thing you may be able to do NOW, is find a part time volunteer or paid job working with one of myriad online forecasting groups (see facebook, not a joke). Experience matters. Now, the separate question to address is, would a school even accept you. On this matter, I have a very strong, and probably relatively unique opinion. If you go through the analysis of benefits and drawbacks, as I mentioned above, and determine meteo is a good choice for you--you should NOT let fear of being rejected stop you from trying. Apply. Reach out to the department head and ask them. YES, some schools WILL look negatively on trying to return to school after trying before and will reject you. Try anyway. The fact is, you don't need everyone to be on your team--you need one person/group/school to be on your team, that's it. When I read posts where people ask "can I do xyz if abc", then see posters explaining all the reasons why the answer is "no", it makes me cringe. Don't dissuade people from trying something they're passionate about if it's even remotely reasonable for them to do well with it. Fact is, if you don't give something a shot, you won't actually KNOW what said people will do. Humans are not machines--if you have a good essay that explains your background, why you want to do what you're applying for, links up your existing experience with how this new position/education could help you...that gets factored in. So do good letters of rec. Sometimes I think people get so hung up on wanting to go to, say, MIT, that they don't realize that the actual school, while important, is not as important as people think. Be judicious in explaining your past failures. I would personally, if I were you, emphasize how your work experience has allowed you to grow intellectually, become more mature, and improved your work ethic (be specific and use examples). Lot's of college kids do dumb things--you made mistakes, you fixed them. Include a couple tidbits that highlight your existing meteorological knowledge and passions--try to specifically explain what in meteo makes you excited and get into the weeds a touch to show you know more than the first two sentences of a wikipedia article on the topic. Explain why you'd do well now--really think about this since it's important you give a good reason, and you yourself believe that reason. If you do explain your past switchover, it is reasonable to say that you were immature, didn't fully know what you wanted to do (understandable at that age), and made some mistakes, including not continuing with meteo. Some people will give you a second chance, if you show them clearly why they should do so. You may also wish to consider applying to a graduate meteo program instead of ugrad. You've done ugrad, you have a degree in a semi-related field, you may be able to go straight to that level. Depends on how much math/physics etc you've done and what you still remember now. To sum this whole paragraph up though: If you decide, based on whatever reasoning, that you want to go to school for meteo, apply, reach out, and try. Do not sit here on the internet waiting for someone to give you a green light or strike you down. I really truly wish I could go back in time and tell my younger self that. If you try, and get rejected, find out why, find out how to fix it, and if you can't, be proud of yourself for making the effort. However--I really cannot stress this enough: Meteo is very fun; I still enjoy even the mathematical parts (I'm reviewing an old lecture about diagnosing vertical velocities using horizontal convergence and divergence right now). But, if I were in your shoes, I wouldn't be worried about my ability to get into school, I'd be worried about my ability to get a job after school. Not because of your age, just because, as I said--it's a very VERY competitive field, so if you've got something going that's good (e.g a good job with good benefits), be careful about throwing that away. The entire job market now is competitive--I've had masters graduates apply for roles at my company (in roles that required a HS diploma). Consider finding something that's MORE enjoyable in the field you're in, or one in which you have connections and some experience and existing knowledge. Going to school for 3-4 years to gain knowledge is fun, but don't throw away something good because you want something better. You don't have to work at a job that leaves you unfulfilled, but try to find ways to do meteo in a more limited way first before you jump the boat. Hope this helps.
  2. Lol, I'll do it later today and I'll accept the scorn I rightly deserve if it blows up in my face. Right now however I'm looking at the 700mb VV progs and trying to write down what's causing it. Also need to figure out the 700mb low track and the why there. I feel that will give me a better handle on the places the models disagree and which option makes more sense in this setup--negative NAO, trending more negative, not great PNA. To be clear, the physics here will support a decent snowstorm--and some portions of the area should see heavy snow, hence, a dedicated thread makes sense (this is an Obs thread). This will, as well put in an earlier NWS AFD, be a battle between precipitation rate (and thus dynamic cooling), and warm air advection. Right now, the models are pretty confident that precip rate wins--they suggest as much as 12"+ of snow to fall in a single 6 hour window, which correlates to an average of 2"+ an hour. That would likely be sufficient to keep temps at freezing and produce a more-snow-than-not event for Philly. Figuring out the mechanisms for that to happen will be useful in determining probabilities. Edits: grammar, error of fact in one sentence.
  3. I'll have more to comment on later. Want to see the full suite of guidance before going too crazy. I don't think anything has truly changed in the macroscale in the last few hours--the 00z gfs so far basically confirms the setup vs lending to any kind of refutation of the thinking (vis a vis the 18z blip). We're still too far out to look at the mesoscale models or even the NAM so we're in a limbo period--we can see approximately what's going to happen now, we don't know the precise axis of dilitation, timing of any deformation bands, and other finer-graded minutia. At this point, without being the grinch for jinxing us, I would be shocked at less than 8. I would be fairly confident with a foot, and 16" using kuchara is within range. Remember that many years ago, the models were bulliish on the 09 blizzard, then the NAM came in and blew them out of the water. Everything so far has said this is a major event. Therefore, this isn't looking good for 6, for 4...it's a honker. Concurrently, if the storm did "bust", it would be disappointing--even though *technically* we have not seen this type of accum in 2 seasons (even if 6" fell)--but where we are right now is a major event. 00z GFS run even makes a brief go at blizzard condition criteria for Philly. However I also remember several times the last few years in which a major storm was progged (12+) and it MAJORLY busted. Thus, caution is a virtue, but take what the consensus of models are all saying with some confidence. Note: edits for grammar/style.
  4. Yes, the 00z run is phenomenal. I'm so excited I actually can't think of what to type right now . But you're right, this is as good as it gets.
  5. I feel bad for everyone's washing machine. Everyone's going to need to wash their pants now.
  6. Lots of good discussion right now on this whole setup in the Mid Atlantic forum. But, yeah, I mean look run-to-run is going to look different, that's the game (makes it fun)! EPS 18z looked solid, made 18z gfs look like an outlier. 18z gefs was reasonable as well. Still plenty of time--we're nearing the place where the op models and their ensembles converge enough to switch over to the op (though just to throw it out there--there's never a *bad* time to use an ensemble...averaging perturbations does well to ameliorate the woes of chaos theory at hour 100 and also at hour 10). Going to be a solid storm for the Philly region regardless, this is more a question imho of weenie solution MECS vs a more standard SECS. I want my MECS (unfortunately I don't think HECS is in the cards here using the statistical 1:10 year standard, but hey, I'll keep hoping). Suggest poss creating a dedicated topic if the 00z runs continue to indicate or trend for major storm (really seems warranted regardless now).
  7. Four thoughts-- 1) I'm excited. Semantics aside, it's been TWO YEARS since we had an interesting winter weather setup in the Philly area of any kind. I don't care if we get 6", 16", 20"...I just want to see some white stuff falling out of the sky! 2) In the short term, the 12z NAM and other short-range guidance indicate a low-impact rain-snow for the Philly metro wrt Monday's system. The 12z GFS is similar, with a widespread 1"-2" projected, likely not going to stick though due to temps. Snow rate will not be sufficient to facilitate significant air cooling due to latent energy release of melting so seems unlikely to be one of the sneak storms that drops an inch or two that no one expected to see. MOS and other guidance suggest temps could top in the low 40s, that may be a high bet given the cloud cover (& limited evap cooling) so perhaps upper 30s makes more sense. It should be stated that were we to get a widespread trace to 1-2" of snow early this week, the increase in albedo could locally result in a marginal temperature decrease. In this context, that may matter (33 vs 32 degrees type of thing)--but, again, will depend on how that whole solution verifies. Tracing back, the models come to a snow conclusion based on freezing in the 850-700 mb level, with marginal above freezing temps below. Similarly, the evolution and track of the first low and its impact on the dynamics it brings in behind it somewhat matter on whether we in fact are looking at a foot maker, or beyond into the GFS weenie-utopia land of 20+. 3) The second storm right now is a semi-classic miller B type setup. When I look at Miller B's (and As for that matter)... I like to check out the NAO first. The NAO is marginally negative right now and progged to become much more negative over the next few days. That both leads me to more "lingering" solutions, and to a more messy p-type analysis due to more northward progression of the low. This means the system won't end up busting out to sea--it could "bust" warm if it goes further north, but it ain't a non-event. This also applies to the first storm, and may be why the signal for that is getting a bit more amplified with time. 4) A fairly strong jet streak will enhance precip in the mid-week storm, and could lead to enhancement of banding through some extra forcing for ascent.Thus, if we did maintain the cold solution, we'd probably see a couple of mesoscale corridors setup where you'll see the real maximal snow amounts. This seems plausible regardless of the specific "where" the low eventually tracks.
  8. There is a hook echo with a classic ball right now very close to the KDIX radar, next to Lumberton, NJ (also fairly close to the forecast office).
  9. Also I did want to announce, user WeatherQ did win last night's contest. They predicted 931mb, 150mph winds. I didn't have the opportunity to verify the scores last night--44 members submitted entries--but wanted to officially acknowledge their win today now that the dust has settled haha. Good job!!
  10. Wrt the hhunters, I agree it is good not to speculate and I'd really only buy that news from the nhc, their staff, the hunters, their staff, or a tropical met professor. I consider that report plausible but dramatized. As both a met an avgeek, I know enough about both to say that while wind shear can rocket you around, wings are built to handle 150% of their expected in-life stress load. In 1988, a mesovortex almost downed a P-3, with 200 mph winds causing a +5.8g and -3.7g stress that ripped off a propeller and brought the plane to within 1k feet of sea level. That was hurricane hugo. Mesovortices are dangerous, the ever so slightly alarm tinged vdm they sent out stating many mesos circulating coupled with stopping outgoing data reporting and the other plane turning around do all point strongly to the safety threat. Speculation beyond that (stalling, structural integrity), are rumors and not things one can know unless explained by an official source. While I did mention stalling as a threat, they usually fly around 240 knots in the eyewall, and the nice thing with the C-130 is that it has a very low stall speed and high stability. Look at the hhunter personal Twitter pages for any comments on that. I agree with JasonOH on the probability for the surface winds to be gust driven. However it may also, itself, be due to a mesovortex. Last night and today we see low level wind fields potentially above the mid levels. This is not a typical presentation and can be due to mesovortex interaction which can raise wind speeds near the surface. Per a nasa paper https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/3377 , wind speeds in a mesovortex can be 10% higher than the rest of the eye. Pressures are up, wind speeds down a bit. Could be completion of an erc or erc nearing completion. Could also be that the shallow water near the coast which the eye is over has lower overall heat content and unwelling brought up slightly cooler water. Final possibility is that minimal land interaction is adversely affecting the storm. That's more likely if a secondary larger eye is taking over that may already have part of its circulation on the coast. This thing definitely made a valiant effort at cat 5, but appears it was not to be. I do wonder if the storm may have briefly attained cat 5 intensity at some point and we just didn't have the data point. Two things are now in my mind. First is how this affects Central America. 14-20 feet of storm surge. Phew. The location is south of most population centers however the flooding rain is going to hit the whole country. Some people will still also get impacted by the eyewall. Second it starting to look more at what the models are suggesting medium range, and comparing that against basic physics principles and figuring out what's likely and what's not.
  11. In short, windspeeds are much higher, and the wind curvature is higher. It's like a mesovort in a multi vortex tornado. Same cyclostrophic balance equation, same enhancement of momentum. Definitely can be risky to fly through particularly at low speeds. Aircraft have a lower turbulence speed than clear air speed. That's (part of) why they slow down as they approach the storms. However, slow speed increases the risk of stalling. Wind shear is a rapid change in wind speed and direction. At low speeds, that places the plane at risk of stalling. You don't want to stall in an eyewall. There are other issues, basically, a meso in an eyewall is like flying through a tornado both in terms of size and what it does to the plane. It can down the plane, even without a stall.
  12. So you can see from the plot that they flew a circle. Each of those wind barbs is a data point. They weren't embedded in the circulation, they flew a circle inside the eye. They basically found an opening and took it.
  13. That is quite possible actually, perhaps likely.
  14. New VDM. Mesovortices. Would like to see the radar loop if they can put it up on twitter after the mission. 302 URNT12 KNHC 030403 VORTEX DATA MESSAGE AL292020 A. 03/03:10:10Z B. 14.03 deg N 082.61 deg W C. 700 mb 2435 m D. 925 mb E. 290 deg 14 kt F. CLOSED G. C7 H. 135 kt I. 127 deg 3 nm 03:07:00Z J. 232 deg 127 kt K. 135 deg 4 nm 03:06:30Z L. 125 kt M. 043 deg 5 nm 03:13:30Z N. 135 deg 125 kt O. 043 deg 5 nm 03:13:30Z P. 11 C / 3037 m Q. 20 C / 2998 m R. 3 C / NA S. 12345 / 07 T. 0.02 / 0.5 nm U. AF304 0429A ETA OB 15 MAX FL WIND 137 KT 193 / 5 NM 02:18:00Z MANY MESOVORTICES ROTATING ON INSIDE EYEWALL. ;
  15. Yes, it is out of the question. ERCs occur when a ring of very strong thunderstorms encircles a pinwheel eye. This new ring contracts and as it does so it robs--literally takes--the angular momentum from the inner eye and expands it out. Angular momentum is conserved, but a larger radius of winds lowers the wind speed and raises the pressure. After the cycle completes, the new eyewall can contract and potentially re-strengthen. It takes several hours to occur, and is first visible on radar (ground or plane--the plane has radar which is how they characterize a "closed" versus "open" eye), so if there's one in progress you'll see it there before you see it on satellite.
  16. Hm. So lowest extrap there was 922.1 and they made a loop followed by a 90 degree right turn to sample that side. Does look like a possible second eyewall from the data.
  17. Lol. Bro, I haven't looked at the original forecasts yet at all--I'm not saying I expect a cat 5 because of MY forecast, I'm saying it because THE NHC said it would. I don't care whether I win, good work, excellent job. But I haven't looked through yet to verify everything. Busy looking at the data.
  18. Just gonna post up the discussion: ZCZC MIATCDAT4 ALL TTAA00 KNHC DDHHMM Hurricane Eta Discussion Number 10 NWS National Hurricane Center Miami FL AL292020 1000 PM EST Mon Nov 02 2020 An Air Force Reserve reconnaissance aircraft has found that Eta has explosively deepened into a strong category 4 hurricane with maximum sustained winds of 130 kt and a minimum central pressure of 927 mb. Eta has maintained a small 10-nmi-wide eye that is evident in satellite imagery and on the San Andreas, Colombia, weather radar. The radar data also suggest that concentric eyewalls may be forming, which would be an indication of the onset of an eyewall replacement cycle (ERC) and a capping of Eta's intensity and also an end to the rapid intensification cycle of the past 36 hours. The initial intensity of 130 kt kt is based on 700-mb flight-level winds of 137 kt and SFMR surface winds of 130 kt. Some additional strengthening is expected, and Eta could become a category 5 hurricane before landfall occurs. After landfall, Eta should quickly weaken while it moves over the mountainous terrain of Central America. Eta has slowed and is now moving southwestward or 245/06 kt. There is no significant change to previous track forecast reasoning. A mid-level ridge over the south-central United States should steer Eta west-southwestward toward the coast of Nicaragua with the hurricane making landfall early Tuesday. After landfall, Eta should turn westward and then west-northwestward, and move across Central America through Thursday. Eta's low-level circulation may not survive its passage over the mountainous terrain of Central America, but most of the global models continue to depict a cyclone or its remnants moving over the northwestern Caribbean Sea by late-week and into the weekend. Therefore, the new NHC track forecast continues to show the system emerging over the northwestern Caribbean late in the period, although this portion of the track forecast remains uncertain. Since Eta is likely to be a very slow-moving system after it makes landfall in Central America, torrential rains and flooding will be a major threat. Key Messages: 1. Catastrophic wind damage is expected where Eta's eyewall moves onshore along the northeastern coast of Nicaragua tonight or early Tuesday. Tropical storm force winds are beginning to reach the coast within the Hurricane Warning area in Nicaragua, and residents there should have completed their preparations. A Tropical Storm Warning is also in effect for the northeastern coast of Honduras. 2. A catastrophic and life-threatening storm surge, along with destructive waves, are expected along portions of the northeastern coast of Nicaragua near and to the north of where the center makes landfall. Water levels could reach as high as 14 to 21 feet above normal tide levels in some parts of the hurricane warning area. Preparations to protect life and property should now be complete. 3. Through Friday evening, heavy rainfall from Eta will likely lead to catastrophic, life-threatening flash flooding and river flooding across portions of Central America, along with landslides in areas of higher terrain. Flash and river flooding is also possible across Jamaica, southeast Mexico, El Salvador, southern Haiti, and the Cayman Islands. FORECAST POSITIONS AND MAX WINDS INIT 03/0300Z 14.1N 82.7W 130 KT 150 MPH 12H 03/1200Z 13.9N 83.3W 140 KT 160 MPH 24H 04/0000Z 13.9N 84.0W 90 KT 105 MPH...INLAND 36H 04/1200Z 13.9N 85.0W 45 KT 50 MPH...INLAND 48H 05/0000Z 14.3N 86.3W 30 KT 35 MPH...INLAND 60H 05/1200Z 14.8N 87.8W 25 KT 30 MPH...POST-TROP/REMNT LOW 72H 06/0000Z 15.4N 88.7W 30 KT 35 MPH...POST-TROP/REMNT LOW 96H 07/0000Z 16.8N 87.9W 30 KT 35 MPH...POST-TROP/REMNT LOW 120H 08/0000Z 17.9N 85.3W 40 KT 45 MPH $$ Forecaster Stewart NNNN
  19. Welp. They went 150mph and 927mb. They do call for it to become a cat 5 before landfall.
  20. I'd put it at a low cat 5. I think if they don't go cat 5, they'll probably say, they expect it to become a cat 5. Then again I also said 917 and revised to 912 and 150kts, so I'm not trustworthy right now. Oof.
  21. Correction. 928mb. Vortex Data Message: 691 URNT12 KNHC 030242 VORTEX DATA MESSAGE AL292020 A. 03/02:16:00Z B. 14.10 deg N 082.55 deg W C. 700 mb 2469 m D. 928 mb E. 090 deg 17 kt F. CLOSED G. C6 H. 124 kt I. 346 deg 3 nm 02:15:00Z J. 076 deg 123 kt K. 352 deg 5 nm 02:14:30Z L. 130 kt M. 190 deg 4 nm 02:17:30Z N. 280 deg 137 kt O. 193 deg 5 nm 02:18:00Z P. 10 C / 3051 m Q. 21 C / 2995 m R. -4 C / NA S. 12345 / 07 T. 0.02 / 0.5 nm U. AF304 0429A ETA OB 07 MAX FL WIND 137 KT 193 / 5 NM 02:18:00Z ;
  22. It feels like the entire site is on this thread. 116 members are currently viewing this. How many guests? 1000? I sure am glad to have something else to focus on right now to, ya know, what's going on right now. Theteam reported a north eyewall minimum pressure of 929mb. This likely means the central pressure is 923-925mb.
×
×
  • Create New...