The different definitions of climate, have done much to confuse policymakers in the discussion of climate science.
The American Meteorological Society (AMS) definition of “climate change” is
“(Also called climatic change.) Any systematic change in the long-term statistics of climate elements (such as temperature, pressure, or winds) sustained over several decades or longer. Climate change may be due to natural external forcings, such as changes in solar emission or slow changes in the earth’s orbital elements; natural internal processes of the climate system; or anthropogenic forcing.”
The AMS defines anthropogenic forcing as
“Human-induced or resulting from human activities; often used to refer to environmental changes, global or local in scale.
The AMS defines the climate system as the
“system, consisting of the atmosphere, hydrosphere, lithosphere, and biosphere, determining the earth’s climate as the result of mutual interactions and responses to external influences (forcing). Physical, chemical, and biological processes are involved in the interactions among the components of the climate system.”
Here we have an inconsistency with the definition even by a very distinguished professional society! Climate, as defined by the AMS, is focused on the atmosphere, while the climate system consists of the atmosphere, hydrosphere, lithosphere, and biosphere. No wonder policymakers misapply this terminology.
As one example of the misuse by policymakers, the Royal Society released the following statement by Lord May:
“The science points to the need for a Herculean effort to make massive cuts in the amount of greenhouse gases that we pump into the atmosphere. So, while this encouraging new deal may play a role in this, it will only be part, and not all, of the solution.
“But we have serious concerns that the apparent lack of targets in this deal means that there is no sense of what it is ultimately trying to achieve or the urgency of taking action to combat climate change. And the developed countries involved with this agreement must not be tempted to use it as an excuse to avoid tackling their own emissions.”
“All eyes should be on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Montreal at the end of November. Top of the agenda at this meeting should be the initiation of a study into what concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere we can allow without suffering the most catastrophic effects of climate change. This would allow us to plan cuts in worldwide emissions accordingly and provide direction to such efforts to tackle what is the biggest environmental threat we face today.”
Here the conclusion is made that to “combat climate change” we must initiate “a study into what concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere we can allow without suffering the most catastrophic effectsof climate change.”
Ignored in this statement is the role of the other anthropogenic climate forcings that we identified in the National Research Council report.
Lord May, President of the Royal Society, has clearly overlooked a very critical definition of what really constitutes the climate system and what the anthropogenic forcings and feedbacks are that influence climate. He is, unfortunately, cherrypicking climate science.
Sure, but given that this is a public policy debate and not a science symposium, isn’t it fair to emphasize the major climate change factor that is under our control?
Comment by Steve Bloom — July 30, 2005 @ 5:05 pm
Steve-thanks for your comment. Human climate forcings, however, include more than carbon dioxide emissions as described in the National Research Council Report (http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309095069/html,and summarized in my July 11th blog “What is Climate? Why Does it Matter how We Define Climate”. Each can be altered by deliberate human intervention (such as altering land management practices).
My son’s article in 2004 in the journal “Issues in Science and Technology” entitled “What is Climate Change” (http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resourse-486-2004.09.pdf) discusses why the definition of climate change matters in policy. The IPCC and the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC), for example, have different definitions of climate change.
Comment by Roger Pielke Sr. — July 31, 2005 @ 4:13 pm
I understand the issues faced by varying definitions of climate, but what about defining the actual ideal conditions of climate for the earth? In other words, what is the ideal climate/temperature/ghg content for the world and when exactly did that last occur and for how long and what “made” it change from that before man had such the influence ascribed to him today? Can we even define ideal climate or do we just arbitrarily pick some characteristics we like and call it ideal? If we can’t establish those ideals, how do we presume what is catastrophic and what is not? This seems like a most important, yet most complex order of business to me.
Is it not true that CO2 levels have been higher than 400 ppm for the vast majority of Earth’s biological history? In those terms, could the current 370 ppm levels of CO2 be considered deprivation by comparison and therefore catastrophically low?
Discussion of “catastrophic” changes brought on anthropogenically seems like cherry-picking to me. Catastrophic for whom? For example, do we ignore the amazing growing seasons we are having in the Midwest and hope to return to the day we can produce less food again and thus ironically depend on agricultural technology to an even greater extent? Everyday, some annoyance to someone or something somewhere is blamed on anthropogenic global warming, neglecting the facts that we’ve experienced increases in our populations, food supplies, life expectancies, decreased our infant mortality to nearly zero, etc… all within the last 100+ years that global warming has been considered increasingly more “catastrophic.” Who determines how we define positive and negative climate change… whoever happens to be uncomfortable? Adjusting the “thermostat” is way more complex than we can even fathom right now, is it not? Are we sure that turning it down isn’t actually turning it up or vice versa?
I also wanted to say thank you, Dr. Pielke, sir, for such an excellent and scientific blog among a sea of politics and pseudoscience. I learn something here everyday.
Comment by jeffrey jones — August 2, 2005 @ 2:12 pm
Jeffrey-thank you for your post and comment. With respect to what is an “ideal climate”, there is no single answer, as you correctly outline in your comment. The “ideal climate” depends on the needs (and for humans the value) of each component of the climate system. Climate, of course, is one reason people migrate to different locations (such as retirees moving to Florida)! One of the debates with respect to natural and human caused climate change has been who would be the “winners” and who would be the “losers” under different possible future climates. Research has not shown that there is any forecast skill of the future regional climates (see, for an example, the article by Mike MacCracken and colleagues entitled “Reliable regional climate model not yet on horizon”; http://blue.atmos.colostate.edu/publications/pdf/maccracken2004.pdf), so we cannot even start to answer the “winner” and “loser” question, since we need regional information. This is why we have proposed a focus on vulnerability (see Table 2 in http://www.igbp.kva.se/cgi-bin/php/frameset.php of the IGBP book for a summary of this perspective).
Comment by Roger Pielke Sr. — August 3, 2005 @ 11:22 am
That link for Table 2 doesn’t work too well due to the over-fancy site design. Instead use http://www.igbp.kva.se/uploads/PP_ExecSummary.pdf for the download and go to page 26.
My two cents on Jeffrey’s comment: I think the concern isn’t so much the exact climate we may be headed toward as the potential harm from the rapid pace of climate change. There is concern about harm of both the more-or-less predictable variety (as in, e.g., sea level rise or a loss of species due to too fast of a temperature increase) and about potential abrupt changes (as in, e.g., major methane hydrate releases or a halt in the thermohaline circulation). Broadly speaking, we are playing with the unknown. I would add that I haven’t heard anyone credible describing the climate change we have experienced thus far as “catastrophic.”
Comment by Steve Bloom — August 3, 2005 @ 10:49 pm
Abrupt Climate Changes and The Generating Factors
1. Natural factors have been the main cause of climate and geological changes since the formation of our Earth. These generate the global warming that we are experiencing today (a highly active mega-factor). During all the intermediary ice ages there were numerous periods of global warming that alternated with more or less severe local coolings. Global warming is produced by natural factors whose manifestation and evolution are not fully understood. The geological system of our planet is made up of tectonic plates through the movement of which the elements necessary to sustain the terrestrial habitat are regenerated. Displacements of tectonic plates are determined by the action of natural factors and processes that have been unfolding for billions of years.
2. Due to the existence of tectonic plates and of the iron central core (the behaviour of which is being influenced by natural factors), the Earth is also equipped with a protective magnetic field that had been generated billion of years ago by some natural factors that are very little known today. The changes in polarity and intensity of the magnetic terrestrial field have repercussions on ozone layer.
3. Solar activity unfolds according to natural laws. The sun accelerates or reduces global warming in accordance with the intensity of the magnetic modifications taking place inside it, with the explosions and particle winds that are released into space by its outer crown. Solar activity influences the terrestrial magnetic field.
4. The Schumann resonance is the frequency of the atmospheric stationary wave generated by the assembly of the electric and electromagnetic phenomena in the atmosphere. This indirectly determines behaviour modifications in humans and in animals. Although there is a connection between the terrestrial magnetic field and the intensity of this stationary wave, the characteristics of the Schumann resonance are conditioned by the unitary assembly of natural factors, which are partly unknown.
5. The existence of polar caps favours the re-circulation of important quantities of fresh water in the biosphere. The planetary ocean is part of a complex system transporting the heat to various areas of the dry land with the help of salinity and temperature ocean streams. This system forms the global thermohaline circuit.
6. Today global warming produces the accelerated melting of polar caps. This leads to the perturbation of the thermohaline ocean circuit. The solar explosions and spots contribute to the melting of polar and ice caps. The melting of the polar caps leads to the rise of the planetary ocean’s level. The rise of water temperature favours even more this fact due to dilatation.
7. Paradoxically, with global warming the disturbed climate system generates local abrupt cooling phenomena. Local abrupt cooling phenomena are increased especially by the perturbation of the thermohaline circuit.
8. The methane gas is found in the ground, underground and especially under the crust of the oceans in high quantities, as a result of the dissolution of the woody material during the geological eras. The oceans as well as the caps (during their melting) release methane gas from natural hydrates. The methane gas released by the oceans is amplifying the greenhouse effect, thus generating global warming.
9. So oceans undergo modifications as a result of global warming and thus the former becomes more dynamic. Oceans dissolve high quantities of carbon dioxide, another essential greenhouse gas. Because of the amplification of the dynamics of meteorological phenomena, of the more and more abrupt variations of temperature and salinity of the oceans these try to compensate the above-mentioned modifications by absorbing and respectively releasing in some areas very high quantities of carbon dioxide. This way either oceans become too acid for the plancton, algae and corrals or the atmosphere remains too charged with carbon dioxide which generates a greenhouse effect by warming the oceans and intensifying the evaporation rate.
10. Over the last years, volcanoes have intensified their activity under the action of the more and more severe displacements of tectonic plates. Global volcanoes and tectonics generate earthquakes and mega-quakes, the number and intensity of which rise every year. Mega-quakes produce extreme weather phenomena such as tsunamis. Earthquakes, but especially megaquakes intensely disturbe sea and ocean waters by amplifying the release of greenhouse gases from under the ocean crusts. Together with the anthropic factor, volcanoes are a source of pollution.
11. The anthropic component of pollution generates global warming and the volcanic one produces warming as well as local abrupt cooling (which are the result of aerosols). This perturbating factor, together with the warming and rising of oceans’ acid level influences algae, corrals and plancton which form the delicate natural system of climate thermoregulation, discovered by the world known biologist Bill Hamilton.
12. Perturbation of the climate thermoregulation system, excessive evaporation of ocean water as a result of global warming, abrupt local cooling, modification of the Schumann atmospheric resonance and pollution generate the assembly of extreme weather phenomena we are experiencing at present.
13. The dramatic modifications of the oceans accelerate to a certain extent the movement of tectonic plates thus generating a worrying process of self-sustainability.
14. In this complex assembly of factors there may also be mentioned modifications of the rotation axis of the Earth’s surface and of the inner iron core, equatorial obesity and perturbations of the ozone layer.
15. The melting of the ice caps generates equatorial obesity because of the migration of the melted ice mass to lower latitudes. This favours to a certain extent global warming, determining at the same time slight variations of the rotation axis of the Earth.
16. If we add to this system of factors the influence of mega-quakes on the variation of the rotation axis wobbling then we may notice the formation of a global reaction that is continuously amplifying. The cumulated effect of this reaction is represented by the very extreme weather phenomena.
17. The most recent scientific observations have highlighted some perturbations of the inner iron core of the globe that produce in their turnfluctuations of the magnetic field. The modifications of unknown origin of the speed, direction and wobbling of the inner iron core add a new influence on the Schumann resonance of the atmospheric stationary wave which accentuates in its turn the exaggerated atmospheric electrifications, the rise of electrical discharges, thunderstorms etc. The dynamic changes of the inner core are responsible at a certain extent for the amplification of the equatorial obesity phenomenon.
18. The pollution generated by volcanoes and humanity, fluctuations of the earth magnetic field and of the solar activity disturb the ozone layer. This favours the appearance of noxious cosmic radiations and of the solar particle wind in the lower atmospheric layers endangering thus the biosphere.
Cristian Muresanu,
Romanian Television
Comment by Cristian Muresanu — February 21, 2006 @ 4:59 am
Interesting stuff. Just a few initial points - melting ice caps - a comment I saw from Dr. Craig Loehle: How do we reconcile one report showing increased dumping of ice from Greenland into the ocean (which supposedly means the ice is melting) with another showing the ice sheet thickening? Simple. Glaciers move because of increased pressure from above. If you increase the amount of snow in the interior, it will increase movement downslope. It can be simultaneously true that there is more loss at the ocean and more build up in the interior because the snow input is large enough for both. We would not conclude from increase river flow that an upstream lake was draining–usually both lake levels and river levels rise together (in extreme cases we call this a flood). The same is true for rivers of ice.
Oceans becoming ‘acidic’ - you mean becoming slightly less alkaline - an ocean pH change of around 8.25 to 8.14 over 250 years.
Thermohaline circulations - such as the Gulf Stream - are driven by the earth’s rotation, winds, as well as density driven forces, gravity etc:
http://earth.usc.edu/~stott/Catalina/Oceans.html
Comment by Paul Biggs — February 22, 2006 @ 2:53 pm
According to this, MacCracken’s off base in the link on #4 about fresh water runoff, unless what will happen in the US is the opposite of the rest of the world.
Of course, the alarmists will spin anything their way…
Less runoff is bad, and more runoff is bad???
Comment by Steve Hemphill — February 23, 2006 @ 10:47 pm
See the URL: http://predictingquakes.rediffblogs.com
Read the comments after the main article. Especially the one attributing extreme climate change to quakes. The giant surge waves of forces and bending moments caused by Indian dams can cause enough frictional heat to upset the temperature regime of the oceans leading to hurricanes also. See the URL on dams given in the URL mentioned here on quake prediction. The scientists should be generous and participate in these informed discussions to arrive at comprehensive verifiable conclusions about man-made natural disasters.
Comment by R. Ashok Kumar — March 18, 2006 @ 9:47 am
To what extent is climate an environmental resourse?
Comment by o.banda — April 7, 2006 @ 8:10 am
To what extent is climate an environmental resourse?
Comment by Mwenya. M — April 7, 2006 @ 8:12 am