LocoAko

Fantastic. Thanks for all your hard work Brett!

Not sure if this is the right thread for this, but yikes. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/04/california-natural-gas-leak-methane-climate-change-old-infrastructure?CMP=share_btn_tw

So banter == trolling, then?

Not Arctic, but thought I'd share. http://news.agu.org/press-release/satellite-data-shows-u-s-methane-hot-spot-bigger-than-expected/

1: You can always use MUCAPE. Typically, without an inversion, the most-unstable CAPE will be equal to the surface-based CAPE, since surface parcels will have the highest instability. MUCAPE is typically used for overnight/elevated convection just because it is in those instances where the SBCAPE can be most misleading, so to speak. 2: I'm not really sure how to answer this question, but I think the answer is no. Usually when referencing the cap "breaking", people are referring to surface parcels breaching the CIN and ascending past through LFC. Elevated instability, seen via the MUCAPE, can exist above the cap and generate convection regardless of any cap. 3 & 4: MUCAPE and MLCAPE are different ideas addressing different issues. MUCAPE is used when there may be inversions limiting the extent of surface-based instability, but where instability may exist above this inversion. It only seeks to locate the maximum CAPE possible lifting any parcel. MLCAPE, on the other hand, is the CAPE found when the lifted parcel has the conditions of the average lowest 100 mb of the atmosphere. This is done to obtain more realistic CAPE values, as due to low-level mixing a parcel will typical not have the conditions of the lowest (ground) level but will be representative of the lowest ~100mb or so of the atmosphere. Often, temperatures will be superadiabatic right at ground level (and therefore deceptively high compared to the T a parcel would have), and moisture pooling will often exist in the lowest data point, whereas a parcel would be much more thoroughly mixed. Therefore, MUCAPE isn't inherently more unstable than MLCAPE.... it depends on the atmospheric situation at play. As per #3, MLCAPE can be the most unstable if the atmospheric conditions allow for it, but it isn't always the case. Check out this sounding showing elevated instability: As you can see, the parcel ascending from 940mb has quite a bit of positive buoyancy and CAPE (and would be considered MUCAPE, as it is not surface-based and is the parcel with the most CAPE out of any in the sounding). In contrast, the MLCAPE, taken by using the average parcel conditions in the lowest ~100mb, would be T=~15C and Td=~4C, and would not result in very much MLCAPE, and certainly less so than the MUCAPE. Keep in mind that MUCAPE will lift parcels from anywhere in the sounding to find the one that is the most unstable, while MLCAPE is essentially surface-based CAPE, except that the "surface-based" parcel has the average conditions in the lowest ~100mb as opposed to the true "surface" values.

The debate over whether global warming is occurring - yes. I haven't seen any scientists claim we know everything about everything. Come on now.

The bolded is definitely the case (I see it with my friends all the time). I guess I mostly don't care what a lot of alarmists or deniers say, so when I hear statements like this, I think of the scientific community. In that sense, I take "the science is settled" to clearly mean that we ARE warming and it IS anthropogenically-induced, but I don't hear people claim we know everything.

I keep seeing this brought up as some sort of talking point, but who has stated that we "know all"? Seriously.

Yup. Plus the 1-in-1000 year stuff isn't really even related to CC, it's just a statistical measure.

See edit above. I believe the extra is 91F on April 16th.

Adding New Brunswick, NJ through today: 90 degree days: 17 (April: 1, May: 2, June: 6, July: 8) 89 degree days: 1

Seconded suggestion for this book! Great, comprehensive resource for all things mesoscale.

I'm not positive on this, but I don't actually think it is the vertical stacking of the lows that causes the "eye" - or it is, but not always. When lows vertically stack it signals the occlusion process happening and the ceasing of much further strengthening. All cyclones eventually vertically stack and occlude, but clearly not all cyclones have "eyes". I think the eye formation process has more to do with the frontal structure and occlusion process of some cyclones vs. others. Shapiro-Keyser style cyclones are much more likely to develop an eye (and are also more likely to develop over water, and hence affect the EC region with snow) due to the progression of the warm front. Anyway, this may be a technicality from what you wrote, so I apologize if I'm simply repeating what you've said. http://weatherfaqs.org.uk/node/98

Seconded. Got this book for Christmas and it is great. I'd already taken Synoptic Meteorology as a class, and this book helped clarify a lot for me since, despite the math, the focus is not on derivations but is very conceptual. Dr. Lackmann seems great at explaining things like this. More specifically, he explains potential vorticity and its applications better than I've ever seen elsewhere. Great stuff.

Secondary ageostrophic circulations FTW! You have a knack for explaining things well and you having saved graphics from past storms really makes the posts enlightening. Good stuff.

Dr. Francis!

Well both our synoptic and mesoscale courses have extremely heavy focuses on forecasting (we're required to forecast every day, write summaries if we bust, use GEMPAK to forecast, etc.) but I'm not going to claim that when you graduate with a B.S. that you're a "good" forecaster just because you earned a BS and I think you know that wouldn't be true too - that was my point.

I think you'd be surprised at how little forecasting there is in undergrad. I mean, it is there, but it isn't a primary focus. I gather most forecasting skills are picked up along the way (using the knowledge you gained in school) and on-the-job. I know that even at bigger programs like Penn State, while graduate school is obviously researched-focused, they even have forecasting classes at the graduate level. So don't get too down about it.

I noticed that they didn't specifically state it was 'in the field'. I wonder if that is to be implied or not? If it isn't, then I can easily see why meteorologists are so highly employed. And yeah, boo to petroleum engineering. If we were interested in that we would have gone into it... The end.

That and Biomedical Engineering. Would have assumed that was a big up-and-coming thing. Poor Studio Art. For the average salary, I wonder if Meteorology should be included under Physical Sciences. ~$69,000 is certainly not bad....

Saw an interesting "Infographic" posted this morning.... Note: Meteorologists/Atmospheric Scientists are listed as having a near-100% employment rate and is the 10th most employed field.

Not only do people not know (or sometimes care?) what the difference is between a watch and a warning, but I think some of the media does an awful job of communicating it. Example: My very first day here in Oklahoma last Saturday, a supercell erupted to our SE in Ada that had a tornado warning, and there were other storms around that had severe thunderstorm warnings associated with them. To my surprise, the scroll on the bottom of the screen on the local news (in Oklahoma of all places!) simply said "...A severe thunderstorm has been issued for _____". Seriously?