"The WeatherWise Gardener"
Locked
 
|
James, I am kinda interested in your take on the "phenomenology" of the book .... the first several chapters in which the structures of the atmosphere are built upward (and outward) from the experience of the observer. It seems that what you are doing in your work could perhaps be characterized as going the other way .... starting with the structures of the atmosphere, you are trying to bore inward and downward to the experience of the individual client. Is a storm an entity? Are trough's and ridge entities? Is the jetstream a thing. Do thunderstorms cause tornado's. Do dry lines cause thunderstorms. Do mountain ranges cause overrunning drylines. Or are all these things "just" irreduceably parts of a process. Sitting here in the complexityschool, and having just left Melanie's lecture, I am more more bemused than ever by the question of just what IS an entity. Is a "particle" on a CA an entity? Carl, if I understand him, keeps pressing me to the view that there are no entities .... or perhaps, more precisely, that I get nowhere thinking of things as entities that cause (any more that I would get anywhere in the study of physiology by studying the pound of frozen hamburger in my freezer.) I now have a telephone so coordinating should begin to be easier. I mourn every instant I ever spent in a faculty meeting. If I never attend another, I will be a happier man. I trust you will survive yours. Nick -----Original Message----- From: "James R. Stalker, PHD [RESPR]" <[hidden email]> Sent: Jun 23, 2005 11:22 AM To: Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> Subject: RE: skew-T Nick, Unfortunately, no. I am going to Albuquerque for a UNM faculty meeting. I am an adjunct member there. We can plan to have a meeting next week sometime. Let me know. Regards, James >-- Original Message --J >Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 09:13:10 -0600 (GMT-06:00) >From: Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> >Reply-To: Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> >To: "James R. Stalker,PHD [RESPR]" <[hidden email]> >Subject: RE: skew-T > > > >James > >Are you coming to FRIAM this friday? > >I have to look at next weeks schedule for the summer school and see what >isa possiblity. Now we have a phone, things will be a LOT easier. > >nick > > >-----Original Message----- >From: "James R. Stalker, PHD [RESPR]" <[hidden email]> >Sent: Jun 23, 2005 8:44 AM >To: [hidden email] >Subject: RE: skew-T > >Nick, > >I finally got the book you sent me. I read a bit of it. It is interesting. > Let me know if you have time to talk today sometime. More soon. > >Regards, > >James > >>-- Original Message -- >>Reply-To: [hidden email] >>From: "Nicholas Thompson" <[hidden email]> >>To: "James R. Stalker, PHD [RESPR]" <[hidden email]> >>Subject: RE: skew-T >>Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 00:35:26 -0600 >> >> >>James, >> >>I just read your note more carefully and saw its last line. >> >>We have visitors this week and, in the bargain, are having to move house, >>AND I start my auditing of the SFI summer school tomorrow. >> >>So.......I have very little time for fun, right now, which talking to >>about weather would be. >> >>My interest in weather is only weakly professional but it is of long >>standing. I was a member of the AWS at 12, was plotting my own weather >>charts off of fshort wave radio at 14, and "predicted" the worcester >>tornado at 15, according to family lore. (Actually, I saw the mammatus >>over Boston (east of Worcester) as the Cell was dissipating over >>Framingham, but to parents who knew nothing about weather, being told of >>the possibility of a Tornado to the west of them by their 15 year old son, >>an hour before they heard of it on the radio, seemed like a prediction. >> >>And then there the two great hurricanes that crossed our house in Ipswich. >> >> >>My only narrowly professional interest is in writing a strange article >or >>book sometime called The Mind of the Storm. I know, from things you have >>already said, that you will HATE this book, because it will explore the >>boundary between the physical and non living and the psychological and >>vital, and I gather that that boundary is important to you. But even >>though it makes me a bit squeamish, I would like to to take seriously >for >>a moment the question of whether storms ... hurricanes or big winter storms >>... SHOULD be named. The arguments against are that storms are just >>coherent manifestations of much larger and less coherent forces and naming >>them would be like naming cumulus clouds and faililng to name the >>downdrafts that surround them. The arguments for are that human >>personalities are just coherent manifestations of of much larger and less >>coherent forces... etc. >> >>My interest has deepened and broadened since being in Santa Fe, since >>cumulus cloud development is so easy to watch hear and because Stephen >>talked so much about convective cells as" techniques" for dissipating >>gradiencts. To me, purpose is just a behavior pattern, so if do purposy >>sorts of things than I am happy to say they HAVE purposes. I read your >>two articles to the best of my ability and youur offer to talk further >is >>kind. Around these life complications mentioned above, I am happy to >>a time for coffee or perhaps eve, to Play Hookey from the Summer School >on >>some afternoon when convective development is robust, and watch some cells >>on a comptuer screen with you. In any case, I would pay for the coffee. >> >> >>Keep an eye on your mail box; I am having something sent to you. >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Nicholas S. Thompson >>Professor of Psychology and Ethology >>Clark University >>[hidden email] >>http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/ >> [hidden email] >> >> >>> [Original Message] >>> From: James R. Stalker, PHD [RESPR] <[hidden email]> |---------------------------------------------------- PS --Please if using the address [hidden email] to reply, cc your message to [hidden email]. Thanks. |
|
|
Entities are components of models. They are not "out there" as
objective things, but part and parcel of the models we use for understanding reality. Models should be good, and if we can find a better one, we discard a model. Goodness of a model typically involves a tradeoff between comprehensibility, computability and predictability. It is a "multiobjective property". Tropical cyclones, tornadoes etc are components of our (human being's) models of the weather system. It is obviously useful to move away from the location of the cyclone, and also even thouh their motion is somewhat unpredictable, certain patterns emerge allowing predictions of when and where they move. Numerical simulations of weather systems a discretised PDE's --- there are no such things as tropical cyclones, tornadoes in the computer model. Identification of features of the model's output as cyclone etc must happen post-hoc by a human observer. Numerical simulations (given enough computing resources) are capable of better levels of prediction than human models of storms, but the latter models are more comprehensible ("cold front causes precipitation") Cheers On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 01:30:18PM -0400, Nick Thompson wrote: > > Is a storm an entity? Are trough's and ridge entities? Is the jetstream a thing. Do thunderstorms cause tornado's. Do dry lines cause thunderstorms. Do mountain ranges cause overrunning drylines. Or are all these things "just" irreduceably parts of a process. Sitting here in the complexityschool, and having just left Melanie's lecture, I am more more bemused than ever by the question of just what IS an entity. Is a "particle" on a CA an entity? Carl, if I understand him, keeps pressing me to the view that there are no entities .... or perhaps, more precisely, that I get nowhere thinking of things as entities that cause (any more that I would get anywhere in the study of physiology by studying the pound of frozen hamburger in my freezer.) > -- *PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you may safely ignore this attachment. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile) Mathematics 0425 253119 (") UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [hidden email] Australia http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
RE: "The WeatherWise Gardener"
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
Nick,
I didn't want to say this about the book right away, but significantly erroneous conclusions were made in the book (as far as what I have gone through in the book). You are right about the fact that I approach things from the overall structure to minute details within. There are, of course, inherent problems in both approaches. In the out-to-in approach, it could take quite a long time to understand and make sense of a system. From the latter (i.e., in-to-out) approach, you could find quick and precise, seemingly correct answers. But, the burden of proving the validity of such minute answers with respect to the overall system can be a formidable task. No wonder that a lot of people start with the latter approach, for what I call quick returns, and won't get to the end goal! Now, one is left with a choise of approach, depending on their own inclination towards solving and understanding stuff. To answer some of your questions below about entities, etc., I consider the overall system an entity and everything within it is a mere manifestation of that entity. Why then do people call storms and such entities? It is because we want to break down the task of understanding something into bite sizes! In the end, though, whatever approach you use, the task at hand is the same (and, thus, the amount of work/thinking) or you end of producing an unfinished piece of work. >From that standpoint, just about everything or anything we know is a work in progress! I don't want to sound like a pessimist here, but, this is actually a good thing so we all can make more intelluctual contributions to just about anything around us! More soon. I only get to attend these faculty meetings just once or twice a year! Regards, James >-- Original Message -- >Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 13:30:18 -0400 (EDT) >From: Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> >Reply-To: Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> >To: "James R. Stalker,PHD [RESPR]" <[hidden email]> >Subject: "The WeatherWise Gardener" >Cc: [hidden email] > > > >James, > >I am kinda interested in your take on the "phenomenology" of the book >the first several chapters in which the structures of the atmosphere are >built upward (and outward) from the experience of the observer. > >It seems that what you are doing in your work could perhaps be characterized >as going the other way .... starting with the structures of the atmosphere, >you are trying to bore inward and downward to the experience of the individual >client. > >Is a storm an entity? Are trough's and ridge entities? Is the jetstream >a thing. Do thunderstorms cause tornado's. Do dry lines cause thunderstorms. > Do mountain ranges cause overrunning drylines. Or are all these things >irreduceably parts of a process. Sitting here in the complexityschool, and >having just left Melanie's lecture, I am more more bemused than ever by the >question of just what IS an entity. Is a "particle" on a CA an entity? Carl, >if I understand him, keeps pressing me to the view that there are no entities >.... or perhaps, more precisely, that I get nowhere thinking of things as >entities that cause (any more that I would get anywhere in the study of physiology >by studying the pound of frozen hamburger in my freezer.) > >I now have a telephone so coordinating should begin to be easier. > >I mourn every instant I ever spent in a faculty meeting. If I never attend >another, I will be a happier man. I trust you will survive yours. > >Nick > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: "James R. Stalker, PHD [RESPR]" <[hidden email]> >Sent: Jun 23, 2005 11:22 AM >To: Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> >Subject: RE: skew-T > >Nick, > >Unfortunately, no. I am going to Albuquerque for a UNM faculty meeting. > I am an adjunct member there. We can plan to have a meeting next week >sometime. Let me know. > >Regards, > >James > >>-- Original Message --J >>Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 09:13:10 -0600 (GMT-06:00) >>From: Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> >>Reply-To: Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> >>To: "James R. Stalker,PHD [RESPR]" <[hidden email]> >>Subject: RE: skew-T >> >> >> >>James >> >>Are you coming to FRIAM this friday? >> >>I have to look at next weeks schedule for the summer school and see what >>isa possiblity. Now we have a phone, things will be a LOT easier. >> >>nick >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: "James R. Stalker, PHD [RESPR]" <[hidden email]> >>Sent: Jun 23, 2005 8:44 AM >>To: [hidden email] >>Subject: RE: skew-T >> >>Nick, >> >>I finally got the book you sent me. I read a bit of it. It is interesting. >> Let me know if you have time to talk today sometime. More soon. >> >>Regards, >> >>James >> >>>-- Original Message -- >>>Reply-To: [hidden email] >>>From: "Nicholas Thompson" <[hidden email]> >>>To: "James R. Stalker, PHD [RESPR]" <[hidden email]> >>>Subject: RE: skew-T >>>Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 00:35:26 -0600 >>> >>> >>>James, >>> >>>I just read your note more carefully and saw its last line. >>> >>>We have visitors this week and, in the bargain, are having to move house, >>>AND I start my auditing of the SFI summer school tomorrow. >>> >>>So.......I have very little time for fun, right now, which talking to >you >>>about weather would be. >>> >>>My interest in weather is only weakly professional but it is of long >>>standing. I was a member of the AWS at 12, was plotting my own weather >>>charts off of fshort wave radio at 14, and "predicted" the worcester >>>tornado at 15, according to family lore. (Actually, I saw the mammatus >>>over Boston (east of Worcester) as the Cell was dissipating over >>>Framingham, but to parents who knew nothing about weather, being told >of >>>the possibility of a Tornado to the west of them by their 15 year old >son, >>>an hour before they heard of it on the radio, seemed like a prediction. >>> >>>And then there the two great hurricanes that crossed our house in Ipswich. >>> >>> >>>My only narrowly professional interest is in writing a strange article >>or >>>book sometime called The Mind of the Storm. I know, from things you >>>already said, that you will HATE this book, because it will explore the >>>boundary between the physical and non living and the psychological and >>>vital, and I gather that that boundary is important to you. But even >>>though it makes me a bit squeamish, I would like to to take seriously >>for >>>a moment the question of whether storms ... hurricanes or big winter storms >>>... SHOULD be named. The arguments against are that storms are just >>>coherent manifestations of much larger and less coherent forces and naming >>>them would be like naming cumulus clouds and faililng to name the >>>downdrafts that surround them. The arguments for are that human >>>personalities are just coherent manifestations of of much larger and less >>>coherent forces... etc. >>> >>>My interest has deepened and broadened since being in Santa Fe, since >>>cumulus cloud development is so easy to watch hear and because Stephen >>>talked so much about convective cells as" techniques" for dissipating >>>gradiencts. To me, purpose is just a behavior pattern, so if do purposy >>>sorts of things than I am happy to say they HAVE purposes. I read your >>>two articles to the best of my ability and youur offer to talk further >>is >>>kind. Around these life complications mentioned above, I am happy to >find >>>a time for coffee or perhaps eve, to Play Hookey from the Summer School >>on >>>some afternoon when convective development is robust, and watch some >>>on a comptuer screen with you. In any case, I would pay for the coffee. >>> >>> >>>Keep an eye on your mail box; I am having something sent to you. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>Nicholas S. Thompson >>>Professor of Psychology and Ethology >>>Clark University >>>[hidden email] >>>http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/ >>> [hidden email] >>> >>> >>>> [Original Message] >>>> From: James R. Stalker, PHD [RESPR] <[hidden email]> > >|---------------------------------------------------- > > > >PS --Please if using the address [hidden email] to reply, cc >your message to [hidden email]. Thanks. |---------------------------------------------------- |Dr. James R. Stalker, President & CEO |[hidden email] |RESPR, INC. (www.respr.com) |P.O. Box 29493 |Santa Fe, New Mexico 87592 |5054387155(phone)* 5054387111(fax) |---------------------------------------------------- |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |