Can we finally define who a “Meteorologist” is?!

[FreshAJ]

I think we need to have a serious discussion in this country about defining who a meteorologist is and why anyone can blindly use the term. This post is probably going to offend a few people…including some of my friends who are ‘meteorologists’ in the TV business.

This conversation happens all the time in the meteorology community…many times behind closed doors. I have seen this topic bounce around the Internet a couple of times...but it’s time to set the record straight…once and for all.

Read the entire post here....

http://www.freshaj.com/can-we-finall...st%E2%80%9D-is

[baroclinic_instability]

In full agreement. Media drives what people perceive to be "meteorologists", and like many other things in media, the truth becomes distorted with time. Al Roker often being called the "most popular meteorologist" in the United States is one example of this joke. Personally I have always called the TV folks weathercasters since it is what most are ("most" since some do indeed have full meteorology degrees). It isn't meant to be demeaning in any way, but why should they be called meteorologists if they aren't one?

[#NoPoles]

all the local stations in the Boston area have degreed Meteorologists...so I'm fine with the Boston market...

(i'd like to talk about why OC female meteorologists have to look like models and dress in cocktail dresses, where as the men can be fat, old, ugly, and frumpy)

[FreshAJ]

You couldn't have said it any better! Thanks

In full agreement. Media drives what people perceive to be "meteorologists", and like many other things in media, the truth becomes distorted with time. Al Roker often being called the "most popular meteorologist" in the United States is one example of this joke. Personally I have always called the TV folks weathercasters since it is what most are ("most" since some do indeed have full meteorology degrees). It isn't meant to be demeaning in any way, but why should they be called meteorologists if they aren't one?

[Ed Lizard]

If I mention the people in local TV media with bachelor of arts degrees and the 60 hour MSU no math/ intro to met for non majors/green screen program on the local KHOU forum, I get nasty grams from the forum admin, Steve (a mod here at AmWx) because he apparently gets nasty grams from some of the "gold taggers" (the local forum doesn't distinguish between degreed mets and BA holders with the MSU certificate) there, and we only have a couple of real mets, and he doesn't want to make the non-science educated "mets" on the foum mad. Really, I think the local TV station forum would get by fine with Dr. Jeff and WxMan57, but it isn't my forum.

Why the AMS gives certificates to non-scientists with a 60 hour non science based certificate, the equivalent of an associates degree, when degreed mets can't find jobs in the field, I just don't know.

And the "chief meteorologist" at KPRC-TV 2, Frank Billingsley, he has been there for twenty years, and he still says things that makes me, a non-met hobbyist, cringe, sometimes.

If I was a met and an AMS member, I'd be severely b*tching about the certificate thing.

[Ed Lizard]

all the local stations in the Boston area have degreed Meteorologists...so I'm fine with the Boston market...

(i'd like to talk about why OC female meteorologists have to look like models and dress in cocktail dresses, where as the men can be fat, old, ugly, and frumpy)

Are there that many degreed on camera mets? Stephanie Abrams and Vivian Brown have degrees, most of the rest, like Crystal Eggers, are MSU cert holders with BA degrees in broadcast communications or similar. You have male Ken Dolls like that too. Carl Parker is an MSU cert holder. Wiki on Sam Champion doesn't even mention the MSU certificate, he just has a BA in broadcast communications.

But it isn't just weather, you see 60 year old male anchors, not so much 60 year old female anchors, and I imagine it is the station giving people what they think they want.

[Srain]

If I mention the people in local TV media with bachelor of arts degrees and the 60 hour MSU no math/ intro to met for non majors/green screen program on the local KHOU forum, I get nasty grams from the forum admin, Steve (a mod here at AmWx) because he apparently gets nasty grams from some of the "gold taggers" (the local forum doesn't distinguish between degreed mets and BA holders with the MSU certificate) there, and we only have a couple of real mets, and he doesn't want to make the non-science educated "mets" on the foum mad. Really, I think the local TV station forum would get by fine with Dr. Jeff and WxMan57, but it isn't my forum.

Why the AMS gives certificates to non-scientists with a 60 hour non science based certificate, the equivalent of an associates degree, when degreed mets can't find jobs in the field, I just don't know.

And the "chief meteorologist" at KPRC-TV 2, Frank Billingsley, he has been there for twenty years, and he still says things that makes me, a non-met hobbyist, cringe, sometimes.

If I was a met and an AMS member, I'd be severely b*tching about the certificate thing.

Actually all but a couple of our local board "Mets" are degreed with a BS or higher, since you chose to bring me and our 'local weather board' into this discussion...

[Ed Lizard]

Actually all but a couple of our local board "Mets" are degreed with a BS or higher, since you chose to bring me and our 'local weather board' into this discussion...

Why did CandyCane have snits when I mentioned non-degreed mets?

[Bryan Wood]

If Bill Gates and Steve Jobs would've earned their 4 year degrees from a university, they could've been computer programmers. What a waste of talent!

[Ed Lizard]

If Bill Gates and Steve Jobs would've earned their 4 year degrees from a university, they could've been computer programmers. What a waste of talent!

So you think the people with BA degrees on TV are actual weather forecasters? Maybe with the right OJT, but one non-met working for another? I could see someone in the military, working with degreed mets, and some of our hobbyist members here are pretty knowledgeable, but they aren't the weather equivalent of Bill Gates.

BTW, Gates came from a family wealthy enough to send him to Harvard, and basically copied the UNIX operating system, but not relevant here.

I'd say if one doesn't have a degree in met or a closely related field, extensive experience working with real mets, or maybe a non-met science degree and a lot of experience and study, one isn't really a met.

They label Crystal Egger on TWC as a 'meteorologist', but she isn't on-air for her deep understanding of weather.

[AtticaFanatica]

If Bill Gates and Steve Jobs would've earned their 4 year degrees from a university, they could've been computer programmers. What a waste of talent!

This is a bad analogy.

[baroclinic_instability]

If Bill Gates and Steve Jobs would've earned their 4 year degrees from a university, they could've been computer programmers. What a waste of talent!

This is a bad analogy.

It is a poor analogy. The arguments brought up here by AJ are legitimate, and there are actual problems and much public confusion surrounding the differences between on-air weathercasters and meteorologists/trained forecasters in general. The negatives aspects are actually a lot more significant that they may initially seem, especially when we are dealing with public safety.There are also negative consequences that may not at all seem related including things such as negative impacts to meteorological research and funding. There is NO problem, IMO, in having a more defined definition of a meteorologist.

[Bryan Wood]

So you think the people with BA degrees on TV are actual weather forecasters? Maybe with the right OJT, but one non-met working for another? I could see someone in the military, working with degreed mets, and some of our hobbyist members here are pretty knowledgeable, but they aren't the weather equivalent of Bill Gates.

BTW, Gates came from a family wealthy enough to send him to Harvard, and basically copied the UNIX operating system, but not relevant here.

I'd say if one doesn't have a degree in met or a closely related field, extensive experience working with real mets, or maybe a non-met science degree and a lot of experience and study, one isn't really a met.

They label Crystal Egger on TWC as a 'meteorologist', but she isn't on-air for her deep understanding of weather.

My point is that you can't put everyone in a box based on a whether they have a certain degree or not. Not every person that hasn't completed a 4 year degree in meteorology is going to contribute to the field like someone with a BS, MS or PHD. There are people in Meteorology who have made outstanding contributions to our science without a degree. Are they as plentiful as those with degrees? No. But you can't say that they aren't a meteorologist because they don't have a piece of paper and a pile of student loan debt to show for it.

Here is a scenario:

A meteorology major drops out of school without completing their degree. They keep up with scientific journals, attend conferences & practice forecasting based on learned principles from said journals & conferences. That person lands a job at a Fortune 500 property insurance company, who finds out about their background in meteorology. They ask that person to do some work and find that they like what that person can do and promotes them to meteorologist. Duties include daily forecasting for severe storms, hurricanes, etc., research into past weather events that impacted the company, predicting how recently played out events will impact the company and building predictive models for claims based on meteorological & statistical principles. Is this person a meteorologist or are they just a hobbyist because they didn't spend the full 4 years in an institution of higher learning?

[baroclinic_instability]

My point is that you can't put everyone in a box based on a whether they have a certain degree or not. Not every person that hasn't completed a 4 year degree in meteorology is going to contribute to the field like someone with a BS, MS or PHD. There are people in Meteorology who have made outstanding contributions to our science without a degree. Are they as plentiful as those with degrees? No. But you can't say that they aren't a meteorologist because they don't have a piece of paper and a pile of student loan debt to show for it.

Here is a scenario:

A meteorology major drops out of school without completing his degree. They keep up with scientific journals, attend conferences & practice forecasting based on learned principles from said journals & conferences. That person lands a job at a Fortune 500 property insurance company, who finds out about their background in meteorology. They ask that person to do some work and find that they like what that person can do and promotes them to meteorologist. Duties include daily forecasting for severe storms, hurricanes, etc., research into past weather events that impacted the company, predicting how recently played out events will impact the company and building predictive models for claims based on meteorological & statistical principles. Is this person a meteorologist or are they just a hobbyist because they didn't spend the full 4 years in an institution of higher learning?

I think you are taking this the wrong way. All that is being proposed is a more rigorous definition. Using a rare example such as the one above can be used for any profession. Should we not have rigorous definitions for what defines lawyers, doctors, civil engineers, etc. because there are a few who don't fit into the box? I am all for having more defined standards. Just tossing the word "meteorologist" around for anyone from TV newscasters to hobbyists (i.e. weekend storm chasers, etc.) is not doing the study/profession any good (and no, nobody here is demeaning anyone without a degree in meteorology).

[Bryan Wood]

I think you are taking this the wrong way. All that is being proposed is a more rigorous definition. Using a rare example such as the one above can be used for any profession. Should we not have rigorous definitions for what defines lawyers, doctors, civil engineers, etc. because there are a few who don't fit into the box? I am all for having more defined standards. Just tossing the word "meteorologist" around for anyone from TV newscasters to hobbyists (i.e. weekend storm chasers, etc.) is not doing the study/profession any good (and no, nobody here is demeaning anyone without a degree in meteorology).

For what it's worth, the example is me.

I'm not saying anyone is demeaning people without a degree in meteorology, but this article draws the line at that point. Even if we take away "meteorologist" from those on TV who have not completed a degree, as the self-promoter of this article wants, it won't change the fact that these people are still the face of meteorology to 99.9% of the public. Is there any value in giving these people the title of meteorologist? Perhaps not. Is there any value in removing the label from them? In the grand scheme of things, no. It's not going to change what they do, it would not change the television industry...which is a soulless, dirty beast that will keep doing whatever it wants regardless of the wishes of science and its purveyors.

[baroclinic_instability]

For what it's worth, the example is me.

I'm not saying anyone is demeaning people without a degree in meteorology, but this article draws the line at that point. Even if we take away "meteorologist" from those on TV who have not completed a degree, as the self-promoter of this article wants, it won't change the fact that these people are still the face of meteorology to 99.9% of the public. Is there any value in giving these people the title of meteorologist? Perhaps not. Is there any value in removing the label from them? In the grand scheme of things, no. It's not going to change what they do, it would not change the television industry...which is a soulless, dirty beast that will keep doing whatever it wants regardless of the wishes of science and its purveyors.

I did know it was you since you voted in that demographics poll a while back.

But I will disagree again. I do think there is value to having more rigorous definitions/standards. Old habits and ideas die hard, but that isn't a reason to not try changing public perception about what the profession really is. Like I commented above, it can all be tied back to discussions of public safety, funding and research, job applicants and their expectations of the industry, etc. I will also add there are legitimate and direct benefits to having more strict AMS/NWA TV certifications/seals both for the general public and the applicants in the field. I personally see that is a win/win.

[AtticaFanatica]

Forecasting is a specific sub-discipline within meteorology, but the one that has the most perceived utility to the public, therefore meteorology is known mostly through forecasters, rightly or wrongly. There are good forecasters that are meteorologists and good forecasters that are not meteorologists, by the strict definition. In many other aspects of meteorology, however, I think the contributions from non-meteorologists are much smaller. For instance, anyone can submit a paper to peer review, but in my experience (at least in my area) I haven't read a significant contribution in the lit written by a non-meteorologist (or someone not in a related field). This country is filled with guidelines that indicate when someone can be called something. They're often imperfect and it occasionally leaves otherwise qualified people out, but it's necessary so that there is some standard. I think the meteorology standards are reasonable and the fact that there's some smart people that can forecast well doesn't change that.

[FreshAJ]

Great post! Yea the main point to take home from my post is really what @Baroclinic Instability is reiterating. Just have a more rigorous definition of what the term "meteorologist" is....I don't think it's fair that anyone can call themselves a meteorologist...we are the only science major where this happens....so the goal is to change the public perception that is currently out there and take the degree seriously. I've heard the excuse that "no one cares" before....but I think enough people do...and this topic has been talked about over and over but perhaps this time we can change a few things!

I did know it was you since you voted in that demographics poll a while back.

But I will disagree again. I do think there is value to having more rigorous definitions/standards. Old habits and ideas die hard, but that isn't a reason to not try changing public perception about what the profession really is. Like I commented above, it can all be tied back to discussions of public safety, funding and research, job applicants and their expectations of the industry, etc. I will also add there are legitimate and direct benefits to having more strict AMS/NWA TV certifications/seals both for the general public and the applicants in the field. I personally see that is a win/win.

[Robert_Edmonds]

First, I don't call myself a meteorologist (so don't think I'm saying I am ), although someone suggested I asked for the tag... I just feel like playing devil's advocate.

I think we can all agree that the person at least do the following:

Meteorologist - A person who studies meteorology.

Just to copy from dictionary.com (horrible way to define something, I know)

Meteorology - the science dealing with the atmosphere and its phenomena, including weather and climate.

Does this specifically require work with the Earth's atmosphere? There are plenty of people who do work with climate and mesoscale models with Mars, Venus, etc. (Like me...). They publish work in journals like AGU. I think that means they're studying an atmosphere and it's phenomena. However, only some of these people have meteorology degrees (others have astronomy, physics, etc.). I bet those non meteorology majors couldn't be certified by the AMS.

Don't worry I call myself a Mars climate scientist.

[LocoAko]

Forecasting is a specific sub-discipline within meteorology, but the one that has the most perceived utility to the public, therefore meteorology is known mostly through forecasters, rightly or wrongly. There are good forecasters that are meteorologists and good forecasters that are not meteorologists, by the strict definition. In many other aspects of meteorology, however, I think the contributions from non-meteorologists are much smaller. For instance, anyone can submit a paper to peer review, but in my experience (at least in my area) I haven't read a significant contribution in the lit written by a non-meteorologist (or someone not in a related field). This country is filled with guidelines that indicate when someone can be called something. They're often imperfect and it occasionally leaves otherwise qualified people out, but it's necessary so that there is some standard. I think the meteorology standards are reasonable and the fact that there's some smart people that can forecast well doesn't change that.

Definitely. This board is very heavily biased towards the forecasting side of things when, as you said, it is only a subdiscipline within the field. On the research side of things, I highly doubt someone without a degree would ever contribute to the literature of the field and the fact is that the title does mean something. While forecasting can be "learned" (so to speak), it is exceedingly unlikely that someone would learn enough to begin publishing in a field without obtaining degrees (at least, as you said, in a related field).

[LocoAko]

Would people who "study" physics rightfully be called Physics or Engineers?

[Robert_Edmonds]

Would people who "study" physics rightfully be called Physics or Engineers?

Does the implementation of a gravity wave (internal buoyancy wave) parameterization scheme into a global circulation model sound like the work of Meteorologist or an Astrophysicist?

[LocoAko]

Does the implementation of a gravity wave (internal buoyancy wave) parameterization scheme into a global circulation model sound like the work of Meteorologist or an Astrophysicist?

IMO, a meteorologist. I didn't mean to say that people from other science fields don't or shouldn't contribute to the field of atmospheric sciences, but I'd still consider the astrophysicist an astrophysicist, just one contributing to the atmospheric sciences...

[AtticaFanatica]

Does the implementation of a gravity wave (internal buoyancy wave) parameterization scheme into a global circulation model sound like the work of Meteorologist or an Astrophysicist?

There are plenty of meteorologists who have degrees in physics or physicists that work in meteorology. I don't think that was the point.

[superjames1992]

I do think there is a difference between a "forecaster" and a "meteorologist". Meteorology encompasses much more than just forecasting, even though forecasting is the most visible aspect to the scientific field.

For what it's worth, the example is me.

I'm not saying anyone is demeaning people without a degree in meteorology, but this article draws the line at that point. Even if we take away "meteorologist" from those on TV who have not completed a degree, as the self-promoter of this article wants, it won't change the fact that these people are still the face of meteorology to 99.9% of the public. Is there any value in giving these people the title of meteorologist? Perhaps not. Is there any value in removing the label from them? In the grand scheme of things, no. It's not going to change what they do, it would not change the television industry...which is a soulless, dirty beast that will keep doing whatever it wants regardless of the wishes of science and its purveyors.

I would consider you to be a forecaster, but not particularly in a meteorologist.

It's no big deal, though; it's all semantics.

[BillB]

Let's look at the American Meteorological Society's definition (from their webpage)...

WHAT IS A METEOROLOGIST?

The American Meteorological Society defines a meteorologist as a person with specialized education "who uses scientific principles to explain, understand, observe, or forecast the earth's atmospheric phenomena and/or how the atmosphere affects the earth and life on the planet." This education usually includes a bachelor's or higher degree from a college or university. Many meteorologists have degrees in physics, chemistry, mathematics, and other fields. The broader term "atmospheric science" often is used to describe the combination of meteorology and other branches of physical science that are involved in studying the atmosphere.

[Turtle]

all the local stations in the Boston area have degreed Meteorologists...so I'm fine with the Boston market...

(i'd like to talk about why OC female meteorologists have to look like models and dress in cocktail dresses, where as the men can be fat, old, ugly, and frumpy)

Sorry Diane, but they are not. There are a few with MSU credentials (what I refer to as "Mississippi State specials"). Used to be this way, but no more.

We are still lucky, however, that many do have at least a BS, and some have MS degrees in meteorology.

--Turtle

[#NoPoles]

Sorry Diane, but they are not. There are a few with MSU credentials (what I refer to as "Mississippi State specials"). Used to be this way, but no more.

We are still lucky, however, that many do have at least a BS, and some have MS degrees in meteorology.

--Turtle

i guess i was talking about channels 4 and 7...so i should not have said "all"...just the ones i watch the most...i guess that was more of an imby post...

[Math/Met]

I just noticed this topic and wanted to post a few of my thoughts. I don’t agree with the idea that you need a degree in meteorology to be a meteorologist. You don’t technically need a degree in meteorology to get a meteorology job with the NWS. Their requirements state that you need a Bachelors degree in meteorology, atmospheric science or other natural science major. They also require that you meet the specific atmospheric science requirements.

I originally graduated with a B.S. in Applied Mathematics (quantitative modeling), then I completed the 24 hours of atmospheric science requirements that were established by NOAA (I have more than 24 credits in meteorology). I took meteorology classes through various programs, including Mississippi State. I made sure that I took all of the calculus based classes that are required by the NWS. Just to clarify, not all Mississippi State courses are the same. They offer dynamics classes that are calculus based as well as the non-calculus based courses. The dynamics courses that I completed through the Mississippi State program were indeed calculus based and satisfy the NWS requirements.

So, I’ve completed all of the meteorology requirements in addition to my B.S. in Applied Mathematics. I also plan to start graduate school for meteorology this spring in order to boost my resume and open a few more job opportunities for me. I know a lot of the arguments revolve around math, physics and calculus based dynamics courses. I can assure you that I’ve taken a very rigorous course load in those subjects. Because of this, I consider myself a meteorologist even though I don’t technically have a meteorology degree. Does everyone agree with this?

I just think there are multiple ways to become a meteorologist, so creating a strict definition would be difficult.

[kylemacr]

Take, for example, Sir Brian Hoskins... he is one of the most important minds in our field. His degrees were in Mathematics. Lots of other researchers come from Math and Physics backgrounds, and they also make significant contributions to the field and probably understand it, in many ways, better than we Mets do. Would you say that they shouldn't be called meteorologists? I'd argue that there has to be something more than just what a college degree is in behind the definition of a meteorologist.