Offshore Wind-parks and mild Winters.
IS THE CONTINUATION OF THE OCEANS BY OTHER MEANS"
by historical examples in 8 PPT/PDF
Climate - A
Never for layman! – For science it should soon!
Posted May 24,
First at on May 19, 2019:
The previous post on the topic - April 17, 2016 - here:
Let’s face it. Except on some religious and faith expressions the word climate has managed to become the most magical common term in modern time. Our previous post explained, that the word has a several thousand year’s history, but during the last few decades science uses it as ‘it fits best’ to underline the impression of competence, and in a similar way to scare the public and politions alike.
Let’s face it. Science, meteorology and climatology presumably understand something of the one hundred conditions composing the atmosphere currently, and also fairly correctly few days ahead, commonly called weather. Is this already the end of any consensus on the importance of weather and climate between the lay world and science?
· Yes with regard to weather! Not one ordinary man would ever see his “present weather as consisting of 100 possible conditions” (see AMS-definition, Fig.).
· Defiantly yes with regard to climate! The layman’s term is neither based on numerical statistics, nor would he ever consider “the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years, (see IPCC-definition, Fig.).
Let’s face it. The way the lay world understands and is using the words weather and climate is very different from the way science defines them an is presenting them in their scientific work to the general public. That they not even show any capability or willingness to see the huge discrepancy is a serious obstacle in a fair and fruitful climatic debate.
Let’s face the fact.
Science seems happy to use floppy definitions, if at all. Although the UNFCCC
(Climate Change Convention, 1992) is soon getting 30 years old, one never could
hear any complain, that the most fundamental terms weather and climate are not
defined, although numerous essays have been written on the subject. Here are
few essays analyzed about the term and processing of the UNFCCC:
Daniel Bodansky (I) - On the road to a Draft
Convention On Climate Change – Until December 1991
Daniel Bodansky (II) – 1993 – The Convention in
place – A Commentary
Daniel Bodansky (III) – 2004 – On how the FCCC
Roger. A. Pielke Jr. on: - Misdefining “climate
change”: consequences for science and action – 2005
J. F. Pulvenis explains UNFCCC (1994): No real
negotiations – Take it or leave it – Undeniable success.
Let’s face the fact. Science seems to have little interest in listening and learning, as the following example indicates. Ten years ago 18 of the most notable U.S. research organizations wrote an open letter to the Senators (in PDF) dated October 21, 2009, writing –inter alias - excerpts:
___As you consider climate change
legislation, we, as leaders of scientific organizations, write to state the
consensus scientific view.
In the letter of 236 words, ‘climate change’ appears seven times.
This letter got a reply by surface mail and online about three weeks later, dated November 12, 2009 (in PDF), expressing –inter alias- following concern (excerpts):
___ 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
By the way. The two open letters were posted by the website “The Air Vent - Because the world needs another opinion” by Jeff Id on November 13, 2009. Few days later the infamous hacker FOIA provided in comment No.10 a link to more than 1,000 emails and 3,000 other documents from the Climatic Research Unit from the University of East Anglia (UK). Did FOIA endorsed with his selection of the Jeff-Id post also concern with the climate definition? No one knows. FOIA was never identified. But “Climate Gate” (see: Wikipedia) took its course.
More on the FOIA story;
Note to User
|Terms & Conditions