Application of Meteorology Degree for Storm Chasing

[JamesCaruso]

I think jeff brings up a crucial component to becoming a better chaser and apparently something a meteorology degree can help with: post chase reflection and analysis. It's a very important piece to becoming a more successful chaser but I think it's often overlooked; I know I've been guilty of that. When I used to bust, I would just say oh well, then I would drive home and get on with my life. I wouldn't take the time to think about or analyze what happened. Obviously you don't need a meteorology degree to do this; but, it's a valid point to make.


David, I agree with the importance of post-chase analysis. It frustrates me to no end when I am unable to figure out WHY actual results differed from expectation. Sometimes it is hard to figure out. It also can be hard to get the necessary archived data (particularly surface obs); I know about the SPC archives but those are only there for significant events, not for something that did NOT happen. Also, if I missed something in my forecast I am likely to miss it in the post-mortem also. I have often wished there was a summary of what did or didn't happen that day, written exactly like an SPC convective outlook, only retrospectively instead of prospectively!

Any post-chase analysis routines anyone cares to share? (Mods, feel free to move post if appropriate).

Jim Caruso

 

[James Gustina]

Any post-chase analysis routines anyone cares to share? (Mods, feel free to move post if appropriate).

Looking at the analyzed 00Z upper-air charts as well as the 00Z observed soundings (if there is one nearby) is where I start because I'm usually done for the day by the time those are made available on the SPC analysis tools page. I'm always especially interested in the H7 charts because that seems to be where a lot of problems originate when it comes to Plains setups (veering/weakness of flow, warm mid-level temps, etc.). Doing a hand sfc analysis afterwards on days that particularly baffle me also usually happens to see if I missed a small detail.

On the topic of whether or not a degree helps I'm somewhere between Jeff and Shane on this one. I'm definitely a lot better at diagnostic approaches as a result of some schooling, but I also do notice that a lot of grad students seem to have issues with nitpicking every little issue with a setup (Rozel comes to mind). I think that having a wider breadth of meteorological knowledge from a degree can be really helpful in understanding why things didn't work out, but it also can be a hindrance on more marginal days that take pattern recognition and straight-up experience to figure out.
Example: October 12, 2012 in the panhandle. A decent chunk of metr students sat out in favor of the next day, which turned out to be a garbage-fest in central Oklahoma, because they didn't think the lagging energy would make it out of the four corners in time. End result was one supercell that went up north of Lubbock and spat out some small tornadoes and decent structure before dark.

 

[Mike Johnston]

Seems to me that, like most pursuits, both knowledge and practical experience are necessary. Having or developing a knack for "seeing" things in 4 dimensions (the 3 dimensions of the physical atmosphere + time) may be as or more important than the most elegant of calculus equations. On the other hand, just having an attitude of "what I don't know won't hurt me" seems a bit short-sighted. True, to be a chaser you have to get out there and chase, but some meteorological knowledge (whether acquired formally or by self-study) seems like can only help.

It is somewhat surprising to hear some comments that you can get a B.S. in meteorology without ever taking a forecasting course. Kind of like being able to get a CPA designation without ever taking a course in auditing, taxation, business law, or finance. Odd. At any rate, I do remember reading somewhere that the Air Force was once in such dire need of forecasters, that they offered a 9-month crash course for weather forecasting. Not much later, it took Fawbush and Miller, what, 3 days to come up with a technique for forecasting tornadoes? I guess necessity is sometimes the mother of invention.

 

[rdale]

It is somewhat surprising to hear some comments that you can get a B.S. in meteorology without ever taking a forecasting course. Kind of like being able to get a CPA designation without ever taking a course in auditing, taxation, business law, or finance.

Not odd at all... If you are going into pollution modeling, you really don't need to know how to use the 148hr GFS plots. Every school offers some sort of forecasting course, but even when you do take it you don't walk away knowing it all (as I think you'd say for the CPA)

 

[Shane Adams]

Hesitation and second guessing occurs when you aren't comfortable with your knowledge level.

That might be true with you, but in my case, it occurs when I have too much information. I can understand how most people probably operate like you're describing, but I'm not wired that way. It's much easier to make a plan by myself based on the basic parameters and just stick to it. If I've got 3-4 people and their opinions bouncing off my ears, someone always brings up a point that I wouldn't have thought twice about...but now that I've heard it, it now makes me further consider things I wouldn't have before. I've had the most success by sticking to my plan, keeping things simple.

It's no secret I'm not very knowledgeable when it comes to the science, so there's never been any discomfort with that. I know what I am (and what I am not).

 

[Mike Johnston]

Not odd at all... If you are going into pollution modeling, you really don't need to know how to use the 148hr GFS plots. Every school offers some sort of forecasting course, but even when you do take it you don't walk away knowing it all (as I think you'd say for the CPA)

Yeah, I guess what is considered core knowledge in one field is different from another, so I speak a little bit out of turn. I had just always surmised that weather forecasting was pretty central to the field of meteorology.

And, yes, if you don't know anything about some central subjects like I mentioned, your chances of passing the CPA exam are nil. I had crammed my head so full of information in preparing for that exam, I felt like I was going to explode. What's ironic is, on the second day of the exam, we were sequestered on the 2nd floor of a building with 3 large full-length glass windows surrounding us. In the middle of the afternoon, the sky blackened, the trees blew sideways, and the tornado sirens began to sound. There was no break given for the exam, but it was an intense 30 minutes or so as I struggled to make my way through the "theory and practice" part of the 4-part exam. Happily, about a month later I found out I had passed all 4 parts on the first sitting.

 

[James Gustina]

Seems to me that, like most pursuits, both knowledge and practical experience are necessary. Having or developing a knack for "seeing" things in 4 dimensions (the 3 dimensions of the physical atmosphere + time) may be as or more important than the most elegant of calculus equations. On the other hand, just having an attitude of "what I don't know won't hurt me" seems a bit short-sighted. True, to be a chaser you have to get out there and chase, but some meteorological knowledge (whether acquired formally or by self-study) seems like can only help.

It is somewhat surprising to hear some comments that you can get a B.S. in meteorology without ever taking a forecasting course. Kind of like being able to get a CPA designation without ever taking a course in auditing, taxation, business law, or finance. Odd. At any rate, I do remember reading somewhere that the Air Force was once in such dire need of forecasters, that they offered a 9-month crash course for weather forecasting. Not much later, it took Fawbush and Miller, what, 3 days to come up with a technique for forecasting tornadoes? I guess necessity is sometimes the mother of invention.

Fawbush and Miller's tornado forecasting techniques really are interesting when you think of the overall understanding of tornadoes and tornadic thunderstorms at the time. Up to that point, I'm pretty sure Finley was the only one who had even gotten close in nailing the general synoptic setup for tornadic storms. Straight pattern recognition and really dedicated analysis of every possible chart helped get them to that first correct "tornado forecast". They essentially paved the way for how severe weather is forecasted today. I'm not particularly well read on how they came up with the forecasting techniques, but considering they made it based off of one event is truly amazing.

 

[Mike Johnston]

Fawbush and Miller's tornado forecasting techniques really are interesting when you think of the overall understanding of tornadoes and tornadic thunderstorms at the time. Up to that point, I'm pretty sure Finley was the only one who had even gotten close in nailing the general synoptic setup for tornadic storms. Straight pattern recognition and really dedicated analysis of every possible chart helped get them to that first correct "tornado forecast". They essentially paved the way for how severe weather is forecasted today. I'm not particularly well read on how they came up with the forecasting techniques, but considering they made it based off of one event is truly amazing.

My understanding is that Miller knew something about oceanographic techniques and translated some of that knowledge into thinking about the atmosphere in terms of layers. From there, it was a matter of applying that insight into a series of trials and errors from past events. Now, how they did it in such a short time frame is still beyond belief.

 

[James Gustina]

That's what I thought but I wasn't quite sure. I knew one of them was an AF forecaster in the south Pacific during the war, but I didn't know if that had any bearing on the methods they came up with. Quite interesting!

 

[Stan Rose]

I agree with the others. Knowlege is always useful. It's like the old question of whether music theory is necessary to be a good musician--of course not, there are plenty of mind-blowing musicians without any knowlege of theory. But that doesn't mean they couldn't be better with that knowlege, or that no one should bother learning theory. But the bottom line is only a small percentage of what you study to get an advanced degree (as contrasted with undergraduate--like a previous poster I learned a ton about severe forecasting at UAlbany) can be applied to practical chasing. Your better off learning by doing.

 

[Quincy Vagell]

I'll agree with the others in this thread. An undergrad degree in meteorology didn't do much for me for chasing. Most programs are very theory based and not forecasting based. I remember my one forecasting class and I had it in the fall, so late August through December... Not much warm-weather forecasting happening in that timeframe.

I didn't chase before studying meteorology, but I will say that my meteorology degree didn't do much for me either. Maybe it's also because the program at my school (Western Connecticut State University) was more theoretical than anything and barely spent any time on severe weather prediction, skew-ts, etc. Our school did not offer a Radar Meteorology course either...

I learned a tremendous amount from just diving into the field and basically teaching myself to chase, by trial and error. It tooks several weeks of chasing all different types of setups before things really started to click. Having grown up in the Northeast, I really didn't know a lot about chasing for most of my life, simply because there wasn't any real chasing to be done, locally, and I didn't heavily research severe weather. After having only chased west of the Appalachians twice, I became hooked.

Everyone has their opinions. Studying meteorology can help, but it's absolutely not a requirement to become a solid storm chaser. All things in balance if you want to do something effectively. Much like "street smarts," there are also "chase smarts" that one can only learn from being out in the field.