On Jan 20, 2:56*pm, " wrote:
On Jan 20, 11:16*am, Russell wrote:
On Jan 20, 7:04*am, uri wrote:
Is atmospheric dynamics related to atmospheric physics or to
meteorology?
I largely agree with Harry's reply. *Meteorology can have an
operational forecasting component that atmospheric physics
generally lacks, but the fundamental subject matter overlaps
significantly. *I did my second graduate degree as a student
in a meteorology department but my research was done with a
professor of physics whose group was called the atmospheric
physics ghoup. *I disagree slightly about "brain fry", but
affinities for different topics depends on the person. *BTW
I also have degrees in physics.
Cheers,
Russell
Russell, I'm not quite sure that I grasp what you mean by stating that
"Meteorolgy can have a operational forcasting component that
atmospheric physics generally lacks".
Simply that someone working in atmospheric physics, and especially
training in atmospheric physics in a physics department, does not
emphasize doing or preparing students to do operational forecasting
to the extent that tends to occur in meteorology. Of course, there
are always variations and exceptions. However, having trained and
worked in both environments I've observed the difference between
them.
Perhaps any difference that today exists between Meteorology and
Atmospheric Physics today did not exist when I earned my degrees in
physics back in the 1960s, and my specialities were electromagnetic
fields and nuclear, so since that time definitions may have changed.
Certainly the technology of weather forecasting has changed, largely
as a result of doppler radar and global meteorlogical networking.
Yes, perhaps an example of how specialties have proliferated and
dispersed over that time in general.
My wife can predict the coming week's weather by simply using these
tools, and she is a teacher of remedial English, not a Meteorologist.
TV weathermen seem to use the identical technique, but that doesn't
make most of them meteorlogists either.
And yes, true meteorology is indeed a "Brain Fry", at least in my
opinion, and trust me that I moved away from that subject as quickly
as I could while still a physics student. Basic meteorolgy to me
seemed quite simple. You simply send up an instumented weather
balloon, and plot its measurements on a pseudoadiabatic chart. This
will indicate when a clear sky can suddenly create a thunder storm.
That part is simple. So simply that every degreed meteologist is
generally required to do so as one of his/her lab exercises.
Where the "brain fry" enters the scene is when you try to computer
model the atmospheric dynamics to make long term predictions. Here,
first, second, and third degree differential equations, plus chaos
theory enter the picture, and this leads to the "brain fry" that I
mentioned. The largest and most complex computers in the world are
programmed to address these atmosphere dynamics problems, but thus
far, at least as far as I am aware, not one computer model has arrived
at a total solution. It is clear that if you understand all of the
many variables, none will ever be able to do so.
Yes, that is complex, as is working with turbulence in meteorology,
but I found turbulence, although complex, much less of a brain fry
than applications of group theory to elementary particle physics,
even though my physics graduate degree was in particle physics.
Like I said, it depends on the person.
AFAIK the existence of solutions to the Navier-Stokes equtions still
has not beem proven, although I seem to recall some recent progress
on that front. In practice, the trick is to focus on the key features
and accept some degree of error and uncertainty while recognizing the
potential value of what can be forecast with some certainty most of
the time.
This problem has an analog, which is modeling the US economy. The
essential problem is trying to model so many dynamically changing
variables, plus the chaos factor. *Pure Brain Fry.
Nonlinear systems are challanging.
Here where I live near the Northeast US coast, an ocean current called
the Gulf Stream plays a major role in our weather. Because the Gulf
Stream wanders, it is difficult to take in to consideration for its
affect on local atmospheric dynamic, but it plays a significant role.
So, go flush last week's atmospheric computer models down the drain.
The second order differential equation in the model has changed, and
will contine to change on a daily basis.
Guys that study these issues are called Meteoroligists, and all are
physicists.
Unfortunatly, with the state of the art of today, your next year's
weather prediction from the "Farmer's Almanac" is about as good as it
gets. :-)
Russell, for some reason I knew that I would be flamed on my original
post,
I certainly hope you don't regard my statements as flames,
especially since I hardly disagree with you and certainly not
in nasty terms.
simply because some people who claim to be Meteorologists are
not that, but simply posers who read the govenment's weather forcasts,
take a quick look at their local doppler weather radar, and then
proclaim their forecast for the next day and week's weather on their
local TV outlet. Heck, my wife or even my children could do just
that! *:-)
There is an interesting book, _Authors of the Storm_, which is
a sociologist's study of operational forecasters (mostly with
the NWS). It looks at, among other things, the tension between
government forecasters and the media. The forecasters need the
media to transmit their forecasts to the public and the media
needs the Weather Service to provide authoritative information.
Harry C.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Cheers,
Russell