chris87

The price is a bit steep, but I highly recommend this newer book on synoptic meteorology:

https://secure.ametsoc.org/amsbookstore/viewProductInfo.cfm?productID=81

Even though intended for met students, I think the examples provided with mathematical/physics content makes it pretty easy to digest for someone with an interest in meteorology.

I guess the easiest way would be to create a thread for red taggers to post in where they can post images of model runs with descriptions of what it is showing. Once the initial "show and tell" is over with, people could ask questions if they don't understand what the met was saying.

Though, it could be time consuming for an already busy met.

What Adam did for me was he would find an hour on the model run, have me open the four-panel images and describe what it was doing and how to see the differences between a current run and the previous run. It was really helpful.

Some good points...it's an obvious concern that most of us tend to be busy and interesting weather doesn't always coincide with down time at work. Also, it can be hard to convey all the information visually, while having a conversation with someone can be so much more efficient...so I'm not sure the best way to go forward but I'm sure we can find some middle ground which is beneficial to the community.

This thread is great - something I would love to see in the future are more in depth explanations of threats and all the pieces involved so those of us who don't fully grasp all the working parts are able to look at a model and figure out what is going on.

am19psu was doing that for me last week with the snow threat, he broke it down for me piece by piece, and after a few model runs I was able to see the different players myself.

This is a great idea...I suggested something similar back in the banter thread but didn't get any responses from Mods/Admin about developing a system where mets/other qualified people provide a detailed map discussion during impact events (both cold/warm season) and are then available for a moderated question/answer session.

I think we have enough people interested in providing the discussion that it wouldn't fall on just a few, and I'm sure we have plenty interested in participating on the other end.

It's a broad idea and I'm not sure the best way to implement it, but that can be opened up to others for suggestions?

Wow, I was uncomfortable reading the couple of posts before this one, but this takes it to a whole different level...

First, most people haven't met too many operational forecasters of Asian descent because you've never left the United States. I imagine you could take a walk through the JMA/CMA and if you're lucky, you'd be able to find countless operational forecasters of Asian descent.

Second, "just that generally the rule is good in math and theory, terrible forecaster....good forecaster, terrible with the math and theory", this may be true on some accounts, although it is likely the result that someone has no interest in forecasting, then it is that they are "terrible at it".

I hold a BS in meteorology, a MS in atmospheric science and a PhD in atmospheric science. This does not preclude me from being a more able operational forecaster than you, if I ever chose to take a job as an operational forecaster, I am more than confident I could provide a service which met or exceeded the expectations of my employer...whomever it would be.

Fortunately, operational forecasters have people that you have so elegantly described as "conceptually and socially inept", because we are the ones who spend the countless hours developing the tools (i.e. numerical weather prediction models, advanced data assimilation systems, designing and developing algorithms for remote sensing platforms) that make your job as an operational forecaster easier. Next time you sit down at your station I promise you 99% of the tools you use to make your forecast were developed by someone with an advanced degree.

I wouldn't even focus on him being stereotypical of the Asian students per say...just that generally the rule is good in math and theory, terrible forecaster....good forecaster, terrible with the math and theory...not always true but true more than 50% of the time...whether its 50.01%, 88.9%, 63.5% etc. I don't know but I'd bet the house its over a 50% correlation for sure.....the smartest people unfortunately often have trouble grasping very basic concepts and social skills...I have such a hard time understanding how someone can be unable at the age of 30 or 40 to hold a 5 minute normal conversation but sadly many PhDs out there in ALL fields, not just meteorology do.