Is atmospheric dynamics related to atmospheric physics or to
meteorology?

On Jan 20, 7:04*am, uri wrote:
Is atmospheric dynamics related to atmospheric physics or to
meteorology?

Meteorology is, or was at last count, atmospheric physics. Meteorology
is simply one of the many specialities in physics, and a true
"Meteorolgist" holds his/her degree in physics. (Now this statement
will no doubt get me flamed, but it is a fact.)

Your average TV Weatherman is not generally a true meteorologist, has
never launched a weather balloon with a radiosonde attached, and lacks
the physics background to construct a pseudoadiabatic diagram from the
resulting information gained, or to interpret it.

http://www.aos.wisc.edu/~hopkins/wx-...rument_package
http://www.neng.usu.edu/classes/cee/...adiabatic.html

Atmospheric physics/dynamics is the foundation of Meteorology, and is
a subject that arguably creates more "brain fry" than do many other
specialities in physics.

Harry C.

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.

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

"uri" wrote in message
...
Is atmospheric dynamics related to atmospheric physics or to
meteorology?

why "or"?

mk5000


"Dr. Alex Karev: Morning, Dr. Model.
Dr. Isobel "Izzie" Stevens: Dr. Evil Spawn.
Dr. Alex Karev: [he sees a tattoo on her lower stomach] Ooooh, nice tat. Do
they airbrush that out for the catalogs?
Dr. Isobel "Izzie" Stevens: I don't know. What do they do for the 666 on
your skull? "--Grey's anatomy

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.

Harry C.

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 04:04:17 -0800 (PST),
uri , in
wrote:
+ Is atmospheric dynamics related to atmospheric physics or to
+ meteorology?

Yes.

--
Consulting Minister for Consultants, DNRC
I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow
isn't looking good, either.
I am BOFH. Resistance is futile. Your network will be assimilated.

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 07:35:13 -0800 (PST),
, in
wrote:

+ Your average TV Weatherman is not generally a true meteorologist, has
+ never launched a weather balloon with a radiosonde attached, and lacks
+ the physics background to construct a pseudoadiabatic diagram from the
+ resulting information gained, or to interpret it.

That's a really broad brush you're paiting with there, partner.

A large number of the TV crowd actually hold a BS in meteorlogy or
atmospheric physics. Thus not only do they have the physics background
to construct a pseudoadiabatic diagram, but they can also suggest an
analysis, as well as tell you why a skew-t log p chart is perfered
over a Stuve diagram.

However, an equally large number of them will have *never* actually
launched a radiosonde. That's really "for" met-techs in the NWS or Air
Force, or aerographer's mates in the Navy.

Having done a couple of launches myself, that's unfortunate. It is a
nice hands-on, real world application what the students have been
shown in the classroom. And it is kind of fun, too.

--
Consulting Minister for Consultants, DNRC
I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow
isn't looking good, either.
I am BOFH. Resistance is futile. Your network will be assimilated.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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, 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! :-)

Harry C.

On Jan 20, 2:47*pm, I R A Darth Aggie wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 07:35:13 -0800 (PST),
, in

wrote:
+ *Your average TV Weatherman is not generally a true meteorologist, has
+ *never launched a weather balloon with a radiosonde attached, and lacks
+ *the physics background to construct a pseudoadiabatic diagram from the
+ *resulting information gained, or to interpret it.

That's a really broad brush you're paiting with there, partner.

A large number of the TV crowd actually hold a BS in meteorlogy or
atmospheric physics. Thus not only do they have the physics background
to construct a pseudoadiabatic diagram, but they can also suggest an
analysis, as well as tell you why a skew-t log p chart is perfered
over a Stuve diagram.

However, an equally large number of them will have *never* actually
launched a radiosonde. That's really "for" met-techs in the NWS or Air
Force, or aerographer's mates in the Navy.

Having done a couple of launches myself, that's unfortunate. It is a
nice hands-on, real world application what the students have been
shown in the classroom. And it is kind of fun, too.

--
Consulting Minister for Consultants, DNRC
I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow
isn't looking good, either.
I am BOFH. Resistance is futile. Your network will be assimilated.

It's clear that you know the subject to a technical level since you
know the terminology (and that is not intended as a put down in any
way), 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.

If you really want to know what is worse, take a Geology elective. In
that subject, the field trips can actually get you arrested. Then too,
all of the class and the prof were nearly arrested when I took that
course. OK, the point here is that you don't pull over and stop a bus
on the PA Turnpike, simply to explore an interesting geological
formation. We did! PA State Police were not pleased, even though we
were off the roadway.

For college student in liberal arts, try an elective in science,
particualy one that involves labs and field trips. Meteorolgy and
Geology are particularly fun choices, where you receive experiences
that you will remember for a lifetime. You too may even get
arrested. :-)

Harry C.