MIT Professor Kerry Emanuel bothered by on-air meteorologists' lack of climate science knowledge

Journeyman Pictures has created a little 10-minute documentary that describes the perceived disconnect between the beliefs of on-air meteorologists and climatologists.  Of specific note are the comments of MIT professor Dr. Kerry Emanuel who sets up the premise of the question (and the documentary as a whole) and swings away (just after 5-minute mark):

PROFESSOR KERRY EMANUEL, CLIMATE SCIENTIST: Why would anybody ask weather forecasters about their opinion on climate? I think it is because there is a hope that I don’t think is justified that ordinary people will confuse weather forecasters with climate scientists.

Narrator:  Professor Kerry Emanuel is disparaging about what he perceives to be a lack of knowledge amongst many meteorologists.

PROFESSOR KERRY EMANUEL: Weather forecasters are in a unique position. I mean if they actually did study the problem, if they actually took the time to really understand it rather than just go to the blogosphere to get their favourite views and rebroadcast them, then I think they could do a lot of good in the world and I think there are some who are doing that to be fair.

Also featured is wrestler and full-time Accuweather soothsayer and forecaster Joe Bastardi who is a noted climate change skeptic.  Regardless, if you are reading this, you are not doing yourself or the world any good coming to the blogosphere and learning about climate.  Move along.

Embedding disabled by the makers of the documentary (only 302 views through midnight 08/24).  Here’s the Youtube link.

Advertisements

128 thoughts on “MIT Professor Kerry Emanuel bothered by on-air meteorologists' lack of climate science knowledge

  1. Professor Kerry Emanuel is disparaging about what he perceives to be a lack of knowledge amongst many meteorologists.
    And I’m disparaging about the lack of knowledge of basic physics and of statistics by “climate scientists”.

  2. Wow! They’re really running scared now aren’t they. Run along little people and let the big grown-ups tell you what’s going on.

  3. I think most Meteorologists come across as well informed about their subject and pretty straightforward.
    So far as the media “weatherman” end of Meteorology is concerned, they must get used to the fact that, no matter how skilled they are and how careful they are with their predictions, there is a good chance that what they forecast for tomorrow will be wrong. That must prevent them getting too hubristic.
    On the other hand, the “climate scientists” (with some honourable exceptions) are closetted in their comfortable ivory towers playing on their computer models and believing that their model’s prognostications are so, so much sophisticated and superior to anything a humble Meteorologist might suggest.
    I regard the great majority of “climate scientists” (Kerry Emanuel certainly included) as about as genuine – and considerably more dangerous – as a bunch of Homeopaths.
    A little less arrogance and a bit more humility in admitting what we still DON’T know would go a long way.
    But in some respects the most execrable bunch are the Professional Institutions (the Royal Society and all the rest) who are supposed to keep an eye on standards. They have stood idly by whilst the charlatans have gone on the rampage and have been the first to stand behind the likes of Phil Jones when he refused to release data.

  4. Yesterday I was having a brand new water pump installed in my bush home. After much frustration, the plumber declared that the pump simply did not work, put it back in its box, then took it away to be fixed.
    How can a common tradesman dare to make such a saucy pronouncement on the work of qualified engineers? I’d have understood if he had declared his own ignorance and taken the pump away for something called “expert review”.
    Now some common sales people are agreeing that the pump does not work and are offering to replace it with a pump which does work!
    And, to tell you the truth, even I, a total lay-person in these matters, am starting to think the pump was a dud, basing my opinion on little more than anecdote and observation.

  5. Given that I am now of the opinion that the most over-rated among us are peer reviewed climatologists, and I’d sooner take the opinion of the self-educated corner burger flipper above that of the activist climate wonk, this wonk’s opinion is going nowhere with me. Neither the flipper nor the wonk knows what the climate should be right now, but the burger flipper won’t lie about it.

  6. Towards the end K. Emanual says:
    “..we’ll figure out how to take carbon out of fossil fuels”
    Chemistry must not have been one of his strong subjects, among others.

  7. The climate is a very complex and chaotic system which encompasses many areas of science including physics, mathematics, chemistry and biology.
    Predictions should not be attempted by laymen.
    It is a subject best left to celebrities, rock stars and politicians.

  8. This kind of propaganda discredits the scientific community. Eric Hoffer penned many wonderful quotations, I will use two here: “The fanatic is not really a stickler to principle. He embraces a cause not primarily because of its justness or holiness but because of his desperate need for something to hold onto.” and “We can be absolutely certain only about things we do not understand.”
    Now the true philosopher and the true scientist, both seekers of knowledge, can never be a fanatic or an absolutist. This is in opposition to the “True Believer”. By definition these behaviors are incompatible with that seeking and are logically inconsistent. When this happens they should forfeit the noble title. Don’t hold your breath, it hasn’t happened yet.
    When any person of science, in speaking or writing about that science, becomes fanatical, dogmatic or absolute, he forfeits the rights to that title. To paraphrase from my essay, “Man At the Center, Not Man In the Center”, a scientist may be at the center of some research topic or another, he is not the center of it. The philosopher in me will say, we scientists do not understand and do not know, far more then we do know and understand. The only person qualified to use the title Scientist is the one who will admit this fact, to himself and to everyone else.

  9. He might have a point, there are still meteorologists around with a distorted view of the climate change. Those be the ones ringing the alarm bells.

  10. Phrases using ‘skepticism’ in relation to ‘climate change’ and ‘global warming’ are forms of equivocation — the use of ambiguous language with the intention to deceive.

  11. To my mind, climate is just the average of a series of weather events over time. Start off with the weather in the short term, and extrapolate into longer periods. When the predictions don’t come through, find out why, and then post updated predictions based on the new information. Rinse and Repeat. Eventually, once one has made enough mistakes, the predictions get better.
    The other way, starting off with this nebulous “climate”, and then trying to build in all the physical variables into a model, because that is the only way it can be done, is only going to work if one knows all the inputs, and their various effects, and that those effects will repeat over time. We don’t know all the inputs, or their effects, therefore starting off from the bottom up is every bit as valid as from the top down.

  12. Nice one! The good old “You’re not a climate scientisit therefore your opinion is of no worth!” He is one of those, “you’re not a carpenter therefore you cannot say those window cills are rotten”, “You don’t have a PhD in glazing therefore you cannot say the glass is cracked”, “you’re not a siezmologist therefore you cannot say that was an Earth tremor”, etc etc! The classic put down if ever there was one, unless you think like me, you’re opinion is invalid! This is the trouble with intellectual elitism, they think they know best, as usual, correction, they don’t think they just know!.

  13. Martin Brumby says:
    August 23, 2010 at 11:12 pm
    I regard the great majority of “climate scientists” (Kerry Emanuel certainly included) as about as genuine – and considerably more dangerous – as a bunch of Homeopaths.
    A little less arrogance and a bit more humility in admitting what we still DON’T know would go a long way.
    But in some respects the most execrable bunch are the Professional Institutions (the Royal Society and all the rest) who are supposed to keep an eye on standards. They have stood idly by whilst the charlatans have gone on the rampage and have been the first to stand behind the likes of Phil Jones when he refused to release data.

    Another Enabler has been the mainstream science groupies like Bill Nye and science-fiend organizations like CSICOP.

  14. So Kerry Emanual is upset that some meteorologists are heretics? He should just get them arrested for thought crime along with those annoying geologists, paleontologists and statisticians. Oh, wait, Copenhagen was a total failure. No socialist world government, no army of green shirt thugs. Such a shame. I guess whining about not being able to fool all of the people all of the time on Youtube is all that’s left…

  15. As climate is simply the average of weather events, I’d put my money on meteorologists’ to have the best understanding, rather than a bunch of inept statisticians who call themselves scientists. After all, it was Emanuel himself who was involved in the use low quality distorted data to produce mythical constructs like the ‘hockey stick’ graph.
    Much of what passes for climatology is cargo cult science, where belief trumps facts and obfuscation is the watchword. Give me an honest meteorologist like Joe Bastardi any day!

  16. “TV news anchors an reporters couldn’t qualify for the job if it was to only tie shoe laces. The only qualification they need is to be able to communicate on a 4th grade level, as the do.”
    Michael J. Norton

  17. What’s the difference between a weather forecaster and a climate forecaster?
    You can sack a weather forecaster for a bad forecast!
    Any idiot can be a climate forecaster, all it takes is some dumb arsed theory about the climate and a lot of gullible believers who are prepared to wait the decades it takes to prove that it was a dumb arsed theory.
    But weather forecasting is real practical science: predictions which are tested day after day, even hour after hour.

  18. “First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they attack you, then…you win.”
    Does anyone else get the feeling that we are entering the third phase of this struggle against the hoaxers and alarmists?

  19. The difference between weather forecasters and climatoligists is similar to the difference between astronomers and astrologers.

  20. As Volt Aire says, there are indeed: Paul Douglas in the Minneapolis area, for instance.
    Co2fan writes:
    Towards the end K. Emanual says:
    “..we’ll figure out how to take carbon out of fossil fuels”
    Chemistry must not have been one of his strong subjects, among others.

    Indeed.
    I once caught a grad student of Kerry’s weighing in on the comments of a Rivkin (NYTime’s) blog post. He also appeared to be an AGW true-believer, assuming the answers to many vexed scientific questions, not the least of which is climate sensitivity to added CO2.
    Kerry and Richard Lindzen must have interesting faculty time – or so one might think. In fact, I’m pretty sure they don’t have them at all, except rarely.

  21. (only 302 views through midnight 08/24).
    304 as of whenever Now here happens to be Then there.
    Is the narrator’s Brit accent supposed to lend additional credibility?

  22. “Weather is climate. More specifically, aggregations of weather are climate. Means, averages, and distributions of daily weather comprise climate.”
    See “Actually, Weather Is Climate” (William M. Briggs, Statistician & Consultant. Jan. 22, ’10), http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/actually-weather-is-climate/
    I have built my trust (or lack thereof) on meteorologists along the years of grading their local daily forecasts for the next week.
    Nobody will live long enough to grade global climatologists the exact same way, so we must use other means to place trust. Does Emanuel seem trustworthy, or arrogant and dismissive? What is his personal history?
    Living in an island lower than 6 feet ASL I feared Al Gore’s ocean rising, this island being in the Caribbean, I feared his CO2-enhanced hurricanes. No more.
    I explain at lenght at http://www.oarval.org/ClimateChange.htm

  23. I think its quite important to differentiate Climate Scientists from Meteorologists.
    -Meteorologists understand that a 7 day prediction is iffy and a 50 year prediction is impossible
    -Meteorologists probably wont be accused of hubris, lies, gaining research funding under false pretenses, perverting scientific research or advocating actions that would make your average dictatorship blanch
    – Meteorologists have a reputation for common sense and assessment of information
    So lets give our gratitude to Prof Emanuel for both making sure Meteorologists keep their credibility and proving himself the arrogant ******* that he is

  24. I’m “bothered“ by “climate scientists” who don’t know enough about Quaternary geology to place today’s weather into the proper climatological context.

  25. and yet… and yet… it moves…
    For key knowledge of Climate Science (the bits that matter, the uncertainty factors, the corruption of the raw data, etc etc), I don’t think Kerry Emanuel could hold a candle to our honourable host here.

  26. @ Bill Tuttle says:
    August 24, 2010 at 3:05 am
    “Is the narrator’s Brit accent supposed to lend additional credibility?”
    Um, it’s not a Brit accent mate, it’s very Ozzie. I think you have the same kind of trouble as we have distinguishing between US and Canadian accents!
    (Loved your time signature though 🙂 )

  27. re my last comment: … although I wait to be told by a Kiwi that it’s an NZ accent (which we Brits have equal difficulty distinguishing)

  28. Jeef says:
    August 24, 2010 at 2:36 am
    “I’d rather listen to Nurse Gladys Emanuel than Kerry Emanuel.”
    Now you mention it they do seem rather similar…
    How about Nora Batty and her rumpled stockings?

  29. “co2fan says:
    August 23, 2010 at 11:30 pm
    Towards the end K. Emanual says:
    “..we’ll figure out how to take carbon out of fossil fuels”
    He really meant fossil fools. It’s a new term for oil chemophobes.

  30. David Middleton… “I’m “bothered“ by “climate scientists” who don’t know enough about Quaternary geology to place today’s weather into the proper climatological context.”
    Let’s put this debate into geological context then. This climate debate, and everything else we find important in our entire lives, will amount to no more than 1mm of bedrock in 50 million years time.
    In other words, in 50 million years, the future geologists, of whatever species is dominant at that time, will only find evidence of our existence in 1 mm of bedrock. So that is ALL we are destined to become.
    That is the climate debate in geological context.

  31. Someone wrote on this blog that “climate is what you expect and weather is what you get.” I think that about sums it up.

  32. For information only, youtube video counts frequently hang at about 300. It i snot an indication of the popularity or otherwise of the clip, merely a bug (or possibly a youtube policy). They usually click up on a daily basis after the first hang.

  33. Bill Tuttle says:
    August 24, 2010 at 3:05 am
    “Is the narrator’s Brit accent supposed to lend additional credibility?”
    Not a British accent. Australian or New Zealand.

  34. “Also featured is wrestler and full-time Accuweather soothsayer and forecaster Joe Bastardi who is a noted climate change skeptic.
    I really, really, really wish people wouldn’t write things like this. Each and every time this subject comes up the term should be noted AGW skeptic. We need to focus on the true topic of the skepticism, the theory of AGW, like a laser beam. The climate and the fact that it changes is not the subject of skepticism. In fact, it’s just the opposite. We’re not climate change skeptics, we’re climate stasis skeptics. Let’s call it what it is, and call it AGW skepticism. We’re giving away too much when we use “climate change skeptics” or the even more execrable “climate skeptics”. What does that even mean?

  35. Sounds like an Aussie with a plum in his mouth.Either British educated,or deliberately pronouncing every word,so Americans can understand him.
    How do you sleep while the batts are burning is the song now Mr Bastardi.

  36. kcom says:
    “it’s just the opposite. We’re not climate change skeptics, we’re climate stasis skeptics.”
    Well said!
    The climate sceptics are like the old school economists who thought that currencies could be pinned to the “gold standard” and that fundamentally currencies were static.
    Global warming sceptics understand that long term climates and currencies change.

  37. From academia Irrational gaffes will increase.
    Some of this is insecurity and jealousy.
    The heavy duty Phds can’t draft models and do next season forecasts. BBQ summer forecasts seem to be a joke. They envy a Joe Bastardi that hit it spot on in england last winter. This guys stupid predictions from a psych standpoint may be behind his putdowns.

  38. I trust Joe Bastardi at Accuweather for a Month by Month climate forcast before I’d trust a charlatan like Kerry Emanuel. For one thing I read a few of Joe’s monthly forcast last winter and they were spot on. Where as I watched Professor Emanuel strut around for the camera to try and make himself look smart. Sorry Professor Emanuel, I saw right through you and no matter how hard you try to discredited Joe, he is a lot smarter then you are and he proves it time and time again.
    ~Karen~

  39. So let me get this straight. The people whose job it is to be make accurate weather forecasts know less about the climate than the people whose job it is to secure grant money. Makes sense. (end sarcasm)

  40. A lot of the “most prominent alarmist scientists” do not have a degree in climatology, e.g. Gavin Schmidt, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics, James Hansen, Ph.D. Physics, Joe Romm, Ph.D. Physics, John Holden, Ph.D. Theoretical Plasma Physics,
    Michael Mann, Ph.D. Geology,Rajendra Pachauri, Ph.D. Industrial Engineering,
    Richard C. J. Somerville, Ph.D. Meteorology, Stephan Rahmstorf, Ph.D. Oceanography, Steven Schneider, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering and Plasma Physics
    Susan Solomon, Ph.D. Chemistry. Their papers generally show very shallow understanding of the methods of paleoclimatology and the paleoclimatologic record. Dr. Hanson’s 2005 paper with Reudy and Sato in a prime example. There is also poor understanding of basic meterologic concepts like PDO, AMO and blocking highs etc. and the conditions that these have been associated with in the past. Conditions of the geologic past are literally rewritten to fit the theory. Dr. Kerry has said that “non-climate scientists” can’t begin to understand the climate models. For many well trained scientists this is probably true but we can sure look at the assumptions the models are based upon and frankly many of these assumptions are simply not supported by the scientific data. Also the people who really know models, like engineers, have expressed their dismay at the number of unknowns used in the models. What is striking about the climatology papers describing a modeling experiment is the number of “parameterizations” (another word for SWAG) that are considered real data and the unquestioned asumption that the effects of CO2 are amplified by water vapor, an assumption that has never been proven and to which there is massive evidence to the contrary. Dr. Kerry doesn’t seem to consider Paleoclimatologists and Meterologists like Tim Ball, Richard Lindzen, Reid Bryson, Julio Betancourt, Tsonis and Craig Loehle “real climatologists”? He seems to be saying that the definition of a “real climatologist” is someone who agrees with his myopic view.

  41. So…. a meteorologist is credible if he/she does not broadcast (“on-air”), but all of a sudden has no credibility if he/she does broadcast (“on-air”)?
    By the way, isn’t this Emanuel character a ‘Meteorology’ Professor (per Wikipedia)?

  42. So, does this mean Dr Kerry Emmanuel thinks that those CAGW stalwarts, the UK Met office should keep their nose out of climate pontification too?

  43. A Climatologist is someone who always wanted to be a Meteorologist but was too lazy to take the courses and graduated with a degree in something else, couldn’t do that very well, and started talking and writing about what he thought the global weather was going to be like in a hundred years. The real money maker Climatologists only write articles, give opinions and speeches and TV interviews, and have their very own Blog in support of the World’s Greatest Nobel Prize Winning Climatologist Fat Albert Gore, Former ‘Vice’ Precident of the Unitied Stats of Amerika and the Inventor of the Internot, who recently got a divorce from Tipper and started getting Hotel Massages while giving speeches around the world for the New World Order that is intent on eradicating CO2.
    PS: Recently “TV Climatologists” have been heard repeating this talking point: “The Sky Is Falling!!!”

  44. Maybe they could set up some sort of intensive training camps for meteorologists where they could go and begin to “truly understand” the problem with our climate, and where we are headed unless man changes his ways, particularly with regard to his fossil fuel use.
    They could then come back with their new “knowledge” and impart that to the ignorant masses. Access to computers would of course have to be limited, so that only the “right kind” of knowledge would be gained. It would be sort of a boot camp, with “drill sergeants” barking out climate questions, and the trainees had best give the “right” answers if they know what’s good for them.
    Knowledge is truly a wonderful thing, as long as it’s the “correct” knowledge.

  45. Don’t the MET Office use the same code from its short term weather predictions for their long term climate projections? (I could be quite wrong with this). If so, neither can be that great since over longer periods they become less accurate?

  46. The big difference between a meteorologist and a climatologist is that the meteorologist is reminded daily (and often very rudely) about the failures of atmospheric models. While forecast models are not exactly the same as climate models, the thing that makes both of them fail is exactly the same: incomplete and inaccurate knowledge (and data) used to make a calculation whose product is then fed back into the equations to make more calculations time and time again + chaos!
    Once one understands the limitations of the models, he or she is forced to look elsewhere for confirmation of a theory. Meteorologists look to the real world to see if the AGW theory is holding up. It isn’t.
    Climatologists, who still have an inordinate amount of faith in the models, seem to look at the real world as a bit of a nuisance, seeing only those aspects of reality that confirm the models, while ignoring the vast amount of data that conflicts.
    There is no doubt in my mind that meteorologists and statisticians are far more qualified to judge the work of climatologists than climatologists are qualified to judge themselves.

  47. Every time I hear one of the blowhards go on like this, I’m reminded of the scene in A Beautiful Mind where John Nash (Russell Crowe) is playing Go (i think it’s Go). He’s being very arrogant and some guy with clearly an inferior mind plays him and beats him. And John Nash is incredulous how he could have possibly lost. His arrogance doesn’t even allow him to think that it’s even possible for him to be wrong.

  48. I don’t think is justified that ordinary people will confuse climate scientists with real scientists.

  49. I’m sure they feel the same way about you Dr. Kerry Emanuel.
    Joe has been spot on with his predictions in his field.
    You guys have not hit the mark yet.
    Now who would you believe? Probably Dr. Master of Doom at WU?

  50. “..we’ll figure out how to take carbon out of fossil fuels”
    Was that a joke? Seriously. I know nothing about chemistry, but I thought that carbon was what made fossil fuels, fuel. Some sort of carbon bonding is what is “burned” in engines? Living things use sunlight to create carbon based molecules, which we then “burn”?

  51. Climatologists should be spending 99% of their time trying to ensure “their predictions are right”.
    Instead, they are spending 99% of their time trying to ensure “people agree with their predictions”.
    It is their number 1 concern – to have everyone agree with them rather than to have the climate agree with the theory. It is sociology/psychology focussed on “people” versus science focussed on the “climate”.
    This 10 minute clip is just another example.

  52. Jim Clarke says:
    August 24, 2010 at 6:51 am
    “The big difference between a meteorologist and a climatologist is that the meteorologist is reminded daily (and often very rudely) about the failures of atmospheric models. While forecast models are not exactly the same as climate models, the thing that makes both of them fail is exactly the same: incomplete and inaccurate knowledge (and data) used to make a calculation whose product is then fed back into the equations to make more calculations time and time again + chaos!”
    Having been a professional forecaster (not of weather or climate – for a telephone company) at one time in my career, I know exactly of what you speak! And therein is the biggest problem with AGW!!
    Since it is impossible to develop and execute a true experiment on the earth’s climatic system, the only way to prove any hypothesis about what effect any event (human caused or not) has on the earth’s climate is to develop models which produce predictions which can be compared to actual results. Now, as long as the actual results can be measured accurately (without “adjustments”), one MAY be able to verify their hypothesis. The problem is, as so aptly stated by Jim Clarke, “the thing that makes both of them [models] fail is exactly the same: incomplete and inaccurate knowledge (and data)…”
    Hence the reason why the AGW hypothesis will never be anything more than the equivalency of the hypothesis of an “afterlife”.

  53. Dr. Emanuel is moving to yet a higher floor of his Ivory Tower, while reality is eating away at the foundations. He’s only making the fall longer.

  54. Why should the public put thier trust in those whose forecasts are not known for dependability?
    They don’t. Climate Change Forecasters don’t do it for most.
    Weather Change Forecasters get it right far more often than not, because they know thier limits.
    Known as meteorologists, it’s easy to build trust when they are open & honest about thier abilities.
    Not so with Climate Change Forecasters whose brand is damaged.

  55. Wow!, This is just to discredit that “nasty competition”. However, truth, as always, never is to be found among official science circles, because by definition, official science can not harm its current and so dear “status quo”.
    As the Bible says: “It is easier for a camel could to go thorugh the eye of a needle than a rich go through it”; they being the supposed “rich ones” in nanny knowledge.
    In the next few years, beginning from today, we shall see all the current science paradigms to fall down as wrong.

  56. This is climate not weather… is the excuse usual supporters of global warming, rebranded climate change to fit all sizes… And they have a good reason for chosing this lame excuse: It is the lack of meteorological knowledge that makes the warmists “climate” prediction a mockery and specifically where they can be debunked one after another.
    Hence the need for Emmanuel and his cohorts to stigmatize one group after another: it used to be the real geographer cliamatologists who pointed the BS in the Hockey Stick and other new climate artefacts and now it is the meteorologists. Typical.
    This is why the persistence of antiquated notions such as the polar front, the Ferrell circulation model, the Rossby waves despite clear observationnal evidences to the contrary is encouraged by the “new climatology”: the more confused meteorology is, the better for the alarmists.
    Emmanuel and his Carnot engine for Hurricane should better worry about his own field because his supremacy is being contested by young bright minds:
    Makarieva A.M., Gorshkov V.G., Li B.-L., Nobre A.D. (2010) A critique of some modern applications of the Carnot heat engine concept: the dissipative heat engine cannot exist. Proceedings of the Royal Society Series A Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 466, 1893-1902

  57. The editing wasn’t fair. The documentary was more of the usual bias toward global warming. They could have been fairer to Joe Bastardi. She emphasizes he was a wrestler and body builder making it seem he couldn’t be as smart as another meteorologists who has been in meteorology for “30 years”.
    They show the man who took the survey walking among shelves of books then running his finger down the page of a book from the shelves giving the appearance that he must be smart since he is around books. Actually he sounded condescending.
    And they could have had another professor from ‘MIT’ in it, Richard Lindzen.

  58. The ILLUMINATI counterattack!, however those “illuminati” (enlightened ones) are groping in the dark!, but don’t fool yourself believing they are seeking for the truth, by groping in the dark, No!, they are just looking for money and self-indulgement, motivated by profound feelings carefully implanted in their beings by their mommies and daddies, as self pride and self conceit. Oh, how intelligent little K is!

  59. RichieP: August 24, 2010 at 4:01 am
    Um, it’s not a Brit accent mate, it’s very Ozzie.
    Well, my Kiwi bud says it’s Ozzie, and my Ozzie bud says, “Not Oz. Not one ‘buggah’ in ten minutes.” Pitcairn Island, maybe?
    I think you have the same kind of trouble as we have distinguishing between US and Canadian accents!
    I almost tubed my French Honors class in ’66 because my Sorbonne-edjimacated prof declared my accent “abominably Québécois“…

  60. Embedding disabled? Sharing via the open Internet disabled? That’s par for the course isn’t it? If the religious believers in global warming really loved science, they would want to share their thoughts with as many people as possible and receive as many comments as possible. People that love science love finding the correct answers and love debating the questions. Religious believers in global warming operate in an anti science mode where sharing is not encouraged and group speak is demanded among the faithful flock. It’s actually sad to see a whole generation of “scientists” throw their reputations on the scrap heap of history. Very sad.

  61. It’s very funny to watch you all get upset about qualifications when we have the example right here of Anthony Watts who, admittedly, is no climate science but is happy to pontificate as if knew as much or more than the majority of actual climate scientists.
    The disparaging political attacks on Emanuel are indicative of how deeply in denial those denying AGW have gone. You can’t refute the science, but you think anyone who agrees with you actually has all the qualifications needed to have equal time.
    The sad fact is that the subject has nothing to do with actual climate science but with politics. Watts knows this. So do climate change deniers. You can test this yourself by actually looking at Emanuel’s 30+ years work as a scientist at http://wind.mit.edu/~emanuel/cvweb/cvweb.html. Then come back and tell us that your meteorologists with whom you agree have the same qualifications. Then ask yourselves what you think you are really accomplishing.

  62. TomRude says:
    August 24, 2010 at 7:43 am
    From the authors you refer to (google translation from russian):
    Makarieva AM, Gorshkov VG (2010) The potential energy of atmospheric water vapor and air movement caused by the condensation of water vapor at different spatial scales. arXiv: 1003.5466v1 [physics.ao-ph]. PDF (0.9 MB). The Russian text is fully consistent with the English. The quality of images in the English text above.
    Abstract
    The basic physical principles responsible for the emergence of dynamic flow of air in the condensation of water vapor, the partial pressure of which represents a reserve of potential energy in the Earth’s atmosphere. The quantitative characteristics of such flows for various spatial scales. It is shown that the maximum velocity induced condensation occurring in the most compact circulations such as tornadoes and reach 160 m / sec.
    Notes:
    Readers interested in the physics of the biotic pump, will find in this article new results on the development of the theory of the condensation of atmospheric circulation. In particular, by considering the continuity equation derived horizontal pressure gradients, formed by the condensation of water vapor in the adiabatic ascent of moist air. (Briefly same result was previously described by two lines in Phys. Lett. A., see equation 4.) considered in detail the energy budget of the rotation of the eye the hurricane. We also show that without the Earth’s atmosphere condensed components, condensing circulation would not be as adiabatic gradient of pure water vapor coincides with the hydrostatic equilibrium. A dependence of the maximum wind speed, which is developed in the hurricane, the size of the persistent angular momentum and temperature. In the pole approximation described by a tornado. In general, winter 2009-2010 was not in vain.

    This is trascendental, as the energy from the Sun, it is not ALL directly received as heat.
    This means, for example, that plants transform VISIBLE LIGHT (500nm) , CO2 and WATER, into GLUCOSE. Well, then it comes around Al Baby and eats a lot of candies, and those candies BURN in his body, thanks to ATP, back to CO2, provoking the UHI effect=LWR=IR=HEAT .
    So, Professor “S” is right, TSI, though politically adjusted, can be the same, but the more junk food we eat the more heat we will produce.
    Then: It was not the SUV’s…it was HIM!

  63. “rather than just go to the blogosphere to get their favourite views and rebroadcast them,”
    The professor’s problem is that prior to the “blogosphere” these professors could pick and choose who’s feedback they listened to. They could surround themselves with their “peers”, pat each other on the back, tell each other how great they are.
    Now the “blogosphere” can call them out on their stupidity at light speed.
    They don’t like that. They can’t get away with the BS like they used to do.

  64. Emmanuel is clueless. He is in a library and surrounded by books. The climate is outdoors. His double chin shows he is sitting in a chair a lot.
    I was raised on a farm and raced yachts from the early 70’s. I have taken videos from my boat of people being killed in storms. I learned to read weather changes.
    Studying reality is helpfull. He needs to get out more. Bastardi is sharp and a threat to the bookworms. The only shortcoming i see with Bastardi is I don’t think he would be great at writing and publishing books.

  65. jthomas says:
    August 24, 2010 at 8:10 am
    ===========================
    There are people that read and post to this blog that make his “qualifications” look like pre-school.
    You should not assume that “actual climate scientists” do not review and post here.
    You just made the same fatal mistake that you are accusing others of doing.
    And the same snotty elitist mistake that Dr. Emanuel made.
    People that disagree with you are not necessarily stupid uneducated and not qualified to disagree with you……….

  66. jthomas, meteorology is more than the quick forecast you see on the news. Educate yourself for a change. “Dynamic Analysis of Weather and Climate” Springer 2010 2ed.

  67. jthomas says:
    August 24, 2010 at 8:10 am
    “You can’t refute the science, but you think anyone who agrees with you actually has all the qualifications needed to have equal time.”
    jthomas, please show us the “science”. I have yet to see any scientific proof of AGW Please don’t point me to the IPCC reports – those only propose a hypothesis with no proof.
    If you really have scientific proof (not just anecdotal “evidence”), then please share it with us. Sincerely. Do share.

  68. Henry chance wrote:
    “Emmanuel [sic] is clueless. He is in a library and surrounded by books. The climate is outdoors. His double chin shows he is sitting in a chair a lot.”
    Dop you actually think you made an intelliegent statement? Do you actually know anything about Emanuel?
    In fact, it is your type of thinking that IS the problem.
    [ryanm: Kerry can handle the criticism of the blogosphere that he so abhors. No one in their right mind should question his academic bonafides, yet his political analysis and advocacy is fair game, especially on this blog. Recall that Heidi Cullen suggested that broadcast meteorologists should be stripped of their AMS seals because they are not towing the alarmist climate change line 100%. Marginalizing all meteorologists as ignorant of climate change is the same as discounting all climate scientists’ knowledge of weather as lacking…]

  69. The difference between a weatherman and a climate scientist is that the weatherman knows that his forecast will face the acid test in a couple of days. The climate scientist knows that his forecasts / scenarios will only face the acid test numbered in years and they have the comfort of pushing back those years on a yearly basis. :o)
    REPLY: “the weatherman knows that his forecast will face the acid test in a couple of days. ” Couple of days? Think hours. You’ve obviously never been on the receiving end of a newsroom telephone when a evening convective thunderstorm pops up out of nowhere. – Anthony

  70. As a follow up just look at James Hansen’s predictions made in 1988 concerning co2 and temperature: FAIL. Yet he still persists in predicting the same things today!!!

  71. On the last page of a Boston Globe article noted here on WUWT, Lindzen said about Kerry:
    He began to see questionable motivations in Emanuel’s transformation into a scientist outspoken about the possible dangers from global warming.
    Emanuel “would tell me that he really felt that it would be a mistake not to take advantage of the issue . . . there is funding . . . it could benefit the department,’’ Lindzen said in an interview. “I always took a more moralistic view. There has to be a foundation.’’
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/16/kerry-emanuel-and-richard-lindzen-the-climatic-odd-couple/
    The “removal of carbon” from hydrocarbon molecules (strangely) results in the liberation of all energy in its bonds with hydrogen. 🙂 I perform this miracle every day with my car.

  72. Jthomas, the thing that sticks in my mind the most is the reluctance of the AGW religious believers to share data and methods. Why does it take FOI requests for the tax paying public to get a hold of the “science” that policy will be based upon and the tax payer will be ask to fund the resulting policy? It does not take a PHD scientist to know something doesn’t smell right. The belief in CO2 catastrophic global warming appears to me to be a faith based exercise and any who dare question it are labeled as deniers as if we deny the Holocaust. This is not science, this a scam to remove money from the pockets of tax payers.

  73. I mean if they actually did study the problem, if they actually took the time to really understand it rather than just go to the blogosphere to get their favourite views and rebroadcast them, then I think they could do a lot of good in the world and I think there are some who are doing that to be fair.
    I guess that is the reason, isn’t it?
    They actually did study the problem, hence the skepticism

  74. Emanuel and his ilk need to get over themselves. Their “consensus theory,” based on GIGO-corrupted climate models, has been discredited six ways to Sunday. Yet they cling desperately to the global warming mythology, too proud to face the facts. Blinded by hubris, they attack the truth and the truth-tellers. They have morphed into a climate-change inquisitors, denouncing unbelievers for daring to challenge AGW scripture.

  75. Latitude wrote:
    “You should not assume that “actual climate scientists” do not review and post here.
    You just made the same fatal mistake that you are accusing others of doing.
    And the same snotty elitist mistake that Dr. Emanuel made.”

    Actual climate scientists know that meteorologists are not climate scientists. Emanuel knows that as well. He made no such “elitist comment”; that strawman is fully transparent.
    And if you read the comments above, you know that Emanuel is being attacked “politically”, not for his actual qualifications, while “meteorologists” are being promoted for their politics, not their qualifications – and lack thereof.
    It’s time to stop the political nonsense.
    [ryanm: Climate scientists have made a (sub)conscious decision to advocate their results in political forums, on television, and yes, even in the blogosphere. It is naive to assert that the issue is NOT political — just because Gore says it is a “moral issue” and not a political issue. It’s all of the above. There are many components and angles to the so-called debate. Asking free people to stop talking about something regardless of their motive sounds a lot like censoring.]

  76. So, from now on, what they pretend is to disqualify all meteorologists.
    We all should know that the greatest scientists, the majority of great men who really made real breakthroughs in human development were not only ungraduates but drop outs and mostly laymen, as Thomas Alva Edison,etc,etc.
    Most of the time a diploma becomes really a cartoon and its owners a joke.
    As we say in spanish: “Lo que Natura non da Salamanca non presta” (What nature does not give Salamanca-University-does not lend” Entiende?

  77. Emanuel’s statements are the result of his profession being politically bashed and materially harmed. Emanuel – and responsibly so – has every right if not obligation to expose charlatanism both as a scientist and a citizen.
    I’m sure those who attack him would prefer that climate scientists “sit back and take it.” How dare they speak up!

  78. My own assessment of Emanuel was pretty much fixed by this set of videos from the Boston Globe by him and Richard Lindzen about why we should or should not worry about GW
    http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2010/05/16/global_warming_debate_makes_climate_tough_on_friends/
    Emanuel’s presentation is on the whole fairly reasonable, but between 1:25 and 1:55 he weighs in with the only real threat he can provide for a consequence of GW. It’s Algore’s favorite, that Greenland could melt and raise sea levels 20 feet. Yes Kerry, if Greenland’s ice cap melted entirely MSL would likely rise 20 feet, but even the IPCC donkeys admit it would take a millenium or three to transpire and anyone still peddling that alarmist bilge is the ultimate glass house occupant when it comes to challenging the credibility of anybody else’s scientific bona fides.

  79. jthomas says:
    August 24, 2010 at 9:34 am
    ===========================
    What profession?
    BBQ summer
    Children won’t know what snow is
    and on and on
    You mean that profession?

  80. “Gavin Schmidt, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics, James Hansen, Ph.D. Physics, Joe Romm, Ph.D. Physics, John Holden, Ph.D. Theoretical Plasma Physics,
    Michael Mann, Ph.D. Geology,Rajendra Pachauri, Ph.D. Industrial Engineering,
    Richard C. J. Somerville, Ph.D. Meteorology, Stephan Rahmstorf, Ph.D. Oceanography, Steven Schneider, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering and Plasma Physics
    Susan Solomon, Ph.D. Chemistry”
    These people have higher degrees in solid subjects, probably from reputable institutions. They should have a sound understanding of science and scientific method, and the brains to see their way through bullshit. What went wrong?

  81. “Dop [sic] you actually think you made an intelliegent [sic] statement?”
    Let’s analyze his statement and see.
    “(statement of conclusion)”,”The climate is outdoors””(personal observation)”
    Scientific Method:
    Define the question: Is there AGW.
    Form hypothesis: AGW exists
    Perform experiment and collect data <–(The climate is outdoors)
    Analyze data: "Use model data to fit real world, and correlate."
    Iterate: "Failure of model to correlate exactly means return to experiment step."
    Publish results: "Done, done, done and done. And overdone. And done some more."
    Duplicate:
    "The climate is outdoors" is a remarkable perspective incarnating the concept that data must be constantly edited, audited with the concept that any predictive model of the data which fails to fit new data is invalid. It can be seen once you separate the wheat from the chaff.
    The root of the post, and argument, is that because "weather" and "climate" are different, those learned of the "weather" should not comment on works of those learned of "climate."
    To substantiate this argument, first, some ability or skill must be present in a student of climate. So far, I have seen no "climatologist" that moves beyond the practical knowledge of the schools upon which he touches (glaciology, oceanography, marine biology, etc) in any area except that of prediction of future behaviour. Other than such predictions, climatologists seem more like Microsoft Excel jockeys. Without attributability and transparency of the skill of said predictions, there is no skill or ability inherent to the climatologist which is not present in persons of other disciplines: Thus it is unreasonable to give them a gestalt bestowment of "expertise." The argument then of one expertise vs. another expertise is moot.
    Climate science, as a whole, should not proceed boldy under the impression that the gestalt conclusion is correct and the method is incapable of measuring it correctly (yet.) This is not science, it is systematic support of bias which is wholly unscientific.
    I would profer for reading the following:
    Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact by Ludwik Fleck
    The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn.
    http://www.anthro.psu.edu/weiss_lab/CQ09_FleckAndTheArtOfFact.pdf

  82. coldfinger says:
    “These people have higher degrees in solid subjects, probably from reputable institutions. They should have a sound understanding of science and scientific method, and the brains to see their way through bullshit. What went wrong?”
    They were corrupted by money and fame. And they like the results. So they continue to do what they think will get them more money and fame.
    If they simply wanted scientific truth, they would follow the scientific method.

  83. History check:
    jthomas
    In just ten years from now, everybody will know who was Anthony Watts and WUWT.
    Could you affirm the same about you?

  84. An architect who knows his job does not build a palace on a sand pit, and the mathematician is a fool who spends his college years diddling with a math better done on computers, when he doesn’t understand algebra or geometry.
    http://milesmathis.com/pre.html

  85. jthomas says:
    August 24, 2010 at 9:34 am
    Emanuel’s statements are the result of his profession being politically bashed and materially harmed. Emanuel – and responsibly so – has every right if not obligation to expose charlatanism both as a scientist and a citizen.
    I’m sure those who attack him would prefer that climate scientists “sit back and take it.” How dare they speak up!
    ==========================================
    Then by all means, let’s expose some charlatanism here.
    Dr. Emanuel wants to censor the media/blogosphere, and does not want people going there for information. He obviously does not want his work or the work of other “climate scientists” critiqued on the internet, and wants control over who says what and the message.
    You compare him to Anthony, who posts everything on the internet, for any and everyone to critique, including you. Anthony obviously does not control the message, here you are.
    You complain about “qualifications” and “credentials”, yet people with those things make outlandish and wrong predictions all the time.
    Then here you come along complaining again because of basically “freedom of the press”. You sound like our president, wanting to control the internet and trying to tell people to not read what they don’t want you to read.
    People like you and Dr. Emanuel should take less time trying to control the message, and more time trying to come up with a message that made sense. Obviously you wouldn’t still be having this “communication” problem after a 1/2 century if you did that.

  86. Media meteorologists do the best they can with the data they’re provided. I think they know better than anyone just how wrong models can be.
    For example, today in the Denver area, during the past 24 hours or so, the high temp was predicted to be 68, 77, 73, and now 80 degrees F, from a low of around 52. Right now (noon), we’ve made it all the way to 60. If they can’t get it right within 24 hours, why are we supposed to believe the long-term models from the so-called climate scientists? Yesterday was forecast to be 85 but was never more than 77 because the thunderstorms rolled in early.
    Of course, the same meteorologists reported the high on Sat like it was the end of the world, it was 96 or so, “Could break the record high”, “several degrees shy of the record high”. There was no corresponding panic over the 66 degree temps we had in July. I can tell you though, 96 is NOT an usual temp for August in Denver.
    Like many others in academic ivory towers, these so-called climate scientists need to get out in the real world. The real world where cold kills far more people, animals, and plants than heat does. Scientists time would be better spent helping people adapt to extreme temperature change. We’re fortunate here to have heating and air conditioning, most people on the planet don’t. Even Europe sees far more deaths from extreme temperature than we do in the US. The best way to help people adapt is to develop low cost energy sources, i.e. carbon products like coal and oil.

  87. jthomas says:
    August 24, 2010 at 8:10 am
    The sad fact is that the subject has nothing to do with actual climate science but with politics.
    The Alarmists have politicized climate science from the beginning. Emanuel is a perfect example of this. To his way of “thinking”, anyone who disagrees with him, or with the “consensus” is simply ignorant, and needs to get “educated”. That is a political position, not a scientific one.
    As far as Emanuel’s “30+ years work as a scientist” goes, that is immaterial. The question is, does his scientific work hold up under scrutiny, or is he simply following along with status quo? In the final analysis, one’s qualifications, whatever they may be are a red herring. It is the science that matters.

  88. jthomas says:
    August 24, 2010 at 9:34 am
    Emanuel’s statements are the result of his profession being politically bashed and materially harmed. Emanuel – and responsibly so – has every right if not obligation to expose charlatanism both as a scientist and a citizen.
    I’m sure those who attack him would prefer that climate scientists “sit back and take it.” How dare they speak up!

    It’s uncanny how closely your statement equates to the same kinds of accusations coming from the convicted felons in the jail and penitentiaries. Blame your victims and claim their victimhood is not a particularly good strategy for you and Kerry Emmanuel to be using in a confrontation with the scientists, engineers, and other people you hold in contempt for not simply believing in whatever you order them to believe and accept as the revealed truth.

  89. Prof Freeman Dyson on scientists who don’t get out into the real world, and who start believing their climate models, which…

    …do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models.

  90. It would have been nice if MIT Professor Kerry Emanuel had actually said anything of scientific merit in the above video. As it was he’s just talking politics and recoiling at the grounded world views of others who don’t believe in the professor’s climate models. The best argument he seems to have been able to muster is that there is some sort of “consensus” among his peers who use soothsaying climate models to predict doomsday with about the same results as Nostradamus still gets. Not impressed Professor Kerry Emanuel, not impressed at all. How about some actual science rather than politics of doom?
    Overall I’d say that Joe Bastardi comes through looking mighty good and grounded in the objective reality of Nature when it comes to science of predicting the weather and climate, and funny to boot! “Enjoy your weather, after all it’s the only weather you’ve got!” Love it!
    At least Joe has the humility to admit it when his predictions aren’t on target. I’d be amazed if any of the hard core wayward climate scientist ever did that.

  91. RichieP says:
    August 24, 2010 at 4:01 am
    “Um, it’s not a Brit accent mate, it’s very Ozzie. I think you have the same kind of trouble as we have distinguishing between US and Canadian accents!”
    I have the same problem distinguishing among the various accents in the English-speaking countries. Australia is especially baffling. A relatively small proportion of Aussies speak with a ‘broad’ accent, like Crocodile Dundee. Most Aussies speak with a general accent, which to my American ear, sounds like 90% Midwestern American English and 10% Paul Hogan. And there are a few Aussies whose English sounds more British.
    Anyway, I’ve devised a test to distinguish between this last category of Aussie and a true Brit. If you’re killing time in an airport while waiting for your flight, and you eavesdrop on a conversation, in which one of the participants sounds sort of British, walk right up to the bloke, and say, “My, what a charming Irish accent you have!” If you’re still standing 10 seconds later, he’s an Aussie!

  92. Just a note: Kerry Emanuel’s most famous and cited papers have little if anything to do with climate change and climate science, but convection, tropical cyclones, and dynamics. He is remarkably insightful on a range of issues, and is clearly worth listening to when it comes to issues of climate science — in a similar way as Judy Curry.
    The appeals to authority must stop though, in the climate science field. Just because you have not spent your entire career looking at tree rings and ice cores does not mean you are ineligible to speak about issues which transect both meteorology and climatology, for example. Experts with political motives and streaks of advocacy have downplayed the uncertainties in their fields since time immemorial.

  93. jthomas: August 24, 2010 at 9:29 am
    Latitude wrote:
    “You should not assume that “actual climate scientists” do not review and post here.
    You just made the same fatal mistake that you are accusing others of doing.
    And the same snotty elitist mistake that Dr. Emanuel made.”
    Actual climate scientists know that meteorologists are not climate scientists. Emanuel knows that as well. He made no such “elitist comment”; that strawman is fully transparent.

    The “elitist comment” Latitude was referring to was “…if they actually took the time to really understand it rather than just go to the blogosphere to get their favourite views and rebroadcast them,” with reference to the fact that both Professor Emanuel and you assume that “real climate scientists” don’t post (or comment) in the blogosphere.
    Nice attempt at a distraction, though.

  94. Climate science, eh? Does such a subject even exist at university? In that case some notable “climate” scientists have missed out: Hansen (atronomy); Jones (ecology); Schmidt (math).
    On the other hand, it wouldn’t surprise me too much if, these days, such degree courses did in fact exist.

  95. Larry Fields: August 24, 2010 at 12:01 pm
    If you’re still standing 10 seconds later, he’s an Aussie!
    Thanks for that, Larry.
    As if my nose hasn’t taken anywhere near enough damage over the last forty years…

  96. My gob was well and truly smacked at Kerry Emanuel’s gaffe about decarbonising fossil fuels. Being charitable I’ll assume that he was referring to so called carbon capture technologies. What really shocked me is that he gave no indication of being aware that he’d said something stupid. The process of removing carbon from hydrocarbons is well understood and documented, the technical term is combustion, the result is the very trace gas that Emanuel considers to be so damaging to the environment.
    Reading through some of his papers I notice that they are not easy to read. He uses jargon and long words when short words would do. Such language raises a red flag as it often indicates that the author doesn’t really understand their subject matter. If Emanuel really was the expert on climate change he claims to be he would have noticed his gaffe and acknowleged it.

  97. co2fan says:
    August 23, 2010 at 11:30 pm
    Towards the end K. Emanual says:
    “..we’ll figure out how to take carbon out of fossil fuels”
    Chemistry must not have been one of his strong subjects, among others.

    I find it very easy to take carbon out of fossil fuels: I set fire to it, and up the chimney it goes.
    Have I discovered something new?

  98. co2fan says:
    August 23, 2010 at 11:30 pm
    “Towards the end K. Emanual says:
    ‘..we’ll figure out how to take carbon out of fossil fuels’
    Chemistry must not have been one of his strong subjects, among others.”
    Kerry is not smart enough to be wrong about everything. I remember reading that some fuel cells in the pipeline are supposed to oxidize the hydrogen in hydrocarbons, and leave the carbon behind. This strikes me as being wasteful, but not impossible.
    On the other hand, if we put the leftover carbon in storage, we could use it to generate airborne soot from *unscrubbed* conventional power plants during the next major glacial advance. After a recent snowfall, the ‘fresh’ soot on top of the new snow would increase local albedo and hasten melting when the sun came out. If the placement is correct, that would preserve a narrow belt of farmland in what would otherwise be the near-terminal zones of the continental glaciers. And a few million climate refugees would be saved from starvation. I hope that they enjoy oats and rye. Of course, we could do the same thing with coal. Just sayin…

  99. adamskirving says:
    August 24, 2010 at 12:56 pm
    “My gob was well and truly smacked at Kerry Emanuel’s gaffe about decarbonising fossil fuels. [….]”
    Just like Dr. h.c. Albert Gore’s knowledge about subterranean temperatures.
    Their idiots, that’s all. The only astounding thing is that they’re so successful.

  100. Jimbo says:

    The difference between a weatherman and a climate scientist is that the weatherman knows that his forecast will face the acid test in a couple of days. The climate scientist knows that his forecasts / scenarios will only face the acid test numbered in years and they have the comfort of pushing back those years on a yearly basis. :o)

    Look, it’s not that one is better and the other worse. It is just that they have different knowledge and skill sets. Asking a meteorologist to do climate science without any particular training would probably get you a similar result to asking a climate scientist to forecast tomorrow’s weather. Both have some understanding of how the atmosphere works but are coming at it from very different directions.
    Likewise, although I teach electricity and magnetism, I would be helpless (and would quickly electrocute myself) if I was thrown onto a line crew by the local utility company to repair damaged power-lines. On the other hand, I don’t think those guys on the line crew would do very well at explaining the concepts of E&M to students in an introductory physics class.
    There is an additional complicating factor in the case of meteorology in that (at least in my impression), TV weathermen run the gamut from very well-trained forecast meteorologists to folks who are basically newscasters or “talking heads”. The fact that the National Weather Service exists means that they can pretty much run the gamut from completely doing their own forecasting to just basically using the NWS product.

  101. I would agree with Joel that climate scientists don’t understand meteorology. They also don’t expertly understand several other scientific fields that are needed for anyone to claim to be a REAL climate scientist. One of those happens to be computer science. You can see it in the way most climate scientists naively consider models to actually represent something tangible. Having worked intimately with computers for many years, I’m pretty sure I know more about computers than almost any of them.
    Of course, this also applies to statistics, biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, oceanography, geology and a whole host of others fields that apply directly to climate. By default, climate scientists are students of these fields and masters of at most one or two. This is why the arrogance is so evident. When you don’t really know your field in depth, you are forced to fake it. It’s real obvious to people who have seen it in the past.

  102. Meteorologists are judged on their merits within minutes after they say something. Climatologists are NOT taken seriously until 50 years after they have passed on to the great hereafter, but it’s OK to throw rotten fruit and veggies at them any time before hand.

  103. Joel Shore says:
    August 24, 2010 at 4:37 pm
    [snipped some very good comments from you to address the following]
    “There is an additional complicating factor in the case of meteorology in that (at least in my impression), TV weathermen run the gamut from very well-trained forecast meteorologists to folks who are basically newscasters or “talking heads”. The fact that the National Weather Service exists means that they can pretty much run the gamut from completely doing their own forecasting to just basically using the NWS product.”
    Yup, there are “weather babes (and dudes)” whose job it is to attract viewers as they happen to read the NWS forecast. I think that’s only the small market broadcasters, though. In such cases, Emanuel’s criticism is misplaced; it is useless to wish that such “weathermen” know anything about any topic because their role is to attract viewers and not have knowledge of any particular subject. They are not getting paid for their expertise in quantum mechanics.
    However, right back at Emanuel, I can understand how a meteorologist can understand weather without understanding the global climate, but I can’t understand how a climatologist can understand climate (weather over time) without understanding weather.
    Which comes first, the chicken or the egg? Does climate determine weather or does weather determine climate? It seems clear to me that they are a Gordian knot and so Emanuel should insist his colleagues follow his own prescription; learn a little something about weather.

  104. jthomas says:
    August 24, 2010 at 9:34 am
    “I’m sure those who attack him would prefer that climate scientists “sit back and take it.” How dare they speak up!”
    Believe it or not we actually have a bit of trade jargon for “sit back and take it” in the science “biz.” We call it, “peer review.”
    If, per chance, your “bonafides” are in some field like , oooooh, say “railroad engineering” and your statistical methods are being “peer” reviewed by someone whose “bonafides” are as an “actuary” you might just want to not only “sit there and take it,” but so something we call “shut up and listen,” as well.

  105. Despite this luscious contretemps regarding the spheres of knowledge under which the skillful representatives of the sciences of climate and weather operate, I wondered if the august American Meteorological Society, (whom it would be thought would speak for at least some of their members), had anything to say about the central subject of this discourse, nameably climate change.
    Perhaps unsurprisingly, they do.
    Climate change: An information statement of the American Meteorological Society
    In light of recent weather events this annum, I found this part moderately intriguing: “Precipitation is expected to become more intense (i.e., precipitation rates and total precipitation in storms will increase), with implications for water resource management and flooding.”

  106. Well, given that climate is NOT a 30 year average of weather, most “climate scientists” are actually just playing at being weathermen but doing it badly. If they wanted to look at 30,000 year averages, they could talk about climate, but then they run into the Geologists who know darned well that we’re in a very flat very stable range compared to geologic time scale events.
    So on the one hand we have Geologists who say “Nothing at all unusual happening, except perhaps that it’s particularly pleasant and stable compared to the normal violent extremes” and on the other hand they have Meteorologists saying “But you are leaving out all the water cycle and convection and other good stuff in your 30 year weather model, and weather is highly variable anyway”.
    So they must toss rocks at both sides to try and defend a very weak middle. The broken notions that the 30 year average of weather is climate (it isn’t – the Mediterranean Climate Zone has been such through the Roman Optimum and the Little Ice Age weather excursions, and it remains a Mediterranean Climate Zone today) and the notion that there is some golden constant that has persisted and from which man is driving us (it has never been a golden constant, it has always been change on both long and short time scales, and it does not need people to drive it.)
    Faced with that, of course they want to disenfranchise Meteorologists and Geologists from discussing climate.

  107. Ref – E.M.Smith says:
    August 24, 2010 at 11:40 pm
    ” …they want to disenfranchise Meteorologists and Geologists…”
    ______________________
    MONEY! MONEY! MONEY!
    The way I see it, you don’t have to have any bonified credentials to be a Climatologist, just a mouth and a lot of funny ideas and some kid that can put together a computer graphic to prove your point (you really don’t even need data –just say it will be misused by the enemy and you don’t really even have to have anything on your hard drive, but lots of angry emails might be nice). Yhep! Cilmatology’s the way to go! It’s the “plastic” of the future for all you new “Graduates” –oh, look out for Mrs. Robinson, she’s a hand full.

  108. Oakden Wolf: August 24, 2010 at 9:59 pm
    Perhaps unsurprisingly, they [the American Meteorological Society] do.
    Climate change: An information statement of the American Meteorological Society
    In light of recent weather events this annum, I found this part moderately intriguing: “Precipitation is expected to become more intense (i.e., precipitation rates and total precipitation in storms will increase), with implications for water resource management and flooding.”

    Even more unsurprising is this statement:
    “Freezing levels are rising in elevation, rain occurs instead of snow at mid-elevations, spring maximum snowpack is decreasing, snowmelt occurs earlier, and the spring runoff that supplies over two-thirds of the western U.S. streamflow is reduced. ”
    The statement you cited is from 2007, and is chock full of the usual AGW propaganda — e.g., “Once introduced in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide remains for at least a few hundred years and implies a lengthy guarantee of sustained future warming…” and “…decreases of stratospheric ozone have likely contributed to the recent contraction and intensification of the polar vortex around Antarctica, producing warming in the Antarctic Peninsula, the northern most peninsula that points toward South America, and cooling over Antarctica. ”
    As far as weather predictions for this coming winter during this particular period of climate change goes, I like folks who will give specifics:
    What about snow/rain/ice?
    “Near-normal amounts of precipitation are expected over the eastern third of the country, as well as over the Pacific Northwest and Northern Plains, while drier-than-normal conditions are forecast to occur over the Southwest and the Upper Midwest/Great Lakes.
    “Only the Central and Southern Plains are expected to receive above-average amounts of precipitation.
    Blizzards?
    “While three-quarters of the country is predicted to see near- or below average precipitation this winter, that doesn’t mean there won’t be any winter storms! On the contrary, significant snowfalls are forecast for parts of every zone. For the Middle Atlantic and Northeast States, for instance, we are predicting a major snowfall in mid-February; possibly even blizzard conditions for New England (indeed, even shovelry is not dead).”
    They also predict it’s gonna be colder than a penguin’s posterior.
    http://www.farmersalmanac.com/frigid-2010-weather-outlook/

  109. As they say, “The proof is in the pudding.” There are actually no living climatologists worthy on the name.

  110. jthomas says:
    August 24, 2010 at 8:36 am
    Do you actually know anything about Emanuel?

    WUWT regulars have seen a couple of threads on him already:
    Kerry Emanuel and Richard Lindzen: the climatic odd couple
    At http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/16/kerry-emanuel-and-richard-lindzen-the-climatic-odd-couple/
    Lindzen on climate science advocacy and modeling – “at this point, the models seem to be failing”
    At http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/19/lindzen-on-climate-science-advocacy-and-modeling-at-this-point-the-models-seem-to-be-failing/

  111. jthomas, just because you and the good professor attend the same church does not validate your beliefs; you ask for the science, but your faith is not science-based as there is no scientific evidence that Man has warmed and is warming this planet. Many of us think Man may be having a small warming effect, but we have seen no falsifiable evidence that support your beliefs.
    And being outraged that free men and women feel they can speak (and write) their mind on the internet betrays a rather nasty authoritarian mindset reminiscent of late and unlamented dictators in the globe’s recent history.

  112. Pascvaks said on August 25, 2010 at 6:12 am:

    As they say, “The proof is in the pudding.” There are actually no living climatologists worthy on the name.

    *ahem*
    Dr. Roy Spencer identifies himself as a climatologist. On his linked site, upper left corner, right under his name….
    I think “-logist” is a bit of a letdown for a scientist to use. “-logist,” logistics, denotes practical (hands-on) work. Gynecologist, technologist, proctologist, meteorologist. Doesn’t indicate one is working with theory like “scientist” does. Perhaps you can convince Dr. Spencer to call himself something else?
    🙂

  113. There are obvious differences between meteorologists and climatologists. Meteorologists work short term and can have problems reaching agreement, while climatologists work long term and can easily reach consensus. Therefore it is obvious that climatologists as a group are more accurate, even if it does take longer for their predictions to bear fruit.
    For example, less than 50% of meteorologists know what they shall have for supper on any given day next week, and few agree on the same main dishes. Meanwhile 92% of climatologists are certain that 150 years from now they’ll be dead.
    😉

  114. Some of you have touched upon it. And are close. Let’s think: Why do we have Astronomers and Astrologists? Hmmn? I think the Climatologists portend the advent of the “Climatonomer”! As I’ve claimed before: “GMIGO” (Grant Money In Garbage Out)!

  115. jthomas says:
    August 24, 2010 at 8:10 am

    #1: The only deniers in the debate are those that refuse to debate – like Kerry and you.
    #2: The topic is the reputation, not the science. Indeed, most of the articles on this site are about the science and it is debated hotly with those that are not close minded.
    #3: The “disparaging” was done by Kerry, not the people on this site (except for you and your childish use of the term denier).
    #4: 30 years of being a scientist does not make you an expert in every science. argumentum ad verecundiam does not work, specially when you are not an authority to being with.

  116. Latitude wrote absolute nonsense by writing:
    “Dr. Emanuel wants to censor the media/blogosphere, and does not want people going there for information.”
    I think Emanuel thinks exactly the opposite.
    How is that Emanuel’s own writings and that of all you of you are available to all on the Internet? How insane to make such a claim when his own entire body of work is available on his website: http://wind.mit.edu/~emanuel/home.html? How absolutely silly to make your claim when every poseur like Lord Monckton can blather on nonsensically about subjects he knows nothing about and then threaten to sue those who nail him on the facts?
    Your comment here is symptomatic of what happens when politics devolves into mindless denialism. I’m sure Emanuel is quite happy for you to expose yourselves.

  117. I looked at the bibliography of Prof. Emanuel works, and into some of his essays. It seems to be a difficult case. He does not look to me as the worst CAGW guy, so I don’t understand the enmity of attacks on him. He seems to have a reasonable understanding of certain aspects of hydrodynamics, and has invented a reasonable approximation of hurricane mechanics. Unfortunately, from looking at his body of works, it seems obvious that he did not master an understanding of the fundamental difference between inviscous hydrodynamics with phenomenologically incorporated dissipation and native viscous (albeit rather small) dissipative terms in the original Navier-Stokes Equations. As result, I don’t see how he can be qualified to make any judgments on very-long term behavior of atmospheric dynamics called “climate”, and call himself a “climatologists”. So guys, take easy on him.

Comments are closed.