wxmanmitch

On 7/23/2017 at 2:47 PM, weathafella said:

Yeah plan B is fly to Denver, check in somewhere and sleep till midnight then get up and allow enough time to get to Casper-normally a drive under 4 hours but leaving midnight allows for nearly 10.  

Incidentally the car rentals are also expensive but Costco at least keeps it within some reason.  I just booked a car for $150 for 2 days out of BNA.

You might want to make this plan A if it's not too costly to do so. Flight to DEN is may be more than flight to BNA, but odds of clear weather is worth it for me. I chose my location based on climatology, road network, and trip cost. Eastern Oregon doesn't have as good a road network and would be much more costly to fly and drive to.

April 8, 2024 is a long time to wait. Lots can happen between now and then. Besides early April weather is iffy at best around these parts. Next totality in this country after 2024 is August 23, 2044 and then August 12, 2045. The 2044 eclipse will only be visible from MT and ND near sunset. The 2045 eclipse will be an absolute beast with over 6 minutes of totality and a ~170 mile wide totality path, meaning near total darkness near path center.

I too have an eclipse chase booked. Flying to Denver and then renting a car to drive up into Wyoming where totality is as I like their 85-90% odds of clear skies. The fact that totality is just before noon local time helps as well.

My hotel is a bit north of Denver as I waited until last week to book and pretty much in Wyoming is sold out and probably has been for a long time. Inventory is pretty low in such a rural state, so I was pretty much limited to metro Denver. 

One thing to consider if chasing the eclipse by car is traffic, both heading to it and then returning. I will likely be leaving my hotel in the middle of night to make the 200+ mile trek up to totality in Wyoming. Ordinarily it's about 3.5 hour drive from where my hotel is to Casper, but I will likely allow double time (maybe more) and make adjustments as necessary based on traffic conditions which can be monitored on Google maps. Plus, Casper will likely be crowded so I need to get there with plenty of time to find parking and a viewing location.

If for some reason there looks to be clouds or wildfire smoke, I may head east toward Nebraska as an alternative. Denver gives me options in the off chance that the weather looks iffy. 

This website uses population statistics and GIS to try and predict where traffic might be bad. Hint: avoid Santee, SC. https://www.greatamericaneclipse.com/statistics/

Wyoming has a low population density so hopefully traffic won't be a big problem. I actually might be more concerned about return traffic as everyone is more likely to leave their eclipse location en masse as opposed to beforehand when people will likely be going there over the course of a couple of days. Have extra food, water, and patience on hand. Keeping the gas tanked topped off just in case might be a good idea too. 

I saw the 1994 eclipse from SW CT and it got slightly darker, even though it was just partial there. From that day forward, I've been looking forward to this eclipse. The Christmas Day 2000 partial eclipse didn't cause any darkness but I remember glancing up at the sun instantaneously a few times an noting that part of it was obscured. I have glasses for this chase. I'm both anxious and excited for this.

Those are interesting totals...when I made my map years ago, there was a thin stripe of <=18" totals down the Housatonic Valley. I think Lanesboro had 18" and Great Barrington had 13". I never did find a Pittsfield number as they stopped reporting snow in 1970 at their site. I would suspect Pittsfield did ok since they are above 1,000 feet, but 30 inches would surprise me a bit. The Stockbridge coop discontinued in 1985 and Adams in 1978, so unfortunately nothing official there.

 

The Kocin Book has what looks to be 13" in AQW, but can't say for sure that is where the number comes from since it isn't labeled on those maps. He does have a couple 48" amounts on what looks like the spine of the Berkshires...I never found those totals (best I found was 44.5"), but they are probably pretty accurate given what we know about that storm.

Unless the 30" Pittsfield measurement was taken above 1500' in Pittsfield State Forest, it may have been taken in a drift or something. 30" seems a little high for a downslope spot. The 18" in Lanesboro (just north of Pittsfield at similar elevation) is more reasonable as does the 13" in Great Barrington as both COOPs seem to be pretty reliable. Too bad the one in Lenox Dale doesn't go back that far.

As for the 36" in Adams, I don't know. Mt. Greylock is in Adams, so maybe it was taken at some elevation, but 36" seems high for town which is 800' and downslopes badly. 15-20", perhaps 18-24", is more likely from the Pittsfield to Adams corridor. QPF began to decrease a bit heading toward the VT line, which may, at least in part, help to explain the lower total at AQW. The snow was cement, so it obviously had some considerable staying power despite a mild pattern if I remember a fair amount of snow around these parts at Christmas that year.

I don't know about their accuracy, but here are some totals I found of the December 1992 storm in this area (source: http://www.cbs6albany.com/weather/features/past-notable-storms/).

It looks like there was considerable spillover into the Berkshire Valley if these totals are to be believed as Adams and Pittsfield are typically both notorious downslope spots in E flow. However, with such a strong LLJ it's likely Froude numbers were high enough to allow unblocked flow. In addition, there was probably just enough elevation around here that it was snow instead of rain. The Hudson River is pretty much sea level but the Berkshire Valley is generally 800-1200' ASL.

Unfortunately, I was residing in far SW CT at the time and we had heavy rain and wind on day 1 followed by 6" of wet snow on the backside on day 2. However, I remember driving up through Becket around Xmas and they still had about a 30" glacier. Adams must've had ~15", but my memory is a bit foggy as it was long ago. Regardless if they still had that much snow around more than 2 weeks later, then those totals may in fact be legit. 

18z NAM QPF... two large metro areas just destroyed.  A Tolland County nightmare.  The NYC battle is amazing... EURO and NAM going big, a lot of other models going quite low.

 

Just like the E-E rule of the old days. For those who don't know, the predecessor to the NAM was the ETA model, and when it was in agreement with the Euro, look out. BTW, I wish they'd bring the ETA back. A lot more consistent with predictable biases that most could account for.

Even though you're further west, I think you're locale being further south is better situated than up here.

I think we'll both be pretty similar in the end, but you have the advantage of being on the east slope, allowing for the possibility that you'll get some upslope enhancement.

I hope you are right for those of us up here

I hope so too, but I was focusing more on the western part of SNE in my post. Good luck up there. 

FWIW, 18z NAM still gives most of the Berkshires 24"+.

Riding the Euro full steam ahead with this one. It's consistency in bringing big snows into W MA and W CT along with it's solid track record with cold season East Coast storms is hard to ignore.

We'll probably get into a dendrite filled deformation band that slowly rots away during the day tomorrow. While the 30"+ plot that someone posted is probably a bit overdone, a solid 20"+ is a decent bet.

MUCAPE is Most Unstable CAPE. It is most commonly used to assess elevated instability and is useful in forecasting nocturnal thunderstorms when a low level inversion may be present. It can also be useful in forecasting thunderstorms that may occur out ahead of a warm front where low level inversions also tend to be present. Although there are different algorithms to calculate it, MUCAPE typically is found by lifting every layer in the lowest 300 mb of the troposphere and finding the CAPE for each. The layer that produces the highest CAPE value is the MUCAPE.

Here's a good tutorial on MUCAPE: http://theweatherprediction.com/habyhints2/634/

MLCAPE is Mixed Layer CAPE. It is most commonly used to assess instability during the part of the day when the atmosphere is well mixed (i.e. the afternoon) and may provide a more realistic picture of daytime instability than surface based CAPE as it will typically look at the temperature and moisture conditions in the lowest 100 mb of the troposphere. MLCAPE is calculated by averaging temperature and moisture variables in the lowest 100 mb and lifting that layer.

well here's the deal with that...communication is a huge part of being a meteorologist...it's your job to use your knowledge and training to disseminate/communicate information to the general public or clients...

if communication is a weak area for you, then you need to work on it...you may never be the best public speaker or the most eloquent...but you can build adequate skills for what you need to do...in the field of meteorology, it is absolutely imperative you know how to communicate...

not trying to go all psychologist on you...but because you know you have a weakness in communication, it seems like you are hyper aware of your "deficiency" and this leads to a lack of confidence...and a lack of confidence will also hinder your ability to communicate effectively...

if you really truly want to improve, you start off with a basic public speaking class...or join something like Toastmasters...you'll be surprised at how much easier public speaking is once you boost your confidence...

also, it seems as if you need to work on your interviewing skills...this will also improve if you boost your confidence/comfortlevel with verbal communication...it could be that because you don't think you are a good communicator you worry too much while you are trying to communicate and that worry actually gets in the way of you being able to communicate effectively..

here's the deal...i don't usually share this information...but i stutter...and i am painfully aware of how that effects my ability to verbally communicate...in the beginning i passed up some job interviews because i didn't want the interviewer to hear me bumble around like an idiot...and i still remember this horrid interview i had with the USGS EROS Data Center...oh my, i crashed and burned, to the point where i only got through half the interview and they stopped it and said "Thanks but no thanks"

but, this is who i am...i can't make it go away, so i find away to work with it...it will always be a bit harder for me than the rest of the population to verbally communicate, but i can't hide from life...i just have more confidence now...and if i mess up, well, it happens...i just stop, take a breath and start over...

Thanks for your reply. It was much appreciated since I don't feel quite as alone in this regard. As someone with Asperger's, my biggest difficulty is in making small talk and understanding non verbal cues; two things that are critically important in interviews and in the workplace environment, especially one where teamwork is commonplace. The act of "ice breaking" and coming across as friendly and interested in the job are also tough for me. While I am friendly and interested, people may not perceive me that way due to my tendency to monotone and ramble. In an ultra competitive market like meteorology, every brownie point matters. As such, you're right, I probably do need interviewing practice. I need to try and find a place where I may be able to get it.

In addition, many jobs in the field start off with phone interviews since a lot of candidates are applying to positions that are considerable distances away from their present locations. This tactic has also become common in recent years since it is a way for employers to screen through large numbers of candidates quickly. Unfortunately, as I don't hear well either, this is another obstacle. I interviewed for a met job near Boston earlier this year, and it was still on the phone despite that it is within driving distance. Some of these interviews consist of a group of people shooting challenging questions at you (I like to refer to it as the firing squad), and without the ability to attach a name to a face or anticipate what's coming, it's really easy to get nervous, slip up and say the wrong thing.

The key is to know your own strengths and weaknesses. Even though I'm not the best with "people skills" or performing under pressure, I would consider myself a hard worker who is good with analytical problem solving and attention to detail. I'm not sure what, if anything in this field, will capitalize most on my strengths and minimize the effect of my shortcomings. Having no operational met experience, I can't really say whether most jobs in this field would be a good match for me. However, given what I've read on this forum and my inability to break into the field, it may not be.

I moved from the TV and the aviation side of operational forecasting into the energy industry. I've also hired entry level energy trade floor meteorologists in the past. What we looked for was a couple of things: 1) Experience in Forecasting (not necessarily in Energy) 2) Communication 3) How you take Criticism 4) Knowledge of weather models and climate diagnostics....there's obviously other factors but these are the main ones. Communication is so important in energy trading...you just cant be a quiet weather geek behind the desk in this job...the traders will have you for breakfast.

You have to speak your mind...be ready to defend your opinion...and if your'e wrong...be ready to shout out the update before the traders can potentially lose a lot of money of your earlier forecast. You'll need to be able to take the heat and move forward from it. It's a fast paced, challenging atmosphere....but in my opinion it's the best operational weather job out there! So, my point is a minor in business is not really going to help...it's how you present yourself, what experience you have, and even your personality that will set you apart from others.

With that being said, I think there is a future in meteorology and it's going towards the side of how weather affects the markets. I think companies are seeing a lot of profits lost from the risk of severe weather...(ie agriculture, trains, ships, construction, travel operators, the Walmarts, etc, list goes on and on...etc etc). Weather derivatives, weather risk modeling, and long term forecasting for companies is a growing field and I think that's where the future in meteorology is heading. The good news is that we always need Energy regardless of any recession....so this job sector should remain pretty strong going forward too!

AJ

What types of met jobs do you think are best suited for the "quiet weather geek"? I'll be totally honest, verbal communication has never been my strong point, and this has probably hindered my ability to land a job in the field. It seems like what you said is not only true with energy met jobs, but with operational met jobs in general. Unfair as it is, it seems as if many employers value communication ability over talent.

In this economy, not much because when the job market is very poor you rarely find people with degrees too far outside of a career getting jobs in it. In 1999 people with Chemistry degrees were getting hired to work finance jobs because there were not enough people out there with business, marketing, or finance degrees looking for work to fill those jobs, but thats certainly not happening now. Earth Science teacher and environmental science positions are two that I know of where many people with meteorology degrees work, I'm sure there are others too.

Sounds like me (and perhaps others) are pretty much screwed. Maybe I really should go back to college and get a second degree in Computer Science. Time for me to give up the red tag and register under a new username...

Neither the article nor the link to the data in the article specify whether the employment is within the actual field of study or not... I would venture a guess that it applies to any employment and not just within the field.

Yes, BUT does that specifically mean that all of these "employed' mets are currently working as meteorologists, or just working, in any job, period?

I hadn't really thought about interpreting it that way when I first saw this article, but you both may very well be correct. The Georgetown data that was posted seems to suggest this.

Question is, what can one with a meteorology degree do after school that is not related to the field? I'd welcome any degreed meteorologists who are not currently in the field to chime in.

The major trains one for a job in the profession, and it isn't really easy for one to change fields without pursuing additional education at their expense. This is why those already in meteorology school (or considering it) should simultaneously work toward a plan B while in school, or perhaps forgo it altogether for something else if you're not absolutely certain about meteorology as a career choice. In fact, even if you are, a plan B is still a good idea. I did not, and am now dealing with the drawbacks of my prior moves.

I love weather (always have, always will), but was never totally certain about the atmospheric sciences field as a career. Regardless, I followed my passion through a BS and MS in meteorology since I didn't really know what else to do. While I enjoyed the ride and have no regrets, I do wish I had thought about the career aspect of it more seriously. Although I hold my meteorology professors in extremely high regard, I do think that they should've done more to inform students of the reality after school, particularly early on during the course of the major. This may have influenced my decision making back then, something that would've saved me from now scrambling to go through the proper channels to find work in an alternate profession.

I wasn't sure which thread to put this in, but Yahoo news came out with a list of 10 college majors with the lowest unemployment rates. Ironically, atmospheric sciences and meteorology was 9 on the list with a 1.6% unemployment rate. Where or how they came up with this information, I have absolutely no idea. This practically seems blasphemous to me given the number of unemployed mets out there. I'd be more than willing to bet that the actual figure is much higher than 1.6% and that this is simply an example of shoddy journalism. This piece is about as bad as the article US News came out with a while ago stating that mets had an average (or was it median?) salary of 85K, something we all now isn't true. Link to the article:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/10-college-majors-lowest-unemployment-rates-163049193.html

Is your desired area of expertise climate change?

Possibly...I am considering possibly going into the realm of ocean-atmosphere interaction and am looking at some oceanography programs. I can definitely see how climate change could be applied to this topic though. Are the opportunities more numerous in this area? Your response would seem to imply it.

This thread is a pretty discouraging read for anyone trying to enter the field like myself. Unfortunately, I don't have anything good to add to it since I've been looking for a job in the field for a better part of a year without much luck. I'm a case in point that even with an MS degree and some programming background it is still very difficult to break-in. Despite applying for a number of positions and a some interviews, no offers. Due to my lack of success, this leaves me in a position where I will probably have to either train for a new line of work or return to grad school pursue a PhD in the field if I don't land a job soon. This is not where I saw myself several years ago when I began my pursuit of meteorology. Yes, it is my passion, but I wasn't really thinking about the job market in this field when I was entering college.

If I chose to find something else, I may try to go into the computer programming or IT field as this seems to be a field where there are many more opportunities with better compensation than meteorology. I'm not sure if IT certification or an Associate's Degree is enough to land me a job in IT or computer programming, but I can't stay motionless forever. Of course, my other option is to return to grad school to pursue a PhD, provided I can gain admission to a program. Question is, what are the job prospects for someone with a PhD in atmospheric science or related discipline? I was told that it may "open more doors", but if it's still really tough to break in with a PhD, then it may not be worth the effort. However, I enjoy research and programming a lot more than forecasting, so maybe this is in my best interest. Then again, if it doesn't ultimately land me a position such as a postdoc or research job, maybe not.

While I certainly don't want to discourage anyone from pursuing their passions and dreams, please be aware of how competitive getting into this field is. Jobs are scarce and exceedingly difficult to get. Considering the challenge of the meteorology major and the state of the job market in this field, I think that the energy is better invested in another major such as engineering or computer science where there are more opportunities for employment upon graduation.