WordPress
http://oceansgovernclimate.com/                                                              http://1ocean-1climate.com/         



February 2015

Offshore Wind-parks and mild Winters.
Contribution from Ships, Fishery, Windparks etc.
Online - HERE


./.
 

"CLIMATE IS THE CONTINUATION OF THE OCEANS BY OTHER MEANS"
see: NATURE 1992, “Climate Change”, Vol. 360, p. 292; http://www.whatisclimate.
com/1992-nature.html

Explained by historical examples in 8 PPT/PDF  lectures at:
http://climate-ocean.com/
 



 Overview below >GO<
./.

 



Reference links :

www.bernaerts-sealaw.com

www.arctic-warming.com

www.1ocean-1climate.com

www.seaclimate.com
How Spitsbergen Heats the World
NEW 2009
www.arctic-heats-up.com

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


More discussion at the following links:
HERE: http://www.whatisclimate.com/b206_need_to_talk_July_2010.html
HERE: http://www.whatisclimate.com/b202-open-letter.html
HERE http://www.whatisclimate.com/who_rules_the_climate.html
HERE http://www.whatisclimate.com/conditions-for-the-protection-of-the-global-climate.html

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
 
 

New 2019

2019_b_AMS vs IPCC

2019_a_big issue

2019_z_all


2014_IPCC

2014_Pielke Sr

2014_All

Chronicle
Archive

archive 2012
 
archive 2011
 
archive 2010

 
archive 2009

 
archive 2008
 


archive 2007


 

Want to comment?
Email us!


 

Previous archives Year 2010
Year 2009


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

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