[Vision2020] Why are most meteorologists climate change skeptics?

[Ron Force]

Well, you could have quoted this from the article:
 As the only professional who speaks about science in an atmosphere of 30-second sound bites, weather forecasters are often asked to gauge an 
opinion on anything that may touch upon a scientific topic, although 
they may have scant knowledge of the field. These inquiries may give 
them the impression they are more omniscient in their science knowledge 
than they really are.  "There is one little problem with this: most 
weather forecasters are not really scientists. When a broad pool of 
weather forecasters were surveyed in a study barely half of them had a 
college degree in meteorology or another atmospheric science. Only 17 
percent had received a graduate degree, effectively a prerequisite for 
an academic researcher in any scientific field."
"Among the certified meteorologists  surveyed in 2008, 
79 percent considered it appropriate to educate their communities about 
climate change. Few of them, however, had taken the steps necessary to 
fully educate themselves about it. When asked which source of 
information on climate change they most trusted, 22 percent named the 
American Meteorological Society (AMS). But the next most popular answer, with 16 percent, was "no one." The third was "myself.""
>
>One of the leading weatherman deniers is John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel. He has an undergraduate degree in ...journalism.
>

Ron Force
Moscow Idaho USA


________________________________
 From: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
To: Vision 2020 <Vision2020 at moscow.com> 
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 5:59 PM
Subject: [Vision2020] Why are most meteorologists climate change skeptics?
 

Here is a link to an article in the Huffington Post that asks the question "Why do Meteorologists Dismiss Climate Change Science?":

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marvin-meadors/why-do-meteorologists-dis_b_1289630.html

I was hoping this article would look into this fact from a standpoint of "what factors might be involved that cause so many meteorologists to question the anthropogenic global warming theory?"  What could cause this skepticism?  I had then assumed that they would go through those reasons and explain why they might be confused from an "AGW theory is right by divine providence" viewpoint.  It was too much to hope that they would simply raise the issues as open questions and let people think for themselves.

That's why I was surprised that they didn't even do that.  They basically took the stance that not only is AGW correct, but climate scientists are infallible and your basic weatherman is an uneducated lout.  It was told from a slightly contemptuous "look at those crazy people!" angle.  They barely even referred to "climate is not weather".  They mumbled something about how those cretins question climate models merely because the ones that are used in meteorology are laughingly inaccurate.  But the climate models made by Real Climate Scientists predicted Mt. Pinatubo!  *rolls eyes*

So what might make 76% of meteorologists as a group skeptical that man's influence is the primary cause of global warming and a whopping 29% think it's a scam?  Here are a few reasons to think about.

The first is the one that they ran with.  Climate scientists have doctorates in related fields and many meteorologists you see on TV don't.  Read the article for more info on this.  I would like to point out that while they don't have doctorates in Climatology or a related field, they do know your local weather and how that is affected by global conditions that are relevant well.  They are a step beyond the old-timer that knows the seasons.  And since climatology is, under the hood, the study of weather (among other topics), this might mean something.  They are a bit more knowledgeable than your average Joe on the topic, and they are much more skeptical.  This should raise some red flags somewhere, and not in the "we need to debunk these guys" sense.

Another reason was also mentioned in the article.  From what it sounds like, the current state of weather prediction via computer models is sorely lame.  Granted, the weather is extremely chaotic - but I would expect them to being doing better, or at least be more consistent amongst the different models.  Since much of climate science is predicated on models, this should worry people.  I'd hate to bet the farm on a computer model that hasn't been dialed in more than your average web browser has.

One more reason that I think that meteorologists are more skeptical: they deal day-to-day with the reality of temperature fluctuations.  They see how much the temperature fluctuates from early morning to mid afternoon.  They see how one day can be much warmer or cooler than the previous one.  Alaska saw as much as a 90F change in temperature between one day and the next this current winter.  They also see the size of the temperature changes as the seasons change, and how the days compare year-to-year.  They see the changes in the jet stream, the changes in precipitation, and so forth.  Is it not reasonable to be skeptical of scientists that take all these temperature swings, from all over the globe, and come down with one number per year for a temperature anomaly?  That they measure 1F of increase over 90 years from a dataset that varies wildly day-to-day, county-to-county, land-to-sea, altitude to altitude by large orders of magnitude more than
 this?  I wish they would have at least touched on this.

Anyway, I'm done ranting now.  I wish reporters had the luxury to treat this as any other scientific field and not be pressured by their fears that This Is Too Important Not to Treat Seriously.

Paul

=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
              http://www.fsr.net
         mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20120223/15c7e653/attachment-0001.html>