Atmospheric Scientist Career Guide and Counseling

Question: Do you have any advice for me...if i were to become an atmospheric scientist? I've decided that i would like to become an atmospheric scientist when I get older and go to to college to major in this profession...ANY ADVICE???

Answer: Only one thing - Never --- Ever --- Listen to Al Gore - No Matter What.

Question: What would be a good college to go to, to become a atmospheric scientist or geoscientist?

Answer: I am studying atmospheric science at university and all though I live in Australia and I am guessing you live in USA I think I can still help. I know my university (Monash University) offers a exchange program with Oklahoma University in the usa so I would look there. Hopy I helped (Also you need math skill to be on atmospheric scientist.)

Question: Would you rather be a meteorologist, weather forecaster, or an atmospheric scientist? ...well, you can only be one of them

Answer: So much as I am concerned, meterologists are a subset of atmospheric scientists. Weather forecasting involves atmospheric science also, but a forecaster is not limited to using science. I.e., as a forecaster you may feel something will occur (which is usually based on the abundant information you've learned but can't recall all of at the moment), but cannot explain why. The atmospheric scientist or meteorologist would always be able to explain why. It is unfortunate to see so many people with an unfavorable opinion of weather forecasters, but blame the fact that the media (especially TV) is largely entertainment and an effective platform to display ads and you get many people who are good at attracting viewers (or got the position for some other reason) but do not understand the processes involving weather very well. Thus some simply read a forecast from another source (and because of the ad revenue, can be paid an awful lot to do that).

Question: Do atmospheric scientists or meteoroligists work in a typical office environment? Like cubicles and stuff? Would it be worth going back to get a second degree? The weather is sort of interesting.

Answer: In a forecast office, yes there are cubicles there. However, most of the time, the forecaster is out on the operational floor. The cubes are used when time is needed for reading, training, and doing paperwork. A forecaster usually stays in the operational area where he can keep an eye to all the data that is coming in. Getting an advanced degree would help if you are going into the research side or if you are interested in going into management,. It also won't hurt you if you have a Masters then choosing a career as an operational forecaster. I don't really see a big benefit for a synoptic forecaster. You will really need some work and forecast experience to finally understand how everything comes together. If you get a chance, contact your local NWS office and talk to one of the office manager. Ask if you can get a tour of the office. You can also see if you can spend a day just to shadow a forecaster for at least part of the work shift. That should help answer many of your questions about a day in the life of a forecaster on duty. Best Wishes...

Question: What percent of atmospheric scientists disagree with the concept of global warming and human's role in it? The IPCC (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) published a consensus statement about climate change as follows; "In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations". Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature. Recently they published a review of ten years of every published paper dealing with climate change (934). What percent of these do you think disagreed with the consensus? Conservatives claim that a lot of scientists think it's bunk. So let's hear what percent of published papers in a ten year span said it's bunk. Anyone? OK, well I see that no conservatives are willing to answer this question so congrats to you who said zero% "Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position." From; http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/fu… Scorbore; you posted the same list last time. You found the .5% of scientists who have published SINCE the reference I listed, who disagree with the consensus. Nothing new to add eh?

Answer: zero percent. anyone who claims to be a scientist but who disagrees is not really a scientist. maybe a corporate propagandist claiming to be a scientist, or an idiot who will pretend to be anything not realizing that titles have meaning. any scientist or any person who pays attention to what researchers say has known for years that we are dramatically altering our climte. it's not new information.

Question: According to scientists, which atmospheric gas(es) made it possible for life to evolve on Earth? A. Nitrogen B. Carbon dioxide C. Oxygen D. Water E. Ozone

Answer: Well, you could make an argument for all of them. I would say CO2 is the best answers. CO2 allows for the retention of heat in the atmosphere and helps to moderate extremes. Oxygen helped aerobic life forms to evolve, but the Oxygen in the atmosphere actually comes from life (autotrophs e.g. cyanobacteria). And the production of Oxygen led to Ozone. Water is important as a gas, but liquid water water is most important to life. Nitrogen is used by diazotrophs and is important, but there should have been plenty of fixed nitrogen in the early atmosphere. One theory is that the enzyme used to fix nitrogen (nitrogenase) actually evolved to deal with cyanide in the early atmosphere, not to fix nitrogen.

Question: What is the organism that scientists believe are responsible for the first atmospheric oxygen?

Answer: cyanobacteria

Question: What is the name of scientists who study Earth's larger atmospheric systems?

Answer: Meteorology, climatology, atmospheric physics, and atmospheric chemistry are sub-disciplines of the atmospheric sciences. Meteorology and hydrology compose the interdisciplinary field of hydrometeorology.

Question: Scientists have measured atmospheric CO2 concentration from 1958 to today. Why does the line go up and down e?

Answer: Seasonal variations due to differences in CO2 fixation by plants in summer/winter.

Question: whydo scientists theorize that global warming might not be the resultof increses in atmospheric carbon dioxide? why do scientists theorize that global warming might not be the resultof increses in atmospheric carbon dioxide

Answer: Sorry they don't, I notice you don't have any link to support this claim and yet I'm sure someone will post another link to the OISM nonsense here is a real petition, notice how this one lists full name, qualification and institution like a real petition and unlike the OISM thing. http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/g… asssclown "If a scientist has one stance or another on anything without accepting outside input then they are wrong." Scientists have been researching this and publishing papers and discussing this for over 30 years the vast majority of the worlds leading climate scientists (and the lesser ones) as well as climate study organisations agree there is a problem and human release of co2/methane is the main source of the problem. Most of the journals/pdfs related to atmospheric physics come through my desk before going to our work Library and I have no doubt (at all) what the general science opinion on climate change is (and it has nothing to do with faith) and while some of the theories posted here and similar sites can be quite funny they aren't science. They aren't really meant to be, as there only aim is to confuse the general public, this is why none are appearing in science journals because they wouldn't fool a real scientist for a second. And nonsense about communist plots, fictional increases in Volcanic output, all the other planets warming etc etc. The mars one is a prime example, a simple 'real' report about the the southern pole shrinking on mars, probable cause dust storms, is take and blown up to be first the whole planet warming and the several other planets and then all other planets It is pushed by one Russian scientist in a National Geographic story and then the denier groups run with it as proof. Sadly as with most of their theories the second page of the same story quoted a number of experts who stated the theory didn't work and the Sun hadn't shown the increase in output to drive such a change, does that stop deniers quoting it, no. That is not the actions of skeptics as they seem to want to be called, but of a group in denial either claiming nothing is happening or it's all natural, we can't harm the world we are to small. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11…