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.
Read the entire letter by 18 US scientific organisation to the U.S.A. Senate, 21 October 2009 (PDF)

The UNFCCC does not define ‘climate’ at all, while
WMO says: 'climate' is average weather.
This website will provide information and ask, does science know what climate is?

Reference links :
How Spitsbergen Heats the World
NEW 2009

HOME  home


Reply Open Letter to 18 scientific organisations,
12 th of November 2009, (HERE in PDF)
concerning a letter by 18 scientific organizations to the U.S.A. Senate, 21st Oct.2009

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 behaviour of the atmosphere should be no exception. But WMO[1], 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:

    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

Text Box: The Letter of the Institutions  HERE
Text Box: The Open Letter in PDF  HERE


The Open Letter & Climategate;
Did the hackers/whistle-blower have endorsed the Open Letter?

See: Comment 10 at:
The Open Letter to the US scientific organizations had been also published  at The Air Vent on 13 Nov.2009 ( ), which got at COMMENT 10 the files obtained  from the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, (CRU) had been released , November 17, 2009 at 9:57 pm .
A big thank to FOIA was expressed in Comment 21, 20th November, 05:56 am:
Others followed.  


[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.  

[2] “Letter to the Editor” , NATURE 1992, Climate Change, Vol. 360, p. 292;


Essay 2010
Is the term ‚climate’ too unspecific?
Pages 10

Chronicle Archive
Talk About Topics
Click for archive 2012
Click for archive 2011
Click for archive 2010
Click for archive 2009
Click for archive 2008
Click for archive 2007

Want to comment?
Email us!

Previous archives Year 2010
Year 2009

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

“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


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


Black Sea-Model Case
--Paper, p.53
--Conf-Paper, p. 6


Four short texts
1994 Moscow

1994 LOS

1993 LOS

1992 Nature

Note to User
Kindly indicate:
as source
Terms & Conditions