Talk:Climate

From Academic Kids

It seems to me that it is overkill to include the whole Köppen classification scheme in this article. Especially since it is said to one of several schemes. Is the Köppen scheme, "one of the most popular", "the most popular" or "de-facto standard". If it is not "de-facto standard", I think it should be moved to Köppen climate classification scheme, and then maybe a small summary could be left. --Dittaeva 14:51, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I agree and vote for moving. I think that the main climate page should only contain (besides the definition, of course) a brief explanation of the common "types" of climate, like the polar, temperate, subtropical and tropical climate as well as a note on (and links to) classification schemes, like the Koppen's or Thornthwaite's. Also, other info should IMHO be added, such as, what the "normal timeline" is, the climatic system and its components, a link to climate change and modelling, etc... Matt Borak 13:41, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

What is the boundary between climate and weather? I attended a talk on climate dynamics recently, and from what was said there, anything longer than a couple weeks is considered climate rather than weather. This article appears to deal only with the longest timescales and the differences in climate patterns between regions. Questions like "is this going to be an unusually dry summer in Pakistan?" also fall under the heading of climate. They certainly are not weather.

Also, there should be some mention of El Niño and La Niña as they are the best-understood climate phenomena.

I don't have time to fix this now (and I'm not sure I have the knowledge to do it properly) but I may return at some point to try. If not, let this note stand as an notice to those who run across it that this article is quite incomplete. Isomorphic 10:48, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

El Niño and La Niña would belong in the climate change article (since no one seemed to even discuss it until very recently), to which a link is provided as the bottom of the climate page. And so far as the Köppen scheme goes, as you can see it's not a simple matter, as under it there are nearly 100 possible designations a given place can have. --12:33, 21 Feb 2004 . . TOttenville8

But would you oppose moving the Köppen scheme? --Dittaeva 12:46, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

(William M. Connolley 12:18, 2004 Mar 4 (UTC)) The weather/climate boundary is seomwhat blurred. "climate" is usually defined as 30-y averages, when its defined. "anything longer than a couple weeks" is definitely the wrong boundary. Climate is something like the statistics of weather, over a period long enough for those stats to be stable. Individual El Ninos/Ninas are closer to weather than climate (ocean weather perhaps). The frequency of El Ninos would be climate.

Though I see your point, I'd rather disagree. There is nothing like 'stable statistics' and the period of time you use to average weather is completely arbitrary. There are e.g. attempts for seasonal predictions, trying to answer things like "what the next winter will be like (in terms of average - say monthly or seasonal - values of temprerature, precipit., etc.)?". I don't think this is weather. This is what I found at the IPCC glossary (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/518.htm):

Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the “average weather”, or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. The classical period is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). These quantities are most often surface variables such as temperature, precipitation, and wind. Climate in a wider sense is the state, including a statistical description, of the climate system.

However, I agree that the boundary could and should be specified in somewhat less confusing way. -- Matt Borak 18:19, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 22:14, 2004 Mar 4 (UTC)) I too see your point, but also disagree... you quote the IPCC, who say much what I said: the classic version is 30 years, but other periods are possible. As to climate being months upwards... I wouldn't go accept that, in a strict sense.

There *are* things like stable statistics.

I say that seasonal prediction is closer to weather than climate. It only works on a statistical basis (when I last looked season-ahead forecasting was poor... do you think its got better recently?).

All right, a step back. I perfectly agree on the 30 years period as the classic time-frame to study (and define) climate (aka "climate is what you expect, weather is what you get"). And, that variability of the atmosphere (and other components of the system) on shorter time-scales depends on the POV. To me (to give another loose division), weather are fluctuations that come from the internal atmospheric instabilities with the ocean (e.g.) serving as a relatively stable boundary condition (and I mean 'stable' in the given short time-frame), whereas climate involves interactions (one- or both-way) between the atmosphere and other components of the climatic system, influencing some or all of them. From such a POV, an individual ENSO event is rather a climatic phenomenon, though it may not touch the long-term averages. However, I agree that such an event does have weather-like characteristics. I just wanted to stress that climate is not only long-term averages but variability (even on shorter timescales) too. -- Matt Borak 10:59, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 11:36, 2004 Mar 5 (UTC)) Skipping the indenting... I agree with much of what you say, though I have a different definition of climate: weather is individual events; climate is the statistics of such events. Of course, that makes climate more than just averages, and anyway includes the average variability: the frequency of ENSOs as about 4-5 years is a climate statstic. Whether an individual ENSO is climate; or is a climate event... this is more debatable.

I think we now agree well enough that the text I've just added to the page is reasonable. You'll let me know if not, I'm sure...

Yeap, you bet I will :), even if I agree. The text seems much better than before and all right to me now. Thanks. I've made only tiny changes to it. Eventually, I would like to make a small addition, saying something like "climate can also be viewed as the state of the climatic system" linking to the article when it's made (by me, I presume...). -- Matt Borak 12:37, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)