Weather vs Climate

Dear Readers of the Climate Column. Heaven to Betsy, here we are on climate column number 12. As you know the first columns had little to do with climate science, but with the psychology and how we form, or do not form, “informed” opinions. Then we shared the stories of climate scientists in a few history columns. Soon we will examine why 97+% of climate scientists are in near violent* agreement that climate change must be addressed. 

You may have wondered if I am just “inflating” my coverage area so I will not run out of something to write about. No, there are 26,500 scientifically verified lines of evidence describing climate change. There is plenty of information. Running out of interesting information does not worry me. I do not blame you for worrying, since this means you just might have to endure at least 26,500 more columns.

For those of you disinterested in the climate column there is reason for optimism. I may finally give up writing because I am horrible at it. You may agree with my assessment regarding the product. However, it is not the product I am frustrated with. I am frustrated with my efficiency. Here is my normal writing progression: Step one: decide on a “logical” course of action. I use the term logical very loosely here.  Then, I reread any appropriate information. A draft gets written. Then, the draft gets rewritten. Second, and most importantly, I submit the draft to my girlfriend. Then she says, “I have no idea what you are talking about. What the heck are you trying to tell people?” Third, I rewrite again. This time I attempt to put the work in logical order and rational form complete with transitions.  After her second reading, my girlfriend usually says, “Ok, now I understand”.  Forth, the work gets submitted to a pro for review. The professionally reviewed letter comes back with encouraging notes like, “very interesting”.  It also, invariably, arrives on my desktop bleeding out from red correction marks. Fifth, with grammar tourniquets and Band-Aids applied, and the final corrections made, it is sent to Andy. Sixth, I kick myself for not studying harder in elementary school. Proper use of our language should be easier.  Six steps, one letter.

With little space left to address something about climate, let’s differentiate between climate and weather. Climate is, at a minimum number of years, a thirty-year average of weather, temperature and precipitation.

Given that Spring has not sprung here in the U.P., you may wonder how our present weather relates to climate?  Let’s do this to start the conversation: Imagine a French woman packing to visit Minneapolis in April. Yeah, I know, what is the chance of that? But, please bear with me. She’s smart and goes to Wikipedia to get to know Minneapolis. She examines the climate data to decide what to wear. By the way, she will only pack one small carry-on to save money.  Minimalism rules!

She sees the average April high temperature in Minneapolis is 57.8 degrees F and that the low average temperature is 37.2 degrees F.  She decides to wear a sweater and light jacket.

Then she sees, in disbelief, the recorded April extreme high temperature of 95 degrees F. Then, even more shocked, she reads the recorded extreme low temperature of 2 degrees F.  Looks like she will be wearing a bikini with a long fur overcoat.  Viva La France!

As the climate changes we will still see great variations in temperature and, by the way, precipitation.  While the “average” temperature will inevitably get warmer, the variability will also increase.  Good luck packing for the next trip mademoiselle! 

Mark Twain might have summed things up best. “Climate is what we expect, weather is what we get.”  Meteorologists are challenged with forecasting our day to day weather. Climate Scientists will never forecast our day to day weather. They are, though, confident that our average temperatures will increase if we do nothing. Understanding variability is more difficult, but they are confident that our climate will be more variable. And, if nothing is done, the variability will be to the extreme. 

*Scientists are a mild-mannered bunch. I watched, in the documentary “Saving Snow”, a diminutive female scientist described the consensus of climate scientists, using the oxymoron, “in violent agreement”.  Her language reminded me of playing hockey and rugby in college. It was not unusual in these games to get leveled, violently. Listening to her say, “in violent agreement”, I had to chuckle. A second later I realized the tragedy of her statement. It encapsulates the emotional frustration that our scientists deal with daily. It seems few citizens listen or care. It was easier for me to deal with my frustration on the hockey rink or rugby field.  I could, at least, take the satisfaction of jamming gauze up my nose or spitting out a tooth, jumping over the boards or running onto the field, still intent on turning the game in our direction. How our scientists endure our current administration and they’re disregard for our brightest servants is beyond my imagination. 

Greyson Morrow