Blades of grass thrown through a telephone pole... Unlikely, if not impossible. What probably actually happened is that the pole was bent by the wind, causing the grain in the wood to momentarily expand, opening a crevasse into which the grass blade found its way. Wind lets up, crevasse snaps shut, and viola: grass 'blown through' apparently hard wood. This is the real explanation for the blades of grass and straw that have been found embedded in trees and poles after tornadic storms. You need a good amount of wind to get this phenomenon, but nowhere near as much as it might initially seem to require.
I guess my point was that these days even state-of-the-art forecasts are prepared primarily by looking at the models first. Knowing the usefulness and deficiencies of the various models and applying that knowledge based on past experience is a large part, maybe the main part, of what real forecasters actually do. Even the NWS guys work this way - look at any NWS forecast discussion and you'll see language like: "latest ETA shows... therefor I am calling for..." etc. This is not exactly the stuff of higher mathematics. The models are tools, and like any other tool they work best when the user has a good idea of the principles that make them work, but you don't need a math degree to prepare a good weather forecast. Working with the models, comparing their predictions with actual current conditions, using all the data available to build up a 3-dimensional picture of the atmosphere in the mind, this is how forecasting gets done. To advance the science of meteorology you will need that physics degree and more, but the original question was about forecasting. With the tools and data available on the internet today, anyone who knows the basics can put together a pretty decent forecast, without solving a single equation. I believe that was one of the main points of this thread.
I am not saying that serious meteorology doesn't require a strong background in physics - I am, however, suggesting that your average day-to-day forecasting doesn't necessarily require any serious meteorology!
Wrong, or at least not completely right. Let me clarify... To 'develop and analyze forecasts' like the guys you see on TV, all you need is a degree in Broadcast Meteorology. Forecasting today consists primarily of learning how to handicap the various models, and anyone can learn to do this, with no real physics required. On the other hand, if you want to actually understand how the models work, and maybe develop your own models, then yes indeed you'll need to have an applied physics background and very strong math skills. But the fact is, there are actually very few meteorological positions available that require this kind of education - and just about all of them are with NWS/NOAA. Broadcast meteorology is where all the jobs are, and that's a much easier curriculum.
OK, as a slashdot member who admits to using aol, I realize that I have no credibility whatsoever. But for what it's worth... About a month ago ALL of my 7 aol screen names were compromised, including several that were never used. Suddenly I was getting spam sent to all my addresses at aol, where previously I had been getting almost no spam (I guard my addresses well). The unused accounts have never had so much as a single email from anyone, up until now. The spammers used information that could only have come from aol, since I never used those addresses, never sent anything or receieved anything, just created the account. And yes, I am confident that my computer has never been compromised. So how did spammers get my unused addresses? Easy, someone hacked into the merlin database just like the article said, milking aol for all the addresses they could find and then selling some or all of them to spammers.
I had suspected something like this must have happened, and the article confirms it. I am now VERY dissatisfied with aol.
Yeah I know, I know... I got what I deserved for using AOhell... But for almost 2 years up until this point I had no problems and was actually satisfied. Guess that was just luck...
Slashdot Mirror
Blades of grass thrown through a telephone pole... Unlikely, if not impossible. What probably actually happened is that the pole was bent by the wind, causing the grain in the wood to momentarily expand, opening a crevasse into which the grass blade found its way. Wind lets up, crevasse snaps shut, and viola: grass 'blown through' apparently hard wood. This is the real explanation for the blades of grass and straw that have been found embedded in trees and poles after tornadic storms. You need a good amount of wind to get this phenomenon, but nowhere near as much as it might initially seem to require.
I guess my point was that these days even state-of-the-art forecasts are prepared primarily by looking at the models first. Knowing the usefulness and deficiencies of the various models and applying that knowledge based on past experience is a large part, maybe the main part, of what real forecasters actually do. Even the NWS guys work this way - look at any NWS forecast discussion and you'll see language like: "latest ETA shows... therefor I am calling for..." etc. This is not exactly the stuff of higher mathematics. The models are tools, and like any other tool they work best when the user has a good idea of the principles that make them work, but you don't need a math degree to prepare a good weather forecast. Working with the models, comparing their predictions with actual current conditions, using all the data available to build up a 3-dimensional picture of the atmosphere in the mind, this is how forecasting gets done. To advance the science of meteorology you will need that physics degree and more, but the original question was about forecasting. With the tools and data available on the internet today, anyone who knows the basics can put together a pretty decent forecast, without solving a single equation. I believe that was one of the main points of this thread.
I am not saying that serious meteorology doesn't require a strong background in physics - I am, however, suggesting that your average day-to-day forecasting doesn't necessarily require any serious meteorology!
Heheh.... Agreed.
For the record, I don't own a TV either.
Wrong, or at least not completely right. Let me clarify... To 'develop and analyze forecasts' like the guys you see on TV, all you need is a degree in Broadcast Meteorology. Forecasting today consists primarily of learning how to handicap the various models, and anyone can learn to do this, with no real physics required. On the other hand, if you want to actually understand how the models work, and maybe develop your own models, then yes indeed you'll need to have an applied physics background and very strong math skills. But the fact is, there are actually very few meteorological positions available that require this kind of education - and just about all of them are with NWS/NOAA. Broadcast meteorology is where all the jobs are, and that's a much easier curriculum.
OK, as a slashdot member who admits to using aol, I realize that I have no credibility whatsoever. But for what it's worth... About a month ago ALL of my 7 aol screen names were compromised, including several that were never used. Suddenly I was getting spam sent to all my addresses at aol, where previously I had been getting almost no spam (I guard my addresses well). The unused accounts have never had so much as a single email from anyone, up until now. The spammers used information that could only have come from aol, since I never used those addresses, never sent anything or receieved anything, just created the account. And yes, I am confident that my computer has never been compromised. So how did spammers get my unused addresses? Easy, someone hacked into the merlin database just like the article said, milking aol for all the addresses they could find and then selling some or all of them to spammers.
I had suspected something like this must have happened, and the article confirms it. I am now VERY dissatisfied with aol.
Yeah I know, I know... I got what I deserved for using AOhell... But for almost 2 years up until this point I had no problems and was actually satisfied. Guess that was just luck...