6491 Shares

How many climate scientists will collect millions of dollars to move to France?

How many climate scientists will collect millions of dollars to move to France? Topic: Antarctica research
July 16, 2019 / By Anne-Marie
Question: Shouldn't there be a signing bonus on top of the salary? https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/10/f...
Best Answer

Best Answers: How many climate scientists will collect millions of dollars to move to France?

Wymund Wymund | 7 days ago
I appreciate Macron making that offer, and it's tempting to know that there are some countries where groundbreaking science is still valued. Don't think that it would make scientists rich, though. While their salary would come out of that, most of the money would go for grants--they personally are not getting millions dollars. Observational science can cost a lot of money--things like aircraft and ships are enormously expensive, and satellites are orders of magnitude more expense than that. You can imagine how quickly a million dollars might go if you had a drilling team operating in Antarctica. I once worked on a military research program that probably got $60 million during the lifetime of the program--nobody got rich off it. We got paid decent salaries, but most of the money was going for equipment, shipping, testing, etc. I did appreciate Macron making that suggestion, though.
👍 202 | 👎 7
Did you like the answer? How many climate scientists will collect millions of dollars to move to France? Share with your friends

We found more questions related to the topic: Antarctica research


Wymund Originally Answered: Just how many climate scientists are there in the world?
I've heard commentators claim there are a few hundred climatologists in the world. This assertion suits both sides as proponents can claim that all the thousands of sceptically meteorologists and geologists in the world aren't qualified to comment on climatology and skeptics can support out that the doom and gloom really only comes from a handful of people. The world can't support tens of thousands of AGW researchers. Research is expensive and there's limited scope to provide ever higher doomsday predictions and then trying to explain why the climate refuses to cooperate with their predictions.
Wymund Originally Answered: Just how many climate scientists are there in the world?
It depends how you define 'climate scientists'. Those that specifically study the climate are climatologists but there are many other branches of science that also involve the study of the climate. In recent years 18,000 people have qualified as climatologists. It would be reasonable to assume that this constitutes no more than half the total number of climatologists, on that basis the number will be upwards of 36,000. There is no international register of climatologists so it's very hard to provide a specific number. Some time ago I did read on a skeptics website that the number of climatologists was "only 31,000" If you widen the definition of 'climate-scientists' to include related disciplines such as meteorologists and paleoclimatologists then the numbers will run into the hundreds of thousands. Widen the definition further to include astrophysicists, atmospheric chemists, glaciologists and the like and you could probably add another 50,000. If you were to extend the definition to include all overlapping disciplines such as sedimentologists, hydrologists and dendrochronologists then it's probable that the number of 'climate scientists' would be in the order of a million.
Wymund Originally Answered: Just how many climate scientists are there in the world?
I see commentators proposing that glaciologists and other more diverse specialists be included as climatologists. That proposition is complete nonsense. These diverse studies do not qualify as expertise in climatology. Even the average climatologist is unqualified to render an opinion on global warming or climate change. After all, the real issue is not climatology but rather "climate sensitivity" to CO2. There are perhaps a few dozen truly qualified scientists world-wide who are truly qualified to comment rationally on climate sensitivity.
Wymund Originally Answered: Just how many climate scientists are there in the world?
The problem is that "climatologists" that study global temperatures are not the Hard scientists that know about "atmospheric physics" The Hypotheses of the greenhouse gas effect" is quantum physics- the process of certain gases absorbing Infrared radiation. What happens next relates to how that absorbed energy affects the molecule and does the absorbed energy reradiate as IR or as longer wavelengths of electromagnetic waves as microwaves or radio waves as is predicted by the Kirchhoff formulas related to the 4th power of the absolute temperature. climatologist are not "hard scientists" they are flat screen fortune tellers. I'd prefer t o go to the corner fortune teller and pay $5.00 for my fortune or a weather report for 100 years in the future

Wymund Originally Answered: Can climate scientists be 'absolute' that CO2 levels haven't been above 280ppm for 10,000 years?
Good question. It seems that all those 'scientific scientists' can't see the forest for the trees. Elizabeth
Wymund Originally Answered: Can climate scientists be 'absolute' that CO2 levels haven't been above 280ppm for 10,000 years?
This type of question really annoys me. Sorry, Pat! ;) I'll explain why ... and in doing so give some semblance of an answer! The earth's crust was molten at one point in its ancient history. If I take this point in time and compare it to now, I can make the conclusion that the earth was hotter in the past. Similarly, I could take 100 million years ago and draw the conclusion that the atmospheric CO2 levels were higher than now. All of which is interesting from a scientific view of our planet's history. None of which is relevent to the AGW debate. We've been monitoring CO2 levels in the atmosphere since the 1950s. There is virtually no way anyone can argue that CO2 concentrations haven't risen since then - as far as I'm concerned, if someone DOES argue that then it's the intellectual equivalent of sticking your head in the sand or putting your hands over your ears and shouting 'I CAN'T HEAR YOU' as loudly as you can. The data is there. It's been replicated. It's not up for debate anymore. The question is 'why is the CO2 level rising'? Well, in 60 years no one has offered a good natural explanation. And by 'good' I don't mean some wild guess, I mean a mechanism that can be mathematically modelled and fits the actual data. The only mechanism that even remotely manages to fit the data is accumulating CO2 produced by the release of billions of tonnes of the stuff by humans burning fossil fuels (and other activities). Now, skeptics can keep looking back to 8000 BC and wonder if CO2 levels were higher, lower, or the same. That doesn't explain our observations. It simply shows our planet is dynamic. And we knew that anyway. So I simply don't understand the point of this type of question unless the asker has already decided a view on it, and simply wants to use the question as a way of 'sowing seeds of doubt' by trying to relate AGW to something unrelated. The answer is I don't know how sure scientists are. That's why they publish papers. What I do know is whether the CO2 level was higher or lower in the past isn't an explanation for the data we've collected since the 1950s, and that data has not been accurately modelled by any theory that doesn't involve the activities of humans since the industrial age.
Wymund Originally Answered: Can climate scientists be 'absolute' that CO2 levels haven't been above 280ppm for 10,000 years?
"Absolute"? No. Science would have to use proxy data to best determine the atmospheric CO2 levels before test procedures and instrumentation data was available. No, it is not the basis of the CO2 rise "argument". There are other factors that will warm or cool the climate. There are other greenhouse gases, there is solar variance, there are super volcano eruptions, there are changes in the tilt of Earth's axis, there is plate tectonics, there are orbital shifts and there are extraterrestrial impacts with our planet among other things. No credible scientist has ever claimed that for every 10% rise in CO2 there will also be a 1% rise in global temperatures. There is too much "noise" in the climate for every rise in CO2 to create a rise in the global temperatures. With the same respect, not every drop in CO2 will also cause a drop in global temperatures. Here is what science tells us. Any significant increase in CO2 levels will enhance any warming processes and delay any cooling processes. That is what a greenhouse gas does. So, anyone saying that, "it is just the sun" should know that any additional greenhouse gases we add to the atmosphere will only trap more of the heat of a warming sun. And, it is not "the sun". Otherwise, without the greenhouse gases, we would still be seeing more normal temperatures in the absence of the sun's influence. High altitudes, high latitudes in the winter time and night time minimum low temperatures are rising and this would not happen if it was, "just the sun". This takes the addition of greenhouse gases to accomplish this. The "argument" for CO2 is that CO2 is a known, potent greenhouse gas. Since the Industrial Revolution began, mankind's activities began to pump CO2 into the atmosphere, began destroying nature's natural carbon sinks and we have continuously increased these activities. Today we are pumping tons/day of CO2 into the atmosphere, burned and cleared thousands of square miles of forests and replaced ground cover with concrete and structures.

If you have your own answer to the question antarctica research, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.