Msalgado

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.

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.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/science/2015-climate-study-data.html?_r=0

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?

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

The phrase you're looking for is map projection.

Oh no doubt in your mind? Well that settles it. Lets go boys, lets pack up science and go home. Blizzard1024 has got this.

Are you really trying the he started it defense?

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.

Seriously just stop. Or take it to PMs. But no one else cares.

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.

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..

Do you think they're lying?

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.

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.

You know, if you want to do atmospheric sciences a good route is always to do something like CS in undergrad then pursue atmospheric sciences in a grad program. A CS or engineering undergrad opens up more doors than an atmospheric sciences undergrad and gives you backup options. I'm doubling up and getting an environmental sciences degree and a BS in Geography for the GIS background. GIS is exploding and no matter what that will give me options.

Not trying to be rude but why do you feel the need to explain this over and over? I think most here understand the concept quite well.

Thanks! I thought it would be harder than it actually has been but it turns out that having a supportive family combined with 10 years more experience than the average student around you actually gives you a bit of a leg up on the situation.

By half? I guess those are the first type of positions to go during budget cuts. I will be done in about a year and a half (with a GPA upwards of 3.5 if all goes well) so I'm hoping that grad school prospects won't be dim for me. As I stated earlier though, I'm not dead set on atmospheric sciences any longer. Where did you end up and how many applications did you put out if you don't mind me asking?

LOL What I meant by my statement was not that all mets did poorly in math courses but that the number of openings compared to the number of graduates was not in our favor as has been pointed out in this thread. I will say this, however. I'm never worried what a potential employer will think of my transcripts. However, I do want to present the best transcript possible for my graduate school applications and I don't plan on having Ds in any core classes. I don't think many Mets should be thinking of a B.S. as a terminal degree, but thats just my opinion.

I'm currently a non traditional student (returned to school at 28 - now 30 years old working on my first B.S.) and I can tell you that after 10 years of working in corporate America and running my own businesses that there is no such thing as a slam dunk manner in which to attain employment. It is hard out there and its a grind for the vast majority of people so it should come as no surprise that this is the case with recent graduates of meteorology programs. The math for incoming graduates if obviously poor. There is no way around that. The fact remains, as many people in this thread have stated, that although there are many graduates that doesn't mean you have to place yourself as an average graduate. There are so many ways to distinguish yourself amount the job seekers from the obvious of doing well in your classes and getting excellent grades to doing your best to network and meet people. Attend every conference you can as an undergrad and meet people there. Help out with research at your institution in any way you can and seek out opportunities such as internships. The results in your job search are largely a function of the kind of work you put into yourself before the job search even begins. When returning to school, my plan as to get a B.S. in Atmospheric Sciences but unfortunately my significant other attained employment in an area with no schools offering an undergrad AS degree. That forced my hand into entering an Environmental Science program but in the end I think I may come out all the better for it. That being said, my end game was never going to be the B.S. but at the very least an M.S. although a PhD is really what I would like to attain. I assume that I'm like many of you who post/read on this board. I have a huge desire to understand the atmosphere but I'm not limited to interest in that field. I have quite a bit of desire to learn about many aspects of all earth/physical sciences and if I have to be pragmatic in the end and choose a route outside of atmospheric science but within the general realm of earth science I don't think I'll skip a beat. Ultimately its a scary time to be looking for a job in any profession.