|
People defend your ‘climate’ – as you
use it for 2000 years
Weather and climate are everyday slang words and
misleading when used by science.
By Dr. Arnd Bernaerts; posted
22nd December 2019
During
the last half Century the world has a big problem. Science abuse the layman terms used since time immemorial:
weather and climate. Every
term is closer connected to every person than his shirt and that for 24 hours
and every day throughout his life. Alexander von Humboldt (1769 –1859),
the great German naturalist and geographer defined climate as 'all the changes
in the atmosphere that perceptibly affect our organs'. According A.v.Humboldt,
‘climate’ was even closer to the skin of any person as his dresses during day
and night. The Intellectuals in those
days lived closer to nature as academics nowadays.
There are probably few people who can explain
how the climate affects their organs, but they presumably would agree,
describing the aspect as follows: :
Climate is
the imaginary idea of an individual person, from a possible state of the
atmosphere, at one place or in one region, about one short or longer period of
time from own experience or narrative of others or e.g. out Guidebooks.
This means: More than 5 billion adults are living on Earth. Everyone has
their own view of climate and describes it as it corresponds to his own ideas,
for the moment or the given circumstances.
The
earliest notions of climate were linked with latitude and astronomy. A. v. Humboldt’s
analysis was close to ancient thinking. Antecedents
of the concept of climate can be found in Greece by Hippocratic writers, focusing
on seasonal change, influencing the occurrence of disease. The Hippcratic
treatise “Airs, waters, places” (~400 BC) associates season, prevailing winds,
and the quality of the air and water with the physical condition of people’, (More
HERE)
During A. v. Humboldt's
lifetime, meteorology was emerging and still at a low level. Now for more than
100 years acknowledged as an academic discipline, they remained incapable to
tell what ‘climate’ is, respectively formulate terms, which indicate
incompetence, explaining nothing, and are completely useless in scientific
research. In the early 20th Century climate was defined as average weather
and in the 1930th the thirty-year period from
1901 to 1930 considered as the baseline for measuring climate fluctuations. Several
decades later the prominent meteorologist H.H. Lamp regarded the definition
of climate as “average weather” quite inadequate, mentioning that until recently climatology was generally
regarded as the mere dry-as-dust bookkeeping end of meteorology (FN. 1).
Also the either well-known
F. Kenneth Hare wrote in 1979: You hardly
heard the word climate professionally in the 1940s. It was a layman's word.
Climatologists were the halt and the lame (FN. 2).
It is naive not to
realize that if you define climate as average weather, you have to say clearly
what weather is. Weather has to be defined first. Meteorology has always
ignored this point or – meanwhile - makeing nebulous statements about it.
Before we come to
the layman's term weather, let’s first view science currently define climate.
The internationally accepted authority
on climate change, the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate (IPCC), turns the meaningless "average
weather" into an inflated nonsense, namely, according its Glossary:
Climate in a narrow sense is usually
defined as the average weather, or more rigorously, as the statistical
description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a
period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. (cont.)
There is no other
explanation for such a junk than crazy. It is completely unusable as a work
base in scientific research, and fraud in any communication with the public and
governments. A daily slang word, which is closer to everybody’s skin than its
shirt, it is an abuse every time a scientists is using the word, which is
presumably a major reason that the climate-change debate has been getting more
and more hysterical during the last decades.
But the story gets
even worst, complete preposterous, when asking how IPCC defines “weather”. The
result is shocking; the Glossary of IPCC offers nothing. But IPCC and other institutions, like the
recent UN Climate Change Conference COP 25 (2 – 13 December 2019) in Madrid, do
not care.
Even the weather
definition in the AMS - Glossary (American Meteorological Society) does not
provide a usable solution, by explaining that
__ Popularly, weather is thought of
in terms of temperature, humidity, precipitation, cloudiness, visibility, and
wind, and
__ the "present weather" table consists of 100 possible conditions,
and
__ the "past weather"; of 10 possible conditions.
The AMS Glossary
does not clear the matter, as it is superficial on several aspects. False is
already the explanation of ‘popularly weather’. The layman is able to use and
explain the current weather in presumably several hundred versions, and ‘popularly
weather’ is extreme far away of a transparent and workable academic term, as
explained above. Either is the distinction between present and past weather is
nonsense. Weather is weather, and statistic on atmospheric conditions, whereas numerical
data, whether collected in the present or in the past remain a statistic. Once
statistic always statistic. Not naming the ‘possible conditions’, nor the time
period make it worst. Only the first sentence of the AMS weather definition is acceptable,
by saying:
Weather is the state of the
atmosphere, mainly with respect to its effects upon life and human activities.
Actually it is fair
to say that the layman understanding and use of the word of weather is closer
to the following description:
Weather is a
personal rating by any person over the condition of the atmosphere, in its
various manifestations, at a certain time, usually for the current situation or
in temporal proximity.
With such an
explanation the story is back close to the understanding in ancient Greek, and
how A. v. Humboldt (1769 –1859)
approached
the matter.
The story on the
complete incompetence of the scientific terminology does not end at this point.
but makes little sense to discuss any
furthermore any scientific terminology, which are at best a joke and belong in
the garbage heap.
The failure of
science is that it uses lay terms, but cannot define them transparently. No
wonder that there are now the movements 'Fridays for Future' and 'Extinction
Rebellion', and a discussion at a hysterical level. But science seems happy
with the situation, which they have caused. Their prominence growth, the money
is coming in; they are able to influence long term political decisions. The
biggest tragic in the whole scenario is that the undeniable rise
in temperatures since the mid-19th Century, is discussed on a much
to narrow level.
Folks, keep your
way of using the terms: weather and climate, as you did ever since, and do not
allow science to abuse them for selfish reason.
Footnote 1): H.H. Lamb, “The New Look
of Climatology”, NATURE, Vol. 223, September 20, 1969, pp.1209ff;
Footnote 2): F. Kenneth Hare, 1979; „The Vaulting of Intellectual Barriers: The
Madison Thrust in Climatology“, Bulletin American Meteorological Society, Vol.
60, 1979, p. 1171 – 1174
NEW 2022
By Dr. Arnd Bernaerts, Cosmo Publishing, U.S.A., 27. June 2022, English, 307 Pages,
Climate Change: By Two Major
Naval Wars
USA: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1949872718 Paperback: US$ 8,99 // € 9,22
- Kindle: US$
3,99, // € 3,83 , DE: https://www.amazon.de/dp/1949872718
Paperback: US$ 8,99 // € 9,22
Kindle: US$ 3,99 // € 3,83
All Books By The Author
The incapability of
science to define weather and climate
undermines a useful debate.
By this failure, they lie to themselves and to the public.
By Dr. Arnd Bernaerts,
July 2019
The English
philosopher John Locke stated 350 years ago: The achievement of human
knowledge is often hampered by the use of words without fixed meaning. This
is now the case in the so-called climate debate.
Science
uses layman's terms, which are completely useless in scientific work. Thus,
lying to themselves and pretending to politicians and to the public that they
understand what they are talking about, namely weather and climate. This
has dramatic consequences, as the student demonstrations show on many Fridays
in the past months. No one seriously denies that the air temperatures have been
rising in the last 150 years. This can generally be summarized under
"global warming", if one generously ignores the two major temperature
changes from 1918 to 1939 (increased warming) and 1940 to 1975 (strong
cooling). Both events are strongly correlated to the big naval wars, 100 and 80
years ago, as prima facie proven HERE. The simple
truth is that temperature changes and climate changes
are not the same. Between layman’s weather and what science understands as such
they are worlds apart. An overview is shown by the image - right hand,
enlarged, below.
As long as this untenable situation was
predominantly discussed by scientists and politicians among themselves, this
has been long and unpleasant story. Now it becomes dramatic, when this
incompetence of science extends to the youth. Science let them talk about
climate, although they themselves cannot explain it in a reasonable manner.
The result is by now best known by Fridays for
Future (FFF) movement, initiated by the 16-year-old Swedish activist Greta
Thunberg, mobilizing 100 thousand children in over 100 countries with school
strikes on Fridays. As her protest drew attention, she attended a United
Nations climate conference in last December in Poland, where she criticized
negotiators. “You are not mature enough to tell it like it is,” she said. “Even
that burden you leave to us children”, reported the NYT in March.
Moreover,
23,000 scientists in
Europe support her, by claiming that the
demonstrating children “are helping science to wrap such an abstract and
seemingly far-removed problem like climate change into a narrative”,
asserted the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung on 15. March 2019. Some
scientists did not shy away from quoting: "We are the pros",
and: "The young generation is right", so Volker Quaschning,
Professor of Regenerative Energy at the University of Applied Sciences in
Berlin. "The climate professionals are clear on the side of the
students!” (as previous quote).
Hopefully, 'someone' will soon take action to
protect the world from a science that is not even able to concretely describe
whereof it is researching and unable to define the most important terms it
uses, namely weather and climate. Indoctrinating children and pupils with
scientifically unsubstantial words is totally unacceptable.
“Pupils
take to the streets because the politicians, despite of nice words, miss the
climate targets”, writes the climate researcher Stefan Rahmstorf from the
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. CO2 reduction can be a target;
“climate targets” is cheer nonsense!
This is irresponsible. The incompetent use of
laymen’s terms must be thoroughly discussed and be
reconsidered. Science has to show that it is able to define
what it is talking about and claims to understand. The "use of words
without fixed meaning" in environmental research must find an end.
Further Reading
July 20, 2019: The incabability by science to
define:
weather and climate, undermines a useful debate.
May 19,
2019: Climate – A never ending
Story?
April 17,
2019: Climate is a big issue, but
science cannot say what it is.
|
See also previous
essay on
Climate is a big issue
April 17, 2019,
|
|
|
Collection of Information, Material, Discussion from 2007 to 2012
|
A |
Basics & The term Climate |
B |
Climate & Climate change |
C |
Weather & Climate |
114a_ American
Meteorology Society’s Glossary concerning the meaning of:
weather, climate, and climate change
111_ UNFCCC's "Glossary of climate change acronyms"
- Two UNFCCC glossaries with surprises -
113_ Various Glossaries Concerning meaning of: Climate, climate change, and weather
|
202 Open Letter on Climate Change:
Reply concerning the letter, 21st October,
to
the U.S.A. Senate by the listed institutions
206 IPCC says that there are important differences
between weather and climate.
Is the claim serious science?
211_ What is Climate, had been asked when: Climate Science: Roger A. Pielke Sr Research Group Weblog started in July 2005
212_ Need to talk about, 2009
|
304_ Just a word on the words "weather" and "climate". Here science fails
305_ What is Weather? Is 'average weather' climate?
330_ Prof. Roger A. Pielke Sr calls for recognition that an equivalence of global warming and climate change is erroneous
315_ How did Thomas A. Blair describe in 1942: Weather, Climate and Climatology?
|
D |
Climatology, Politique & International Institutions |
E |
Contribution & Papers on UNFCCC |
F |
This & That
-in brief- |
410_ Recently, April 2007, WMO evaluated its role in 'Global Climate Change Issues'
411_ About
Valerio Lucarini’s effort to define climate science in 2002
|
510_ Roger. A. Pielke Jr. on: Misdefining "climate change", 2005
516b_Daniel
Bodansky (II) – 1993 – The Convention in place – A
Commentary
516c_Daniel
Bodansky (III) – 2004 – On how the FCCC emerged
|
Various V (and more)
Various VI (and more)
VariousVII (and more)
|
|
|
Biography Dr. Arnd Bernaerts
|
|
|
|
|