Blogs

  • News
  • |
  • Art
  • |
  • History
  • |
  • Food and Travel
  • |
  • Science
Dinosaur Tracking

Where paleontology meets pop culture

Hominid Hunting

Meet the members of the tangled human family tree

Innovations

How human ingenuity is changing the way we live

Surprising Science

Ideas, news and discoveries from the world of science


August 4, 2009

Weather vs. Climate

The temperature doesn’t tell you much about climate change (courtesy of flickr user jo3design)

The temperature doesn’t tell you much about climate change (courtesy of flickr user jo3design)

Seattle and the Pacific Northwest are frying under a heat wave this summer. In New York, it’s so cool that the New York Times has called it “the summer that isn’t.” And Texas is suffering under the most severe drought since the 1950s.

What does this all mean for climate change?

Absolutely nothing.

Every time we write about climate change, someone writes in saying that they are shocked that Smithsonian would perpetuate such a myth. Don’t we know about the record cold/snow/rain/etc. in Minnesota/North Carolina/Utah/etc.? Obviously, there are some people who do not understand the difference between weather and climate. Let’s start with the dictionary definitions:

Weather: the state of the atmosphere with respect to wind, temperature, cloudiness, moisture, pressure, etc.

Climate: the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years.

In short, weather is a data point. Climate is a collection of data.

You can think of it like the economy. I can tell you that the Dow is up 112.61 as I write this, at 9,284.22. This is the weather (partly sunny, 84 F). But it doesn’t tell you anything useful about the economy as the whole (like the weather conditions don’t tell you anything useful about climate). A graph of the Dow over the last year, showing a terrifying decline followed by a steady rise, begins to tell the story of the last year. But to get a true picture of the economy, we’ll need to look at lots of other bits of data, like consumer confidence, unemployment rates and durable goods orders. It’s complicated, messy and hard to understand. That’s climate.

Now, if you make changes to the country’s economic situation, for example, by raising taxes, that is going to have some effect on the economy as a whole. Economists will crunch the numbers and come out with predictions. They won’t all be the same, but they will probably trend toward some particular end.

Adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is akin to raising taxes. We’ve changed the climate situation. And while these climate models—which are far simpler than economic models and more certain—may not agree on the specifics, the general trend is that temperatures are going to rise.

And they have been rising. And more than that, we can already see the effects of that rise. Just read the magazine: We’ve featured melting glaciers, melting permafrost and changes in plant and animal distributions in the Andes and, closer to home, the Northeast, to name a few.

So please don’t write to us to say that we’re neglecting the latest weather superlative. We’re not. We just have our eyes on the bigger picture—climate.



***

Sign up for our free email newsletter and receive the best stories from Smithsonian.com each week.

6 Comments »

  1. Wolfgang Ortloff says:

    nice article but you can say it much shorter:
    Climate is what we expect
    Weather is what we get.

  2. stanley kimmel says:

    How can you say the temperatures have been rising, since they have been falling since 2000? CO2 is as beneficial as oxygen, without it we would all parish.

  3. Denis DuBay says:

    Stanley,

    A trend from 2000 to 2009 does not describe a climate. Look at this link to see what a trend in climate looks like for a more reasonable time period, the last 130 years.

    http://thisviewofearth.blogspot.com/2009/08/2009-year-to-date-land-and-sea.html

  4. [...] shocked by these results. Every time we write about anthropogenic climate change in the magazine or online, readers write to us saying that we’re [...]

  5. [...] increase in Britain over the next century. A better explanation would have involved explaining the difference between ‘weather’ and ‘climate’, whereby long-term trends (over thirty years) can change without necessarily being obvious in every [...]

  6. [...] how I explained it a couple years ago: In short, weather is a data point. Climate is a collection of [...]

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until Smithsonian.com has approved them. Smithsonian reserves the right not to post any comments that are unlawful, threatening, offensive, defamatory, invasive of a person's privacy, inappropriate, confidential or proprietary, political messages, product endorsements, or other content that might otherwise violate any laws or policies.

Spam protection by WP Captcha-Free

Advertisement



Follow Us

Travel with Smithsonian






Advertisement