I make a distinction between the two, but not everyone does. "Climate scientist" is a relatively new term that has a broader scope than climatologist. There are meteorologists, physicists, chemists, biologists, geologists, oceanographers and more that all study climate and climate change and how it relates to their specific disciplines that would be considered climate scientists.
Climatology is usually concerned with the climate in region as it relates to the vegetation that occurs there. Climatology is often considered to be a sub-field of geography. Climate classification (e.g. the K?ppen classification) is the purview of climatologists.
Your typical climatologist would probably not have had advanced courses in fluid dynamics or stable isotopes, while many climate scientists wouldn't know an A climate from a B climate.
EDIT: Yes, I would agree with that. That means that many climatologists should not be considered experts on climate change or the climate system as a whole.
Yes and no. If they actually study climate at the university (not meteorology or geology or astro physics BUT actual climate curriculum. Self proclaimed climate scientists like one of your references Joanna Nova is not a climatologist or a climate she is but a denier who dabbles in denying based on her limited understanding of climate science. The woman has never published a peer review paper in her own field
http://ezinearticles.com/?What-is-a-Clim...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sci...
Many of the definitions of climate science start with this meaning : climatology
There is no difference. There are just many things that affect the climate and involve climatology.
It may be just an academic difference. I consider a climatologist to be someone who specifically has a college/university degree from a climatology program and/or is affiliated with a climatology program. A climate scientist is someone whose field of research overlaps with some aspect of the climate system. I never refer to myself as a climatologist.
=====
Sagebrush –
Coming from someone who is constantly redefining words and concepts (such as science and statistical significance) to give them false meanings so that they fit into your political ideology and activist agenda, your arguments are as hollow and shallow as your knowledge. Further, your statements are deliberately false and intentionally misleading – and that makes you the very evil that you describe.
======
Sagebrush --
>>: "Global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter." <<
That is all true. It has always been explicitly a part of AGW that global warming does not mean consistent warming over every square inch of the planet. AGW theory has also always predicted that the occurrence and severity of extreme events would change. It has also provided scientific explanations for those conclusions.
How stupid to you have to be to think that global climate is a trivial deterministic linear system - and how big of a liar to you have to be to advocate the belief in such stupidity?
=====
Sagebrush --
>>Gringo: Thank you for making my point. Happer for instance, he is a Physicist of impeccable credentials. I'd match him against you or James Hansen any day. But, yet you smooch up to Paul Ehrlich, a butterfly expert at Stanford, and Rajendra Kumar Pachauri, a railroad engineer and head of the IPCC. Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! this really shows you fellas are hurting for logic.<<
>>I'd match him against you or James Hansen any day. <<
Yes, because you will believe anything - said by anyone - that supports your activist anti-science agenda regardless of how lame, stupid, wrong, and dishonest it is.
>>Rajendra Kumar Pachauri, a railroad engineer and head of the IPCC<<
You are the one always claiming that the IPCC employs climate scientists.
>>But, yet you smooch up to Paul Ehrlich, <<
Other that appearing in your lies here, where is Ehrlich mentioned?
Have you actually lost track of your own lies or do you just not care that your lies are so stupid?
=====
edit ---
>>Big Gryph - How many peer-reviewed papers has Al Gore published?<<
Gore has never claimed to be a climate scientist, He has never claimed to have conducted scientific research. He has never claimed to have offered input to climate science research.
As WE have always said - none - because Gore is not a scientist; he had nothing to do with the discovery of AGW; he has never contributed to climate science research; and climate scientists do not care what he thinks.
Deniers are the only people who seem unable to distinguish politics from science.
Nope, not in the real world.
Climatology is a branch of atmospheric sciences and includes many disciplines such as climate modeling, biogeochemistry and oceanography.
The term climate scientists generally refers to specific specializations such as paleoclimatology, atmospheric chemistry, hydroclimatology, etc., etc.
Unfortunately, since the emergence of the 'denier industry' with its fake grass-roots organizations, its think tanks and above all its websites and blogs, anyone can be called a "climate scientist" these days.
Dr Tim Ball for example, a Professor in Geography, generally calls himself a "climate scientist" which he is not, or "Canada's first Professor in Climatology" which is a big lie too. Yet fake skeptic websites and even the mainstream media (shocker!) to this day call him a "climate expert' (except the Calgary Herald and Canada Free Press perhaps).
Denier sites call Dr Ball anything from 'an esteemed climate scientist' to 'world renowned climate scientist' which is laughable for someone whose only peer-reviewed study related to climate science was a 1986 paper titled "Historical evidence and climatic implications of a shift in the boreal forest tundra transition in central Canada" and which to this day has little impact in the climate science community.
In the world of climate science denial, anyone can be a climate scientist: a masseur with a BA in psychology? Climate Scientist at WUWT (Willis Eschenbach). A marketing professor? Forecasting expert! (Scott Armstrong) A deluded British lord with a classics degree and a diploma in journalism? Climate Science Expert! Official IPCC Appointed Reviewer! (Monckton). Executive Director of an oil industry funded think-tank? Climate science expert! (William Happer).
And the list goes on and on and on......
Edit @ Sagebrush:
<
Sure, in his own field of science (atomic physics, optics and spectroscopy) which has nothing to do with climate science. He has not published one single peer-reviewed paper on climate science, unlike James Hansen who to this date remains one of the most cited authors in climate science.
Of course you admire the man for he too often uses Godwin's Law when debating climate science:
"This is George Orwell. This is the ‘Germans are the master race. The Jews are the scum of the earth.’ It’s that kind of propaganda,” Happer, the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, said in an interview"
To real 24/7 skeptics, it is highly ironic that Mr Happer refers to 'that kind of propaganda' when its the think tank which he presides which pushes all kinds of fake science, fake scientific experts and non-peer reviewed nonsense while taking lots of funding from the oil industry.
Edit @ Maxx:
<
Published peer-reviewed work in respectable journals (which excludes E&E and Principia Scientifica) on the subject. Sage's much beloved Dr Happer has none, zero, nada. Hansen loads and loads.
Who would you rather have perform a brain surgery on yourself, Maxx? You can pick from 2 specialists: Dr A works for a think-tank which is funded by corporations which make medical equipment, has never ever published a single-peer reviewed paper on brain surgery (his specialty are feet) yet nonetheless critisizes the current medical consensus on brain surgery fervently from blogs, TV appearances and op-eds; or Dr B, a renowned surgeon with 30+ years of research performing hundreds of surgeries, publishing 100's of peer-reviewed papers on the subject?
yes
“He who controls the language controls the masses”. – Saul Alinsky in Rules for Radicals
This is just another phony distraction. It is just a way that if you are caught in a trap and you are referring about a climate scientist you can then say I was talking about a Climatologist. These greenies always pick up communist methods of deceiving people. Take for example, Will Happer, Princeton University physicist, former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy: “I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism....I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect....Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth's climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past.” The greenies can say, "Ah, what does he know about the CLIMATE he is a PHYSICIST! Yet these same people will clamor for the words of Paul Ehrlich, who is only a butterfly expert. Or the head of the IPCC who is a railroad engineer.
From what I gather, a Climatologist is one who gets his certification in Communism first then gets his diploma in Climate Science.
On fella here wrote that when you get your diploma in Climatology it allowed you to study the climate. Ha! Ha! And it, surprisingly, wasn't Dork!
Ha! Ha! Gary F:
Quote by Steven Guilbeault, Canadian environemental journalist and Greenpeace member: "Global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter."
To you a word can mean anything you want it to.
As I have pointed out to you many times in the past.
“He who controls the language controls the masses”. – Saul Alinsky in Rules for Radicals
Your language manipulation is an old commy ruse.
Gringo: Thank you for making my point. Happer for instance, he is a Physicist of impeccable credentials. I'd match him against you or James Hansen any day. But, yet you smooch up to Paul Ehrlich, a butterfly expert at Stanford, and Rajendra Kumar Pachauri, a railroad engineer and head of the IPCC. Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! this really shows you fellas are hurting for logic.
Gringo: You even prove my point even more. Regarding Happer, he is an expert in energy. What do you think GW is all about? Answer: The transfer of ENERGY! Do you think you have to be spacey to be a climatologist?
In your analogy of Doctors, you left out one important part.
Quote by Noel Brown, UN official: "Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of "eco-refugees," threatening political chaos."
You'd trust people like that to operate on you?
-----------------------
