I am creating motivational resources for use by teachers of high-school level algebra and would like to mention meteorology. I know a lot of mathematics is required to understand the fundamentals. As I understand the mathematics are very complex, including partial differential equations and many variables.

Does the day-to-day work require an understanding of calculus? Sometimes I get the impression that some of our local TV weather forecasters are simply broadcasters filling in while computer generated forecasts play. On the other hand, the TV person labeled "Meteorologist" seems to have a good background in science and math.

Please elaborate as much as possible. What role does mathematics play? Give examples of the math if you can.

Thanks!

mike_s, on Sep 19 2007, 05:32 AM, said:

To earn a degree in Meteorology (Bachelor of Science or higher), 4 semesters of high level mathematics are generally required. Generally this includes 3 semesters of calculus and 1 semester of differential equations.

For those who go into the research and modeling fields, this math tends to get used often.

For those who go into operational forecast meteorology (day-to-day work, as you called it), actual use of the math is generally not required. However, for actually understanding how the atmosphere works (and thereby being able to forecast it), a good understanding of the concepts that the math conveys IS required.

Being an operational meteorologist, I can tell you that I haven't touched a differential equation in the 4 years since I graduated... and god help me, I must admit that I hope to never do so again

Actually in TV I use the Quasi-geostrophic vorticity equation and often derive the pressure gradient force in polar coordinates on a daily basis. j/k i guess only weeks when the weather is as boring as it is now :-)

Not everyone on TV who is labelled a "meteorologist" actually has a full degree, unfortunately.

Also, even for those that do, the "ratings push" seems to be forcing the "pretty computer models" on many meteorologists in the TV business who would just as soon do without them.

But yes, there are some average people doing the weather on TV, and there are some hard-core scientists doing meteorology on TV.

downdraft84, on Sep 19 2007, 07:47 AM, said:

Obviously most never use the math directly in their day to day work. But definitely essential is establishing a good understanding of the atmosphere while in college.

famartin, on Sep 19 2007, 08:41 AM, said:

Ray, Good post
This is the reason I did not pursue a career in MET. Tons of math, and tons of money to pay for college ! Knowing I'd use little if any of this math in the field, will all the technology we now have at our fingertips. It just makes no sense to me. The requirements and time of math that's involved with getting a Degree.
Besides I really hated scientific math, I did ok with it in HS physics and chemisty, but I sure didn't like doing it.

Ruggie

agree with what famartin said. high level math is not used operationally, and we spent much time on it in college. the most math i do is converting metric to english, and cubic feet per second to gallons per day for river flow.

if you go into computer modeling, you will need to know this stuff much more.

being hip on your computer skills helps much more than knowing partial differential equations, for side project purposes as an operational forecaster.

Although I believe you were joking about using the "Quasi-geostrophic vorticity equation" on a daily basis, I found an interesting article involving this at http://www.fao.org/D...1B/X6851B01.htm

So keep throwing these meteorological terms at me, even if you are joking!

RUGGIE WEATHER, on Sep 19 2007, 07:59 AM, said:

The math certainly does provide a much higher level of understanding of how the atmosphere works, but yeah, not everyone excels in math, and unfortunately I know many people that got out of meteorology, or like yourself, did not ever pursue it because of all the math.

famartin, on Sep 19 2007, 08:41 AM, said:

Good reply. I find that starting a discussion on q-vector derivation at my wife's parties, when she has her friends over, a great way to be quickly be left alone to either watch a game or fire up the computer.

VAwxman, on Sep 19 2007, 09:30 AM, said:

Brian, I'm sure it does provide a higher level of understanding, No doubt about it. I think what I'm trying to say overall is 2-1/2 years of basically Scientific Math and 1-1/2 years of MET, is IMO backwards. If I want to learn synoptic MET and or forecasting, it should be 2-1/2 or even 3 years of MET, and a year or so of scientific math.

Now I know there's many different branches of study in MET, some would require much more math than other branches, such as the synoptic or forecasting aspect, as Ray mentioned in the 4 years in the field, He has not used any Scientific math to do his job.

Where as someone in the computer modeling development branch, would need much more math, for formulating and calculating, certain physical properties and fluid Physics of the atmosphere. Scientific math would be used and needed more in this dept.

So It's a shame, the field of MET couldn't be broken down by certain aspects, or branches, to fit the requirements needed. Where someone more like myself, is most interested mostly in the synoptics and forecasting of the science. I could go to college with 3 years of actual MET studies and 1 year of Math.

It just seems the college MET programs/curriculums, are only setup one way, and with one requirement to be PRO MET degreed. I wish there were a few different options in one's studies, or interests to aquire a degree in the field ! Another words broken down by different branches of study with an optional curriculum.

Ruggie

RUGGIE WEATHER, on Sep 19 2007, 07:25 AM, said:

Well, depends on what you define as "math" versus "meteorology".

At Rutgers, we had our 4 "core" math courses... 3 semesters of Calculus, 1 of Differential Equations.

We also had the "mixture" courses... ones which were meteorology, but had a lot of math. I.e. Physical Meteorology, Thermodynamics and Dynamics. 1 semester each, 3 semesters total.

Then we had our more "pure met" classes. Intro to Met, Synoptic 1, Synoptic 2, Weather Systems... there's one more course that I'm forgetting right now too. So that's another 5 semesters.

Anyway, that's 5 "mainly met" semesters, 3 "met focus with math" semesters, and 4 "pure math" semesters. Hopefully I didn't forget anything, but unless you count the "met focus with math" courses as being "only math" (which is incorrect IMHO), then really you do get more met than math.

nin9inch9nails, on Sep 19 2007, 10:05 AM, said:

my wife just says, ' You and the stupid weather'.

mike_s, on Sep 19 2007, 08:32 AM, said:

When you get a list compiled, and if you're willing to share it, I'd like a copy. Although I don't teach Algebra this year, there are many in the department here that do, and I know that they'd like any "real-life" resources that are out there. I can also attest to the interest high schoolers have in the weather. Well, at least snow storms. Teachers too for that matter.

Also, I am somewhat surprised to hear some of you downplaying the math classes that you had to take in order to get a met degree. I wouldn't have expected that response.

famartin, on Sep 19 2007, 10:31 AM, said:

just so you know now, ray, synoptic at Rutgers is completely different and is FILLED with math.

deriving equations, and memorizing equations and much less forecasting... i wish i took synoptic at the time when you did... i think... but i like the teacher A LOT. i thought he taught well, but i didnt like his forecasting teachings.

the primitive equations that are used as the basis for weather models are important to understand because it can help explain why the model output is showing what it does. its also important to know what is getting scaled out!

there was a thread a while back, i dont remember who started it, but the NAM was showing a height contour that almost looked like a sine curve by greenland. i dont know if anyone remembers that, but the explanation of that goofy line was because of the math equations...

spiffybeth, on Sep 19 2007, 07:46 AM, said:

Owe. That blows. When I was there, Synoptic 1 was heavily on synoptic forecasting. Synoptic 2 was heavy into case studies and mesoscale forecasting. Really good stuff for someone who wanted to forecast. Its unfortunate as to what has happened... but can't say I'm totally surprised.

WxOrKnot, on Sep 19 2007, 07:46 AM, said:

I'd argue that most of the pro mets here are forecasters, not researchers/modelers (though we have a few of those too). For us, the math was a hurdle to surpass

i know there was a thread with the explanation and i hate to link everyone to this post. but here's the only picture of the squiggles that i can find. lol.

http://www.easternuswx.com/bb/index.php?s=...t&p=1538293

VTmtngirl, on Sep 19 2007, 08:01 AM, said:

So... I'm guessing your husband disagrees with something? I guess I'm confused by whether what you wrote was your opinion, or the hubby's...

mike_s, on Sep 19 2007, 07:32 AM, said:

I'm in research, and I use quite a bit of calculus, and there would be no way I could study what I study without a good understanding of calculus.

For example, people with a met degree have a solid understanding of the equations of motion, which involve partial derivitives. I study convection, and there are a whole bunch of equations that can be derived that apply only to supercell thunderstorms, for example, or apply only to the flow in a tornado vortex. A good working understanding of these equations requires a knowledge of advanced calculus. The only times really that calculus is performed, for example, solving an equation, is in graduate classes, or for people who do theoretical work. People who work in modeling or in observations may not have to do calculus very often but they need to know what terms mean, and how things are derived.

famartin, on Sep 19 2007, 10:57 AM, said:

Me too.

Part of the reason I decided to teach math was for the simple reason that I didn't like feeling as though I wasn't good at it. Thirty years later, I can't stand hearing a 15 year old kid tell me, "I suck at math." It closes too many doors. Besides the fact that, for the most part, high school math is pretty fundamental. I kid the other teachers here that we'd have better luck building a rocket ship to get to the moon over trying to teach a high schooler how to add fractions. It's amazing how much kids learn in spite of themselves. But I was the same way, so I suppose it's only justice that my punishment is to be in high school perennially.

RUGGIE WEATHER, on Sep 19 2007, 09:25 AM, said:

It seems to me that you missed Ray's point. No, he does not use math, but it was absolutely necessary for him to understand how the atmosphere works, and that helps in forecasting, even though you are not sitting around solving equations. If you want to really understand meteorology, you need the math.

VAwxman, on Sep 19 2007, 11:14 AM, said:

Brian it appears you missed my point !!! I know what Ray said and understand fully. Yes it helps and is needed even in forecasting and operational MET and forecasting.

My point is there should be different curriculums for different branches. I think an operational forecaster could get by with 1 to 1-1/2 years math, in lieu of the normal 2-1/2 years of math required to get a Degree.

That was my point ! Got it
Ruggie


Ray's quote:
For those who go into operational forecast meteorology (day-to-day work, as you called it), actual use of the math is generally not required. However, for actually understanding how the atmosphere works (and thereby being able to forecast it), a good understanding of the concepts that the math conveys IS required.

Brian,
In the Blue The question is How much is really needed ? or IMO lesser amounts of MATH should be needed than other Branches of the field, so my point was a few different curriculums, could and should be offered to stipulate ones field or branch of study !

Being an operational meteorologist, I can tell you that I haven't touched a differential equation in the 4 years since I graduated... and god help me, I must admit that I hope to never do so again

RUGGIE WEATHER, on Sep 19 2007, 10:34 AM, said:

It is quite obvious that there is a lot you simply don't get. Sorry but there is not much of the math that can be eliminated IMO, so stop griping because you couldn't handle it.

RUGGIE WEATHER, on Sep 19 2007, 11:34 AM, said:

actually, I believe that what Ray is saying is that although he does not use math on a day-to-day basis, it is necessary to have had the multiple math courses in order to understand how the atmosphere works and therefore in order to succeed at operational forecast methodology.

VAwxman, on Sep 19 2007, 11:41 AM, said:

Brian if you were taught to use your right hand, I'm sure you'd find a way to make use of the left hand to make it work !!!

That's picking up that Beer ! or whatever else !

Ruggie

VTmtngirl, on Sep 19 2007, 11:21 AM, said:

You're pretty much right I think. There are many branches of engineering, but I'm sure meteorology definitely compares in math requirements with most of them. For instance, I have a minor in mathematics actually, and I only took 6 extra credit hours (2 classes) in math above the requirements at my school for meteorology to get it.

VTmtngirl, on Sep 19 2007, 08:21 AM, said:

Actually, one of the jokes when I was in school (and afterwards) was how we all might as well just become engineers because of all the math we had to take

Maybe he just has a well engineered ego?

One thing I will say... the pressure is definitely higher for engineers. We screw up, and usually someone doesn't die. An engineer screws up, and a LOT of people can die. Just for that reason, I don't think I ever want to be an engineer

wxtrix, on Sep 19 2007, 08:42 AM, said:

So much arguing over what I said! (but yeah, that's pretty much it)

I'm going to bed now (just got off a mid shift)... so you guys have your arguing fun

VTmtngirl, on Sep 19 2007, 08:54 AM, said:

Sorry, I'm tired and I just COULDN'T resist

Even though operational forecasters do not write out mathematical equations and such as they formulate a forecast, they are going through the process in their mind to some extent (they may not realize it). The math education a meteorologist gets, which is part of a degree in meteorology, is important as it bridges into how the atmosphere works by pretty much quantifying it. If one really likes weather and has a passion for meteorology, then those individuals will get through all the math and succeed in a field they really enjoy.

VTmtngirl, on Sep 19 2007, 11:21 AM, said:

DVDweather, on Sep 19 2007, 11:51 AM, said:

You could show him these two links from two big schools in meteorology.

http://checksheets.ou.edu/metrlgy.pdf
http://www.met.fsu.edu/uploads/images/31/u...ram-f05.doc.pdf

Specifically at OU, they're required to take "MATH3413, Physical Mathematics I" and "ENGR 3723, Numerical Methods for Engr. Computation" as part of the curriculum for meteorology. At FSU, an engineering math class is one of the classes that will fulfill a math requirement

Quote

Now as far as physics classes go, I was only required to take calc-based general physics I and II (8 total credit hours). I don't know what physics requirements outside the department of engineering schools would require.

In addition to advanced calculus and differential equations, an aspiring researcher should understand discrete mathematics, linear algebra, and multivariate statistics. Especially statistics. There seems to be an almost complete ignorance of operational statistical concepts in the field.

brainstorm, on Sep 19 2007, 01:08 PM, said:

You're right, especially about the stat part, and I'm kind of embarassed to admit that in my 24 credit hours of math that I have, I don't have a single stat class. It was never a requirement for me and I chose to take Linear Algebra as part of my "extra" math classes instead. I'm glad I took the Linear Algebra (it was my favorite math class) but I do think stat should get more consideration in the field as well.

God help me, Im just starting to take these math courses.


Seriously, Im looking forward to Cal II and III and the Differential Equations class. Plus the two Calculus based physics classes that are required.
You have to successfully complete Cal II and Cal based physics I to take Dynamics here at South Alabama.

So I have a lot of math to go yet (So far just taking Cal I right now (Trig Derivatives, yay ) ). Every person I talked to down here said Cal II is the killer (7/8 Met Majors failed it in my friends class ) so Im looking forward to that . However, it makes me excited knowing that Im doing what I want to do with my life and that is all that matters!

JagMetWxDude, on Sep 19 2007, 01:31 PM, said:

Yeah, I personally found Calc II harder than Calc III. I've heard the same from other people as well. I went on and took Advanced Calculus (called Calc IV in some places), and I can say that Advanced Calc. was harder than Calc II, but that's not a requirement everywhere. If you want to go on to graduate school though, I would recommend taking all the calc courses your school offers, plus Partial Differential Equations. Anything extra like Stat and Linear Algebra is good too.

WxOrKnot, on Sep 19 2007, 09:46 AM, said:

I have posted an article at http://www.mathmotiv...ce/weather.html . Please take a look and let me know if I have not accurately interpreted your comments. I can modify what I have if needed. There are other examples of the value of high school algebra as well. I feel there are many indirect benefits of math beyond arithmetic and am documenting them on this site. Any of the material can be used in the classroom or copied and passed out. All of this is part of a sabbatical project I am doing. I teach mathematics at Lake Superior College in Duluth, MN (a community college).

Thanks for all your comments!

famartin, on Sep 19 2007, 10:57 AM, said:

And what a hurdle it was

I have TONS of respect for those who are working in research/modeling as this field simply would not exist without them. Thinking about those countless hours spent in the library studying for calc/physics exams makes me shudder. And those of you who went to Plymouth will probably agree with me that dynamics with Koermer was

Do NOT get me started with math and the weather. I am sick of hearing everyone saying that math is needed for this and that. Fine if it helps you understand the atmosphere, but what if you have someone that struggles with it so much and tries so hard and can't get it? Is it fair to that person that doesn't understand it and has loved the weather their whole life to not get the degree they want because they aren't good at the math courses? NO it is not. Some people can't even forecast the weather and are in this program just because they are good at math and that is all. So I guess it is fair that since they are good at math they can graduate after I try probably 10000 times harder then them and I cannot? Right, I don't think so. The whole way the meteorology program is taught is flawed AND there should be a reasonable solution by separating the program into 2 sections. A) Those who want to research and B) Those who love to forecast and follow the weather that they have always loved. I suppose all of the math people around here say you need the math because they understand it, but they don't know what it is like to try so hard and struggle with it so much and still not understand it and they never will unfortunately.

I am going to have to be the contrarian here- I am of the opinion that the advanced math is not really necessary at all in order to be a good forecaster- I have basically forgotten all of the higher math I took way back in the stone age, but still make a good living as a forecaster. I know at least two people who are both outstanding forecasters with jobs in the field- one barely survived the requisite math and physics, the other did not quite get a degree because he could not hack the highest level math. If it was possible to get a met degree without having to do the same really advanced math as engineers, it would have little effect on the skill of those coming out of such a program, IMHO. To my mind, the better forecasters are the ones who have a passion for weather and forecasting and are willing to continually learn on the job and on their own time.

I realize that this is a controversial position- fire away


(As an addendum I am NOT recommending that someone that wants to get into the field at the present time does not need to take all of the math- they do, that is just the current state of things. I just think that is a perfect world, you could turn out good forecasters with a bit less math required.)

Cheeznado, on Sep 19 2007, 01:40 PM, said:

You posted this right after me. Thank you very much!

AJ MdWx, on Sep 19 2007, 12:39 PM, said:

First, I want to empathize with you. I know many people that really struggle with math, and have worked really hard to try and get it. I'm sure it has to be tremendously frustrating.

That being said, not everyone is good at everything. Whether you think it is relevant or not, meteorology is very simply physics applied to the atmosphere. You cannot separate the physics, which is calculus based, out of meteorology. I know this discussion has come up before, but I don't think eliminating calculus from met programs is a wise idea. Shouldn't forecasters understand the QG-omega and height tendancy equations, which involve quite a bit of calculus? I know it might seem convenient that a lot of people with degrees value their math, but that's probably because they now understand how instrumental it was in their learning process.

I'm not a met major though I once was and completed most of the program. I did OK in the math/physics but it is definitely not for the faint of heart. Like anything though, if you really want to learn and put in the time to do so, you can do alright in most cases.

AtticaFanatica, on Sep 19 2007, 01:46 PM, said:

I realize that a lot of people understand the mathematics behind meteorology, but with that said...I am struggling through Calculus and I am Dynamics right now without Calculus 3 because I need overrides. Even If I would have Calc 3 under my belt, I don't know how much more I would understand the formulas that have been given to us so far. My friends even with calc 3 are having trouble following the class. So what am I supposed to do? When the professor explains things without the math which is not very often...I tend to follow him, but the majority of the time, its 50 minutes of formulas. I don't know If I will ever understand the formulas and how they work with the atmosphere. Even if you do understand, many meteorologists on here say they don't use it now.

AJ MdWx, on Sep 19 2007, 01:39 PM, said:

should people who can't master anatony or biology or chemistry be allowed to practice medicine? I didn't think so.

I wanted to be an astrophysicist for a long time. mathematics has never been a problem for me, but b/c of my dyslexia I can't be successful in physics. should I whine to NASA about hiring me anyway? I didn't think so.

not everyone can do everything. that's a fact one masters as one matures.

AJ MdWx, on Sep 19 2007, 01:54 PM, said:

but they have pointed out, more than once, that it was important during their studies.

wxtrix, on Sep 19 2007, 01:58 PM, said:

I've stated my opinion...you have yours. That is fine but you're good at math like you said so you can't fully understand.

I would like to point out that this math “Core” (Calc 1,2 & 3 + DiffEq) is very important in fields other than Meteorology. This "Core" was required for me to earn a B.S. in Biochemistry (excluding DiffEq, which I took as an eligible-elective for my major). In addition, engineering, as well as a myriad of physical and biological science majors are required or can choose to take these classes. In most countries around the world, students who pursue university studies in the sciences (i.e. physical, eng, biological, etc...) are required to be proficient in these areas (notice I said proficient). Could this be one of the reasons why we are lagging behind in math compared to the other developed countries in the world? To the CC Instructor, I would encourage you to tell your students to take these 4 classes if they are going into a science.

Even if you don't use the actual calculus equation in operational forecasting...you are subconsciously benefiting from all the math.

Take a coastal synoptic snowstorm, to use an example popular for this board...when I am looking at it on a model, I'm always thinking about it in 3-D and how the air currents are moving away or toward the storm and if they are moving up or down while moving in those directions...at all levels of the atmosphere. Jet circulations are a big thing too in storms. It definitely makes it a lot easier to visualize the whole thing when you know the physics behind it. It can aid too in identifying possible model hiccups and such.

As an undergrad, when I was struggling through my core math courses (and some were a real struggle) we had a great program that had upperclassmen teach the new students how to forecast. Some of the people who taught me are right here on this board. And while they gave me some of the most useful knowledge I now have, I still had the light come on when I saw the math come together.

Believe me, while I was going through Differential Eq. I did not see how it would ever relate to what I wanted to do. That is until I derived the QG eq. and it seemed so simple. Basically I could read what the models were telling me, but once I knew why I was able to take another step forward in forecasting.

See Lets see here. The situational issue is mainly if an when a computer is not working right, or you have to do it by pencil or pan and paper to figure it out, isnt there a calculator out there that has this scientific level math on it that can do the calculations on that can make the application of forecasting easier? Otherwise most of the math is almost useless in this modern day eara?

AJ MdWx, on Sep 19 2007, 01:54 PM, said:

Get a good book, Stewarts 5th Ed. (red one) and the multivariable solutions manual is recommended. Do problems, problems and more problems! If you are having trouble, you need to be doing each homework assignment twice. One time through with the solutions manual as a guide, and then again on your own, as best you can. Mark problems you still don't get the second time through and ask questions about them the next day. If your teacher does not assign homework or enough of it (as some do), force yourself to mash out as many problems as you can on your own. Take representative problems from your homework, lecture, and any exam guidance from the instructor and use this 20 problem or so guide as your study tool for a test. You should be able to do all the problems on you study guide (at least 3 time though) prior to an exam and WITHOUT a calculator. This is how I made an A with honors credit and it works.

Cheeznado, on Sep 19 2007, 01:40 PM, said:

Great post, as we are on the same page and see eye to eye ! Glad to see a PRO MET back me up on what I said earlier, even though Brian thinks different !!!

As I said, I can see the Math being involved, but not as extensive or intense. Math doesn't make one a better forecaster, as you mentioned passion and a willing to learn are the keys. Throw in some common sense and that person will have Great potential in becomming an excellent forecaster, just as much if not more than someone thats math smart, and not hungry or has a passion for weather.

Ruggie

LMolineuxLM1, on Sep 19 2007, 02:26 PM, said:

Yes, it is called the TI-89 titanium and it got me through physics and p-chem. But to understand the physics and chemistry, you have to know the math, and to understand the math, you have to be able to do it WITHOUT a calculator. Some math departments, as well as a good number of instructors, do not allow students to use calculators in these "core" classes.

Cheeznado, on Sep 19 2007, 01:40 PM, said:

I agree with you on the forecasting aspect, however, anyone who has interest in graduate studies in meteorology or atmospheric science will be forced to use it; especially if they intend to further the understanding in the field through research/publications.

LMolineuxLM1, on Sep 19 2007, 02:26 PM, said:

wxtrix, on Sep 19 2007, 05:55 PM, said:

Excuse me if it seems like I am going all Weather53 on you here, but one of the side effects of the coddling all kids and everyone-gets-a-trophy mentality is way too often today you have students who discover once they get to college their major is not as easy as they think. Then they need to decide if they really want to go through a major amount of work to attempt to get the necessary skills, or change majors. Another side effect is because they were coddled and treated as extremely special individuals into the high school years, they then expect things to be bent in their favor to accommodate their needs. Life lesson number one - the world simply does not work that way. I hear this time and again from Penn State faculty regarding their students. Not all students are this way, the majority are not, but there are more students who expect to be catered to than ever before.

I myself would have loved to go for meteorology, but my SAT's weren't as high in math as they are in verbal. So, here I am as a writer/editor who has weather as a hobby.

JamieO, on Sep 19 2007, 03:52 PM, said:

we are singing from the same hymnal, brother.

mike_s, on Sep 19 2007, 01:36 PM, said:

I couldn't agree with the bolded text more. But, of course, as a teacher, I'm biased.

But, thanks for the link. I haven't had a chance to look through it yet, but I've bookmarked it and hopefully I can explore it in the next few days. Also, as a side question, I'd be curious to hear your take on the incoming students' math scores (or abilities) at your college. Here, I know that the local community college is overwhelmed with students taking basic math courses for no credit because the students did not score high enough on the placement test to take a college course. That's certainly frustrating for the teachers in the local high schools since three years of successful math is a graduation requirement. Not to mention that the district that I work in is considered one of the best in the state of MD. Unfortunately, many kids are not prepared for the performance aspect of college. I can't tell you how many times I've heard, "My son/daughter doesn't test well." Or, my all time favorite, the parent that says, "Well, I'm not good at math so he/she isn't either." Yes, Mr. Johnson, your child is missing the math chromosome. That certainly explains why they need a calculator to add a positive and negative integer.

Anyway, the situation here seems to be worsening, and there are many possible explanations, but I wonder if that's the case where you are.

JamieO, on Sep 19 2007, 03:52 PM, said:

Coddling is now part of every high school curriculum.

By the way, great post. Can I read it to my parents at our annual Back to School Night?

JamieO, on Sep 19 2007, 02:52 PM, said:

I think this is dead-on accurate, at least from what I have noticed and in my discussions with faculty.

AJ MdWx, on Sep 19 2007, 12:39 PM, said:

You could always get your certificate from MSU.

I'm an OU undergrad, and math is hard for me. I know it's what I have to do to get where I'm going. Find yourself some people who know what they're doing in math, find a good tutor, and get through it. Meteorology isn't the science of looking at pretty clouds. Meteorology is the study of the atmosphere and it's phenomena. It combines physics, dynamics, and chemistry to determine what, when, where, why, and how something is going to happen. Where do we get our knowledge of physics and dynamics? We get it from calculus.

Why does a low deepen lee of the Rockies? There is science behind it that all can be broken down into calculus.

Or, for an example outside the realm of meteorology. How do our lungs work? We increase the surface area and decrease the volume. That's how we have expandable lungs to breathe. The science behind that is in the math topic of 'nowhere dense'.

Everything in the natural world can be taken back to calculus. Get to it.

Cheeznado, on Sep 19 2007, 01:40 PM, said:

I'm going to back you up on this. I graduated fairly recently and I'm really just getting my feet wet in the field, but I have worked as a forecaster both on TV and for a private sector firm over the last year and a half....and I really have not applied ANY of the high powered math that I learned in college. This is a good thing because I struggled immensely with the math (took me twice through each calc class and I didn't exactly pass them with flying colors); that said I do consider myself to be a pretty solid forecaster and I was one of the stronger forecasters in my synoptic class. Was all that super heavy duty math and physics really necessary? That's debatable IMO....

This is a topic that comes up quite frequently on this board, and regardless of all of our personal opinions I suppose it doesn't really matter in the long run! The meteorology curriculum at most college institutions has pretty much remained the same for years, and I don't see it changing anytime soon. It is what it is folks; those who are struggling through met programs right now just have to grin and bear it; it sucks and I feel your pain but I will say the feeling of accomplishment when you're all done is quite remarkable! Just keep working at it, be sure to seek help when needed, maintain a positive outlook, and be willing to accept failure from time to time. Persistence and a good attitude will pay off in the end.

I'm an undergrad at PSU, and to my delight I got through Calc and DE without too much trouble. (thats not to say it was easy!)

But the fun doesn't stop there... now I have a stat class and, never having had stat before in my live, I'm finding it quite difficult to keep everything together. And my Met courses right now aren't much better! I have dynamics and thermodynamics and both feel like they are a formula a minute classes. I find it hard to understand the significance of an equation if we spend ten minutes on it and move on.

But thats college I suppose.

I think that "The Ceaseless Wind: An Introduction to the Theory of Atmospheric Motion By John A. Dutton" is a good book that is heavily weighted towards the mathematical side of meteorology and can provide a good reference as how math is used in this subject matter.

I have a BS and MS in applied mathematics and intentionally stuck with this track so that my focus & interest in atmospheric science and physical oceanography would not be compromised by choosing either discipline as my major. My interest is riding waves, so I was never able to choose what I wanted to pursue, whether it was the evolution of storms in the atmosphere, the transfer of energy from the air to the sea, or the dispersion of energy in the sea and the resulting near shore physical mechanics.

When I was getting my BS, the math and the science didn't jive in the sense that when I looked at a cloud or a wave, I wouldn't see the math. But as I ventured into my MS studies, teaching undergraduate math and taking courses in dynamic meteorology and ocean wave mechanics, something started to click and now I see the science and the math in the atmosphere and the ocean.

Given that I don't do any of this stuff for a living, I find that my background helps me understand model output and why models are right/wrong and so my ability to forecast surf is improved not only by intuition but also by my education.

I think it all depends on your passion...

Brian V., on Sep 19 2007, 04:53 PM, said:

Doesn't sound like you're having trouble with the math side of things, but if thermo is taught at PSU the way it was taught at....my PSU....it'll get a whole lot more interesting during the second half of the semester. That's when my prof introduced the skew-t diagrams and the class suddenly became very interesting and even fun!

Dynamics and thermo at the same time could be tough though. I had synoptic 1, dynamics 1, and atmospheric physics (or physical meteorology) in the same semester! Good times.

Funny that programmers and computer scientists often have the same discussion about their own work. Some argue that it is possible to be a good (even a great) programmer/developer without math, but at the same time if you want to do anything at all computationally complex then you must have the math skills.

Well, I'm pretty sure I want to go through with meteorology and keep music as a hobby, but here I am sitting in AP Calc AB (equivalent to Calc I I believe) and I'm getting 40s on my tests. It's extremely frustrating and if my self confidence wasn't through the floor already, it now is. I'm passing, so far, but we're only doing LIMITS which I know is the easiest it's going to get and I'm already stressed out. I'm pretty sure I want the degree bad enough and was never considered "bad" at math (I got A's all through Alg 1, Geometry, Alg 2, and Precal) but oy. Plus, this is a high school class with 31 kids. If I'm hanging in there now, what is it going to be like with 300 kids in a lecture?

Oh well, beginning of a long journey. And while I'd like to have all forecasting classes, the nerdy side in me gets excited when I hear that you'll be able to understand everything and WHY things are happening to the weather through the math. If it will help me understand and forecast better, I'm all for it.

Back to homework.

Higher-level math is used for two purposes. The major goal is to shape your thinking, literally to structure your neural pathways. This is the basic aim of education. And it works. I studied engineering as an undergrad and it does add up. (Yup, sounds like the same math courses.)

Unfortunately, courses such as Calculus are also used as "barriers to entry," that is, you've got to be able to jump over that hurdle or you can't join the club, even if you may not use that knowledge in your actual job. Learning continues when you do work; the "education" is general preparation.

Tough stuff!

WxOrKnot, on Sep 19 2007, 03:02 PM, said:

I don't post much here, but I was lurking and noticed this thread. I think my eperience with the subject of mathematics is pertinent to the above quoted reply.

High School math is a joke, but that could easily by remedied by forcing the following three things:

1. Removal of all multiple choice exams in all high school math classes and make any standardized high school math exams entirely free response base.

2. Eliminate ALL daily work, especially daily work that is considered satisfactory if the student simply attempts it. All math classes should be PRIMARILY exam based to foster the idea of "sink or swim."

3. Make sure the importance of axioms is stressed at an early age. Require students know the axioms rather than simply learning problems through copying the teacher and rote memorization. I don't think the importance of axioms was EVER mentioned at my high school(through trig.) and I suddenly went from being an 'A' student to almost giving up in math when I encountered Calculus in college. Luckily, I decided to take a step back and re-evaluate my methodology when it comes to learning math and now I actually look forward to doing math.

Catskills, on Sep 19 2007, 05:20 PM, said:

Well said!

LocoAko, on Sep 19 2007, 05:19 PM, said:

I remember college classes where the average score was a 30 and the highest was a 60

Catskills, on Sep 19 2007, 08:20 PM, said:

Taking differential equations at 8 AM builds character.

clint, on Sep 19 2007, 08:20 PM, said:

Wow, even though taking your suggestions would make my life way harder, I definitely agree with you. Multiple choice exams make it very easy for me, as instead of solving to find a solution I can simply plug in answers to see which work.

So far in calculus we have almost daily quizzes and she checks the homework to see we did it, but she basically grades everything. Maybe that's why I'm doing badly.

As for your third point, it sounds like I have a lot to learn from you. I've always been taught to copy the teacher and know how to do it step by step. Then, when it's not EXACTLY as it was shown to me, I mess it all up. I think I'm doing what you did, since I was always so great at math and suddenly I'm doing a nose-dive, but I'm not sure waht the best way to "step back and re-learn" like you did is. I could definitely use it. I have this feeling like there is a breakthrough waiting to happen and if I reach it I'll suddenly understand everything. Or maybe I'm just being overly optimistic. I am speaking as if I've been at htis year, we're still on chapter 1.

And I think a better foundation in precal and algebra 2 would have been beneficial as well.

LocoAko, on Sep 19 2007, 08:19 PM, said:

Your general education classes like psychology and cultural diversity will be held in lecture halls with 300+ kids. I think you'll be surprised to discover that the calc classes will be significantly smaller; in many cases even smaller than your high school class. This does, of course, depend on the size of the school you will be attending.

famartin, on Sep 19 2007, 08:23 PM, said:

Yup!!

kulaginman, on Sep 19 2007, 05:36 PM, said:

It most certainly does. The lecture portions of all my Rutgers math classes were larger than his high school class... but nowhere near 300+

The recitation portions were about high school size. If I recall correctly (man I'm getting old ), at Rutgers there were two lectures and one recitation per week...

famartin, on Sep 19 2007, 08:44 PM, said:

If I remember correctly there were 12 students in my Diff Eq class lol. Plymouth <<< Rutgers!

kulaginman, on Sep 19 2007, 05:11 PM, said:

If that's the case, then I'll definitely enjoy it more. I liked what I learned about skew-ts in intro to meteorology.

Having thermodynamics and dynamics at the same time is kind of a pain. In my dynamics class we are currently learning..... thermodynamics.

Brian V., on Sep 19 2007, 06:33 PM, said:

I vaguely remember Thermo being a pre-requisite for Dynamics at Rutgers...

there are 8 kids in my met stats class.

clint, on Sep 19 2007, 07:20 PM, said:

Interesting things you point out. In addition to developing motivational resources I am changing the way I teach College Algebra (11/12th grade level algebra) at the community college. I am stressing that students justify all work and am introducing proof as much as possible. This is only on the "drawing board" right now but you can take a look at what I have at http://www.mathmotiv...ns/lessons.html I am thinking that I will have about 2/3 of their grade be based on exams. The other 1/3 will be participation. At the community college, it is not unusual to have over half the class skip - from now on if they don't show up and participate when they show up, they lose points.

In the past, I simply tested on problems similar to book problems and gave them step-by-step methods. Sure most of the students learned some methods to the point of being able to do well on the tests, but they did not learn how to "think". Your idea of math, even at the high school level, being an exercise in logic and proof as much as method is central to my project. I am trying to hash out a teaching method in order to incorporate these type of skills.

Don't recomend using math to teach to highschool kids. Any math on a spinning sphere is way beyond algebra. Just teach them some basic concepts in science, like potential tempeature, lapse rates, latent heat, the coriolis force, geopotential height, orographic effects radiational cooling, dewpoint.. These concepts can be explained without any mathematics.

Don't believe the hype.

I would say 8 out of 10 people calling themselves "Meteorologists" on TV don't have a degree in the field, or even a degree in sciences. The reason why they think they can call themselves a "Meteorologist" is a cetificate they can earn over the internet and through the mail from Mississippi State University. The American Meteorological Society, the money hungry chumps that they are, saw an opportunity to make some cash, and give out "seals of approval" to most of these certificate holders, if they are able to pass a high school level exam on weather, for a fee of course.

Most TV folks get their forecast for "free" from the National Weather Service, of course they'll change a few things just to call it their own.

mike_s, on Sep 19 2007, 08:32 AM, said:

At our college about 1/2 to 2/3 of students taking math are in Developmental Math with our first course being Prealgebra. Yes, I share your frustration. I personally believe there is a lack of motivation on the part of students and I believe more and more parents do not see the value of mathematics as well. I got tired of whining about this so I came up with this sabbatical project. My hope is that the materials I develop will be used in classrooms nationwide - they are free to the public for educational use. I was presenting some of my motivational "PSAs" last spring at the beginning of each class. They did not seem to be having an effect but at the end of the course I received an email from a student thanking me for pointing out the direct and indirect benefits of learning math - she said no other instructor ever did this.

WxOrKnot, on Sep 19 2007, 03:02 PM, said:

famartin, on Sep 19 2007, 09:35 PM, said:

Here thermo is a pre-req for Atmospheric Physics, so I'd guess that class and your dynamics are comparable.

The dynamics class I'm in now is taken by most people before thermo, so there should not be the overlap I have. But I transferred from a satellite campus, thus the wonky schedule.

NorEaster27, on Sep 19 2007, 09:43 PM, said:

I wonder how Wilks is doing these days.

I think we had about 12 in Meteorology Stats when I took it. His tests are hard but he scales.

Im not a huge fan of stats

I graduated with a B.S. in meteorology last year from St. Louis University and am now in a graduate level Stats in Meteorology course. I've never had a stats class before, which I believe should be a required course for anyone receiving a science degree in met. It's so important to understand when you're reading research and publications. Most of the stuff out there is difficult for me to comprehend because I don't know as much stats as I should. Obviously, I get through it, but I'm missing something when I get nothing out of entire sections. So stats are necessary to read and understand a lot of original research.

As far as math in general, I finished my requirements (Calc I,II,III, DiffEq) 2.5 years into the 4 year program, so I decided to go and get the minor. In my opinion, the importance of math in meteorology is in developing models in your mind regarding how the atmosphere works. I think the difference between understanding the math and not understanding the math is analogous to a person who can read musical notes and play any piece offered to him vs. someone who can play by ear. The result appears the same, but the one with the knowledge of the mechanics will be able to fall back on their mental model rooted in mathematics to assist them in problem solving and diagnostics. It's one thing to know empirically that differential positive vorticity advection leads to upward vertical motion, but it's quite another to be able to read the mathematical term and to be able to interpret the subtleties and caveats from that rock-solid foundation. Also, if you know how an equation is derived, you know the foundations upon which that equation is based. So you'll know not only WHY DPVA leads to UVV, but the fundamental physical principles upon which that rule of thumb is based. In this case and many others, a full understanding of the atmosphere is dependent upon mathematical foundations.

That is not to say one cannot be a great forecaster without math. Forecasting is partially, as far as I'm concerned, an art. You don't need to know how something works to know that something works. Besides, the best forecasters all have an intuition about the weather. If you've got the touch, you've got the touch.

I also agree with some others here that say that the best mets are those who read outside of class and do independent study. You need to continue to learn after you've reached your degree. And above all, expand your horizons. There's a lot more to met than mid-latitude synoptic scale flows and convective instability. This board has helped open my eyes to a lot of those not so mainstream topics.

I kept forgetting to add this, but Basic Sats for Research is required at Rutgers (or at least was in my day (god I'm old ))... I guess I didn't think of it because it never seemed all that hard... compared to the Calc, anyway

famartin, on Sep 20 2007, 01:49 AM, said:

At Cornell it wasnt required, but if you didnt take stats, then 4th semester calculus was required. So I took the tradeoff.


http://www.eas.corne.../fbxk/atmos.cfm

famartin, on Sep 20 2007, 01:49 AM, said:

We still have calc in stats here, you can't escape it.

ORH_wxman, on Sep 19 2007, 10:08 PM, said:

You got an 83, that's a B.

You got a 64, that's a B

You got a 27, that's a B

You got a B, a B, a B...



I read a review of the new edition of his book in the AMS Bulletin that said it was excellent. I hope it still uses Lake Cuyoga measurements in it.

bc0404, on Sep 20 2007, 01:46 AM, said:

There are two additional reasons why stats are important:

1. The derivatives and integrals you learn about cannot be strictly applied in the real world, since we have incomplete information about the atmosphere and oceans. All we have are measurements scattered in different places at different times, we don't have exact continuous functions. The measurements themselves are also subject to error.

2. If you develop a theory, you need to test it and demonstrate that it works, and this necessitates the use of statistical techniques.

These things are true in all applied sciences.

So far, i feel even more babied in my college math course ( Pre-Calc) than I did during my senior year math course ( Pre-Calc )

My High school had a 7 pt grade scale ( <69 F, 70-73 D, 74-76 D+, 77-80 C, 81-84 C+, 85-88 B, 89-92 B+, 93 - 100 A)

My college has a weird 10 pt-ish scale ( <57 F, 57-59 D-, 60-63 D,64-66 D+,67-69 C-, 70-73 C, 74-76 C+, 77-79 B-, 80-83 B, 84-86 B+, 87-89 A-, 90-100 A)

Just got my first exam back and got an 84, which would be a C+ ( 2.3 GPA ) at my HS but is a B+ (3.3) at my college.

This college is also pretty hard to get into, i don't know if it just the course or the whole mathematics department, but all my courses are pretty much 10 pt grade scales. Im not complaining, just putting it out there.

famartin, on Sep 19 2007, 08:23 PM, said:

Ahh, those were the days in college.

The scale is relative. How the percentages are obtained is what really makes the scale. For example, if an instructor designates 1/2 of the points to be from homework, a student can get all of those points by getting a lot of help from a tutor, friend, etc. If that same student only gets 60% of the remaining 1/2 of the points, then their average will be 80% and they could get a B in a course where the common 90-80-70-60 cut-offs are used. Also, the difficulty of tests, quizzes, etc in that second 1/2 of the points would factor in.

What I am getting at is the instructor can engineer the course to produce however many A's, B's, C's, D's and F's that he/she wants with whatever level of learning he/she wants. That definitely goes for math but also applies to most any other subject.

Where the rubber meets the road is when the student continues on in their studies. If I "dumb down" my standards and send out a student of Pre-Calc with a B or C when they really have performed at a D or F level, they will fail in a Calc I class. If the Calc I class is in another institution, which is often the case since I teach at a 2-yr college, then our college will quickly get a reputation for teaching "watered-down" math. I have had to explain this to a number of students petitioning me to give them a better grade.

Delaware, on Sep 20 2007, 02:20 PM, said:

ORH_wxman, on Sep 19 2007, 08:08 PM, said:

We've got 23 Grad. students taking Atmo.Sci stats (same as Met. Stats) @ the University of Arizona using Wilks' book, Hartmann's notes (out of Uni. Washington) and it has been a brutal course.

I've posted a few times on threads like these and I would say that the math/calculus requirements for engineering and meteorology sound very similar. As an undergrad in chemical eng'g at Rutgers in the early 80s, I took 4 semesters of calculus and then a semester of partial differential equations; I also took various sciences and eng'g courses that required various levels of math/calculus, such as: 2 semesters of physics, a semester each of statics and dynamics, 2 semesters of physical chemistry, 2 semesters of transport phenomena, 2 semesters of chem eng'g kinetics, 2 semesters of thermodynamics and a semester of applied numerical methods (finite difference and finite elements algorithms with lots of programming). I also took advanced versions of all of these eng'g science courses (transport, kinetics, thermo, nunerical methods) in getting my MS and PhD in chem eng'g at Rutgers in the mid/late 80s (hence 848789 - my years for my three degrees).

So here's a sentence for you...Most of the eng'g courses centered on using physics/calculus/organic, inorganic and physical chemistry as applied to chem eng'g, i.e., flows in reactors, with simultaneous reactions ongoing, in order to predict how these systems will change with time and location (in three dimensions) with respect to chemical concentration, physical state and energy levels, based on fundamental equations of the discipline (grounded in physics), initial conditions and boundary conditions, usually, whereas meteorology is more about application of physics/calculus/physical chemistry to the atmosphere (usually no reactions in meteorology, unless doing more esoteric research like catalytic CFC destruction of the ozone layer or troposheric chemical reactions that form ozone/smog) in order to predict how this system will change with time and location (in three dimensions) with respect to physical state (saturation, temperature, pressure, etc.) and energy level, based on fundamental equations of the discipline (grounded in physics), initial conditions and boundary conditions, usually. Sounds pretty similar, fundamentally, no?

Where they diverge, as far as I can tell, is on the scale of the system (reactor vs. world/region), the chemistry (generally an added complication in chem eng'g vs. meteorology, although the chemistry is usually well understood), and the application of numerical models to do the core work in the industry. In chem eng'g, one can get by for decades, as I have, without using calculus or advanced math much, since much of the systems/reactions used are reasonably well understood empirically, whereas, even forecasters, who may not use calculus much, if at all, are still indirectly relying on the calculus/physics built into the computer models that generate the forecasts. I can predict how a chemical process is going to behave based on knowledge of similar reactions run in similar physical equipment and based on simple multiplication of parameters when scaling up from the lab to the pilot plant or factory, whereas no forecaster can make much of a prediction without using the computer models.

I will say that the comments about college teaching one to "learn how to learn" and where to go for futher information to clarify scientific questions are spot on, though, and that people who don't have eng'g degrees (or physics/math/meteorology and other sciences that use lots of physics/math) often are clueless in understanding how the world works. Here's an example: most laypeople don't understand why it's much faster to cool beer down in 32F tub of ice-water than it is in a 0F freezer, because they don't understand the physics and math of how cooling occurs. The heat transfer coefficient of water is far higher than that for air, so the warmer water will cool the room temperature beer down to 40F much faster than the colder air. And if you don't believe that, here's a simple test: see how long you can submerge your hand in an ice-water bath vs. how long you can place your hand into a freezer (or into the air on a typical winter's day in Maine) - one can only take a few seconds in the former, vs. many minutes in the latter, all because of the relative heat transfer coefficients of water and air. While most folks can understand this conceptually, to really understand the concept well, one must understand the equations/calculus involved in performing the cooling calculations for each system. There are tons of examples of this in everyday life, such as why does blowing on your food cool it off? Why do incandescent bulbs make a room warm? Why will an ice cube melt at 50F in an hour, while lake ice may take a few days to melt at 50F and the polar ice cap takes months to melt at 50F? (hint: need to understand the mathematics of surface area to volume at different scales).

That's my $0.02 on this.

Now that you mention the beer example, I can think of a bunch of cases where my education is used indirectly as well. For example, many people think that you can dry out a damp basement with a fan that blows the air around whereas the fact is one needs to condense the moisture out in a controlled manner, i.e. a dehumidifier or AC unit. Or one can condense the moisture out on their basement carpet and any other object that is at a temp below the dew point. I have had to give more than a few women instructions on how to quickly cool blanched beans before freezing them - use a water bath within a pot with overflow - the cool water displaces the warm water and heat from the beans using convection and heat transfer rather than simply conduction of an ice/water bath. And since doing an actual experiment verifying that skid length is directly proportional to the square of car velocity and seeing the skid length jump from 33 ft to 50ft by increasing my speed from 30MPH to 35MPH, I am a lot more careful when I am traveling at speeds of 70MPH since my skid length will be 200ft!. You can watch the video of this skid length experiment on my site if you want.

I was thinking about my ability to solve complex problems after my first debut in college where I did the minimum possible to barely secure a B average and my second tenure where I had to struggle through 2 page proofs that sometimes took days of thought. It was about mid-way through my Abstract Algebra course that I began to realize the value of struggling through very abstract material. Before that course, I never really had to do "proofs" and I did not have to really struggle. In the Abstract course, I did everything I had to in order to make it through - I checked out a pile of supplemental books from the library and things started to click. When I say they started to "click" I mean I started to actually enjoy the struggle. Before that point, I was worried sick about matters, thinking I was not cut out for this type of coursework. It seemed from that point on, I no longer viewed unsolvable problems as obstacles but rather as sport, more or less - like going after a big fish.

Now, I have to help my kids with a robotics lab which unfortunately assumes that you have a thorough background in electronics (which I don't). I thought the kit was so you would learn this stuff - wish me luck on that project!

RU848789, on Sep 21 2007, 04:07 PM, said:

Proofs were a nightmare for me. I could never do them. Still can't.

First calculus test coming right up.

Not sure I agree with you there...

At our station (an NBC O&O) every one of our meteorologists have 4 year degrees in meteo (UAlbany, Penn State, Cornell, and UMass). Most other stations in our market have atleast half of their on air staff degreed.

In a bigger market (top 10) most of your forecasting/graphics can be made by a weather producer who knows about meteorology. The involvement of the on-air talent in the forecasting process can either be quite large or minimal.

I'm sure the public neither knows the difference nor cares. They want to know what to wear tomorrow. A pretty face with a good personality can deliver that just as well (if not more effectively) than someone who went through 4 years of physics and calculus.

I loved differential equations in college and thought fluid mechanics in grad school was fascinating... but I don't put isobars or occluded fronts on weather maps. That's my choice... not station management.

Ryan

SkiOrDie, on Sep 19 2007, 10:44 PM, said:

To get back to the orignial point of the thread... how are mathematics used in day-to-day forecast?

To be honest I'm not using a trig substitution or partial fractions to solve integrals in the tv studio. But, any type of synoptic forecasting is based and rooted with the QG-Omega equation or any variation thereof.

What is QG-Omega? A partial differential equation. Physically, you have to understand how laplacians and gradients work to visualize synoptic-scale vertical motion. All of this is going through my head as I make a forecast.

If you can't derive or don't recognize QG-Omega (to paraphrase Chuck Doswell) your education was a waste.

Like it or not, without calculus, you're not much of a forecaster.

Ryan

rfhpsu, on Sep 22 2007, 11:02 AM, said:

1997 PSU Met grad here. Way late to this discussion, but I've always felt the operational meteorologist would definitely benefit from more Statistics (as opposed to more pure Mathematics) classes. I was only required to take Stat 301 (Statistical Analysis) back in my day, and while that was a fine class, some further Statistics classes in linear statistical modeling and applied regression analysis would definitely be useful for a to-be operational meteorologist. Meteo 473, the applications of computer programming to meteorology, had a lot of potential, but a lot of that class was just designing web-pages and graphics (certainly useful in its own regard) as opposed to number-crunching type work.

I always found among my PSU peers that we just accepted whatever MOS spit out (ah, high of 70 at Philly today, looks good), but really had NO understanding of why it spit out what it did. We just looked at MOS as some mysterious "black box" that data was fed into, later spitting out other data at the other end. But it's really not that mysterious, just a multiple linear regression program. Using Excel, or the other more sophisticated statistical software packages out there, a Meteo grad should ideally have learned the skills to build a rudimentary "computer model" which does what MOS does: spit out practical, useful end data (predicted high temp) based on other data entered in at the other end (850, 700 temps, heights, etcetra, etcetra .......)

I personally never entered the Meteorology field career-wise, but instead got into the market-research field. But in a sense there are parallels between the fields. At its core, I take piles and piles of data (some useful, many not), run them through a statistical model that my collegues and I have built and tweaked over time (a model at its core based on regression techniques), in order to produce end data that solves my client's questions (What effect will increasing TV advertising have on our sales?, return on investment?, etcetra). Same idea for MOS, just different questions. Although, again, from my college experience and from talking to people I know still in the field, there doesn't seem to be that ideal fundamental understanding of how it all works. I would think there would be a lot of value in learning how the "black boxes" work, thereby learning over time their strengths/weaknesses, and becoming a better forecaster.

Ah, that the public doesn't know the diference IS the problem.

Earlier this year, there was a Tornado Warning issued in Western Pennsylvania. The warning was nowhere near the city of Pittsburgh. Nonetheless, one of the great unwashed on CNN got on the air and basically said that anybody in the city of Pittsburgh should take cover.

I have no problem if a station wants to put on a pretty face to do weather, just don't call them Meteorologists. It devalues our degrees by substituting "certificate" holders with "degree" holders. But, its typical for you to support them, since you work for a media organization.

rfhpsu, on Sep 22 2007, 11:02 AM, said:

Not sure it's typical for me to support them. I have a degree and went to graduate school.

Wouldn't it help my career (or make me feel better about myself) to say that stations should ONLY hire degreed meteorologists??? Everyone at MY station has a degree while all the competitors do NOT.

I understand what you're saying about non-meteorologists giving out incorrect information with regards to a tornado warning etc. I have a feeling that is the exception and not the rule (atleast it is in our market, with one maybe two exceptions).

If you have an entertainer for your AM "meteorologist" that's fine as long as you make damn sure he's not on TV during a severe weather outbreak. And this is not a foreign concept... many stations (even here in the NE) kick the non-mets off the air or give them a non-vital role during breaking weather situations. I won't name the actualy stations but I'm sure you can figure it out.

The meteorologist/weathercaster debate is a completely different one. Contrary to your incorrect assumptions about my thoughts I agree with you that only degreed meteorologists should be called such.


Ryan

SkiOrDie, on Sep 22 2007, 12:13 PM, said:

If my math courses only involved Algebra I would've been one happy fellow! The truth is, meteorology involves, like many have pointed out, a lot of calculus based math/met courses. I had one Calc based course, either met or math, all but one semester at college!

On the math side I had to take, pre calc, calc I, calc II, multi variable calc and differential equations.

On the met side, there were many calc bases courses that included Thermodynamics, Dynamics I and II, Atmospheric Physics and Advanced Synoptic Meteorology.

Then don 't forget Physics I and II....


Although, you may be able to touch on some of the meteorology equations with algebra, to get to the real meat of the stuff you need to use calc. Ughhh!

Well I had a test on limits today and I struggled through it, it was quite difficult. I don't even know if I passed.

At this rate I'm probably not cut out to be a meteorologist.

True story. My freshman year at Rutgers, we had a prof for honors calc named Dr. Lyons, who looked like one of those guys who never saw the sun: long hair and beard, big, dark glasses, about 6'4" and no more than 150 pounds, with an incredibly subtle sense of humor - really interesting guy. He also happened to be the best prof I've ever had in any subject. The guy just connected with people. In fact, I still recall the day he proved the fundamental theorem of calculus (that the integral of F(x)dx from b to a (can't write it out correctly without math symbols) equals F(b) - F(a)) in such a brilliantly elegant, yet simple-to-understand way, that the entire class (about 20 of us) applauded him. Only time I ever recall applauding a teacher or professor.

LocoAko, on Sep 25 2007, 04:00 PM, said:

Don't give up yet! Limits are tough!

It took me about 3 weeks for the basic delta-epsilon definition of a limit to sink in. And this was AFTER calc I, II, and III when I was taking Intermediate Analysis during my second phase of college education. This higher level math is kind of nasty, but when it clicks it's kind of infectious, at least for me anyway.

RU848789, on Sep 25 2007, 10:43 PM, said:

I hope thats not the same Dr. Lyons that was on TV at WLS in Chicago for a few years, if so, does not bode well for lots of math making a better weather forecaster, 'cuase that Lyons forecasts sucked. No offense.

I'm not sure anyone cares, but it turns out I surprised myself and got an 88 on my limits test! Yay. I was due for an ego boost, .

Now we're delving into derivatives and tangent line equations. So far I'm still with her, but I can't help but get the feeling this is like the EASIEST stuff out there and that it's going to get infinitely more difficult. Then again, the precal textbook looked incredibly hard too and by the end of the year I understood it. So maybe there is a slight ray of hope.

After talking to some people currently taking Calc I at Rutgers I have a question. I'm taking AP Calc AB in HS, which for those unfamiliar is the AP Version of Calculus I. They say calculus in college is *WAY* more difficult than even AP Calculus (supposed to be equivalent to college, it's not a highschool course) and that I shouldn't take the AP because if I go straight into Calc II from highschool I will bomb it. I obviously took the class to try and get AHEAD, not struggle my senior year and do it all again next year.

Thoughts?

LocoAko, on Sep 27 2007, 05:44 PM, said:

I ended up taking all my calcs twice for all intents and purposes (partly due to bad scheduling on RU's part, partly due to not caring enough the first time around ).

Let me describe this for all of you...

I took Calc AP in HS, and then the "easy" Calc 1 at Rutgers. This was because I didn't do good enough on the AP exam to skip Calc 1 (got a 3, needed a 4 or 5), and they couldn't fit me into the "hard" Calc 1 at Rutgers because there were already too many students in it.

I then took the "easy" Calc 2 at Rutgers and then the "hard" Calc 2. Since I had gotten stuck with "easy" Calc 1, I didn't want to screw myself by going straight into the "hard" Calc 2 from the "easy" Calc 1.

I then took Calc 3 (Multivariable Calc)... got a D, and later took it again (got a C+). Didn't like the D so decided to take it again to get rid of it.

I took Differential Equations after the first time taking Calc 3. More or less gave up about halfway thru the semester. Took it again after my second time thru Calc 3. Withdrew after the first exam as I was already overloaded that semester (something like 20 credits). Took it a 3rd time over the summer, got a C+.

After all that, you'd think I'd know this stuff really well. Yeah right

famartin, on Sep 27 2007, 08:53 PM, said:

wow thats nice you can just take the class again and erase the old grade, its not like that here are cornell what u get is what u get.

LocoAko, on Sep 27 2007, 08:44 PM, said:

Ultimately I think it's up to you and how you feel about how well you understand Calc I after you finish the the AP class. I can tell you what I did. I took AP Calc BC in high school (the equivalent of Calc I and II), and I scored high enough on the AP exam for me to jump all the way to Calc III starting out in college if I wanted to (although I only got a 3 on the BC portion of the AP exam). I didn't do that though. I went back and started in Calc I anyway. Despite the fact that some people might frown on that, I don't really regret it. I understood it a lot better in detail seeing it all again for the second time around in a different setting, and as a result the classes were easy in college because I'd seen it once already. It was a confidence booster for me that I could handle the college math classes once I got into Calc III and the tougher classes that were brand new to me.

And hey, congrats on the good test score.

NorEaster27, on Sep 27 2007, 08:00 PM, said:

Only if its a D or an F... but yeah, that's nice.

My required math classes are done. I was lucky with my profs for Multivariable Calc and Diff Eq. Diff Eq actually had a PhD student as the instructor, but he was truly stellar. I originally registered for a different section, but once I saw his ratings on ratemyrprofessors.com, I switched while his sections still had a few seats. That ratings site is quite valuable, IMO...especially if you have enough flexibility in your schedule.

Here at PSU, the meteo dept. is pretty small compared to other departments at the University. As a result, the dept. tends to offer one-section-only courses. All three of my required meteo courses this semester have one section each...meaning that there is no choice in what professor I get if I want to take the course this semester. So far, they haven't been that bad, but it is obvious that problems could arise in future semesters.

One thing to remember from all the calculus and multivariable calculus especially. KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TOTAL AND PARTIAL/LOCAL DERIVATIVES. My dynamics professor uses partial- and d-notation back and forth all the time, and they can mean BIG differences. I think it is important to really understand how the calculus is being used in the meteo courses...that's more challenging than just taking the math courses, at least for me. When partials are taught in Multivariable, the concept seems quite simple -- take the derivative with respect to some variable while the other variables are held constant. Cool. Then take the total derivative, and now you have certain formulas/ideas to remember. Not a big deal while in the math class, but the meteo profs don't review this stuff. Multivariable seems like the most important math class for meteo, so far. Diff Eq is required for the meteo degree at PSU but it's not a prereq for any of the classes, AFAIK.

RUGGIE WEATHER, on Sep 19 2007, 10:34 AM, said:

You've never been in a meteorology program -- you're ignorant of the coursework REQUIRED to have a good understanding of the atmosphere and thus your opinion doesn't matter. Sorry to be so harsh and forward, but how in the world do you suppose you are qualified enough to determine how much math an operational forecaster needs to have a firm grasp on the dynamics/thermodynamics/kinematics/physics of the atmosphere?

How did some of you folks get by without stats?? Stats was required for me, as well as an intensive writing course for communicating science and research.

SacrydDreamz, on Oct 1 2007, 06:26 AM, said:

Both courses are (or at leas, were back in my day) required at Rutgers.

famartin, on Oct 1 2007, 03:15 PM, said:

Shush, you.

I've followed this thread for a while, and now that I have a chance to post comments, I'd like to add my $0.03 (inflation, you know).

I can't speak about about how important higher math is to everyday forecasting because I am not a meteorologist, but I can speak in general terms about how important math is to an understanding, not just of weather, but of many things. You can describe the behavior of many natural phenomena without math, but when it comes to applying that information, you can't excape math. You wind up dealing with questions such as: how big? how much? how fast? what are the chances or odds? You have to use math to answer those questions.

I believe some have pointed out that you can let the computer models do the math and generate a basic forecast. But how will you know how reliable the models are? How many times does a model have to fail before you suspect its relaibilty? Won't you use math to answer that question?

Back to what the origninal poster was trying to do (inspire kids to study math), we can take a clue from the TV series Numb3rs. They have a line in their opening credits that says:

“ We all use math every day; to predict weather, to tell time, to handle money. Math is more than formulas or equations; it’s logic, it’s rationality, it’s using your mind to solve the biggest mysteries we know. ”

Texas Instruments runs a educational program entitled "We All Use Math Everyday". It uses the real math the characters use to solve problems.

With today's culture dominated by TV, video games, etc., maybe the best way to motivate kids to study math is through a show that uses real math that applies to the situations presented.

Thanks 3Doug! After a little Googling, I found http://www.weallusematheveryday.com/tools/...ies_season3.htm

I was looking for a site going into the details of the "Numb3rs" shows and you helped me find it!

3Doug, on Oct 3 2007, 04:20 PM, said:

Numb3rs is truly a terrific show, IMO. It makes math look "cool", because the show is so well-thought out and produced. Deep plots, a lot of action, and math that solves the problem.

RiemannSun, on Oct 4 2007, 04:01 PM, said:

I concur, watched it tonight.... been a few months though, so I missed a lot? They were doing reruns back in June.

Actually, I got my info about Numb3rs from Wikipedia. I was curious if the math used in the show was real. Not only is it real, the writers use math that applies to the situation at hand. I was impressed!

Math is just one of the tools used to solve problems. The agents still have to gather evivdence and ask questions. The math helps in interpreting and clarifying the evidence, and in analysing the criminals' behaviour.

The important thing to remember is that math is a tool. It is a very valuable and powerful tool, but still we have to deal with the human factor. Just knowing a formula is not enough, you have to be able to recognize when the formula applies.

This points to some other comments I wanted to make about math education.

School all too often reduces learning to work - copying things over and over, memorization, listening to lectures. I'm not knocking work. Nothing happens in this world without work. But shcool tends to squeeze the fun out of learning. No wonder school looses it's appeal!

When I went through college algebra, I began to realize that the way I was taught math did not prepare me for what I was encountering. Arithmetic was taught with examples using tangible objects such as apples and oranges. Algebra isn't concerned with quantities of tangibles, but units of displacement from an origin point. Thus algebra in a more complete system that can cover lines and angles and curves.

Eventually I came to see that the basic operations of arthmetic, if viewed algebraically, could be defined as forms of one basic operation: addition. Subtraction is negative addition. Multiplication is repeated addition. Division is repeated subtraction. I believe if arithmetic were taught this way, students would have a easier time moving from basic math to higher forms. If I am not mistaken, some schools have adopted programs that use an algebraic approach to teaching arithmetic. Even so, schools need to not just teach the concepts of math, but present fun projects that require the use of math to finish.

Another area of my own math education that I found lacking was geometry, or actually the lack thereof. I never took a separate geometry class in high school. Before I took Calculus in community college, the only geometry I had was what was presented in the regular high school math courses. Of course, I had one semester of trig, but it did not include the tradional approach to geometry. After I finished community college, I bought a geometry study guide to help fill the gap, and saw how beneficial an understanding of geometry would have been to learing Calculus. Therefore, I believe schools could do a better job emphasizing geometry.

Although I'm staying afloat and doing pretty well in Calc 1, the textbook is not that much help to me (maybe because I don't know how to use it properly) so I'm looking for other books to explain it in a nicer, friendlier way. My friend just got "Calculus for Dummies", and I've always been a fan of the Dummies books. I only looked at it for a while but it looked quite decent.

Anyone have any specific suggestions as to books like that? I'm not looking for textbooks, I'm looking for a nicer explanation. Thanks!

LocoAko, on Oct 6 2007, 08:03 PM, said:

The Dummies books are great! You don't have to be a dummy to read one. They're written for "dummies" so anyone can understand them. I like the clever titles and cartoons that help to ease the stress of someone trying to learn something on a deadline.

For Calc, see if you can find a copy of "Calculus the Easy Way" form Barron's. It presents the concepts in the form of a story of someone who winds up helping the royal staff solve problems in a fictional kingdom. This may seem to be a lightweight approach, but it works.

I did a survey of about 120 students in pre-algebra classes vs. pre-calculus and calculus 1. The results are shown below. I gave students 3 questions. The first two dealt with logic skills and the third involved substituting variables with given values. Students with more math did better although more study is needed to determine exactly why. More details of the study are given at http://www.mathmotivation.com/test-symboli...gic-skills.html
http://www.mathmotiv...t-graph-LSC.jpg

3Doug, on Oct 7 2007, 08:36 PM, said:

What is funny about the "For Dummies" fad is that it is entirely right! That IS the way to learn. There is a sociology to education; in other words, it is an in-exact science. The technical, complex version trickles too much down into the cool to warm minded brains, and only a few (the warm side) get to learn it... But, you'd be shocked at how many geniuses there are that don't learn through complexity, but by learning the simple blocks and then building sky-scrapers on their own. They were thought to be cool-minded, but burn very hot. Einstein?

Our socieaty does not no how to educate people. Then some outfit comes along and invents so and so for dummies, and it's ...WOW, that easy. Duh!

The point is, EVERTHING learned should be done in the lowest common denomenator, that way, those that can't, REALLY can't, and those that can, will emerge in much greater numbers.

Typhoon_Tip, on Oct 14 2007, 10:31 PM, said:

The delineation between cool and warm minded brains isn't so precise, in my opinion, and it can fluctuate within an individual person on a daily or even an hourly basis, as seems to be the case with me. I've always joked about how my IQ fluctuates from around normal to 3-4 standard deviations in the positive direction, but given the fact that we DO have a classification for different types of minds, it seems probable that this could actually be a possibility. In my case, when I'm feeling really intelligent, I can literally feel a euphoric rush of blood to my brain and my ability to comprehend and compute information(from memory and external stimuli) increases dramatically. I feel alive through the pulsing in my head(not a deep or heavy pulse, but a rhythmic and electrical pulse).

This is why we should always target the "LCD" when teaching complex subject matter since, although unsubstantiated, I have a feeling this may the case for quite a few people. Provide whatever information is at hand and let the 'geniuses' extend our current information whenever they are in a prime "mental state" to do so.

LocoAko, on Oct 6 2007, 09:03 PM, said:

You might find this book helpful:Calculus

I'm a visual learner and the author of this book accommodates that learning style the best.

You can also pick it up at your local Barnes & Noble book store.

rfhpsu, on Sep 22 2007, 03:07 PM, said:

IMO, The QG Omega equation was the single best equation I learned while at college. I learned that during Advanced Synoptic Met (Basically Synopitc III) and it took pretty much the entire semester to derive. I use it every day in forecasting for my DMA.

Actually, I am one of about 3 true mets in my whole DMA! It shows. I beat the other stations, and the NWS on a consistent basis!

I am in college currently, as much as I love meteorology, I doubt I can handle all the math numbers... The equations are just too much for my mind to handle! I think I will keep it as a hobby.


Considering being a professional psychologist instead.

I think forecasting experience spanks the calculus in most cases. Give me someone who has a poor understanding of math/equations but years of experience forecasting over someone that is strong in the derivations anyday.

And for the record I couldn't disagree more with your last statement.

rfhpsu, on Sep 22 2007, 11:07 AM, said:

march58, on Nov 1 2007, 10:01 AM, said:

I agree, there are plenty of people at my school that can derive equations all day long that I don't understand at all, but guess what...they can't even make a decent forecast!

I'll just add my own experience as an engineering student on this thread, since it's been discussed. It sounds to me like a lot of the math requirements are very, very similar. But it really depends on what kind of engineering you go into. Not just how much, but what type of math. I was a Computer Engineer major (essentially equivalent to Electrical Engineering -- it's the same department and has mostly the same classes). And in that, I was in a math-heavy specialty (communications). But a lot of it wasn't the type of math I imagine you'd deal with much (though I may be wrong).

Anyway, many of the classes I took in the ECE department were math oriented.

Off the top of my head, I took (or had credit for)
Calc I, II, III
PY 205, 208 (Physics I and II)
ST 371 (Statistics for Engineers and Scientists)
CSC (???) Discrete Math
ECE 220 (Introduction to DEs, other nasty math stuff)
ECE 301 (Introduction to signals and systems, frequency domain math)
ECE 303 (Electromagnetics -- nasty math stuff)
ECE 402 (Communications Engineering, lots more signals, frequency domain analysis, statistics, power densities, probability distributions, etc. etc.)
ECE 420 (Wireless Communications -- much more freaky, weird, and fun math for communications systems -- lots and lots of frequency domain stuff, Fourier till you puke)
ECE 421 (Introduction to Signal Processing -- yet more math, with old friends Laplace and Fourier)
ECE 211 (Circuits, so some physics stuff)
ECE 302 (Microelectronics, which when I took it, had transistor physics stuff)
CE 214 (Statics for Civil Engineers -- why I took a CE weed-out course for my technical elective, I'll never know)

I probably left some out. But that's probably the extreme end of math-oriented engineering. For instance, if I had gone into a more semiconductor oriented specialization in CPE or EE, it would have been much more physics oriented (which is obviously still math, but more applied math). But it looks like a lot of that still matches up with what you mets had to deal with.

I too have noticed the similar math requirements across majors such as Meteorology, Physics, Computer Science, Mechanical Engineering, etc. I am a CS major (could've gone with met and really was considering it for a while but in the end stuck with CS), will get that degree finally in May (along with a Mathematics minor) next year. The road through the CS curriculum has been no easy by any means, speaking as someone who despised math going into it. But somehow I have managed to stick through it and completed my last math intensive course (Physics III) in the spring this year. Anyway, from the CS side of things, this is what I ended up having to do:

Discrete Mathematics I
Discrete Mathematics II
(I don't think you see those two in met majors, they seem to be a lot more applicable to CS. Nonetheless, a lot of nasty proofs and such abound. I'd have to say they were among my least favorite math courses, yes even more than calc)

Calculus I
Calculus II
Calculus III (Multivariable, but I actually found this less tedious and obnoxious than Calc II)

Physics I
Physics II
Physics III

(I am glad I took the calc before I got into those 3.. as they were the calc-based flavor)

Analysis of Computing Algorithms (I include this because it used a lot of the discrete math stuff, and was your typical balls-to-the-wall weed-out course)

There was also a 300-level prob/stats course which I absolutely despised, mostly because the prof who taught it, unfortunately there was no other one to take it from. At any rate, CS and Met definitely seem to share a significant number of the same math course requirements. As such, I'd imagine that makes it a little bit easier to switch or double up majors if you change your mind.

You just reminded me I left my CSC Discrete Math course off of my list!

And also: add me to the list of people who enjoyed Calc III so much more than Calc II.

Pi Master, on Nov 30 2007, 08:25 PM, said:

IMO, Calc III was much easier to understand than Calc II. I would never, ever mention the words enjoy and calculus in the same sentence. To me, the word Calculus sounds like some terrible disease.

Just think....

"I went to the doctor today, he told me I have calculus... "

After reading this thread, I'm going to go ahead and throw in a quote from one of my favorite movies:

It's supposed to be hard. If it wasn't hard, everyone would do it. The hard... is what makes it great.

The point of the degree is to get a full understanding of the atmosphere, how it works, and the physics/dynamics behind it. It's true that someone without a Meteorology degree can be a good forecaster, for sure. But there's more to meteorology than forecasting. I don't use any math in my every day operational met job, but in college, in order to understand the meteorology classes, you need a solid base of math courses. I don't see any way that you could offer a meteorology degree without having to deal with the math unless it was a watered down degree. And yes, I struggled through it - math was never my strong point, so it's a good thing I don't have to use it now!

Eddie, on Dec 3 2007, 10:33 AM, said:

AGREED. I hated calc 2... I definitely enjoyed calc 3 more. Okay well maybe not enjoyed....

Eddie, on Dec 3 2007, 09:33 AM, said:

This has actually happened to me before... only it was the dentist

Eddie, on Dec 3 2007, 09:33 AM, said:

I totally agree with this. I truly hated Calc 2 but Calc 3 was tolerable. At my school Calc 2 is the most failed course. I was going to go back and re-take it (even though i passed the first time) so that i could actually learn the material well enough to use it. So i signed up for it again with a different professor thinking that i would learn better if i learned it from two different methods of teaching. My plan was to replace a 4 hour C with an A and boost my GPA a bit in the process of learning. Well on the first test i made a 43. So i promptly dropped it because obviously i was not meant to understand Calc 2.

tsolgnikool, on Dec 14 2007, 05:13 AM, said:

I hear ya. I majored in Math and Calc 2 may have been the most difficult class not because of the concepts but because of the amount of material covered. It's a weed out class in a way. Calc 3 is taught differently by different professors...I had one that used a dumpload of matlab which i thought was fine, but got a little tedious.

I also want to give a shout to the 3 semesters of calculus based physics...kind of a fun class, but time consuming.

I consider going back for grad school now and then...I know one thing, it's been over 4 years since I graduated so the longer I wait the more I'm gonna forget!

I took Calc 1 in HS, (Pre-Calc Jr year). Wasn't bad. Calc II it is required to pass, and what I am hearing, It sounds like a sick ****** to handle... Ugh, Math is not my strong point, either. I will be taking it next semster, ugh!

I understood the Kocin book, because they don't really have math in there...

Well AP Calc AB is awfully challenging - makes me really worried for what is coming. We just started integration and I'm a little stuck. Hopefully it'll come to me. Related rates though... not happening.

LocoAko, on Dec 16 2007, 08:15 PM, said:

What are you stuck on with integration?

And yes, related rates suck. That was probably the hardest thing for me to grasp in that class in high school.

Math requirements that I took and got credit for at Kean:
Calc I
Calc II
Differential Equations
(none of which I use in day to day operational meteorology, but some was used in other science classes)
Science Classes Heavy on Math:
Physics I
Physics II
Thermodynamics
Dynamics I
Dynamics II
Physical Meteorology
Synoptic Meteorology, Part II
And Synoptic Meteorology, Part I had some, but not as much, math in it.

You didn't have to take Calc III?

LocoAko, on Dec 17 2007, 05:51 PM, said:

Nope. But don't ever ask me to explain differential equations. I understood as much of it on the last day of class as I did on the first day.

Analog96, on Dec 17 2007, 05:15 PM, said:

Oh and I forgot two other courses that also had a decent amount of math in them:
Meteorological Instrumentation
Methods in Geoscience
The other two sciences, Hydrology and Climatology, really don't have any math above Algebra I in them, since Education majors have to take them too.
Also Computer Programming I and II had some math in them, but not a terrible amount. Remote Sensing COULD have math in it, but not with the professor I had.

Calc III was wicked fun. Take it as an elective; it'll help a lot especially with your Physics classes (I'm a Physics grad).

Anyway, I wouldn't worry about Calc AB too much... just retake Calc I in college. I did, since I didn't understand Calc AB/BC very well in high school. Repeating the courses made life a lot easier and resulted in easy A's in Calc I and II, along with a strong foundation for higher level math.

Chris L, on Dec 15 2007, 08:57 PM, said:

Your understanding is incomplete unless you know the governing equations as they are. For example, do you understand how positive vorticity advection tends to favor upward motion, or how frontogenesis works so you know when and where to expect it?

3Doug, on Oct 3 2007, 04:20 PM, said:

Very well said, and echoes many of the thoughts I've had while reading through this lengthy thread. It is an important topic for discussion. A vast majority of kids and young adults can barely balance their checkbook these days, let alone handle advanced math concepts. Teachers at the HS and CC levels should be using climatological data to help reinforce the basic mathematical principles, and how to think problems through logically as this poster noted. The "Numbers" example hits the nail on the head. Those small percentage of students that have the interest and capability to do higher math will do it, eventually. I'd rather be using weather data as that "cool" tool to help get the rest of this group ready to face the real world.

SacrydDreamz, on Dec 19 2007, 05:21 AM, said:

That is a good point, which is perhaps why I haven't completely finished the book yet, however, I been going to (theweatherprediction.com, for some assistance in terms of terms and understanding).

SacrydDreamz, on Dec 19 2007, 05:21 AM, said:

You just proved your entire statement wrong by explaining it without the equations.

Analog96, on Dec 20 2007, 11:11 PM, said:

I really don't think he came close to explaining it. He asked if Chris L understood how PVA favored upward motion and if he understood how frontogenesis works. I don't think saying "PVA favors upward motion" explains how or why it occurs. It really can't be done completely without using equations.

AtticaFanatica, on Dec 21 2007, 01:09 AM, said:

Exactly -- I was asking him questions -- not trying to prove something myself...

AtticaFanatica, on Dec 21 2007, 01:09 AM, said:

I know, only saying that most of it can be, and you can just say, well, this happens in the equation, without even necessarily getting into the gory details. Like for example, why can't this happen? Well, because if you solved the equation for it, it would equal infinity. You get the idea.

The Weather Prediction is my friend in this catagory...

Calc III, bleh, I hope I pass it. the final grades from this semester are not all in though.

but with all seriousness, math plays a HUGE role with meteorology and I wish I had more time and motivation to devote to the Calculus classes I took.
(perhaps it didn't help that we skipped over the entire section in Physics in our Calc III book and that I had some pretty lame professors)

I've been doing some elementary research into the models and the complexity of the equations and such makes me wish I had a stronger hold on math. It's a shame, but I loved math until Calculus. I still find Calculus very interesting, but alas, it has come to this...

Analog96, on Dec 21 2007, 01:39 AM, said:

OK -- I'm lost.... are we still criticizing my response to Chris?

Quincy, on Dec 23 2007, 11:16 AM, said:

Just wait until you take differential equations


And meteorology is the integration of mathematics and physics with application to the atmosphere.

Ordinary Differential Equations is only a requirement for Theoretical Meteorology and I am planning on doing the Operational Meteorology BS degree.
I wanted to do both "track options", but as soon as I hit Calc III, I called it off. It also means one less year, which is going to save me a lot of time and aggrivation.

I'm planning on taking Physics 598, Physics of Atmospheres and Space next semester. it's a graduate level class, but given the fact that it's taught with a professor I had for Thermodynamics and that I had a good grip on the Atmospheric Physics portion of Physics, it shouldn't be too bad. I'm really excited and interested to take it!

SacrydDreamz, on Dec 23 2007, 08:01 PM, said:

God differential equations. The "rat pack" as we were known (met majors) got Ds in that class out of kindness. The rest of the class was full of math majors who understood the material about as well as they understand washing their hands (or some may understand the math more- if you get my drift!) We didn't have a clue and just did what we could. To this day, I don't truly know what a differential equation really is.

Quincy, on Dec 23 2007, 11:01 PM, said:

Ahhh, the watered down degree....

Analog96, on Dec 23 2007, 11:06 PM, said:

LMAO!! I actually liked the class.... got a C+... it was a summer session where I had two other intensive classes as well... so I could have done better...

Without the weather prediction website, I would be truly lost.

Quincy, on Dec 23 2007, 11:01 PM, said:

Don't short change yourself. http://www.ametsoc.o....html#AppendixB Not having "Diffy-Q" under your belt may come to bite you later, should you look for operational employment with the NWS. Just a thought.

SrnTierWxman, on Dec 25 2007, 01:00 AM, said:

I was thinking the same thing. Shutting yourself out of the possibility of NWS employment as an operational forecaster seems like a grave mistake, IMO, considering it's widely considered the most secure and best-paying job of its type.

I may return back to school later on, but right now I have too much debt and stress to stay another full year and take a course like ODE.

The more I think about it, the more I would like to do something other than the NWS, like broadcasting.

Im taking AP calc right now and studying for the BC exam. I just got "Introduction to Dynamic Meteorology" for Christmas and have fought my way through chapter 2 which is filled with calculus.

Sigh, even AP Calculus AB isn't being too friendly so far. We passed related rates and I still can't do them, and now we're doing integration. Not too bad so far but it's getting tricky and this is only calc 1. How depressing.

LocoAko, on Dec 27 2007, 06:30 PM, said:

The only thing I can say is that I didn't really like AB Calc (I'm not planning on going into the Met field I should point out), but the AP exam is so heavily curved that it makes it difficult not to at least get a 3 (most people at my school got 4's and 5's). So keep your head up!

I am so happy!!!
I finished with a C- in Calc 3

Quincy, on Dec 30 2007, 10:15 PM, said:

It's funny how you (and I mean me too) can be thrilled to get a C- in a class like that through much hard work, but disappointed with a B+ in one of those gen-ed classes when you didn't work too hard.

I got a C-- (that's really what the professor wrote!) in our Junior year Dynamics class (almost pure calc).

Then I got top grades in all the senior level met classes (much less calc intensive)

I finished with a C+ in Atmospheric Thermodyamics this semester...slightly dissapointing, but not bad considering it was heavy on calc and I am not too good in that area....

famartin, on Dec 30 2007, 11:23 PM, said:

LOL WOW! C- didn't even exist at Kean, let alone C--!

Analog96, on Dec 30 2007, 08:45 PM, said:

It was a joke. C- doesn't exist at Rutgers either. At the end of the semester, the professor e-mailed all of us with our grades (so we got them ahead of when they actually got posted to our transcripts), and in the e-mail he wrote C--

famartin, on Dec 30 2007, 11:48 PM, said:

So in other words, C (with a generous curve)?

Analog96, on Dec 30 2007, 08:49 PM, said:

Yes.

famartin, on Dec 30 2007, 11:51 PM, said:

I got a few of those! :-P

I got a gentleman's C- in Calc II (it was a C-wall course).

Did much better in Calc III and subsequent math classes.

Calc midterm is tomorrow. I need prayers.

I took the AP Calc BC test this past Wednesday. I know I screwed up some stuff, but the BC material alone was not very intense. The concepts that were included were fairly simple.

wxwatcher91, on May 12 2008, 03:15 PM, said:

Glad to hear it went well. I took the AB test. I wouldn't say it was easy, and I know I messed up decently on the FRQ's... but it definitely could have been worse and I think I passed. I think my teacher made it harder than necessary for us, though it over prepared us for the exam, which was good. Hopefully I can just skip ahead to Calc II to speed this stuff up.

Yeah, that's my main objective - to speed up the classes and get ahead in the math so I can grasp physics and meteorology easier. Is your teacher giving you a final at the end of the school year?

I am a suffering, starving and hope to graduate soon Ph.D. Student. Suffice it to say that all the math that all of us Met Majors learned back in the B.S. degree serves one well going for an M.S. and later Ph.D. To put into perspective, I am quite grateful that I got a minor in Math while majoring in Meteorology. Otherwise, as DT would put it, I would be fooked. The course load I had:

-AP Calculus credit
-Calc II
-Calc III
-Calc IV (Diff Eq.)
-Engineering and Scientific Advanced Mathematics
-Linear Algebra
-Matrix Analysis
-Probability Theory
-Complex Variables

The first four are no brainers for all of us. The fifth was a prereq into the last four. Linear Algebra is under frequent use in the research field of Met. Matrix Analysis is used heavily for statistical verification, i.e. Livezey and Chen 1983. Probability Theory, I don't think I need to say more here. Complex Variables are extremely important for proving tropical waves and oscillations, i.e. MJO.

To end, I do agree with the sentiment that Synoptic I and Synoptic II should be more about weather forecasting and less about proving everything from CAPE to the Q-vector. Unless you're Piled Hip Deep, like I am, or even just want More Sh*t, the operational aspect would serve one better. That is how I intend to shape a course in Synopic Met. I/II, if and when I am given the opportunity to teach it.

Chiming in here...

I haven't read this entire thread, but I will say that I think the Math and Physics are important in undergrad because, quite simply, you never know if you're going to need it down the road. I've had this same discussion with my cousin who is currently doing Education for undergrad, but can't stand the fact that she has to take any math since she only wants to teach pre-school. But I'm a believe that a program should prepare you for courses "just in case" you need them in the future. I did Math for undergrad and while I couldn't do an undergraduate degree in Meteorology (Maryland doesn't offer it for Undergrad), I'm glad I took those classes because I know for grad school I'd need it. Just my two cents. And sorry if this is off-top, but I saw math, meteorology, and education mixed together.

Just got AP results yesterday - 5 on the BC

So that takes care of Calc I. Depending on what college I go to, it could take care of Calc II.

wxwatcher91, on Jul 18 2008, 11:45 AM, said:

5 on the BC should take care of Calc II anywhere that accepts AP credit for Calc II since, after all, a 5 is the top score, and BC covers Calc I and II at most universities I believe. Congrats!

DVDweather, on Jul 18 2008, 12:11 PM, said:

Thanks very much! I guess it depends on what their course outline is: I think some schools have more than what is on the BC in their calc II course.

Im not sure what to take next year yet. I may sign up for Linear Algebra at the local college, but the main problem is it costs a lot for taking an individual college course.

I just re-read this entire thread and am laughing looking back at my own posts. My Calc II final is approaching (Monday) here at Rutgers and I can't believe I was struggling with some of that easy stuff in Calc I. Maybe it just needed time to sink in because the limits I was doing in Calc I were very easy. Calc II for Math/Physics majors, which is what the meteo kids take at Rutgers, is a bitch of a class and I fully expect to pass it but I don't think I've ever worked this hard for a C. I can't believe I'm actually looking "forward" to get into Calc III.

LocoAko, on Dec 13 2008, 01:53 PM, said:

I'm dreading my upcoming calculus classes at Rutgers next year. Haven't decided whether I'm going to take the BA or BS route for Economics, but I have been leaning toward the BS approach lately. Any teacher recommendations in the math dept.?

Orographic Lift, on Dec 13 2008, 08:53 PM, said:

Ah. What classes do you have to take for an Economics degree? And what campus do you plan on living on? If you have to take Calc 1 and 2 I'd imagine you'd take Calc 135 and 136 which is regular Calc I and II, as opposed to 151 and 152 which is the Math/Physics Calc that the meteo students take. Maybe I'm wrong, certainly wouldn't be the first time.

LocoAko, on Dec 13 2008, 11:01 PM, said:

How tough are the math courses there in the Met program? I got my acceptance letter to RU Meteorology last week, but I'd say the chances of me going into Met are at about 10% as I'll most likely go into liberal arts at a smaller university. If I do decide to do Met, RU is probably my top choice. I'm in BC Calc right now...it's doable with a lot of work, but definitely a big time struggle. I put 3x more time into that course than I've ever had to put into any math before; math just doesn't come as easily to me as I feel it should if I were to be a Met major.

NorthNJwx, on Dec 18 2008, 07:04 PM, said:

I found them quite difficult, but at the same time I also despised math, so that may have affected my own performance

NorthNJwx, on Dec 18 2008, 10:04 PM, said:

I'm probably not the best person to ask since I have been there one semester, but I find them pretty difficult. A lot of work has to go into them - but they're not impossibly hard. You have to put in a lot of effort and maybe have to learn to be happy with a C () but I think you should be fine if you are in Calc BC. If anything, if you pass the AP, you will come in starting Calc III which I hear isn't as bad as Calc II. In the absolute worst case scenario of you failing Calc III or IV, you will be ahead of your classmates so that you will only be "on track" with taking the courses over. I think you'll do fine though. Do meteorology if it really is your passion! It'd be awesome to see you there.

As for it "coming" to you, I'm not sure how well this stuff comes to anyone. There are, of course, those people who just get it. But I think with a lot of work you can succeed. I know everyone says this but it depends on your passion. I see a ton of my fellow freshman met majors who "like" weather (or in the case of one girl, literally randomly picked it) but when they don't like it enough and the math hits them they flee. You obviously have the drive if you are in Calc BC - I only took AB and I just [hopefully ] passed Calc 152 (Calc 2 for Math/Physics majors). This is inevitably goin to sound very dorky, but even though the math is hard, I'm becoming more and more interested in it (contemplating the minor) and especially how the atmosphere actually obeys mathematical laws. It's very interesting!

Hope to see you next year.

famartin, on Dec 18 2008, 10:11 PM, said:

Glad to know I'm not the only one who can't stand math. I always try to get interested in it (for example, we're doing intro to diff eqs now and I want to be interested in it since I know it is important in Met), but just can't bring myself to like the stuff.

LocoAko, on Dec 18 2008, 10:32 PM, said:

Very helpful info here, thanks! Interesting to hear that the Met major aspect has allowed you to like the math a bit. One of my biggest problems with math has always been the fact that it seems like everything is a useless concept; in met-geared math, I'd feel like the math actually mattered.

I'm getting by with a C in BC Calc - with a tutor. I'm up and down with it, but the hard stuff really gets to me. Then I go to English, or Economics, or any other humanity-related class, and I have no problem doing very well and enjoying the subjects. So that might tell me something right there.

I guess my biggest question right now is whether or not I want Met to be my career. I'm interested in a lot of other areas, hence the liberal arts sway. I worry that, if Met became a career to me, it would feel like more of a responsibility than a hobby at times. At the same time, though, I knew I'd be cheating myself if I didn't at least apply to a couple places for Met - in case I have a change of heart. I applied to RU and PSU Met, but would prefer to go to RU.

Ah, decisions...I'll certainly keep my mind open, though! Still waiting to hear back from all of the other colleges I applied to, so those decisions will have a big impact on what I decide to do for sure.

MGorse, on Sep 19 2007, 11:00 AM, said:

...Just reading this thread for the first time, and this is essentially true for the people like me who dont really enjoy math, or understand calculus all that well. It was a burden for the first 4 semesters of college especially because the class concepts were never really aimed or connected to the field...and for this reason i was always lost, never interested, and left wondering why im even forced to take these classes..The passiion kept me motivated though and through seeking a ton of help and tutoring, i was able to get by with straight C's or C+'s and "move on with my life" with a GPA over 3.0.. And I say move on with my life because I really do not have any desire of doing the really complex calculus ever again or in my future job. In fact, I'd unarguably surrender my left arm (choice word) over being put through that train of classes again..

But in the end, I understand the basic parts of calculus that have been used in my thermodynamics class and I recognize why they are so important to figuring out the atmosphere from an equation and computer modelling standpoint, but I was very fortunate the tests were aimed at applying the concepts, vs. the complex derivations of those equations. I don't know how complex the math will be in my future meteorology classes at RU and I know that I absolutely love the field because of how much the weather excites me, but spare me as much complex math as possible!