Mallow

13 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

Strong El Nino's warm the planet, this leads to a warmer Arctic. A warmer Arctic winter leads to less sea ice volume which makes it more susceptible to melt. Lingering planetary warmth leads to a slow recovery this fall. If we didn't have the strong el nino that peaked last winter/early spring I doubt the sea ice would have been so low in the winter-spring time frame and recovery slow this fall.   

Again, please show me the observational studies or data which suggest that El Niños are strongly correlated to low Arctic sea ice. I am not aware of such a linkage. Warmer global temperatures during El Niño are mostly associated with elevated SSTs in the tropics and midlatitudes (especially the tropics). As far as I am aware, there is not a strong correlation between ENSO and overall Arctic sea ice.

Indeed, a cursory glance shows that some of the strongest El Niño events in recent record (1982-1983 and 1997-1998) were not followed by particularly anomalous Arctic sea ice minima (1983 was near or even slightly above the average of the time, and 1998 was below the average of the time, but not remarkably so). Other moderate El Niño events such as 1986-1987, 1987-1988, and 1991-1992, were followed by anomalously high Arctic sea ice minima for their time. Furthermore, the extremely anomalous 2012 sea ice minimum record was preceded not by an El Niño, but by a La Niña.

El Niño is not associated with reduced Arctic sea ice in general. Indeed, over the Barents and Kara Seas region, based upon my own research, enhanced central Pacific equatorial convection is associated with reduced temperatures and increased sea ice. The effects of ENSO on Arctic sea ice vary from region to region, and I am unaware of any recent study that shows (in observations) that there is a strong correlation between ENSO and overall Arctic sea ice.

As for the statement "there is nothing unusual about our current climate," if one is comparing our current climate to that of recent centuries, one could not be further from the truth. But that point has been rehashed repeatedly and can be easily researched with a small bit of time and effort.

1 hour ago, pazzo83 said:

Holy sh*t - that end of year max is just not there this year for global sea ice:

 

Yep. As far as I could tell, this is the only year on record that the NH summer peak in global sea ice was higher than the NH autumn peak. I couldn't find one in the past that was even close.

11 minutes ago, csnavywx said:

The SAM went negative, so that's helped, but it doesn't explain everything.

Pure speculation mode:

I was wondering if there was a link with the Super Nino earlier this year. However, we didn't see this kind of response in 1998, so I'm having a hard time reconciling that.

The big coastal polynyas this year might hold a clue. More warm CDW being directed at the continental margins would explain that.

But why would that show up as polynyas in all the basins at once this year, and not in any previous year? Not even a hint...

3 minutes ago, pazzo83 said:

Is it possible that there those record levels in the Antarctic over the past couple years were only in coverage and not necessarily volume (as in, the ice was more widespread but demonstrably thinner)?

I think that was the general consensus. It's just so strange to me that it would seem so steady, and then suddenly collapse. Perhaps feedbacks are more important down there than I realized.

19 minutes ago, pazzo83 said:

Meanwhile in Antarctica, a big ol' WTF

 

Wow... that has to be an error, doesn't it? That would be like if NYC's record high and low for a date were 80°F and 40°F respectively, and then they go and record an 18°F.

50 minutes ago, Bacon Strips said:

 

From monitoring coronal hole data for decades, it is 'not' normal.   The size of these holes.  Even during solar minimums in the past.

There is no conspiracy here. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence--anecdotes based on memory are about the weakest form of evidence one could present. In other words, you're going to have to present data (again, not anecdotes, but real, comparative data) which support your claims in order for people to take your hypothesis more seriously.

14 hours ago, skierinvermont said:

It's also worth mentioning that square depictions of the earth from the north pole (sorry don't know the cartography term) greatly exaggerate the size of arctic ocean relative to the lower latitudes. Those negative anomalies over Asia encompass an area several times the arctic ocean.

That's not entirely true. The projection shown in that temperature plot looks like a polar stereographic projection, which is much better than, say, a mercator or equirectangular projection when looking at the accuracy of polar regions.

Could this be the first time on record that the global SIA peak happened in June rather than Oct/Nov?

On November 8, 2016 at 9:23 PM, tacoman25 said:

I've reiterated it twice for you. Three times is not necessary.

 

No, sorry I wasn't clear with that post. I cited "record fastest freeze", but I wasn't the one claiming it was significant. Same with high points in the fall. And I never dismissed volume decline. Make more sense now? I promise, if you and others get rid of your assumptions about me, it will make things easier to understand.

Welcome to CO, by the way! I didn't know you'd moved here.

I don't understand the point of your original post in any context. You seem to be trying to call people out on their hypocrisy, but when people tell you they never said those things, all you say is "well I know some people said them." Okay? And some people say the Earth is flat... so... If you're going to call someone out on their hypocrisy, please be more specific about WHO said what before (a quote, preferably), and WHAT that same person is saying now that's inconsistent with their previous positions. Otherwise, you're doing the same thing you're claiming others of doing--basing your arguments on your own memories or assumptions about what other people believe.

On NSIDC, we're now below 2011, and almost tied with 2007 for second lowest on record.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

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.