Jump to content

Msalgado

Members
  • Posts

    758
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Msalgado

Profile Information

  • Four Letter Airport Code For Weather Obs (Such as KDCA)
    KCLL
  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location:
    College Station, TX

Recent Profile Visitors

1,540 profile views
  1. Yeah I don't disagree at all, which is why I don't think there's going to be much more than an isolated threat unless they're completely wrong on that front. The S shape occuring below 700 mb is never good for low level rotation.
  2. That day had a long lived supercell that went up through Central OK though. What ruined the action own in Texas was ongoing elevate convection that eventually made it to the target area and just grew immediately upscale into an MCS. After that initial convection passed I remember getting a rotating supercell after dark in N Central TX. There are plenty of days where VB profiles still cause supercells. I'd agree that they generally look less than favorable and we probably won't see more than an isolated weak tornado tomorrow though.
  3. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/science/2015-climate-study-data.html?_r=0
  4. Wait, so now Obama is behind this too? Amazing. I never understood the follow the money argument. Scientists - especially those working for government agencies like NOAA, are far from rich. And why does that logic never apply to people like Lamar Smith and his campaign contributions from oil companies? Where's the critical thinking here?
  5. Lamar Smith being full of it per usual. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/02/07/as-the-planet-warms-doubters-launch-a-new-attack-on-a-famous-climate-change-study/?postshare=2341486495736205&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.69af8fecbdbf
  6. The phrase you're looking for is map projection.
  7. Oh no doubt in your mind? Well that settles it. Lets go boys, lets pack up science and go home. Blizzard1024 has got this.
  8. Are you really trying the he started it defense?
  9. This isn't an argument about data. Its semantics. There's no debate about what is being done to the data gathered but rather an argument over what to call it with no real change on what is being done. I will say this: It should be damn obvious its not simply an average.
  10. Seriously just stop. Or take it to PMs. But no one else cares.
  11. GFS looking like we might have at least one more round of stuff next weekend here in Texas. I have a research field campaign that will likely start the following week so I'm hoping this pans out for one last hurrah this season.
  12. This is total crap, IMO. A science board has no room for opinions that can't be supported by fact. Its not about tit for tat. I am not calling for anyone to be banned, but your admittedly post that you're viewpoint isn't supported by science. So then why is that your view? I am capable of scrolling past your ridiculous posts and 95% of the time I do. I've learned that you offer nothing to this discussion and not once has one of your posts helped me understand anything. But what really gets me is your "get in line with my way of thinking OR ELSE" mindset. You're terrible at convincing others of your viewpoint with facts - likely because, by your own admission, they don't exist - so instead you try to ridicule and shame people. There is nothing scientific about that tactic..
  13. I'm preparing a paper for publication (My FIRST!) that shows increased levels of evaporation effecting stream flow out west due to temperature increase that is from climate change. Droughts have occurred before and will continue to occur but the simple fact is that increased temperatures due to climate change are going to make these droughts worse. Its already affecting the water supplies in a region that is hard pressed to meet the demands of its population. I really don't see how there's any debate here that climate change makes the situation worse. THAT is why its always brought up in these situations.
  14. One of the reasons Siberia and Alaska seem to "stick out more" is because of the way the data is displayed. The map projections used for many of these maps are always going to make high latitude locations seem much larger than places closer to the equator but that is just an artifact of how the data is projected.
×
×
  • Create New...