C- 325 - W.J. Gibbs expected WMO’s initiative to define weather and climate in 1987

Dr. Gibbs seems to have been a conventional trained scientist, still aware that good research work needs good definitions. Back in 1987 he discussed “Defining Climate” in a six page long paper, on the notion that it is useful in any field of study to re-examine the meanings attached to apparently simple words frequently. Before continuing, it is to stress, that WMO did not follow his recommendation, instead ‘permitted’ the conclusion of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) without a definition of weather and climate at all. Did WMO did it with intention, or can WMO explain why such definitions are not needed?

Dr. Gibbs, who was Permanent Representative of Australia with WMO from 1962 to 1978, saw it quite differently, assuming that if a significant ambiguity has developed in the use of the terms weather and climate, there is merit to exploring the definitions so as to avoid serious misunderstanding. Whatisclimate has no problems to agree with this, but despite Dr. Gibbs’ good intention not willing to accept the use of these terms as an appropriate means in scientific field.

view article

B-205c - IPCC WG I attempt to explain: “What is the relationship between Climate Change and Weather?” Successfully?

After having considered IPCC’s arbitrary use of the term ‘climate change’(B-205a), and the WG I explanation of ‘climate system’ (B-205b), we may now come to a particular interesting part of the 2007-Report, when WG I is trying to explain the FAQ: “What is the Relationship between Climate Change and Weather?” Don’t miss the WG I analogy on “ the average age of death for men” (at about the mid of the second box). It explains more than 1000 words.

It is interesting to note, that the FAQ does not offer to explain the term ‘climate’ in the first place, but offers immediately as topic: ‘climate change’ & weather. Consequently they should start their explanation with ‘climate change’, but they start with the sentence: “ Climate is generally defined as average weather” (see the box), which shows that sound reasoning seems not to be the strongest ability of the authors.

It is furthermore to note that the WG I answer to the FAQ is not compatible to their own Glossary . The IPCC WG I definition on ‘climate’ is reproduced hereafter; concerning ‘climate change’ the reader is kindly requested to consult the IPCC Glossary, or have a look at: B-205a (see Collection of Material etc).

view article

A110 - “WHATISCLIMATE” will be operable as from 1 st September 2007

“WHATISCLIMATE” will be operable as from 1 st September 2007 to contribute to the climate change debate. Although the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) had been finished 15 years ago, neither the politics nor science care about using a “non-term”, namely ‘climate’, for which the official and authoritative FCCC offers no definition, thus causing extreme imprecision, ambiguity and confusion. Is a layman’s word used as means to disguise other aims?

For the inauguration of this website, two texts on “What is climate”, written and published in 1992 and 1994, are subsequently presented. Although these texts point to serious deficiencies long time ago, it seems the situation is getting worst ever since. As the word ‘climate’ is more and more grossly misused on an unprecedented scale, it is hoped that this new site will attract more and serious attention concerning principle questions in the climate change debate, and therefore welcomes warmly any interested website visitor.