Climatology! Do they know what they are doing?
The misery of the climate discussion already arises with a statement like this: Weather is not Climate. There are many various around, but topped by a title/sub-title in scientificamerican (Sept.04,2018) saying:
“Don’t Be Fooled: Weather Is Not Climate. But climate affects weather, [respectively]: Weather is affected by climate”. Simply speaking does that mean: Statistics affect the weather.”
That does not make sense, but the climate debate is moving within this framework. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate (IPCC) is a good example of this, because the IPCC clearly bases its definition on the statistic: ‘Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the average weather (cont)’, but does not say what weather is. So everyone can formulate their understanding of weather in a way that suits their understanding of climate. Or to put it another way, everyone can select one or more weather elements and phenomena from up to many dozens, determine the location, space and time period and create impressions or statistics from this data. This applies equally to all laypersons, politicians and scientists and makes the big climate change discussion so aggressive. What is permitted in the lay world, because it has been in daily use for thousands of years, must not be permitted in science.
In the layman’s sphere: Climate is the imaginary idea of an individual person, from a possible state of the atmosphere (weather), 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. (see: image) 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, according ‘imagination’, but never by statistical means. There are world apart how the word climate is used in the layman’s sphere since time immemorial, and in science in the last 50 years.
In the scientific sphere the views on the meaning of climate is numerous, with the almost single proximity to numerical statistics. That is too little and too superficial, as none rectifies to regard them as least scientifically helpful in any academic work, much less in big discussion of climate change between science, politics and the general public. Whether essay, book or very detailed glossaries from large institutes, the many suggestions do not help at all, but contribute to the very aggressive climate discussion.
The ‘International Meteorological Vocabulary’ of the World Meteorology Organization (WMO) is an example.
C1380 climatology
Study of the mean physical state of the atmosphere together with its statistical variations in both space and time as reflected in the weather behavior over a period of many years.
C0850 climate
Synthesis of weather conditions in a given area, characterized by long-term statistics (mean values, variances, probabilities of extreme values, etc.) of the meteorological elements in that area
W0410 weather
State of the atmosphere at a particular time, as defined by the various meteorological elements
M0950 meteorological element
Atmospheric variable or phenomenon which characterizes the state of the weather at a specific place at a particular time (e.g., air temperature, pressure, wind, humidity, thunder, storm, and fog).
In science rigor, clarity, objectivity is indispensable. The choice of words and the clarity of a definition must ensure that others can classify the topic and enable an evaluation. None of the WMO definitions meet this requirement.
If this is not possible with the time-honored layman’s term, then it is imperative not to use it. All the more so if it is not absolutely certain that the climate discussion sufficiently emphasizes all important aspects. The oceans and the effects of their industrial use are not recognizable. The outstanding meteorologist H.H. Lamp (1913–1997) regarded the definition of climate as “average weather” quite inadequate, mentioning that until recently, up to the 1960s, climatology was generally regarded as the mere dry-as-dust bookkeeping end of meteorology (NATURE, 1969).
The British philosopher John Locke (1632–1704) already meant: “The achievement of human knowledge is often hampered by the use of words without fixed signification”. In the case of the climate debate, the spongy and imprecise language of science is having a devastating effect.
More discussion at:
http://www.whatisclimate.com/
