In sci.physics wrote:
On Jan 20, 10:55?am, wrote:
In sci.physics uri wrote:

Is atmospheric dynamics related to atmospheric physics or to
meteorology?

Still unable to figure out how to use a dictionary I see.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Jim, you evidently came home too late last night from the bar once
again, hence are too hung over to post anything meaningful. Sober up,
and then post what you really want to say.

OK, try this:

What is this idiot's problem that he is continually posting "What does
xyz mean?" instead of simply looking in a dictionary or doing a Google
search?

And, oh, by the way, bite me.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

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

On Jan 20, 4:29 pm, Russell wrote:
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.
Cheers,
Russell

In Muskoka Ontario, tourism is a BIG deal, and a
forecast for bad weather on a week-end is costly,
and what's worse is when it turned out great.
Well as you can imagine the business owners who
rely on about 10 weekends a summer are mad at
the weatherman.
Subsequently, presuming by commercial pressure,
(tourist advertising is a BIG deal for the media),
every week-end forecast was rosey after that.

If a hurricane was barreling in they might forecast
sunny with cloudy periods, it became a local joke.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

Still, for anyone pursuing a degree in physics with a specialty
in Meteorolgy, at least from any major university, they will have done
at least two balloon lauches ard interpreted the radiosonde results as
a lab requirement. These are the same students that a year or two
earlier would have been measuring the charge on an electron by
repeating the "Oil Drop" experiment (******* and boring experiment
that it is), every physics student has to perform it.

In the "Oil Drop" experiment charged droplets migrate up in the electric
field. If all students perform this experiment than all meteorologist should
know that the charged water droplets migrate up in the Earth electric field.
And that all water droplets in clouds have the excess of electrons
(negatively charged). Why when in meteorology some parts of clouds are
positively (deficit of electrons) charged?
S*

On Jan 21, 5:04*am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
On Jan 20, 4:29 pm, Russell wrote:


snip


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.
Cheers,
Russell

In Muskoka Ontario, tourism is a BIG deal, and a
forecast for bad weather on a week-end is costly,
and what's worse is when it turned out great.
Well as you can imagine the business owners who
rely on about 10 weekends a summer are mad at
the weatherman.
Subsequently, presuming by commercial pressure,
(tourist advertising is a BIG deal for the media),
every week-end forecast was rosey after that.

If a hurricane was barreling in they might forecast
sunny with cloudy periods, it became a local joke.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

Weather Service forecasters are familiar with "Chamber
of Commerce" forecasts from the media. They are even
aware of such pressure on themselves. The topic is also
mentioned in _Authors of the Storm_. We used to see
such things in Washington, DC, although the different
media outlets suffered to varying degrees. Of course,
there is often room for interpretation. Those of us at
NCEP would occasionally demur with what the local
forecast office said.

Cheers,
Russell

On Jan 21, 6:19 am, Russell wrote:
On Jan 21, 5:04 am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
On Jan 20, 4:29 pm, Russell wrote:
snip
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.
Cheers,
Russell

In Muskoka Ontario, tourism is a BIG deal, and a
forecast for bad weather on a week-end is costly,
and what's worse is when it turned out great.
Well as you can imagine the business owners who
rely on about 10 weekends a summer are mad at
the weatherman.
Subsequently, presuming by commercial pressure,
(tourist advertising is a BIG deal for the media),
every week-end forecast was rosey after that.

If a hurricane was barreling in they might forecast
sunny with cloudy periods, it became a local joke.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

Weather Service forecasters are familiar with "Chamber
of Commerce" forecasts from the media. They are even
aware of such pressure on themselves. The topic is also
mentioned in _Authors of the Storm_. We used to see
such things in Washington, DC, although the different
media outlets suffered to varying degrees. Of course,
there is often room for interpretation. Those of us at
NCEP would occasionally demur with what the local
forecast office said.
Cheers,
Russell

LOL, there's even a name "Chamber of Commerce
weather forecast".
Regards
Ken

On Jan 21, 5:06*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:


Still, for anyone pursuing a degree in physics with a specialty

in Meteorolgy, at least from any major university, they will have done
at least two balloon lauches ard interpreted the radiosonde results as
a lab requirement. These are the same students that a year or two
earlier would have been measuring the charge on an electron by
repeating the "Oil Drop" experiment (******* and boring experiment
that it is), every physics student has to perform it.

In the "Oil Drop" experiment charged droplets migrate up in the electric
field. If all students perform this experiment than all meteorologist should
know that the charged water droplets migrate up in the Earth electric field.
And that all water droplets in clouds have the excess of electrons
(negatively charged). Why *when in meteorology some parts of *clouds are
positively (deficit of electrons) charged?
S*

Just to explain why I might hold such an openly opinionate view of
meterology, enter Dr. Francis Davis into my life.

http://www.angelfire.com/tv2/broadca...ers/davis.html

Dr. Davis was the local Philadelphia weatherman during the years that
I attended Drexel, and he was the professor of meteorolgy when I took
the subject as a physics elective while I was earning my undergraduate
degree. Dr. Davis was a somewhat harsh taskmaster, and his persona on
TV was nearly counter to the demands for performance that he placed on
his Drexel physics students (I believe there were only 21 of us during
those years), in a college of roughly 3,000 students (back around
1963). He was a very strict grader, and not one exam involved multiple
choice questions. All were computations, required to be performed in
ink in the dreaded Drexel "blue books". Most Drexel grads of that era
know exactly what I refer to.

Actually, at the time, I really liked the guy, but then I also liked
Dr. Tartler in the math department, who was generally believed to have
flunked his own son out of Drexel due to poor performance in math. The
profs at Drexel in those days were pretty "hard core" compared to what
exists today!

At the start of my senior year at Drexel (then Drexel Institute of
Technology), Dr. Davis replaced Dr. Wehr (a nuclear scientist) as head
of Drexel's Physics Department. That was the year that I graduated
and acquired my BS in Physics. So, I guess that you could say that my
undergraduate degree in physics was signed and approved by our local
Philadelphia, TV weatherman. Fortunately, that did no sway Princeton
from both accepting me into their graduate school, or hiring me as a
research employee at Forrestal.

Dr. Davis was a very interesting guy, who in my mind had a dual life
(of the best kind). On one hand he was the most popular TV weatherman
in the Philadelphia/NJ/Delaware area, and at that same time was a
respected physicist. Few people can compete with that!

I post this simply to let readers know the foundations that form the
basis of my blunt opinions. Opinions that if they offend anyone, then
that's just too damn bad.

Harry C.

On Jan 21, 3:56 pm, " wrote:
On Jan 21, 5:06 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:





Still, for anyone pursuing a degree in physics with a specialty

in Meteorolgy, at least from any major university, they will have done
at least two balloon lauches ard interpreted the radiosonde results as
a lab requirement. These are the same students that a year or two
earlier would have been measuring the charge on an electron by
repeating the "Oil Drop" experiment (******* and boring experiment
that it is), every physics student has to perform it.

In the "Oil Drop" experiment charged droplets migrate up in the electric
field. If all students perform this experiment than all meteorologist should
know that the charged water droplets migrate up in the Earth electric field.
And that all water droplets in clouds have the excess of electrons
(negatively charged). Why when in meteorology some parts of clouds are
positively (deficit of electrons) charged?
S*

Just to explain why I might hold such an openly opinionate view of
meterology, enter Dr. Francis Davis into my life.

http://www.angelfire.com/tv2/broadca...ers/davis.html

Dr. Davis was the local Philadelphia weatherman during the years that
I attended Drexel, and he was the professor of meteorolgy when I took
the subject as a physics elective while I was earning my undergraduate
degree. Dr. Davis was a somewhat harsh taskmaster, and his persona on
TV was nearly counter to the demands for performance that he placed on
his Drexel physics students (I believe there were only 21 of us during
those years), in a college of roughly 3,000 students (back around
1963). He was a very strict grader, and not one exam involved multiple
choice questions. All were computations, required to be performed in
ink in the dreaded Drexel "blue books". Most Drexel grads of that era
know exactly what I refer to.

Actually, at the time, I really liked the guy, but then I also liked
Dr. Tartler in the math department, who was generally believed to have
flunked his own son out of Drexel due to poor performance in math. The
profs at Drexel in those days were pretty "hard core" compared to what
exists today!

At the start of my senior year at Drexel (then Drexel Institute of
Technology), Dr. Davis replaced Dr. Wehr (a nuclear scientist) as head
of Drexel's Physics Department. That was the year that I graduated
and acquired my BS in Physics. So, I guess that you could say that my
undergraduate degree in physics was signed and approved by our local
Philadelphia, TV weatherman. Fortunately, that did no sway Princeton
from both accepting me into their graduate school, or hiring me as a
research employee at Forrestal.

Dr. Davis was a very interesting guy, who in my mind had a dual life
(of the best kind). On one hand he was the most popular TV weatherman
in the Philadelphia/NJ/Delaware area, and at that same time was a
respected physicist. Few people can compete with that!

I post this simply to let readers know the foundations that form the
basis of my blunt opinions. Opinions that if they offend anyone, then
that's just too damn bad.

Harry C.

Say Harry, ((Harry)), I reed yor posts to lurn beter
spelin an gramer.
Seriously, IMHO you're a top poster.
Regards
Ken

Ken, thanks yer very much for you comments.

I post on the fly, without a spelling or grammar checker, but I do
post completly honestly, and you can bet on that.

My wire is the grammare and spelling export, I'm simply a physucist
that was originally intended to be a tennant farmer in NJ. The wire,
she taches s;elling to kids that are, while not riding the short bus,
and in need of help. She has this amazing ability to bring kids that
are 3-years below grade level, up to grade level in about 6-months.
Fer me, this is amzing, and I wsh that she could do it for me.

Sandy is one of those few amazing people that you encounter in a
lifetime, totally devoted to her students, and she obtains incredible
results. Our house is flooded by flowers at the end of each school
year, not sure that I know why, because she hasn't yet even mastered
differential calculus!

What a combination we two are, but regardless we were married on July
11, 1959, and if I can still do simple arithmetic, by July 11, 2009 we
will celebrate our 50th anniversity. The bad thing is that none of our
close friends will be alive to notice that event, except for our 3
children and a couple of our neighbors. Definitely, firworks will be
shot, and I doubt that the police will take notice.

Ogh, thixs is sci.physics, I lust trek thare and thought that for a
mombnet, it was rec.pyrotechnics.

Harry C.

p.s., Beware of the 'Old Farts' that you may encounter from time to
time on the Newsgroups. Many will play dumb, but anthing else may be
true. You never know!

wrote
...
On Jan 21, 5:06 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:


Still, for anyone pursuing a degree in physics with a specialty
in Meteorolgy, at least from any major university, they will have done
at least two balloon lauches ard interpreted the radiosonde results as
a lab requirement. These are the same students that a year or two
earlier would have been measuring the charge on an electron by
repeating the "Oil Drop" experiment (******* and boring experiment
that it is), every physics student has to perform it.

In the "Oil Drop" experiment charged droplets migrate up in the electric
field. If all students perform this experiment than all meteorologist
should
know that the charged water droplets migrate up in the Earth electric
field.
And that all water droplets in clouds have the excess of electrons
(negatively charged). ?
S*

Just to explain why I might hold such an openly opinionate view of
meterology, enter Dr. Francis Davis into my life.

http://www.angelfire.com/tv2/broadca...ers/davis.html

But my question was: "Why then in meteorology some parts of clouds are
positively (deficit of electrons) charged?

We can read everywhe "How rain clouds become charged is not fully
understood, but most rain clouds are negatively charged at the base and
positively charged at the top"

It is impossible. Each part of each cloud is negatively charged. Only the
voltages may be different In meteorology should be tha same laws as in
physics.

S*