STORM2K

Can anyone tell me how hard of a major Meteorology is to handle in college?

Thanks.

A meteorology major requires considerable math, starting with Calculus 1-4 and going through differential equations and partial differential equations. There's a good deal of physics, too. The math and physics requirements knock out a high percentage of students the first few years. But if you're OK in math and physics, or are willing to really study, then you can get through.

Okay, so I'm going have a follow up question for the Calculus and differentials. I never had to take calculus until I went for my MBA back in 1993. I became lost at differentials and the teacher that I had couldn't tell me what I would use them for in business - brilliant! What are differentials supposed to show you or help you see?

I'm a very visual type of person and have to be able to see how something works before I can apply it.

There are only a few courses in high school or college that one can make a direct connection with their practical use in the real world. Nonetheless, as was stated in an earlier post one has to take and pass some pretty involved higher math courses to obtain a degree in meteorology. And as you noted, a lot of that math will not have a direct use if you become an operational meteorologist; regardless of whether you wish it did, or think it should, or not. The way of the world.

wxman57 wrote:A meteorology major requires considerable math, starting with Calculus 1-4 and going through differential equations and partial differential equations. There's a good deal of physics, too. The math and physics requirements knock out a high percentage of students the first few years. But if you're OK in math and physics, or are willing to really study, then you can get through.

Indeed - my very first meteorology class in the first semester (not really a class, just a basic survey/orientation to get you prepared for what was to come) had 152 people in it. I graduated four years later in a class of 40, only about 25 of whom finished in four years and were in that class of 152. The primary hurdle that tripped people up was the math. One of my friends went back as a senior and made a presentation in the first meeting of that course. She saw something we hadn't noticed when taking it as freshmen: The first thing they did was pull out a curriculum to go over the degree plan, and there were about ten people that took one look at what was involved, collected their stuff and walked out of the room.

Stephanie wrote:Okay, so I'm going have a follow up question for the Calculus and differentials. I never had to take calculus until I went for my MBA back in 1993. I became lost at differentials and the teacher that I had couldn't tell me what I would use them for in business - brilliant! What are differentials supposed to show you or help you see?

I'm a very visual type of person and have to be able to see how something works before I can apply it.

The basic equations of atmospheric motion that govern essentially all atmospheric dynamics are a set of differential equations. They also happen to be analytically unsolvable - for now, anyway. If you can pull it off, talk to the guys at http://www.claymath.org/millennium/, there's a million bucks in it for you. All our computer models are attempts to numerically approximate the solution to these equations and use those solutions to compute what weather results of that motion.

Now, like a lot of advanced math, it's not really practical for a person to explicitly use it in an operational sense because it takes so long - in school I would spend hours of work and pages of paper to look at just one small feature of a highly idealized atmosphere. Stuff like that is what computers are for. But, without a conceptual understanding of the math behind it, you're really missing out on a fuller understanding of the concepts you're working with and how they intertwine.

beoumont wrote:And as you noted, a lot of that math will not have a direct use if you become an operational meteorologist; regardless of whether you wish it did, or think it should, or not. The way of the world.

I really would like to know who makes these kinds of decisions, that's something I've always wanted to know. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if it involved money...

thetruesms wrote:The first thing they did was pull out a curriculum to go over the degree plan, and there were about ten people that took one look at what was involved, collected their stuff and walked out of the room.

Disgusting.

thetruesms wrote:But, without a conceptual understanding of the math behind it, you're really missing out on a fuller understanding of the concepts you're working with and how they intertwine.

Should be saved for Master degreed and PhD meteorologists.

Cyclenall wrote:Should be saved for Master degreed and PhD meteorologists.

I disagree - you have to make some kind of advance into the mathematics of it, otherwise you are relying on only the models and pattern recognition. With the advancing skill of computer models, there is vanishingly little value that a person can provide based on pattern recognition accumulated by experience. If that's all you want to hold a person to, you might as well just fire all the people and let the computers handle everything. I'm not saying you need to be able to dance around with the equations and derive everything from first principles at the drop of a hat - I'm sure I couldn't do that now. But, a meteorologist needs to be familiar with how major concepts are mathematically related, and at least qualitatively be able to determine how a change in one factor will affect other aspects of the atmosphere. Otherwise you're never going to be able to add significant value to what the computers can already do.

thetruesms wrote:

Cyclenall wrote:Should be saved for Master degreed and PhD meteorologists.

I disagree - you have to make some kind of advance into the mathematics of it, otherwise you are relying on only the models and pattern recognition. With the advancing skill of computer models, there is vanishingly little value that a person can provide based on pattern recognition accumulated by experience. If that's all you want to hold a person to, you might as well just fire all the people and let the computers handle everything. I'm not saying you need to be able to dance around with the equations and derive everything from first principles at the drop of a hat - I'm sure I couldn't do that now. But, a meteorologist needs to be familiar with how major concepts are mathematically related, and at least qualitatively be able to determine how a change in one factor will affect other aspects of the atmosphere. Otherwise you're never going to be able to add significant value to what the computers can already do.

Computers are also only relying on the information that is supplied to them - by humans. If you do not understand how a program is going to handle the data given, then you can't really know if the outcome at the very least is within reason. You really do need to know they way things work or how they "tick", to master the subject at hand.