Offshore Wind-parks and mild Winters.
IS THE CONTINUATION OF THE OCEANS BY OTHER MEANS"
by historical examples in 8 PPT/PDF
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: :
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.
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
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.
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:
Note to User
|Terms & Conditions