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.