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 rest of the entry
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?
Need to talk about -July 2010
IPCC says that there are important differences
Is the claim serious science?
The last IPCC-Report 2007 claims that there are important differences between weather and climate , by saying that:
The text is from the section FAQ 1.2 : “What is the Relationship between Climate Change and Weather?”, and obviously intended to create the impression that ‘climate science’ is more reliable than weather forecasting. That is utterly nonsense, and can only pass undetected as long as it is presented in a terminology which is meaningless. The terms and explanation given do not meet the lowest academic standards, which shall be discussed to show the superficiality of the text (cited above).
According FAQ 1.2, as throughout the scientific literature, “Climate is generally defined as average weather”. The problem starts with the search for a sufficient definition on “weather”. All scientific glossaries are very constraint on offering one. The IPCC Glossary does not offer any explanation, while other glossaries usually provide only very general description, like this three:
One of the rare exception is the very comprehensive Glossary of the American Meteorological Society (AMS). After a brief explanation of weather as: “The state of the atmosphere, mainly with respect to its effects upon life and human activities”, (full text in box below), the weather issue is broken down to:
Even if the AMS-Glossary is silent on “future weather”, the nonsense get a face. If the “weather” consists of 100 possible conditions, how can “past weather” consist only of 10 conditions? Who is making the selection? Who decides over the period of time, whether data are used over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years? What are the “10 possibilities for past weather”? Which mix of data represents the past weather or the future weather? The extreme shortcoming of the explanation is revealed by the reference to “popularly weather”, which may reflect the layman’s version reasonably, but not necessarily. If AMS Glossary actually says that popular weather exist –presumably- of five conditions, past weather consists of 10 conditions and present weather consists of 100 conditions it seems that this is nonsense talking. There is no such thing as small, medium, and big weather, with few, several, or many dynamo-physical atmospheric elements. Weather is either weather, or it is statistics on weather components. This lack of reasoning should by now be clear if the FAQ-1.2 states: “it is the statistics of changes in weather over time that identify climate change.” The sentence is faulty in many respect, and it is silly to speak about “statistics of change in weather”. This intervention might become clearer by discussing the two IPCC examples (above) about the difference between weather and climate.
EXAMPLE 1: IPCC is saying that projecting changes in long-term average weather (e.g. climate) is a much more manageable issue than to predict weather for longer than a few days.
EXAMPLE 2: As statistic is a useful tool to predict the probable life span of a human being, in analogy, statistical weather (e.g. average weather, or climate), can be predicted either, at least much better than a weather forecast for a couple of days.
The reasoning of the authors of the FAQ 1.2 on a difference between weather and climate, is an annoyance. It is a reckless attempt to misguide the general public and politics to believe that science is better and more reliable in climatology than in weather forecasting. At best it is wishful thinking, as the author’s reasoning produced empty terms and inconsequent explanations. It is particularly unfortunate that the discussed material is not the remote opinion of a few scientist, but obviously have the backing of vast majority of the scientific community, as none of the 500 Lead Authors and 2000 Expert Reviewers of the IPCC Report seem to have cared about the text. Atmospheric science should ensure that it defines and works with sufficient terms and definitions.
IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt,
M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
FAQ 1.2 /2007/ WG1 at : http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-1-2.html
Note to User
|Terms & Conditions