Mallow

If you assume linear trend dominates, then yes. I don't assume that...I am more of a fan of a gompertz-esque shape to the decline given the negative volume feedback.

 

The theory is...once we flushed a lot of the multi-year ice out through the mid-2000s, the icepack stabilizes to some extent because we re-enter each melt season with very similar thickness distribution because winter temps are not yet high enough to drastically affect thermodynamic thickening....and that becomes a more dominant driver of ice thickness as we lose multi-year ice.

 

 

You'll notice how the thicknesses are closely clustered entering each season after the loss of much of the remaining multi-year ice in the mid-2000s.

 

 

 

Here is ice growth rate by thickness:

 

 

 

 

Ice growth is very slow once we reach about 1.5-2 meters. So we need to warm the winters to the point where ice is having trouble achieving >1.5 meters or so. Right now, we are easily cold enough in winters to get there, so I favor a much slower decline until that point is reached.

 

In addition, I am also a believer that a significant portion of the arctic warming from the late 1980s/early 1990s to the mid/late 2000s was aided by natural variability. Given the drastic cooling of the N ATL the past 2-3 years, I think the warming rate will continue to be slower than that period for the next decade or two.

 

 

 

 

So that is a summation of why I am not simply extracting the linear trend going forward. Of course, I could be wrong...we won't have to wait all that long to find out.

Indeed, we'll find out pretty soon! For the second-to-last paragraph, that's why I also included the data back to 1979. That trend line is tempered strongly by the 1979-1995 "slower melt" period, and yet it still suggests your bolded comments are too extreme.

I think you ascribe too much to the negative feedbacks at the expense of the positive (albedo/oceanic heat content) feedbacks. Both could be important, and I don't think it's reasonable to assume the trend line will change so drastically based on conjecture of which feedbacks are most important.

Including all the data, chubbs is right about 2018:

Will's predictions still seem pretty out there to me, even with all the data.

I voted for 2019-2020 for beating 2012...but 2017-2018 wouldn't surprise, nor would 2026-2030.

 

I voted for beating 2013 again in 2021-2025...but that was more the range in which I still think it is viable to beat 2013...not that it will necessarily occur during those years. It could happen from '16-'20 too.

 

The short term trends in the arctic can be very volatile and the more we learn about it, the more we keep realizing how much it can swing. The warming will take until the 2030s to really start overcoming the negative volume feedback, so at anytime we could have a coldish summer and put up another 2013....esp if we are retaining some multi-year ice in the winter....one of the things that failed to happen in the 2007-2012 period. The flushing of multi-year ice during that period was very strong.

Both of these are pretty extreme, especially the second one.

I voted "Not in our lifetime" for the second question, but if it does happen, it will be sometime between 2016 and 2020.

How about this poll?

 

Will we next see a min (NSIDC) that:

 

1) is below 2012

 

or

 

2) is above 2013

Added.

Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised for anything from 2016 to 2022 or so. Beyond 2023 would shock me.

Your best guess.

think about all the tornado warnings we see compared to the number of tornadoes...much more warnings.

http://www.nws.noaa.gov/cfo/program_planning/doc/FY-2009%20NOAA's%20NWS%20National%20Performance%20Measures%20-%20Graph%20Update.pdf

FAR for tornadoes in 2008 was 75%.

It is somewhere in the neighborhood of 75%.

That's higher than I expected (I wonder if a decent percentage of those are just tornadoes that were never reported 'cause they happened in sparsely populated areas?)... but not so high that you should say "oh it's just another tornado warning". Even one in four is pretty scary odds for a tornado.

Obviously you all know this, but it's a matter of getting this notion to the general public. Just because you've been tornado warned before and didn't personally see anything doesn't mean you shouldn't take the next one seriously.

I think the FAR for tornado warnings is higher than 50%. I thought I remember something like 80 or 90%, but I could be wrong.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was a little higher than 50%, but I'd be surprised if it was that high.

Semi-related to the warnings, on the TDC show about the April outbreak in MS/AL/GA, a pastor at a small church in Mississippi said he paid no mind to the sirens because they had gone off several times the previous couple of days.

If the science can improve to not only lengthen the lead time, but also reduce false positives, lives will be saved. What may appear the path of least regret, sounding the alarm on a weak signal, may ultimately do more harm than good.

I have no idea if this was an issue in Joplin.

And 15 minutes probably wouldn't be enough time to move all the sick and injured at the regional medical center from their rooms, which all presumably had windows.

Often, "false alarms" aren't false at all. Just because your house (or church) didn't get hit by a tornado when you heard the tornado siren doesn't mean there wasn't a tornado or good reason for the warning. There is a concerted effort to avoid "sounding the alarm on a weak signal". "Weak signal" is a pretty ill-defined term, though. I would venture to guess (out of my a**) that the number of "false positives" is less than 50%, which means if you hear a tornado siren, there's probably an associated tornado. The issue may be that the public doesn't necessarily realize that a confirmed warning doesn't mean that everyone who heard the siren got hit by a tornado. Indeed, only a small part of the warning area usually does withstand a direct hit.

I will try to simplify the original rant and some of the comments and advice from others:

1. Get an advanced degree. Plan to go to grad school.

2. Get a student internship or something similar. Getting your foot in the door and making "inside connections" is an obvious plus. This is one of those things that people love having, but people who don't have it often get very frustrated about it.

3. Make yourself marketable. Every applicant to every meteorology job has a meteorology degree. If that's all you have, then you don't have anything. Do you know GIS? Do you know Java or Python (Is there a class or classes offered at your school? Take them! But a whole big double major in comp sci isn't necessary, IMO). Are you proficient in Unix (again, take a class)? How about leadership? Are you president of your local AMS Chapter (volunteer to take on a role, any role)? Did you help some boy scouts get their meteorology merit badges? What about social science? That's a bigger one than most people would imagine, but you'd probably need some help from someone "in the know" about how to effectively market yourself with that particular combination. Any of those things are great, and you don't need all of them. IMO, a math degree is pretty much useless if you looking to get ahead for a forecasting position. Forecasters don't do math. Ask yourself if you are supplementing your met degree with something practical. Meteorology is cross-disciplinary.

4. Prove your ambition. This can be grouped with item 2, but is also separate. Did you do any research as an undergraduate? It's even better if it was published or presented. It's not as if you have to be the first author or even the presenter. Your professors are well-entrenched in the world of academia. More than likely, they could use someone to do some grunt work for them for their research. If you're a quality student, they'd probably trust you to do it or at least trust you to help. During your time in the meteorology department, do you have anything to show for yourself besides a piece of paper that says "B.S. in Meteorology"?

Excellent post, IMHO.

What really gets to me is that in almost every other field that’s as bad as meteorology in these ways the truth about it is well known and accepted. For example, I have a close relative who pursued a career as a trombone player and he was well warned about what he was getting into and how bad it can be finding a job and making good pay as a musician. But in meteorology the difference in what the perception is (lots of great jobs and opportunities) vs. the reality (few jobs) is greater than in almost any other field. People are always hyping up the “growth in the private sector” and all the new opportunities that will present themselves due to concern about climate change and severe weather / hurricanes. This continues to draw more unsuspecting people into the field and then the problem gets even worse. The truth needs to be told and then people can decide for themselves. That’s all I’m saying.

Maybe that's where our difference in opinion lies. I have been told all along that jobs are relatively few and far between. Did your school tell you otherwise? Or perhaps someone else?

This, but more grammatically correct

I lol'd at the "forced into the private sector" part, like it was some sort of despicable evil.

Nearly all mets. work odd hours even into middle-aged or older years unless they land a top job or go into management. I happen to love my 2:30am-11:30am schedule because I get the afternoon off to do shopping when everyone's at work or I can go storm chasing

I'd like to get some data on the 21-25k salary range with poor raises, as I am rather skeptic about those figures. Maybe in certain companies...

The second to last paragraph about how everything's getting automated and that you need less forecasters to do the job is complete bull.

I'd like to hear what qualifies you to make all of the statements in your original post.

While it is still difficult to get a met job for those starting out, you'll have to make some sacrifices like living somewhere that you didn't want to or starting out in a part-time position, but if you really do like the weather and forecasting then stick with it.

This.

The original post is hyperbole, IMO. It has some basis in truth, sure (the met field can be a tough one to get started in), but I think the poster had some personal experiences that are making it seem worse than it actually is.