<p>I plan to study a good introductory book on atmospheric dynamics:
which one is more recommended? My background is a university degree in physics, but I'm new to meteorology.</p>
<ul>
<li><p>An Introduction to
Dynamic Meteorology
James R. Holton</p>
</li>
<li><p>Fluid Dynamics of the
Midlatitude Atmosphere
Brian J. Hoskins</p>
</li>
<li><p>Mid-Latitude Atmospheric
Dynamics, A First Course
Jonathan E. Martin</p>
</li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-12-15T14:52:37.647Z
I can only comment on Holtons book as this is the only one I've been using a lot. I think it has a nice pace and if your vector calculus skills are still a bit in shape it's a pleasure reading it. A word of warning: there is a huge difference between editions 4 and 5 as 4 treats the dynamics in pressure coordinates, while 5 uses cartesian. I advise using edition 4 because pressure coordinates are more commonly used in dynamic meteorology. That said... I have ed. 5 in my shelf and for underetanding the concepts the difference is probably minor.
Joscha Fregin
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-12-15T15:07:32.053Z
I thought, that pressure coordinates are a bit more sophisticated as an approach. Why was ist skipped in ed 5?
MichaelW
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-12-15T15:19:11.473Z
I'll check the foreword once I'm back home on Sunday. For now I can only guess that pressure as a vertical coordinate may seem abstract to a few at first. Pressure coordinates are in my opinion more sophisticated (as you said) as e.g. they allow you to compare the atmosphere at different locations more meaningful.
Joscha Fregin
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-12-15T17:01:25.410Z
I agree with all Joscha said.  I'm nearing 20 years removed from dynamics courses, only experienced Holton, but the pace and detail seemed solid from what I remember.  Not sure you'll manage a full answer, as I would think the only ones well up to date on multiple texts to probably only be professors mainly, maybe a small group of nonteaching researchers... but unless you're lucky, may not be enough traffic here to get the true expert on it.  But huzzah on jumping into it!
JeopardyTempest
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-12-16T00:01:21.563Z
Holton is good, don't know the others. However where Holton is severely lacking (as well as all other meteorology books I have seen so far) is a proper, proper derivation of the full equations of motions in spherical coordinates. Holton, as all others, uses a hand-wavy vector-pictorial approach to derive the curvature and Coriolis terms. I have yet to see a satisfying first-order derivation of those, akin to what one would expect to come out naturally of a general relativistic treatment of curvature and inertial frames.
AtmosphericPrisonEscape
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-01-01T11:31:07.383Z
@atmosphericprisonescape: I recently  did this type of derivation by only using geometric facts  and could derive the known set of equations in coordinates i,j,k. However,  it was a rather tedious and boring task. It is just rearranging terms of sin and cos oder a few pages without any physical content. The pictorial approach is in some way more physically, although I dislike it too.
MichaelW
<meteorology><atmosphere><atmosphere-modelling><atmospheric-circulation>
Book on atmosphere dynamics
MichaelW
# Book on atmosphere dynamics

(Asked by: username_0 on 2022-12-15)

I plan to study a good introductory book on atmospheric dynamics:
which one is more recommended? My background is a university degree in physics, but I'm new to meteorology.

* An Introduction to
  Dynamic Meteorology
  James R. Holton
* Fluid Dynamics of the
  Midlatitude Atmosphere
  Brian J. Hoskins
* Mid-Latitude Atmospheric
  Dynamics, A First Course
  Jonathan E. Martin

**Tags:** meteorology, atmosphere, atmosphere-modelling, atmospheric-circulation

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I can only comment on Holtons book as this is the only one I've been using a lot. I think it has a nice pace and if your vector calculus skills are still a bit in shape it's a pleasure reading it. A word of warning: there is a huge difference between editions 4 and 5 as 4 treats the dynamics in pressure coordinates, while 5 uses cartesian. I advise using edition 4 because pressure coordinates are more commonly used in dynamic meteorology. That said... I have ed. 5 in my shelf and for underetanding the concepts the difference is probably minor.  
> **username_0**: I thought, that pressure coordinates are a bit more sophisticated as an approach. Why was ist skipped in ed 5?  
> **username_1**: I'll check the foreword once I'm back home on Sunday. For now I can only guess that pressure as a vertical coordinate may seem abstract to a few at first. Pressure coordinates are in my opinion more sophisticated (as you said) as e.g. they allow you to compare the atmosphere at different locations more meaningful.  
> **username_2**: I agree with all username_1 said.  I'm nearing 20 years removed from dynamics courses, only experienced Holton, but the pace and detail seemed solid from what I remember.  Not sure you'll manage a full answer, as I would think the only ones well up to date on multiple texts to probably only be professors mainly, maybe a small group of nonteaching researchers... but unless you're lucky, may not be enough traffic here to get the true expert on it.  But huzzah on jumping into it!  
> **username_3**: Holton is good, don't know the others. However where Holton is severely lacking (as well as all other meteorology books I have seen so far) is a proper, proper derivation of the full equations of motions in spherical coordinates. Holton, as all others, uses a hand-wavy vector-pictorial approach to derive the curvature and Coriolis terms. I have yet to see a satisfying first-order derivation of those, akin to what one would expect to come out naturally of a general relativistic treatment of curvature and inertial frames.  
> **username_0**: @username_3: I recently  did this type of derivation by only using geometric facts  and could derive the known set of equations in coordinates i,j,k. However,  it was a rather tedious and boring task. It is just rearranging terms of sin and cos oder a few pages without any physical content. The pictorial approach is in some way more physically, although I dislike it too.  

---

## 0 answers

