meteorologist Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 http://eloquentscience.com/2010/12/one-of-the-most-challenging-and-satisfying-articles-ive-written/ http://ams.confex.com/ams/91Annual/webprogram/Handout/Paper179109/OcclusionPoster-AMS2011.pdf http://www.atm.helsinki.fi/~dschultz/pubs/85-aprSchultz-finalproof.pdf http://www.cimms.ou.edu/~schultz/pubs/schultzmass93.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baroclinic_instability Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 http://eloquentscien...es-ive-written/ http://ams.confex.co...ter-AMS2011.pdf http://www.atm.helsi...-finalproof.pdf http://www.cimms.ou.edu/~schultz/pubs/schultzmass93.pdf Thanks for the links. Dr. Schultz is one of my favorite meteorologists/synopticians. He is one of the best. I completely agree--it is time we stop oversimplifying cyclogenesis and fronts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SacrydDreamz Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 Thanks for the links. Dr. Schultz is one of my favorite meteorologists/synopticians. He is one of the best. I completely agree--it is time we stop oversimplifying cyclogenesis and fronts. I agree from a purely meteorological perspective, as a better understanding should lead to better forecasts... but how about when trying to convey information to the public? I know many are afraid to even present occluded fronts to the public as it is believed (and perhaps accurately) that they wouldn't or simply do not want to understand them, thus creating confusion. From this standpoint, what are your thoughts? I waffle back and forth on this issue because one one hand you're presenting something that is demonstrably false, on the other hand you risk losing the public in a quest which adds very little, if any real value to the public forecast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baroclinic_instability Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 I agree from a purely meteorological perspective, as a better understanding should lead to better forecasts... but how about when trying to convey information to the public? I know many are afraid to even present occluded fronts to the public as it is believed (and perhaps accurately) that they wouldn't or simply do not want to understand them, thus creating confusion. From this standpoint, what are your thoughts? I waffle back and forth on this issue because one one hand you're presenting something that is demonstrably false, on the other hand you risk losing the public in a quest which adds very little, if any real value to the public forecast. No I agree, but think of it like this. If we only tailored the presentation of meteorological information so it was suitable for the public only, how useful would that be for the science of meteorology in general? I think in this scenario it clearly is for meteorological use only. There is no doubt, however, that meteorology certainly has been dumbed down in many ways even in academia. In his article, Dr. Schultz lists many prominent meteorology books which include the simplistic occluded front Norwegian model theory even to this day. I think that is what Dr. Schultz is really hitting on. An extreme example perhaps, but it would be no different if we still used now debunked theories of classical Greek physicists to this day. Science should move forward when new and better ideas come around--there is no difference here. Regarding the public, whether we like it or not, the information we convey to them needs to be relevant and useful to them. In that regard, it is all about impact based forecasting. All we should really be doing is conveying potential impacts, for instance, how bad will travel be during a big winter storm, etc. In that regard, whether it is an occlusion or cold front is probably completely irrelevant. When dealing with big winter storms, as an example, saying there will be a powerful cold front is probably all that is needed to be said even if it is an occluded front (and it is quite typical that it is indeed an occlusion if it is a synoptic bomb). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OKpowdah Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Dr. Schultz is a brilliant scientist period. Obviously his work communicating research is legendary. Thanks for posting this new work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amped Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 It depends if your audience is the scientific comunity or not. Yeah every cyclone is slightly different and some are unique to geogrphic regions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calm_days Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 This is an amazing topic from a few years ago that has presented itself as a primary weather dynamic more and more, so it seems like a good idea to bring this topic back and allow new members or people who missed it before to see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBG Posted July 6, 2014 Share Posted July 6, 2014 I would assume that the storms do not stop deepening immediately upon occlusion, but certainly within 24 hours after. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crocodile23 Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 http://www.atm.helsinki.fi/~dschultz/pubs/85-aprSchultz-finalproof.pdf Dead link. Any different link for that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dtk Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Dead link. Any different link for that? http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2010BAMS3057.1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meteorologist Posted July 26, 2014 Author Share Posted July 26, 2014 Try: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2010BAMS3057.1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amped Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 I find the Norwegian model is good at describing cyclones on the polar jet that make landfall on the eastern end of the continent, such as the ones that occur in Norway. IMBY bias anyone? On the US East Coast, things aren't nearly as simple. Between this paper and KU you can get a pretty good description them. There are still plenty of other regions of the globe to cover that I'm sure have some unique storms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Absolute Humidity Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 Since it was drilled into my head that all extra tropical cyclones occlude; it Never occurred to me to think of clippers as never occluding until I read this paper. Great read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.