|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Is the climate change
debate so aggressive Has the climate debate turned
into a horror scenario because climate means everything and
nothing? by Dr. Arnd Bernaerts, April 2019
For years, one can hear it
daily. Climate change is the greatest threat facing our world. Few declare the
debate as hoax, like U.S. President Donald Trump, others regard it as real,
respectively as an issue that affects the whole of humanity, the future of
humans depending on it. As long as only the rise of local or global air
temperature is view The misery of the climate discussion already
arises with the statement: Weather is not Climate. There are many various
around, but topped by a title/sub-title in scientificamerican
(Sept.04,2018) saying: “Don't Be Fooled: Weather Is Not Climate. But climate affects
weather, [respectively]: Weather is affected by climate”. There
is also the following quote: Summing up
the distinction between short-term changes in the weather and long term climate
trends ……, Dr. J. Marshall Shepherd, President of the American Meteorological
Society, used nine simple words: "weather
is your mood and climate is your personality." Nothing is explained with such comments. They
cause confusion and are nothing more than babble. That stems from the fact that
weather is a physical state of the atmosphere, and climate merely the numerical
statistic of numerous aspects of this state. While the former situation exists
for a very short moment only, never repeating again, the latter is a huge
amount of numbers and can never convert to weather again. It is therefore
horrible when it is said: climate affects weather. How can any statistic influence
the physical condition of the atmosphere? Unfortunately, this is not just a slip-up, but
runs through all the definitions that science uses for weather and climate.
Since modern climatology claims to be abler to advise the general public and governments
on climate change since about the 1980s, their ability to formulate what they
are talking about was remote, if existing at all. Let’s start in 1992, before
discussing briefly the background of the term: climate. UNFCCC In 1992, the Rio Conference adopted the UNITED
NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE, UNFCCC. Although the word
climate is included in the title, the convention offers not any explanation at
all (Fig. below). Similar shocking is not to realize that if one wants to
explain “climate change” that it is a paramount condition to say what the
subject of change shall be. This nonsense is topped when saying: “‘Climate
change’ means a change of climate…” (More details see Fig. next left).
Climate
is the synthesis of the day-to-day weather conditions in a given area. The
actual climate is characterized by long-term statistics (such as
mean values, variances, probabilities of extreme values) of the state
of the atmosphere in that area, or of the meteorological elements in that area. [W.J. Mauder – New Zealand - was for many years Vice- and President of the
WMO Commission for Climatology]. This definition is in no way a substitute for
the gap left by the UNFCCC. Even the quality of the first sentence can be
questioned, as subsequently “actual climate”, and other issues mentioned. IPCC – Climate The most prominent institutions on climate are
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the American
Meteorological Society (AMC). Today they have both lengthy glossaries with more
than 12,000 terms (AMS), or over 52 pages (IPCC) respectively. Remarkable -
they are both concerning the term climate. On one hand, they differ extremely
from each other. On the other hand, each text on climate is at best a joke as
an academically reasonable definition. They are both useless in the field of
scientific work, and of such big lack of clarity that they undermine any fair
and explanatory communication between the general public and Back in 1987 the WMO Bulletin published the
following definition (Fig. below most right) Climate
is the statistical probability of the occurrence of various states of the
atmosphere over a given region during a given calendar period; Weather
is the state of the atmosphere over one given region during one given period
(minute, hour, day, month, season, year, decade, etc.).
See: Conclusions (p.295); by W. J. GIBBS,
October 1987, WMO Bulletin, Vol. 36, Page 290-295,
Source: https://library.wmo.int/pmb_ged/bulletin_36-4_en.pdf
From the many ambiguities the text has, the most
obvious is that ‘weather’ shall also comprise the state of the atmosphere over
years and decades. What demonstrates better than anything else that the author
did not understand what he was talking about? The First IPCC Report, WG I, 02 June 1990,
didn’t made any use of the WMO publication five years earlier, but in the
Introduction (p. vii) it is merely said: Climate
System Although there is frequently a reference to
weather, the Introduction (as presumably the entire Report, total pages 365)
offers nothing, as the current IPCC Glossary. In the published edition by J.T.
Houghton et al, 1990, Cambridge University Press the cited text is on page xxxv
& xxxvi. Almost 30
years later, nothing has changed for better. A layman term was abused to scare
the public than, while no effort was spared to increase the pressure ever
since. For more, see the following discussion about AMS
definition on climate and weather. The AMS Glossary offers a different approach.
The definition begins with the sentence: “climate is the slowly varying aspects
of the atmosphere–hydrosphere–land surface system”, see full text Fig. right.
It is all the Glossary tells about the meaning of climate. It is virtually
impossible to make any sense out of it. A definition of ‘nature’ could go
equally. All that this boils down to is ‘the interactions of the natural
system’, Letter to the Editor, NATURE 1992, Vol. 360, p. 292. climate system
WEATHER is „The
state of the atmosphere,
mainly with respect to its effects upon life and human activities.” But the definition runs afoul and inconsistently
immediately when the next two sentences state: As
distinguished from climate,
weather consists of the short-term (minutes to days) variations in the
atmosphere. Popularly,
weather is thought of in terms of temperature,
humidity,
precipitation,
cloudiness,
visibility,
and wind. How inconsequently also the AMS weather
definition has been drafted comes to light if it describes that The
"present weather" table consists of 100 possible conditions, with 10
possibilities for "past weather"; both are encoded numerically.
This shows evidently that also AMS has no
definition of weather, but uses the word as it fits best. Five conditions here,
12 conditions there and thereon called climate. But weather is weather and
cannot consist one time of 100 conditions, and if convenient for making a case
consist of 3 conditions. Not surprisingly “future weather” is not mentioned. Climate is a layman term – A short background The concept of climate can be found in Greece in
fifth century BC. To Hippocrates of Kos (~460 – ~370 BC) it
comprised airs, waters, places associates season, prevailing winds, and the
quality of the air and water with the physical condition of people. The
earliest notions of ‘klimat’ were linked to sun inclination, and latitude. Over
2000 years the term climate is a solid public domain. Like weather, the word
reflects a general impression. People not necessarily like to talk about
climate and weather, but need to find out, which issues are needed to have an
informative conversation, e.g. temperature, sun shine, rain, wind, etc. In
countries with quickly changing weather conditions, as in Western Europe, the
talks on weather are more intensive and lengthy, as in the Sahara with little
changes. It is more abstract when merely seasonal conditions for a holiday
abroad, for example in Morocco in May is of interest, commonly called climate. During the last several century philosophers,
writers and researchers used the term climate as well. For example the German
naturalist and geographer A. von Humboldt (1769 –1859) defined climate as “all the changes in the atmosphere that
perceptibly affect our organs”. But none could be called a
climatologist, as that term came into use only well after World War II.
At best the term ‘climate’ existed in the layman’s way. The preface of the book
by V. Conrad (1946): Methods in Climatology. Harvard University Press;
pages 228, states in the first and last paragraph (p. vii): Climate
influences the surface of the earth, and this conversely, in its conditions.
This intimate mutual connection makes climatology and climatography appear as
parts of geography, because they are essentially necessary to describe the
surface of the earth and its changes. These ideas find their expression in the
fact that generally the colleges and universities, climatology as a whole is
treated in the geographical departments. Perhaps the dependent role of
climatology may be attributed also to the fact that geographers have so greatly
furthered this science. The
general introduction presents climatology as a world science, and its
international organization. The number of observations in the meteorological
register makes the necessity of statistical methods evident. Until the end of the 1940s, only the number of
observations and statistical methods were of interest. Two prominent
meteorologists confirmed few decades later, that the term climate was rarely
used ·
H.H. Lamp (Nature, Vol. 223, 1969): Only thirty
years ago climatology was generally regarded as the mere dry-as-dust
bookkeeping end of meteorology. ·
Kenneth Hare, (Bulletin American Meteorological Society, Vol. 60, 1979); This is obviously the decade in which climate is coming into
its own. You hardly heard the word professionally in the 1940s. It was a
layman's word. Climatologists were the halt and the lame. And as for the
climatologists in public service, in the British service you actually, had to
be medically disabled in order to get into the climatological division! Climatology
was a menial occupation that came on the pecking scale somewhat below the
advertising profession. It was clearly not the age of climate.
Meanwhile efforts are made to present climate
and climatology as a long standing interest of science, at least for the last
150 years. For example Roger G. Barry (in Int. J. Climatol., Vol. 33, 2013), is
saying: “The term climate has a 600-year history,
but only came into widespread use about 150 years ago.” The crux with such a statement is, that the entire
assessment is based on the layman term: “climate is average weather”, which is
“surely quite inadequate” as H.H. Lamp observed back in 1969 (see above).
But still in 2019 IPCC rely on it, and AMS evade this point by talking instead
of the ‘climate system’, see discussion above. What should be the conclusion? A science which
is not able to define in a clear and understandable manner, what they are
talking about, does not deserve being recognized as a competent academic
discipline. The use of words that are of 'emotional
importance' to the public must be clear, reasonable, and comprehensible.
Otherwise, there is a danger that it may come to an objective deception. The
debate on climate change does not meet John Locke (1632-1704) requirement of
“fixed signification”. Is there a solution? Yes,
by recognizing that the ocean is the base of the weather, If one regards the words weather and climate
primarily as an individual impression and experience of any person,
respectively of emotional importance to the public, one should leave it in the
public domain. Furthermore it seems most unlikely, that the terms can
reasonably define in an academic manner, which would require a wording that does
not mix-up with any layman understanding. But if the term Climate shall
be used, not the weather but the oceans must be the centerpiece of the
definition. Already back in 1984 J. D. Woods explained the
role of the ocean in the planetary system (excerpts): Approximately
80% of solar energy intercepted by our planet enters the atmosphere over the
oceans. About 50% of this energy flux reaches the bottom of the atmosphere after
25% has been reflected by, and 19% absorbed in the atmosphere. Neglecting
atmosphere bias between continental and ocean regions, the oceans receive 40%,
and the continents 10% of the intercepted energy. …The ocean is the principal
initial recipient of energy entering the planetary climate system…. The ultimate source in the planetary scenario is water, of which is only a very small percentage in the atmosphere. At any moment, the atmosphere contains only the amount of water, which would cover the entire surface of the Earth (land and ocean) with as little rain as one inch (2,5 cm) only. The water volume of the ocean is 1000 times bigger, and has only a mean temperature of about +4° Celsius. The huge stability of the oceans over long periods of time is amazing, but even minor change in current status of the ocean, will make the rising air temperature and greenhouse discussion looking much too narrow. It is high time that any definition in this respect needs to acknowledge that the current and future planetary weather system depends on the oceans, or briefly: Oceans Govern Climate. Further reading: CONDITIONS
NECESSARY FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE WORLD CLIMATE AS SEEN BY A SEAMAN AND LAWYER Paper presented by at the GKSS Research Center,
Geesthacht / Hamburg on December 4, 1992; pages ca. 45
Continue reading about the definition of climate:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]()
To previous essay: "Roger Pielke Sr and Climate Definition" Silly? Very Silly??
Naive???
Recently
Dr. Tim Ball titled a post (25.
Feb. 2014 -
HERE): “Government
Weather and Climate Forecasts Are Failures”; mentioning
–inter alia-: Around 300 BC Theophrastus, a student of Aristotle’s, wrote a book
setting out the first rules for weather forecasting. In the Book of Signs,
he recorded over 200 empirical indicators such as “A halo around the
moon portends rain.” Many skeptics, including me, say we haven’t come
very far since. Indeed, I would argue we have regressed.“ Indeed,
a science which is not able to define the central terms they use: weather
and climate, and is unable to name the oceans as the most potential driver
of atmospheric processes, will fail to advise politics and the public
fair, competent, correct, and thoroughly.
More about the work of Dr.
Arnd Bernaerts
Roger
Pielke Sr. and Climate Definition
The
definition is meaningless. It explains nothing. Beside from not mentioning
the fundamental relevance of sun ray, “weather” can either be defined
as: a system consisting of the atmosphere, hydrosphere, lithosphere, and
biosphere. In the same way “nature” can be defined. If weather,
climate, nature, need or can only be defined in the same way, than it is
misleading to use different words, but claim that there is a distinction.
Nevertheless one can often read: “weather is not the same as climate”.
That is talking rubbish. The
starting point is that “climate” is generally defined as average
weather (by WMO and others) without defining “weather” in the first
place (discussed HERE
and HERE).
It is a comparison between apples and pears. One item has a physical
background; the other item is a ‘man-made’ technical mean, which we
know as “statistic”. “Weather” consists of many dozen components
(AMS-Glossary),
which can be described in many hundred ways (see
HERE). The statistic of single physical element, or specification of
atmospheric behaviour, remain an abstract mean. On
first view Roger Pielke Sr. seems to be aware of it when he writes (June
15, 2012, HERE):
When
change is discussed, the specific component that is being discussed
should be presented, such as an increase in annual averaged
surface air temperatures, a decrease in the length of growing season etc.
Unfortunately,
he spoils this approach by the subsequent sentence: Phrases
such as “changes in regional and global climate statistics” could be
used. This
assumption is wrong. Regardless what kind of regional or global weather
statistic is at stake, it is necessary to name the “specific component”
individually and precisely. Assuming
that one or several statistical components are able to make-up a weather
or a nature “system consisting of
the atmosphere, hydrosphere, lithosphere, and biosphere” would
always result in a failure. “Climate” is a meaningless term, and
scientifically incomprehensive in what ever combination with other words. The
failure of science to come up with appropriate climate definitions
misleads the general public and politicians on how the prevent man-made
changes in the atmosphere (more HERE
and HERE). The oceans
drive the weather and are the main source of changing statistic values.
Roger Pielke Sr. addressed this aspect only partly (July 11, 2005; HERE): “Ocean
heat content changes are the much more appropriate metric than a
globally-averaged surface temperature when evaluating “global warming”
in any case.” Ocean
input is much more relevant than this statement suggests, but is too
complex to be outlined here any further. Nevertheless, we appreciate his
statement highly, as he is one of the very few scientists who have given
the ocean more weight. In his closing post Roger Pielke Sr. expressed his
intention to “… spend more of my time on research papers.” We wish
him well and all success. The climate
definition by Roger Pielke Sr. in his essay concerning the
·
Climate is defined here as the
statistical description of all the elements in the climate system (including
the atmosphere, ocean, land surface and cryosphere), including both the
mean state and any variations over time. ·
Climate change is defined as a shift
in the statistical description of climate. A statistic is a statistic of the
‘element’ in question. To say climate is the “statistical
description of all elements in the climate system” is circularity,
obscure and explains nothing. The common explanation “climate is average
(statistical) weather” is scientifically meaningless, if “weather”
is not defined in the first place. Circumventing the problem “weather”
by replacing it with indefinite “elements” (which can be several
thousands) solves nothing. The collection, organization, analysis,
interpretation and presentation of data (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics
) from the atmosphere, ocean, land surface and cryosphere does
neither represents: weather or climate.
Everything comes from water!!
Further related posts at: www.whatisclimate.com: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Terms & Conditions |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||