meteorologist

The Bayesian is willing to take the meteorologist's guess as a prior, and update it as & when more data becomes available.

A professional meteorologist on the ground who can interpret and summarize the relevant information is of way more use.

And yet you have a very well known meteorologist who is claiming that it isn't anthropogenic.

For example, an expert pianist plays great music but it seems a bit off to think of an expert meteorologist.

I'm not a climatologist/meteorologist, but my understanding is that personal weather stations provide a serious bump in data volume.

I'm not a meteorologist or climate scientist, it's likely there are areas that I'm oversimplifying or misunderstanding.

From his CV, I get that he's a meteorologist with an agenda about global climate issues.

I would love to see an episode with ManBearPig, Al Gore and the crying meteorologist.

The meteorologist's forecast is for 20% chance of a thunderstorm.

I'm no meteorologist or anything, so I honestly don't have any idea about this, but I can't help but wonder if that matters?

Cliff is a highly respected meteorologist in the NW.

I'm no meteorologist, but it seems like if it were over the ocean there would be wetter and cooler weather on the west coast.

For example, a meteorologist can look at the clouds and "guesstimate" that there's a 50% chance of rain tomorrow.

The crying meteorologist is to me on a par with the British young woman who had an abortion "for the environment".

"Polar vortex" has been in the lexicon of meteorologist for decades now.

It is as if scientists themselves could be satisfied if their colleagues were hired as "scientists" or "natural philosophers" with no further qualification, as opposed to "vulcanologist" or "meteorologist" (to a first order of approximation).

Meteorologist Tom Skilling is probably the most frequent reporter of Dr.

Meteorologist turned HN junkie here: this is really cool and I love the commenter suggesting using dual pol data to do the heavy lifting for you.