The UNFCCC1 does not define ‘climate’ at all, while WMO2 used to define climate as: the average weather over a longer period of time. This website will provide information and ask, does science know what climate is?
1. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change; 2.The World Meteorology Organisation

Reference links :

www.bernaerts-sealaw.com

www.arctic-warming.com

www.seaclimate.com

The Climate Gate Story -2009 – How it came about!

How the story began - with FIOA on November 17, 2009 - to two open letters about climate legislation.

Compiled May 2019

 

The Climate Gate came in being on 17 November 2009.  In the comment No.10 a still unknown hacker provided a link more than 1,000 emails and 3,000 other documents from the Climatic Research Unit from the University of East Anglia (UK) with the text:

10. FOIA said
November 17, 2009 at 9:57 pm

We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps.

We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents.
Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it.

This is a limited time offer, download now: http://ftp.tomcity.ru/incoming/free/FOI2009.zip

Sample:  (about 20 – see Fig. left)
Full text:  https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/open-letter/#comment-11917
In PDF

FIOA indicated distain the climate science, but limited the time for downloading the files, to protect his identity. Jeff Id, from The Air Vent Blog did it in time. Few days late the link was gone. Climate Gate had commenced.

Soon the climate science was severely shaken lasting for many years. Today Wikipedia assess the story over length of about 17 pages. How it all came about is only mentioned superficially. Particularly no indication has be made of the Blog-Post (here after) where FIOA placed his/her comment, namely concerning a letter by 18 US research organizations to US Senators “Reaffirming Scientific Consensus on Climate Change”, and an immediate an open-letter  reply by Dr. Arnd Bernaerts, which are hereafter reproduce in full. In addition the comment by FIOA  No 10 and those by ArndB until December 24 2009 are given as well

How the Climate Gate Story Started

           The Air Vent             
Because the world needs another opinion
WordPress site by Jeff Id, since August 2008

https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/open-letter/

Open Letter On Climate Legislation

Posted by Jeff Id on November 13, 2009

An open letter reply to a letter written to government by 18 different scientific organizations concerning climate change legislation by Dr. Arnd Bernaerts.

Read the rest of this entry

Posted in Uncategorized | 109 Comments

 

Some italics and red added

The original letter:
In PDF

October 21, 2009

Dear Senator:

As you consider climate change legislation, we, as leaders of scientific organizations, write to state the consensus scientific view.

Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.

These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science. Moreover, there is strong evidence that ongoing climate change will have broad impacts on society, including the global economy and on the environment. For the United States, climate change impacts include sea level rise for coastal states, greater threats of extreme weather events, and increased risk of regional water scarcity, urban heat waves, western wildfires, and the disturbance of biological systems throughout the country. The severity of climate change impacts is expected to increase substantially in the coming decades (1). If we are to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change, emissions of greenhouse gases must be dramatically reduced. In addition, adaptation will be necessary to address those impacts that are already unavoidable. Adaptation efforts include improved infrastructure design, more sustainable management of water and other natural resources, modified agricultural practices, and improved emergency responses to storms, floods, fires and heat waves. We in the scientific community offer our assistance to inform your deliberations as you seek to address the impacts of climate change.

(1) The conclusions in this paragraph reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and U.S. Global Change Research Program. Many scientific societies have endorsed these findings in their own statements, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, and American Statistical Association.

And the reply by Dr. Arnd Bernaerts,
 12th November 2009

In PDF

Subject: Letter to Senators concerning climate change legislation – 21.Oct.2009

Dear President or Executive Director,

How could it happen that more than a dozen of the most prestigious scientific associations signed and submitted this letter on ‘climate change’ without having ensured that the used terminology is sufficiently defined? Good science can and is required to work with reasonable terms and explanations. The science about the behavior of the atmosphere should be no exception. But WMO1, IPCC and other institutions simply are using the layman’s term of weather and climate not even recognizing that this is very unscientifically. Actually nowadays climate is still defined as average weather, which may be fine for the general public, but nonsense as scientific term. This can be well demonstrated with the most relevant international legal instrument, namely the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, 1992 (FCCC).

Article 1 of the FCCC providing definitions offers none on the term “climate”, and if it had been based on the common explanation on “average weather”, the word “weather” would have required a definition as well. That the drafters failed to do so is a clear indication that they either lacked the scientific competence to do so, or they knew it would make no sense, because ‘average weather’ is statistics, and remain statistics regardless of any name given to the set of statistics.

Instead the FCCC defines in

         Para. 2. “Climate change” means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.

         Para. 3. “Climate system” means the totality of the atmosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere and geosphere and their interactions.

Both explanations explain nothing. It is nonsense to say: Climate change means the change of climate, while ‘climate system’ does not say anything more as the interaction of nature. Science is using layman’s terms without being able or willing to define them in a scientifically reasonable manner, or not to use them at all. A detailed discussion is available at:  http://www.whatisclimate.com/.

It is therefore very unfortunate if the reference letter of just 240 words mentions ‘climate change’ seven times. If your organization believes that “rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities“ has an impact on air temperatures, then any alert should be restricted to this aspect. But as long as science is not able and willing to define CLIMATE, and subsequently CLIMATE CHANGE it is misleading and wrong to tell the general public and politics, that greenhouse gases are the “prime driver” of climate. That are the oceans as expressed in a letter to NATURE 1992: “Climate is the continuation of the oceans by other means”2, or to say it with Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519): “Water is the driver of nature”.

Yours sincerely

Arnd Bernaerts

 

The comment by FIOA  No 10 and those by ArndB until December 24 2009

All 109 comments HERE

2. ArndB said

                                               https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/open-letter/#comment-11872

November 14, 2009 at 11:43 am

Hi Jeff,
thanks for posting the Open Letter and your views at your post „Gone for Several Days“ (13Nov). Have a fine time. You are right. Presumably quite a number of members of the 18 organizations have never been asked, have never voted, or would never have agreed with their society leader. But it is easy to claim consensus if talking about a term which means nothing, as outlined in the Open Letter, including Footnote (1), that reads as follows:

Footnote [1] The WMO site has a theme-section, which include the two terms in question. Concerning weather the section “Weather” offers no explanation but has the opening sentence: “Everyone is interested in the weather”, while subsection: What is Climate begins with the sentence: “At the simplest level the weather is what is happening to the atmosphere at any given time.” In the same section the Organization offers for climate three options namely:
___in a narrow sense Climate is usually defined as the “average weather,”
___in a more rigorously way, Climate is the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time, and
___in a broader sense, Climate is the status of the climate system which comprises the atmosphere, the hydrosphere, the cryosphere, the surface lithosphere and the biosphere.

6. ArndB said

                         https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/open-letter/#comment-11905

November 17, 2009 at 3:57 am

Hi to all commentators. Thanks.
What the OPEN LETTER is about, may be best explained (and may answer some of your points) is a discussion, which started yesterday at:
http://www.sindark.com/2009/11/16/strategy-for-denier-commentors/#comments
Under the title: Strategy for denier commentors, November 16, 2009.
The main points are in the APPENDIX below.
In a previous posting at that site: “Why conservatives should love carbon taxes
November 10, 2009”
(
http://www.sindark.com/2009/11/10/why-conservatives-should-love-carbon-taxes/#comment-83886), one discussion was about the climate terminology – starting with the 1st comment: aber November 16, 2009 at 7:33 am ; Here some excerpts:

___(Milan says):
If you really want to argue that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – which differs from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) – doesn’t understand what ‘climate’ means, let me know. In reality, the IPCC reports consider the natural functioning of the climate system in great deal, as well as identifying and attributing the warming trend induced by human greenhouse gas emissions

___(aber says)
#Milan, If someone wants to say that weather and climate is different, after having stated that: „ Climate is generally defined as average weather, and as such, climate change and weather are intertwined.”, seems to have problems. A highlight is such an explanation:
As an analogy, while it is impossible to predict the age at which any particular man will die, we can say with high confidence that the average age of death for men in industrialised countries is about 75.
To find at FAQ, 1.2 , IPCC 2007 : What is the Relationship between Climate Changeand Weather?
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_FAQs.p df, which starts as follows

___(Milan says)
This is just confused.
For any unit of time, you can measure a statistic like mean global temperature. Obviously, this varies due to factors like season.

___(Milan says)
The observations detect that climate is changing, while the modelling makes a compelling case that anthropogenic GHGs are the cause.

___(aber says)
My comment is about terminology and in this respect WMO, IPCC and others are not up to resonable scientific standards, see FN 1, at
http://www.whatisclimate.com/:
The WMO site has a theme-section, which include the two terms in question.

___(Milan says)
So what exactly are you arguing? That climate change is happening, but that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change doesn’t define terms in the way you like?
Nobody else seems to think this is a problem. Climate change is happening because of human emissions, and we need to stop. That is basically the situation.

___(Milan says)
An alternative way to approach the issue would be to define climate change to include “natural climate variability” and specificy anthropogenic climate change as the sort induced by human activity. That being said, it is perfectly rational to call natural variability just that, and use the term ‘climate change’ to refer to anthropogenic climate change.

___(aber says)
Define first CLIMATE in a scientifically reasonable manner, and then go for CLIMATE CHANGE. If that is impossible, and you wish to use the word climate, then give it with regard to studying atmospheric behaviour a reasonable meaning, for example what is the most relevant aspect of atmospheric dynamics, respectively the driving source.
___One source is certainly the sun. BUT the sun does not makes the weather on this planet (see the moon, which is in relation to the sun in the same situation).
___Consult Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) who has said: “Water is the driver of nature”.
___Chose the prime driver on earth, and say: “Climate is the continuation of the oceans by other means”; as expressed in a Letter to the Editor, NATURE ,1992, Climate Change, Vol. 360, p. 292;
http://www.whatisclimate.com/1992-nature.html
Conclusion: With the oceans in focus the climate change debate would presumably be going very differently.

APPENDIX (excerpt from http://www.sindark.com/2009/11/16/strategy-for-denier-commentors/ ):
Ordinarily, I am happy to debate with people and try to provide quality information. That being said, it can take up a lot of time to try to refute those who repeat faulty arguments over and over. These people call themselves ’skeptics,’ but I think they are mis-applying the term. I have yet to encounter one that is willing to back away from even thoroughly discredited positions. Instead, they just move on to another misleading argument.
The question, then, is how to deal with these commentors without losing all scope for socializing and personal projects. Some of the options:
___Briefly assert that their position is incorrect and point to a resource that says why. Ignore further attempts at rebuttal.
___Point all such commentors towards pre-existing posts and conversations, without offering specific responses.
___Adopt the Zero Carbon Canada approach: “ATTN climate change denier trolls: you are cooking our kids and will be deleted.”
___Continue to provide detailed, personalized responses as much as possible.

7. ArndB said

                             https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/open-letter/#comment-11906

November 17, 2009 at 4:44 am

Hi to all commentators. Thanks, and a response is made in two separate postings, as it went not through when submitting it in one lot. There was one discussion about the climate terminology at http://www.sindark.com : “Why conservatives should love carbon taxes November 10, 2009” (http://www.sindark.com/2009/11/10/why-conservatives-should-love-carbon-taxes/#comment-83886), o – starting with the 1st comment: aber November 16, 2009 at 7:33 am ; Here some excerpts :

___(Milan says):
If you really want to argue that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – which differs from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) – doesn’t understand what ‘climate’ means, let me know. In reality, the IPCC reports consider the natural functioning of the climate system in great deal, as well as identifying and attributing the warming trend induced by human greenhouse gas emissions

___(aber says)
#Milan, If someone wants to say that weather and climate is different, after having stated that: „ Climate is generally defined as average weather, and as such, climate change and weather are intertwined.”, seems to have problems. A highlight is such an explanation:
As an analogy, while it is impossible to predict the age at which any particular man will die, we can say with high confidence that the average age of death for men in industrialised countries is about 75.
To find at FAQ, 1.2 , IPCC 2007 : What is the Relationship between Climate Change and Weather?
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_FAQs.p df, which starts as follows

___(Milan says)
This is just confused.
For any unit of time, you can measure a statistic like mean global temperature. Obviously, this varies due to factors like season.

___(Milan says)
The observations detect that climate is changing, while the modelling makes a compelling case that anthropogenic GHGs are the cause.

___(aber says)
My comment is about terminology and in this respect WMO, IPCC and others are not up to resonable scientific standards, see FN 1, at
http://www.whatisclimate.com/:
The WMO site has a theme-section, which include the two terms in question.

___(Milan says)
So what exactly are you arguing? That climate change is happening, but that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change doesn’t define terms in the way you like?
Nobody else seems to think this is a problem. Climate change is happening because of human emissions, and we need to stop. That is basically the situation.

___(Milan says)
An alternative way to approach the issue would be to define climate change to include “natural climate variability” and specificy anthropogenic climate change as the sort induced by human activity. That being said, it is perfectly rational to call natural variability just that, and use the term ‘climate change’ to refer to anthropogenic climate change.

___(aber says)
Define first CLIMATE in a scientifically reasonable manner, and then go for CLIMATE CHANGE. If that is impossible, and you wish to use the word climate, then give it with regard to studying atmospheric behaviour a reasonable meaning, for example what is the most relevant aspect of atmospheric dynamics, respectively the driving source.
___One source is certainly the sun. BUT the sun does not makes the weather on this planet (see the moon, which is in relation to the sun in the same situation).
___Consult Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) who has said: “Water is the driver of nature”.
___Chose the prime driver on earth, and say: “Climate is the continuation of the oceans by other means”; as expressed in a Letter to the Editor, NATURE ,1992, Climate Change, Vol. 360, p. 292;
http://www.whatisclimate.com/1992-nature.html
Conclusion: With the oceans in focus the climate change debate would presumably be going very differently.

For the entire discussion see: http://www.sindark.com/2009/11/10/why-conservatives-should-love-carbon-taxes/#comment-83886

8. ArndB said

                               https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/open-letter/#comment-11907

November 17, 2009 at 4:45 am

Clear, correct, and understandable terms and explanations are the very basis for any fruitful discussion. That is what the OPEN LETTER asks for. How much this is needed can be shown with a posting, which started yesterday at: http://www.sindark.com/2009/11/16/strategy-for-denier-commentors/#comments ; Under the title: Strategy for denier commentors, November 16, 2009.
The main points are as follows (excerpt).
Ordinarily, I am happy to debate with people and try to provide quality information. That being said, it can take up a lot of time to try to refute those who repeat faulty arguments over and over. These people call themselves ’skeptics,’ but I think they are mis-applying the term. I have yet to encounter one that is willing to back away from even thoroughly discredited positions. Instead, they just move on to another misleading argument.
The question, then, is how to deal with these commentors without losing all scope for socializing and personal projects. Some of the options:
___Briefly assert that their position is incorrect and point to a resource that says why. Ignore further attempts at rebuttal.
___Point all such commentors towards pre-existing posts and conversations, without offering specific responses.
___Adopt the Zero Carbon Canada approach: “ATTN climate change denier trolls: you are cooking our kids and will be deleted.”
___Continue to provide detailed, personalized responses as much as possible.

My CONCLUSION: This sort of approach has a lot to do with unclear, superficial, and nonsense terminology.

10. FOIA said

https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/open-letter/#comment-11917

November 17, 2009 at 9:57 pm

We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps.

We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents. Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it.

This is a limited time offer, download now: http://ftp.tomcity.ru/incoming/free/FOI2009.zip

Sample:

0926010576.txt * Mann: working towards a common goal
1189722851.txt * Jones: “try and change the Received date!”
0924532891.txt * Mann vs. CRU
0847838200.txt * Briffa & Yamal 1996: “too much growth in recent years makes it difficult to derive a valid age/growth curve”
0926026654.txt * Jones: MBH dodgy ground
1225026120.txt * CRU’s truncated temperature curve
1059664704.txt * Mann: dirty laundry
1062189235.txt * Osborn: concerns with MBH uncertainty
0926947295.txt * IPCC scenarios not supposed to be realistic
0938018124.txt * Mann: “something else” causing discrepancies
0939154709.txt * Osborn: we usually stop the series in 1960
0933255789.txt * WWF report: beef up if possible
0998926751.txt * “Carefully constructed” model scenarios to get “distinguishable results”
0968705882.txt * CLA: “IPCC is not any more an assessment of published science but production of results”
1075403821.txt * Jones: Daly death “cheering news”
1029966978.txt * Briffa – last decades exceptional, or not?
1092167224.txt * Mann: “not necessarily wrong, but it makes a small difference” (factor 1.29)
1188557698.txt * Wigley: “Keenan has a valid point”
1118949061.txt * we’d like to do some experiments with different proxy combinations
1120593115.txt * I am reviewing a couple of papers on extremes, so that I can refer to them in the chapter for AR4

LINK:    https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/open-letter/#comment-11917

11. ArndB said

                             https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/open-letter/#comment-11921

November 18, 2009 at 3:34 am

My comment dated (November 17, 2009 at 4:44am) is still awaiting ‚moderation ’(sent before: ArndB said; November 17, 2009 at 4:45 am);

HERE is the first paragraph from that text (without any of the extracts); but PLUS the most recent:

QUOTE
Hi to all commentators. Thanks, and a response is made in two separate postings, as it went not through when submitting it in one lot. There was one discussion about the climate terminology at
http://www.sindark.com : “Why conservatives should love carbon taxes November 10, 2009” (http://www.sindark.com/2009/11/10/why-conservatives-should-love-carbon-taxes/#comment-83886), o – starting with the 1st comment: aber November 16, 2009 at 7:33 am ; Here some excerpts :
UNQUOTE

(the experts are not repeated here) except the last two
___(Milan says)
An alternative way to approach the issue would be to define climate change to include “natural climate variability” and specificy anthropogenic climate change as the sort induced by human activity. That being said, it is perfectly rational to call natural variability just that, and use the term ‘climate change’ to refer to anthropogenic climate change.
___(aber says)
Define first CLIMATE in a scientifically reasonable manner, and then go for CLIMATE CHANGE. If that is impossible, and you wish to use the word climate, then give it with regard to studying atmospheric behaviour a reasonable meaning, for example what is the most relevant aspect of atmospheric dynamics, respectively the driving source.
___One source is certainly the sun. BUT the sun does not makes the weather on this planet (see the moon, which is in relation to the sun in the same situation).
___Consult Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) who has said: “Water is the driver of nature”.
___Chose the prime driver on earth, and say: “Climate is the continuation of the oceans by other means”; as expressed in a Letter to the Editor, NATURE ,1992, Climate Change, Vol. 360, p. 292;
http://www.whatisclimate.com/1992-nature.html
Conclusion: With the oceans in focus the climate change debate would presumably be going very differently.

THEREON:
____Milan says (Nov17, 10:52) :
I am totally confused by you.

____Milan says (Nov17; 4:14pm)
I find it remarkable that Aber has set up an entire website, but cannot express his key point in a form I find comprehensible enough to respond to

___aber says (Nov18; 2:04am)

“Until one has experienced the sea around one,
One has no idea of world and its relation to the world.”
(Johann – Wolfgang v. Goethe , 1749-1832, “Italian Voyage”, 1787)

Hence here is oceanology in 30 seconds:
___the oceans hold 1000 times more water than the atmosphere,
___the average temperatures of the oceans is below 4C,
___only a very thin ocean surface layer and at lower latitude regions have more than 10C,
___The atmospheric vapor is completely exchanged every two weeks.
___ The upper 3m of the ocean surface layer has the same heat capacity as the whole of the atmosphere. Hence the heat required to raise the temperature of the atmosphere (10’000m) by 1C can be obtained from cooling the upper 3m of water by the same amount. As weather takes primarily place in up to 1000 m, the mentioned heat supply into this sector could be easily 10 and more degrees.

“Everything comes from water!
Everything is maintained through water!
Ocean, give us your eternal power!”
(From the drama Faust II, Thales, by Johann-Wolfgang v. Goethe, (1749-1832)

THE ENTIRE discussion at:
http://www.sindark.com/2009/11/10/why-conservatives-should-love-carbon-taxes/#comment-83949

13. ArndB said

                               https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/open-letter/#comment-11925

November 18, 2009 at 2:36 pm

@John Bowman
As long as one does not say what CLIMATE is, it does not matter what you attribute with the word “change”, which IPCC did, see the “Summary for Policymaker, 2007” (Footnote 1)
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf
by saying:
“Climate change in IPCC usage refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity. This usage differs from that in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, where climate change refers to a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and that is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.”

That seems to be “wild west” in international law:
as the IPCC is according mandate assigned to “concentrate its activities on the tasks allotted to it by the relevant WMO Executive Council and UNEP Governing Council resolutions and decisions as well as on actions in support of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change process”. Although IPCC is fully aware that its task is to provide Special Reports and Technical Papers on topics where independent scientific information and advice is deemed necessary and to support the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), IPCC seems to care little for the legal conditions its mandate is based on.
(the matter is discussed at:
http://www.whatisclimate.com/b205a-governments-ipcc-un-convention-climate-change-unfcc.html )

Conclusion:
___IPCC arbitrarily changes the rules; and very dramatically by including “natural variability”, in a Footnote, without any attempt to change the Convention; although it remains saying that: >>“Climate Change” means the change of climate ….<<.
___The United Nations and its organizations do not see it, and/or do not care.

20. ArndB said

                         https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/open-letter/#comment-11925

November 20, 2009 at 3:50 am

On Mitigation (Milan & DeWitt Payne)

Concerning mitigation: What is climatology suggesting and governments are doing, when it turns out that the oceans are the driving force of weather and climate? They can do nothing, only admitting that they got it with the “emissions of greenhouse gasses” desperately wrong. Over the last few millions of years the global average temperatures have presumably never been higher than 5-8 degrees Celsius as nowadays. But if the oceans warm up the atmosphere, or cool it down, there is no way to stop ocean dynamics. Any warm up phase is a rather slow process, while the oceans can drive the earth into a new ice age within a very short time.

To minimize this risk it is necessary to know more about the oceans. As this knowledge is very limited, it is necessary to do what ever possible to improve the situation. This requires the full application of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea as suggested in 1992 in a letter to NATURE as mentioned in the OPEN LETTER (above). Here is the entire text:

“SIR – The Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and the earlier struggle for a Convention on Climate Change may serve as a reminder that the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea has its tenth anniversary on 10 December. It is not only one of the most comprehensive and strongest international treaties ever negotiated but the best possible legal means to protect the global climate. But sadly, there has been little interest in using it for this purpose. For too long, climate has been defined as the average weather and Rio was not able to define it at all. Instead, the Climate Change Convention uses the term ‘climate sys- tem’, defining it as “the totality of the atmosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere and geosphere and their interactions”. All that this boils down to is ‘the interactions of the natural system’. What is the point of a legal term if it explains nothing? For decades, the real question has been who is responsible for the climate. Climate should have been defined as ‘the continuation of the oceans by other means’. Thus, the 1982 Convention could long since have been used to protect the climate. After all, it is the most powerful tool with which to force politicians and the community of states into actions. ” NATURE, 1992, “Climate Change”, Vol. 360, p. 292; available at: http://www.whatisclimate.com/1992-nature.html

21. ArndB said

                              https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/open-letter/#comment-12067

November 20, 2009 at 5:56 am

TO: FOIA (# 10 & 19)
You did it. You made many people very, very happy with your visit here and the given link. Luckily Jeff Id discovered it immediately: “This is the biggest news ever broken here. hunter said November 20, 2009 at 12:01 am , „Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
God bless you.“ And at :
http://www.examiner.com Terry Hurlbut (Nov19; 9:42 PM) said: „Commentary on all the blogs involved has been brisk, except, oddly enough, at The Air Vent, where only seven comments have been received.“

Allow me to assume you did it intentionally with regard to the subject OPEN LETTER. That would at least make me very happy, as it would be a clear indication that there are other person out (at minimum one), which would agree with me that a science is nuisance if it is not able and willing to define in a reasonable scientific manner what it is talking about. That the talking about a definition on CLIMATE should not be taken lightly, is indicated in my previous comment. If a nonsense term is used by science it is not only misleading the simple people, but also shows that they do not understand what they are talking about. That is the real tragic of all the talking about the CO2 greenhouse gases since the James Hansen’s AGW claim before the US Senate in 1988. They stare in the air, without knowing where they are going to. OK. Currently, presumably only you, (few other ?) and I know. That should change, and your kind appearance here may have been a help, hopefully, for which you deserves my highest appreciation, and sincere thanks.
Gratefully yours
Arnd Bernaerts

34. ArndB said
                                         https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/open-letter/#comment-12452

November 21, 2009 at 7:05 pm

THANKS
The Adjuster said , November 21, 2009 at 4:28 pm

But please take into account that the oceans control the “95% of water” you mentioned ;
see: Comment #11 (above) emphasizing i.a.:

Hence here is oceanology in 30 seconds:
___the oceans hold 1000 times more water than the atmosphere,
___the average temperatures of the oceans is below 4C,
___only a very thin ocean surface layer and at lower latitude regions have more than 10C,
___The atmospheric vapor is completely exchanged every two weeks.
___ The upper 3m of the ocean surface layer has the same heat capacity as the whole of the atmosphere. Hence the heat required to raise the temperature of the atmosphere (10’000m) by 1C can be obtained from cooling the upper 3m of water by the same amount. As weather takes primarily place in up to 1000 m, the mentioned heat supply into this sector could be easily 10 and more degrees.

72. ArndB said
                                       https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/open-letter/#comment-16619

December 24, 2009 at 6:00 pm

# 71; Tom Bombadil.
Impossible for me to say anything about your analysis, but I am sure many would like to know as much as possible about the file processing before being placed as Comment 10 (above). Lets see whether other readers can verify your assessment and provide further contributions.
To the contributor of FOIA-Comment 10 (17 Nov), and to all other visitors:
A Happy Holiday Season and a NEW YEAR 2010.
__No further comments by ArndB
__Further comments followed until No. 109, on
October 10, 2016 at 2:18 am.  

 

HOME

 

 

 

 

Current Isssue

oceansgovernclimate

1ocean-1climate







Essays from 1992 to 1997 on CLIMATE
by Dr. Arnd Bernaerts

1994
“Legal Means for Understanding the Marine and climatic Change Issue”,
p.24 presented at the 28th Annual Conf. of the Law of the Sea Institute, Honolulu
 


 

1992
“Conditions for the protection of the global climate”,
p.53 presented at GKSS Research Center Geesthacht
 


 

1997
Black Sea-Model Case
--Paper, p.53, on www.1ocean-1system.de
--Conf-Paper, p. 6
 




Four short texts
1994 Moscow

1994 LOS

1993 LOS

1992 Nature

Note to User
Kindly indicate:
www.whatisclimate.com
as source
Terms & Conditions
whatisclimate.com