There are people in this forum that mistakenly think that someone is not a "climate scientist" because that's not what their degree says, this is wrong. Climate scientists may have their degrees in meteorology, oceanography, physics, biology, geology, geography--even economics. What makes them a "climate scientist" is that they are scientists that specialize in science related to climate.
I got a Ph.D. from a climate science program, but that is NOT what it says on the degree. It says "Earth Sciences". I actually could have chosen that or Oceanography, but I don't consider myself a oceanographer so I ddn't want the degree to say that.
I actually make a distinction between climate science and climatology, although that is a bit fuzzy. I don't think Trevor makes the distinction. When I studied climatology (as an undergraduate physics major), I learned about things like climate classification, and regional climates around the world. When I studied climate science, I learned about the earth-atmosphere system and its dynamics and energetics.
Some people say that people like Judith Curry or Richard Lindzen or William Gray are not climate scientists. I absolutely disagree with that. I will say that Anthony Watts and John Coleman and Monckton are NOT climate scientists, and I do have problems wth Roger Pielke Jr. (but not Sr.) being included in that category.
Anybody at all can study climate change, just as they can with any subject. But studying something and being able to actually understand it are two very different things.
For example, someone could study the periodic table of the elements and learn the whole lot off by heart. They could tell you that hydrogen was an alkaline metal in the first period with an atomic number of one and that oxygen was a second period group 16 diatomic halogen. Whilst they may know all this information, they may not know that hydrogen and oxygen combine to form water, they may not know how and why they combine, how the bonds can be broken down etc.
History is about knowing things – it either happened or it didn’t. Science is about understanding things, and to understand something you have to first know about it.
Because the climates are phenomenally complex there is a massive amount of information that first has to be learned before the pieces start to fall into place, only when this happens can one begin to understand the climates. Until such times a person can only ever learn things parrot fashion, which in science is nothing more than a reference point.
Anyone wanting to enter the field of climatology must have a good grounding in physics, this is imperative; without it nothing makes sense. The other disciplines you mentioned are supplemental, how important they are will depend upon which area of climatology a person is involved with.
It would be impossible for a single climatologist to have all the requisite knowledge and so a typical research team will consist of experts from a variety of disciplines, it’s the collective knowledge that enables progress to be made. Because climatology is such a wide ranging subject the resources that are drawn upon can come from a very diverse range of backgrounds.
Anyone can study global warming, only those with sufficient knowledge and experience can genuinely begin to understand it, no-one can know everything.
Who thinks that?
Rational people understand that there are many approaches to the scientific study of climate.
There was no concept of a science of Biology until Darwin discovered evolution. Does that mean there was no scientific study of organisms and or the environment before then? There was no Plate Tectonics until the 1960s. Does that mean only Geomorphologists can study Earth Science? what about Biochemistry, Computer Science, Nuclear Engineering, Information Theory, and Organic Electronics?
A climatologist is a person who conducts research on climate. If you conduct research on climate you are a climate scientist. The only requirement is that your work is scientific. You can publish papers in overlapping fields if you wish. The idea that all climate scientist have to "tow the global warming line"so to speak is ridiculous. It's consensus opinion but there are several climate scientist who don't support everything the IPCC says. The way to argue against any scientific consensus is to make and demonstrate a scientific counter argument.
I don't personally think only climatologists can study global warming, only that the weight of credibility falls more to specialists in the field, regardless of what anyone might think of the integrity of certain scientists. They know more about interpreting the data, etc-despite disputes about availability of that data to others. I 'study' global warming, but I am certainly no scientist, climate or otherwise, so the weight of my opinion wouldn't be any more credible than anyone else in this forum or elsewhere, depending on how directly I would be able to address any issue related to the topic compared to others. Everyone is welcome to study global warming, just like everyone in the U.S, according to the old cliché, is 'entitled to their opinion(s).' How influential that opinion is depends on how effectively it is presented, regardless of qualification or experience.
You know, I am interested in the science, politics, economics and psychology of climate change, but these four areas, although interrelated, really reflect a variety of issues and topics. If someone answers a question about science with a political response, that isn't really very influential-to me or most other people, and it isn't credible at all. It reflects a limitation in comprehension and ability to address the issue. For example, if someone claims that climate change is a 'liberal hoax' in response to a question about ummm...let's just say the polar vortex...that doesn't address the issue of the polar vortex or answers the question in any way, so it is not a credible response. If the respondent says it is 'just weather' this is a better answer but still not credible without a better scientific reference than 'I'm 70 years old and this is normal weather.' Without going into ten more examples of increasing levels of credibility, I think you may be able to see where I am going with this.
Anyone is, indeed, welcome to study climate, and everyone is entitled to their opinions. However, that doesn't mean that they are going to be listened to or influence anyone; maybe some people don't care, they just want to vent their impotent frustration, in which case we have an interesting psychological dynamic to discuss that has very little to do with the science of climate change or the study thereof. If people DO wish to influence others for scientific, political or economic reasons, they need to be able to stick to the issue they feel is the determining factor. We've had conversations about name calling, labels (of deniers or alarmists), etc. etc. and how people who argue in that way are ineffectual, and the reason behind that is they're not on point, they are not addressing the issue, and that is paralyzing, as the political environment in the U.S. clearly illustrates.
I do think that it is interesting to see the specialty fields develop as technology and the knowledge that drives it advances, and the overlap in the fields that you mention is certainly worthy of note. I'm not sure where the lines of demarcation lie in the overlap, though.
At the moment, in my local university, there are solid state physicists studying the properties of semiconductor materials. Across the campus, in the electronic engineering department, there are engineers studying similar topics. Next to them are the chemists, some of whom are studying semiconductor materials. They all approach it from a slightly difference perspective.
Now, what I call the people, whether 'physicist' or 'engineer' or 'chemist' is pretty irrelevant when it comes down to it. The people who study the climate are similar. There *are* mathematicians and physicists and chemists and engineers and geologists, each of whom study some aspect of climate from some small, highly specialised view. That diverse background adds to our knowledge.
Whether you call them 'climatologists' or not is irrelevant to their data. But it's easier to call them 'climatologists' than have to ask each individual person their allegiance and refer to each person as 'climate mathematician' or 'climate chemist' or 'climate physicist' or 'atmospheric physicist' or 'atmospheric chemist' or 'fluid dynamicist' or 'chaos theorist' or 'theoretical vapour specialist' or whatever!
'What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.'
It's not that they only can study it, it's the fact that they do study it and others don't specifically. I might know everything there is to know about nuclear theory, but then again I might not. Just because I have something to say about it doesn't mean I'm any type of expert on the subject.
Same reason the Wizard of Oz was the only one allowed behind the curtain.
Tevor: For example, someone could study the periodic table of the elements and learn the whole lot off by heart. They could tell you that hydrogen was an alkaline metal in the first period with an atomic number of one and that oxygen was a second period group 16 diatomic halogen. Whilst they may know all this information, they may not know that hydrogen and oxygen combine to form water, they may not know how and why they combine, how the bonds can be broken down etc.
Wow! It took you that long to find that out? We had that in grade school.
They only say that with regards to skeptics who cast doubt on their science. Michael Mann does not have a degree in climatology, despite getting graduate and PhD degrees in the 1990s. This is just another form of trying to discredit the messenger. You don't need a degree in climatology to know that random data will produce a hockey stick using the algorithms provided. In addition, you don't need a degree in climatology to see that a chart has been used upside-down to produce a hockey stick.
As a geologist, I am not a specialist in "global warming" whatever that is supposed to mean but as a geologist, I have learned in countless ways that the earth warms and cools naturally in dramatic ways. It is extremely basic knowledge for geologists. The warming in the last 100 years is miniscule by comparison. When I see so called experts pretend to know that the warming in the last 100 years is unprecedented, I know enough to know a snake oil salesman when I see them particularly when I see the solutions that they invariably support.
http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0SO8zntMvNS2xwA3jBXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEzcDk5MWI1BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMwRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dGlkA1NNRTM4OV8x/SIG=11u7spntg/EXP=1391698797/**http%3a//aip.org/history/climate/climogy.htm
I mean it wasn't really science until the 1970's
Does it mean you can only work in your own field, what about where science overlap, Physics, meteorology, geology, chemistry, mathematics and many other are all involved in climate change
You are allowed to study the bible but you cannot question the word of God.
The belief isn't that you cannot study climate, the assertion is that you cannot claim they are wrong. If they do happen to be wrong, you simply got lucky, you don't understand that wrong simply means new data has come to light which now makes them better scientists.
That would be the result of ignorance on the part of those who believe that. If a so-called "climatologist" believes that, then he/she is guilty of having an 'elitist' attitude.
The study of "global warming" is not the exclusive domain of any one science discipline nor is it even necessary that one work in the field of science to delve into and understand the 'notion' of AGW. All that is required is the ability to conduct research....collect findings....and produce an hypothesis (opinion) based on those findings.
There are "scientists" out there who see 'AGW 'as their opportunity for 15 minutes of fame as well as access to $Billions in taxpayer dollars for 'research' (job security and 'awards'). For some, a misplaced sense of self-importance results in a need to convince others that only they are qualified to 'rule' in matters of so-called AGW......again, job security.......IMHO.
Well would you hire a foot surgeon to do surgery on your brain or a plumber to fix your car. People who don't study climate are not experts in climate science.
