The Economic Times reports that there is a profound shortage of scientists choosing to study climate change – that advanced Physics and Maths graduates are being attracted to more interesting fields, such as Cosmology.
According to the Economic Times;
The facts should speak for themselves. The Divecha Centre for Climate Change, at the Indian Institute of Science in Bangalore, is organising a national conference on climate change in July. The deadline for submitting abstracts is just two weeks away, and the organisers have received too few quality abstracts of papers for the conference. The message is quite clear: not enough people work on climate change in India.
Till recently, Govindasamy Bala, a professor at the centre involved in organising the conference, thought this was uniquely an Indian problem. But a news story in the journal Nature early this month told him that it was not the case. The story talked about the shortage of good climate scientists in the world, and the efforts of some climatologists to attract more physicists and mathematicians to their field. “I was surprised to learn that shortage of good climate scientists is a global problem,” says Bala.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/why-not-enough-people-are-working-on-climate-change-in-india/articleshow/46965264.cms
The issue, in my opinion, makes perfect sense if you think about it. If you are a talented graduate, bursting with intellectual potential, would you like to work in an intolerant field of research, where new ideas are punished by name calling, ostracism and financial hardship, or would you prefer to apply your talents to a field where new ideas are welcome, and innovation is rewarded?
‘Climate Studies’ … isn’t there an app for that?
A STRANGE EDUCATION
by The Cinematics
(with some nice waves thrown in)
Oh I don’t no, “consenu” implies a certain common emotional attachment to the field, and they have plenty of that, especially when it comes to a certain Nazi like hatred of the opposition:
I had an interest in science from a young age and fiddled with chemistry, electricity, astronomy, etc. and had a desire to understand how things worked the way they did. I received my degrees in geology which uses science (physics, chemistry, mathematics, etc.) to unravel its mysteries and I believe like meteorology is also in part an ‘art’. The fun part of science is figuring-out how something works or why something got the way it is and the ‘art’ part comes into play as you gain experience studying many examples of different geologic terrains or types of weather patterns (i.e. you start to get a feel).
So after that preamble: I can understand why younger folks interested in the sciences might steer away from climate studies when they hear over and over from the so called 97% that its solved science.
Therefore, what possible fun could there still be.
I know this is simplified and crude, but I thinks still in part true.
Cheers,
Mark Beeunas
**********************************
Consensuscience: The establishment of a politically important unquestionable fact, based upon the opinion of the majority of those in authority on the subject who are also political allies.
Cripes! A brand new term!
When 97% Cook did his paper, I was not surprised at the statistic (probably only 3% are real sceptics – think dissenters in USSR and China where the bravest critical sceptics are) but was amazed that that there were 13,000 climate science papers published in 10yrs available to choose from and this was a selection! so probably there were 20,000 of them, which is 4 or 5 a week for a science that has one math formula and one chemical compound to deal with. Even Mann said there were lots of hockey stick papers. Why would we need so much repetition. The problem is we have, perhaps 100,000 too many climate scientists. I advised a geology graduate student I met at a conference who was taking the ‘environmental’ option to get out of it quick – there was already a huge oversupply and the 17yr pause was trying to tell her something.
I’m not surprised that there were too few quality abstracts for a conference. WTF is new with this total bust of a discipline.
To paraphrase Macbeth, Climate ‘Scientists’ are idiots telling a tale, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.
Make that “who are politically allied“.
Yes. I studied a lot of Soil Science during my late-in-life University work. Some of that department were rabid greenies. This was much to the contempt of their Geologist and Vulcanologist colleagues. Luckily, there was no room for BS in the actual science. So, when allotted methane and other ‘ghg’ soil emissions for an assignment, I had much fun defending my findings. Among these were that natural variation and measurement error swamp any putative conclusion of ‘harm’. Couldn’t find it then, cannot now, even with a better appreciation of Physics. Glad to see the tide turning….Brett
“…would you like to work in an intolerant field of research, where new ideas are punished by name calling, ostracism and financial hardship, or would you prefer to apply your talents to a field where new ideas are welcome, and innovation is rewarded?”
I agree completely. Try an exciting career as a black hole artist! (:
http://www.chalmers.se/SiteCollectionImages/Nya%20bilder/Nyhetsartiklar%201/eso1028a_690x330.jpg
http://sci.esa.int/science-e-media/img/b3/XMM-Newton_Outflows_B_full.jpg
Cosmology does seems to be struggling these days, judging by the generous sprinklings of fairy dust everywhere.
Black holes?
Dark matter?
Degenerate neutronium?
Pure brain splatter,
Leaving known physics
In a state of tatter.
A quarter billion hits to this website illustrate the point that Climate Science is an interesting, highly diversified field. The quality of technical comments demonstrates that highly educated scientists and engineers are willing to devote a portion of their limited time on our spinning orb to following developments in the field.
If I mention the names Richard, John, Roy, Willie, Willis, Judith, Christopher E, Eric, of course Anthony, and even Nick, most will quickly add the last names I have in mind. These are good scientists or Applied Mathematicians making solid contributions to the field. More are needed from among the young to address what Judith terms, “A wicked problem.” Imagine if the current California drought had been clearly predicted in terms of onset twenty years ago. The dreadful mismanagement of water resources by the state government could have been averted, preventing the misery that many are experiencing.
Can the Closure Problem be solved? Can analysis of chaotic systems advance to the point that bounds and directionality of deviations be approximated to the point that a twenty-year, reasonably reliable weather forecast be achieved? The fields of Science and Mathematics have frequently progressed in concert. The development of Variational Calculus was presaged by the Brachistochrone Problem; can other advancements similarly occur? The usurpation of the normal scientific process by political interests has led to the affirmation studies noted by ferdperple above. It has led to unjustified advancement in the field and press adulation of hocky-stickers (think Mike and Steve) resulting from what amount to rookie errors that were missed in the review process. This too will pass.
Many of us began our graduate work loving the science, with our career advancement and wealth accumulation being secondary considerations. Should I have listened to the many well-meaning individuals who suggested business management or law? The tragectory of my life would have certainly been different. Would I have been happier with the outcome? Is my value to society measured by the size of my paycheck? The young people need to make such decisions with greater urgency than we. Is a career in the very bowels of the “Wicked Problem” appropriate for them? Only they can decide. The field needs the good ones; the rest will self-select out.
Oops, trajectory, of course. I wonder why the adaptive typing wanted to use tragedy. I didn’t correct far enough back. Was it trying to tell me something?
Oh the comedy and trajectory of life.
“making solid contributions to the field.”
LOL when will that happen?
Still hating, eh, Daniel? What a sad life you live.
hot hating, laughing at the amount of delusions here.
not
Daniel, you are a hater. Look at all your comments, filled with ‘hot’ hatred for this excellent site.
Someone is wrong. It’s either you, or everyone else.
Which?
“Someone is wrong. It’s either you, or everyone else.”
considering that most experts are convinced by the evidence for AGW, so am I, and polls indicate most of the people around the planet are also convinced. and then the fact that not a single scientific isntitution on the planet rejects AGW….
it seems you are the guys that are wrong.
(Snip. You were warned to stop posting on pressure broadening. That subject is covered extensively in the archives. Those threads are still open. Post your ‘pressure broadening’ comments there. ~mod.)
Ah. An assertion: everyone else is wrong, says not Danny the non-expert:
…most experts are convinced by the evidence for AGW, so am I
Dannyboi, who are those mythical “most experts”? See, that’s just another ‘consensus’ argument. In science, ‘consensus’ is a fallacy. But if it were not for your logical fallacies, you wouldn’t have much to say. Would you?
And:
…polls indicate…
Post links to those ‘polls’. Make sure they include your “evidence”.
not a single scientific isntitution on the planet rejects AGW… it seems you are the guys that are wrong.
May I deconstruct that nonsense? Thank you:
First, whether AGW is accepted or rejected is meaningless. Facts and evidence matter. [I personally think AGW exists, but it is so tiny that it doesn’t matter]. Without facts and evidence, your strawman argument fails.
Your assertion that “you guys are wrong” is based on what, exactly? What are we wrong about? As skeptics, what we are saying is: show us that AGW exists. Quantify it. What fraction of total global warming is AGW? Or are you just guessing?
If you can answer that question specifically, then you, Dannyboi Kuhn, will be on the short list for the Nobel Prize. But if you cannot produce a measurement of AGW, then you’re the one who is wrong — as always.
It’s up to you, Dannyboi. Post a measurement, or admit you’re wrong. Take your time, I’ll wait. It amuses me to think of you racing back to Hotwhopper or SkS for some new talking points.
“Post links to those ‘polls’. Make sure they include your “evidence”.”
i did, but the mods did not like it.
a link to a global poll.
one to a European poll
and the latest gallop poll from the US …..
[Reply: all your comments have been approved. If any were snipped the reasons are noted. ~mod.]
EdA the New Yorker
It wouldn’t have been averted. You’re talking about politicians, not rational beings. There are dozens of people tucked here and there in California’s Department of Natural Resources that know the drought cycles of the region and probably write all sorts of reports with appropriate recommendations. Politicians, given the choice of spending millions or billions for a problem that’s 20-30 years away or spending on something trendy and splashy that will help with the next election, well the practical expenditures always lose out. (Oh… and of course you must avoid the reams of negative press because you might harm one tiny delta smelt.)
Ed’s quote is the first paragraph. I actually spotted the format error in the 3 seconds it took to post. Knew it was coming. Sorry ya’ll.
[Fixed. ~mod.]
Since we know those at the very top of techno political tree do not select on technical merit as much as extra curricular skills and cooperation levels it is hardly surprising that many student are put off when they see this section method has spread to the lower echelons in this particular field. No able researcher likes to see that lack of integrity publicly displayed in their co workers.
Also surely if the science is settled there can be no long term future in that field of science would occur to all but the dimmest average person let alone any able graduate.
I try to get people here to write to heir MP and say that if climate science is settled then end all research grants in that field and close any university departments based on it.
Oh noes! Peak Climastrologists! It’s worse than we thought!
In my field I am always OK when I hear of a lack of graduates joining. It means we can charge even higher rates in the future than the obscene ones can charge today. I am not sure the same applies in this field as I suspect the demand may be declining somewhat.
That’s not how it works in academe. Think pyramid.
The science is more or less settled which means there is nothing exciting left to discover. The main challenge is turning all known science in to a model that can match history. And if you do discover something that the team does not want hear then it is all over for you.
Why would anyone want to waste their career in a field that had been so thoroughly discredited by it’s current practitioners?
$$$$$
…the average Cosmologist can tell you that “global warming” doesn’t happen without outside input changes.
With reference to your last paragraph, do you think it is any different in Cosmolgy? The only difference between the intolerance of climate skeptics and intolerance of Big Bang skeptics is that the education system does a much better job of indoctrinating potential cosmologists before they graduate, so there are less of them with PHDs.
If you think the greenhouse gasses theory is flawed, just try and reconcile Big Bang, Black Holes and Dark Matter with each other!
That’s why I describe my religion as math and physics older than I am .
I was a young Physicist, just knee-high to a cyclotron, when the 3-4 Kelvin “fingerprint” of the Big Bang was announced. Decades later it is being questioned. This is normal in science, but not judgmental. No one ever said: “Believe in the Big Bang, or else you condemn your children to a planet you consumed!”
That degree in agenda driven science might not be worth much later in life. Should’ve went with French poetry or something.
Je suis au chômage.
Max Photon,
?chômage?
John
John
John Whitman April 19, 2015 at 8:20 am
Je suis au chômage.
https://translate.google.com/?hl=en#fr/en/Je%20suis%20au%20ch%C3%B4mage.
I’m unemployed
We may argue about Google’s suitability as a search engine, but I find Google Translate, and Google Earth to be virtually irreplaceable tools, although the quality of translation varies with language.
Steve P on April 19, 2015 at 10:30 am
– – – – – –
Steve P,
Thank you for the translation info.
When I googled it before asking my question I saw that all referenced links where in French and I wondered at the accuracy of the French to English translation services .
John
John Whitman April 19, 2015 at 11:59 am
John, you’re welcome, and please note that Google Translate is somewhat hidden away on the search engine interface at Google.
You have to click top right on a small icon shaped like 3×3 stacked blocks to open a window that allows you to click once more before Google Translate jumps right out at you.
As I say, it’s a valuable resource, but the best translations will always come from bilingual speakers with native fluency in both languages, if you happen to have of couple of those hanging around.
As an added bonus, you can make Google Translate speak.
The “political” and “social” aspects
are of disdain to any good scientist.
In time, empirical data will over whelm
this as a new paradigm shift occurs.
Climatologist = an involuntary practitioner of celibacy
Pachauri et al., 2014
The lecture by Professor Murry Salby given on 17 March in Westminster London proves that the CO2 in the atmosphere is almost entirely coming from natural sources and not from human use of fossil fuels. his lecture is now on U-Tube. It is a game changer.
What escapes many is that the study of Climate is properly the field of the Earth and Planetary Sciences and Solar Physics, while Meteorology is focussed on the physics of the atmosphere and oceans.
As it should have become increasingly clear, the intricacies of the study of the atmosphere – fascinating as they may be – do not relate to the primary causes of changing climate, but to the effect of these causes on the atmosphere and our long time weather patterns.
It is the political emphasis of the UNFCCC and WMO that has diverted a field of the earth sciences into a battle for the deck chairs of the Titanic.
Climates on the planets are a function of planetary conjunctions and and other orbital characteristics and the phases of the solar dynamo as expressed in the variations of total solar magnetic, radiative and particle flux, which is something else than TSI.
If one does not believe this, a scrutiny of papers in “Pattern Recognition in Physics” Special Issue 2013/2014 may help you on your way.
Publisher Copernicus disowned the PRP series under pressure, soon after its publication, but the 14 papers are still on the web.
This field is crying for researchers and grants to help solve the larger problem of causes of climate change.
@ur momisugly afjacobs . Well said .
Climatologists get lost in the complexities of looking up thru the eddies of the atmosphere ; the issue of the mean temperature of ascribable to the energy we receive from the Sun is a function of the temperature of the Sun’s disk , the portion of the celestial sphere it subtends ( which is a function of our distance from it ) , and our two spectra — the Sun’s power spectrum , and our absorption=emission spectrum . That is , the handful of classic equations required to calculate the temperature of a croquet ball under an sunlamp .
But it is far from clear to me whether the journeyman climate scientist knows even this non-optional quantitative , experimentally testable physics .
In any case , I know of no web-accessible curriculum where the numerate layman can find even this essential classical foundation .
They are hiring climate scientists at the DNC. Climate scientist/political scientist, what’s the difference?
So I thought I ‘d take a look and see just what a degree in climate science is all about. Those who bore easily, feel free to skip this bit.
UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS – degree in Meteorology and Climate science.
YEAR 1.
Candidates will be required to study the following compulsory modules:
Natural Hazards
Sustainable Development: Concepts and Case Studies
Environment and Ecology
The Atmosphere of Planet Earth
Advanced Mathematics for Environmental and Geophysical Scientists
Introduction to Meteorology and Weather Forecasting
Issues in Water Pollution Management
Environmental Science / Meteorology and Climate Science Tutorials
Introductory Earth Sciences
Optional modules may include:
Introductory Chemistry for Earth and Environmental Scientists
Intermediate Mathematics for Environmental and Geophysical Scientists
Physics for Environmental Science
Environmental Politics and Policy
YEAR 2
Candidates will be required to study the following compulsory modules:
Meteorology
Climate Change: Science and Impacts
Atmosphere and Ocean Dynamics
Environmental Research: Techniques, Principles and Practice
Computer Systems and Programming
Atmospheric Pollution from Local to Global Scales
Atmospheric Physics
Environmental Science Skills 2
Optional modules may include:
Introductory Oceanography
Water Quality
Climate Change: Society and Human Dimensions
Energy: Science and Policy
Mathematics for Geophysical Sciences 3
Mathematics for Geophysical and Environmental Sciences 4
YEAR 3
Candidates will be required to study the following compulsory modules:
Environmental Research Project
Dynamics of Weather Systems
Atmospheric Science Field Skills
Atmosphere and Ocean Climate Change Processes
Atmospheric Pollution: Causes, Impact and Regulation
Practical Weather Forecasting
Frontiers in Environmental Research
Optional modules may include:
Earth Observations from Space
Catchment Processes and Management
Earth and Environmental Sciences into Schools
Meteorology and Climate of Africa: Summer School
Oceanography in the Earth System
Strategic Energy Issues
Terrestrial Biosphere in the Earth System
I see this as very broad based, covering everything from water quality, sustainability, ecology and biospheres, atmospheres, chemistry, oceanography and mathematics. If I was a young person looking for a science career, I would dismiss this out of hand because I don’t call this a science course. Although obviously there is science in it, the science is drawn from all different disciplines. It is a patchwork of bits taken from different fields. It just doesn’t smell right.
Scientists are trained to understand one area thoroughly otherwise they cannot function as scientists. I believe most youngsters are smart enough to see they’re being sold a lemon.
Any field that has its own math and physics courses is suspect .
as a physics graduate I would pose this – why would anyone who is interested enough in the physics field to make the effort that it takes to do well in this program, wish to waste their hard work and time on what is a second rate scam filled with frauds and scientific illiterates?
Lots of funding and easy work , and for some lots of travel to, and for few political influence without having to get people to vote for you or take any responsibility .
Why would you if you’re a sharp numerate scientist? All the dregs of Earth Science and geography departments move into this discipline.
Rather, The climate field is dominated by emotionally-driven, fear-inspired, do-good-all-costs, I-want-to-do-something-that-will-have-an-impact, save-the-planet-despite-anything-else religiously-derived eco-zealots. Who can get billions of dollars for saying just that!
I think you’re right in some circumstances. Some people need a cause and those on the Left will jump on any cause that gives them – in their opinion – the opportunity to appear more righteous then everyone else (it’s really about them rather than the cause).
But I think many of the scientists in this field have very poor numeracy and poor scientific literacy (it’s a growing problem in many branches of science, I think it is particularly bad, not just in environmental sciences and physical geography, but even the Earth Sciences and Biological Sciences). When you finish your degree, but want to continue in academic life, what do you do? You look for a PhD and if there is an excess of money in one area the weaker graduates will gravitate to that field – less competition.
Even in physics and chemistry the poor students will move to “higher” science such as Earth/Biological Sciences while the bright ones will stay within their fields dealing with the hard issues.