From the bottom of the ocean to the surface of the Sun, instruments on weather stations, buoys, satellites, and other platforms collect climate data. To learn about past climates, scientists use natural records, such as tree rings, ice cores, and sedimentary layers. Historical observations, such as native knowledge and personal journals, also document past climate change. Jump to “Environmental observations are the foundation for understanding the climate system”
   Search this Site
Culture, Climate Science & Education
Click the Double Arrows () to Explore this Principle
Principle Six: Understanding Climate
The Cultural Values are Observing and Listening
Episode Six: The Chokecherry Month
Episode 6: The Month of Chokecherry
Transcript with Description of Visuals
Audio |
Visual |
---|---|
Soft instrumental music: |
Flying above the Flathead River on a clear, bright day. The sky is blue, and the river’s waters are a deep blue-green. |
I have grown up on this land like my Sileʔ and his Sileʔ and his Sileʔ. |
A jagged rocky peak. The focal point of the camera gradually shifts and, as the mountains go out of focus, a branch with chokecherries comes into focus. |
Alyssa’s grandfather, Johnny Arlee: |
A hand reaches up to pick some of the small round cherries. |
"It's been years since I saw you. "I'm glad that I'm alive, and I ask you to pray for my family, for all the people, that they get enough food for them to eat for the year." |
Alyssa, her grandfather, and her mother stand beneath the chokecherry bush. Her grandfather holds a single chokecherry. |
That's your prayer, you're giving thanks to the berry for our supply for the year. |
Johnny hands the cherry to Alyssa, and she puts it in her mouth. |
Alyssa: |
Alyssa and her mother picking chokecherries and placing them into small cedar-bark baskets tied to their waists. |
Across seasons, years, decades, and even centuries. |
A limb loaded with chokecherries. |
But my Sileʔ says its more than all this. That our relationship to this place, to its land and water, is in the heart of the people. |
Alyssa, her grandfather, and mother beneath the chokecherry bush, her grandfather holding a single cherry. Alyssa smiles. |
In the Salish language, our name for September means month of chokecherry. |
Alyssa’s mother pours chokecherries from one of the small cedar baskets into a hand-crank grinder. |
But now, chokecherries are ripe in mid to early August. |
Alyssa’s mother grinding chokecherries into a bowl. |
Our name for August means month of huckleberry. Now we pick huckleberries in July. It is that way with all of our foods. |
Johnny and Alyssa sit at a table. In front of them are two cedar baskets full of chokecherries, and in front of those, dried cakes of ground chokecherries. |
The plants, the fish, and the animals. Our calendar, thousands of years old, is shifting. |
Alyssa’s mother cooking chokecherries in a stainless steel pot on a stove. |
My Sileʔ teaches us to hang on to the beauty and strength of our culture through this time of rapid change. |
Alyssa’s grandfather, Alyssa, and Rylee sit at a table as Alyssa’s mother serves them bowls of chokecherry soup. Alyssa’s mother then joins them with her own bowl, and they begin to eat. |
(fire crackling) |
The following credits in white text over a black background: |
Principle 6
What You Need to Know About Principle 6: Understanding Climate
Our understanding of the climate system is improved through observations, theoretical studies, and modeling. When it comes to climate, how do scientists know what they know? While studies indicate that climate researchers virtually all agree that human activities are altering the climate system, the general public is under the impression that scientists are still debating whether or not humans are through their activities changing climate. You might wonder why this is. Here’s a clue: politics and money—neither of which are science— have played a big role in shaping public beliefs. This principle concerns key elements of climate studies and the "self-correcting" peer review process. Click the tabs below to learn more:
click the tabs to open
- We can understand and predict the behavior of the climate system
The components and processes of Earth’s climate system are subject to the same physical laws as the rest of the Universe. Therefore, the behavior of the climate system can be understood and predicted through careful, systematic study. Jump to “We can understand and predict the behavior of the climate system”
- Environmental observations are the foundation for understanding the climate system
- Observations, experiments, and theory are used to construct and refine computer models of the Climate System
The models represent the climate system and make predictions about its future behavior. Results from these models lead to better understanding of the linkages between the atmosphere-ocean system and climate conditions and inspire more observations and experiments. Over time, this process of running the model, making more observations, and conducting experiments, then refining the model and running it again results in more and more reliable projections of future climate conditions. Jump to “Observations and experiments are used to construct and refine climate models”
- Our understanding of climate differs in important ways from our understanding of weather.
Climate scientists’ ability to predict climate patterns months, years, or decades into the future is constrained by different limitations than those faced by meteorologists in forecasting weather days to weeks into the future. Jump to “Our understanding of climate differs in important ways from our understanding of weather”
Principle 6a
We Can Understand and Predict the Behavior of the Climate System
The Earth’s climate system is subject to the same physical laws as the rest of the Universe. Therefore, the behavior of the Earth’s climate can be understood and predicted through careful, systematic study.
But it is not uncommon for the topic of climate change to be intermixed with politics in general discussions and sometimes the politics overtake the science. Read more…
We Can Understand and Predict the Behavior of the Climate System
The Earth’s climate system is subject to the same physical laws as the rest of the Universe. Therefore, the behavior of the Earth’s climate can be understood and predicted through careful, systematic study.
But it is not uncommon for the topic of climate change to be intermixed with politics in general discussions and sometimes the politics overtake the science.
This is understandable because climate change carries weighty implications for public policy, and politicians like Al Gore have taken a very visible role in calling for greater action and understanding. Nevertheless, climate science stands apart from politics.
The scientific process works the same for every type of science (medicine, biology, physics, chemistry, astronomy, and climate) whether that science is viewed by the public as politicized or noncontroversial. Scientific organizations like NASA and NOAA are increasingly making climate data available online, which is one way for citizens to gain insight into the scientific process. If you are unsure of what someone is saying is a fact about the climate, you can look up the data and what scientists are saying. Just make sure that you visit a reputable and credible source (one of the most important skills you learn in school is how to think critically about sources of information). Here are three of the best and most credible sites on climate: The National Climate Assessment; GlobalChange.gov; and Global Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
watch the video and compare the work scientists do to understand the climate with that of politicians and pundits
How Do We Know That?
How do scientists know the world is warming?
Scientists around the world have been keeping temperature records for more than a century measuring temperatures on land at more than four thousand locations
and in the sea, currently using more than three thousand floating thermometers.Scientists measure temperatures in the upper atmosphere using weather balloons and monitor the Earth’s temperature from space using satellites.
Comparing all the different measurements, scientists concluded that despite geographical differences and fluctuations over time the global average temperature has increased significantly since 1900 and is still rising.
A warming world leads to other changes in the environment. Scientists have observed plants and trees flowering earlier in the year and both animals and insects changing their breeding and migration habits.
Higher temperatures also melt ice. Arctic sea ice has decreased rapidly and 90% of glaciers are shrinking. When ice melts on land most of the water flows into the oceans.
Water also expands as it warms up, and both these effects make sea levels rise. Scientists have measured rising sea level using tide gauges and satellites. All these changes provide yet more evidence that the world is warming.
What's the evidence humans are causing climate change?
Measurements show global temperature is rising. Scientists examined the effects of natural factors on the climate over the 20th century and found that these can account for a slight rise in temperature in the early 1900s.
But even a combination of natural factors cannot account for the rise of 0.5 °C observed since 1970.
So what’s causing global warming?
Measurements show an increase in the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide (CO2) in particular. By examining the ratios of different types, or isotopes, of carbon scientists confirmed that the increase was caused by human activities, especially burning fossil fuels.
Scientists know from basic physics that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere means more heat gets trapped near the Earth’s surface and less escapes out to space. This extra trapped heat should warm the planet up.
And global warming caused by increased CO2 and other greenhouse gases should follow certain patterns, distinguishing it from warming caused by natural factors such as the Sun. For example, higher latitudes should warm faster than average, winter temperatures should rise faster than summer temperatures and while the atmosphere near the surface should warm up the upper atmosphere should actually cool down.
Most observed patterns of warming are consistent with what scientists expect from CO2-induced temperature increases. When scientists added the effects of human activities to those of natural factors, the results matched the observed global warming trend.
Many independent lines of evidence consistently point to humans being the main cause of climate change since 1970.
How do scientists predict future climate change?
Scientists predict future climate change in several different ways – using basic physics studying past climate changes using
proxies such as tree rings and ice cores, and simulating the climate with computer models.But why do scientists think the world will keep warming?
In the late 1800s, scientists noticed that burning fossil fuels was releasing carbon dioxide – CO2 – and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
They knew from basic physics that CO2 traps heat and wondered if increasing CO2 would warm the planet.
By calculating how much heat the extra CO2 would trap, scientists predicted a significant rise in global temperature.
Later, scientists began to use proxies such as tree rings and ice cores to find out how the climate responded to natural changes in the past.
From this, scientists again predicted that increasing CO2 would cause a significant rise in global temperature.
Today, supercomputers perform trillions of calculations each second, enabling scientists to create sophisticated computer models that simulate the Earth’s climate. Scientists use these models to help them understand how the climate could respond to different amounts of CO2 increase.
If emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases keep increasing at the current rate, global temperature is expected to rise between 2°C and 6°C by 2100.
This doesn’t sound like much, but a 5°C change is the difference between the current warm period and an ice age.
Source: www.sciencemuseum.org.uk
Principle 6b
Environmental Observations are the Foundation for Understanding Climate and How it is Changing
From the bottom of the ocean to the surface of the Sun, instruments on weather stations, buoys, satellites, and other platforms collect climate data. To learn about past climates, scientists use natural records, such as tree rings, ice cores, and sedimentary layers. Historical observations, such as Native American knowledge and personal journals, also document past climate change. View some of these scientists at work.
Read more…
Environmental Observations are the Foundation for Understanding Climate and How it is Changing
From the bottom of the ocean to the surface of the Sun, instruments on weather stations, buoys, satellites, and other platforms collect climate data. To learn about past climates, scientists use natural records, such as tree rings, ice cores, and sedimentary layers. Historical observations, such as Native American knowledge and personal journals, also document past climate change. View some of these scientists at work.
Scientists rely on accurate, standardized measurements to study change, whether those changes are in weather, climate, organisms or the solar system beyond Earth. Today there are arrays of sophisticated instruments on the ground, in and under the water, in the air, and in space above the planet recording data about the planet. While there are some gaps in the data coverage, in many areas the biggest challenge is actually the storage and analysis of the terabytes of data streaming off satellites and other instruments.
Not long ago, too much data was not the problem. In the United States, the Weather Bureau, (now the National Weather Service which is part of NOAA) was founded in 1870, and the International Meteorological Organization (now the World Meteorological Organization), was established a few years later, in 1873. It took decades before there was a network of weather stations in the United States and even longer before worldwide recording and storing of data about temperature and precipitation ensued. Satellite measurements of the Earth’s climate system began in the 1970s. In addition today, cooperative networks (such as the Community Collaborative Rain, Hail & Snow Network) coordinating thousands of volunteers help fill in the spatial gaps and allow scientists to better understand global and regional dynamics of climate and microclimates.
Use the sliders to compare the images
Muir Inlet, Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, Alaska
Repeat Photography of Glaciers
One type of environmental observation to detect how the climate is changing is to study glaciers. Most glaciers have been relatively stable for thousands of years but are now shrinking and disappearing. The U.S. Geological Survey uses repeat photography to detect these changes, comparing photos taken in the past (mid to early in the last century) with those taken in recent years (during this century). You can use the sliders on the photos below to see how (from left to right) the Eliot Glacier on Mount Hood and the Emmons Glacier on Mount Rainier have changed over time.
The Study of Climate
Source: http://www.scienceclarified.com/scitech/Global-Warming/The-Study-of-Climate-Change.html
Scientists learn about climate and how it has changed by studying climates of the past. By analyzing changes that have occurred in the earth's temperature over time, scientists can gain a better understanding of global warming, and make determinations about its possible causes.
Scientists have discovered ways to study the earth's climate, going back as far as thousands, or even millions, of years. Those who specialize in studying ancient climates are known as paleoclimatologists, a name derived from the Greek root word paleo , which means ancient. Paleoclimatologists use natural elements in the environment to find "proxy climate data" related to the past. When they study these types of data, these scientists typically use several different methods, so they are assured of forming the most accurate analysis possible.
Tree Rings Tell a Story
One way that paleoclimatologists unlock the secrets of ancient climates is by studying the rings in certain types of trees, such as the redwoods and giant sequoias found in California and different varieties of pines. As a tree grows, it adds a new layer of wood to its trunk every year. This forms a ring, and the age of the tree can be determined by counting the number of these annual growth rings.
Many trees live to be hundreds of years old, and some live for thousands of years. The oldest trees on Earth are the bristlecone pines, many of which are found in the Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest in California's White Mountains. The average age of these trees is 1,000 years, and a few are more than 4,000 years old. In 1964, before there were environmental laws to protect ancient trees, a particular bristlecone pine named Prometheus was cut down. After analyzing the tree's rings, scientists determined that the tree had been 4,862 years old—the oldest living thing on Earth.
Paleoclimatologists can learn more than just the age of a tree by studying its rings. They can determine what sort of climate conditions existed during its life by analyzing the thickness of each tree ring. Thick rings are a sign of favorable climate, abundant rainfall, and good growing conditions. Thin rings indicate poor growing conditions and lack of rain, as well as natural disasters such as droughts, floods, and volcanoes.
Samples from trees can be obtained in several different ways. Scientists do not want to needlessly destroy living trees, so they cut cross sections only from dead trees, logs, or stumps. These can be found intact on the ground, buried deep in the ground, or submerged in water. Tree remnants that have been buried for hundreds or even thousands of years have been found and analyzed. For samples from living trees, scientists use a tool known as an increment borer to drill a thin hole into the trunk. Then, a core sample of wood about the size of a drinking straw is extracted for analysis. This boring does not cause damage to the tree because when the sample has been removed, the tree naturally closes the small opening just as it would close a wound caused by insects or weather.
Tree rings like these not only tell scientists the age of the tree, but they also provide a record of climate change over the centuries.
Once the wood samples are obtained, scientists return to the laboratory to measure and date them. Cross sections of dead trees are often old and brittle; and scientists may need to glue pieces together—or mount them on a hard wooden surface—for added protection. Cores that are taken from living trees are soft, so they must be dried before being mounted for examination. The next step is to sand the samples or trim them with razor blades to produce a smooth surface that makes the fine details of the rings more visible. Then scientists can examine the samples under a microscope and record their findings about the tree's history.
Clues Beneath the Water
Another way paleoclimatologists analyze historical climates is by studying samples of varves—layers of silt and clay that are deposited year after year on the bottoms of glacial lakes and ponds. Varves provide natural climate records going back several thousand years. They consist of two layers: a thick, light-colored layer of silt and fine sand that forms in the spring and summer, and a thinner, dark-colored layer of clay that forms in the fall and winter and sinks to the bottom.
Varve thickness varies from year to year, usually according to the climate and the amount of rain that falls during a particular season. For example, when temperatures are especially hot and dry and there is little rain, less soil is washed into the water, and the varve layers are thinner. On the other hand, when spring and summer rains are heavy, a greater amount of soil is washed into lakes and ponds, and this causes thicker varves. Paleoclimatologists collect varve samples by using long, hollow tubes to drill into the soft bottoms of lakes and ponds. Once they extract this material, they analyze the different layers that have been deposited over time.
Clues about ancient climates are not found only in bodies of freshwater such as lakes and ponds, but are also buried in sediment that has settled in the earth's deep oceans. Robert B. Gagosian says that by studying these sediments, called deep-sea cores, scientists can reconstruct the history of ocean climates spanning thousands of years. He describes this research, and explains why it is so important: Preserved in the sediments are the fossil remains of microscopic organisms that settle to the seafloor. They accumulate over time in layers . . . that delineate many important aspects of past climate. For instance, certain organisms are found only in colder, polar waters and never live in warmer waters. They can reveal where and when cold surface waters existed—and didn't exist—in the past. From records like these, we know that about 12,800 years ago, North Atlantic waters cooled dramatically—and so did the North Atlantic region. This large cooling in Earth's climate . . . lasted for about 1,300 years. This period is called the Younger Dryas, and it is just one of several periods when Earth's climate changed very rapidly from warm to cold conditions, and then back to warm again. 8
To gather data from oceans, scientists spend two to three months on research cruises. Using highly specialized equipment, they remove samples of deep-sea cores from beneath the surface of the ocean floor. These long cylinders of sediment provide valuable evidence about changes in ocean temperatures that were caused by fluctuations in climate.
Scientists also gather and study sediment from different bodies of water to gather pollen. This powdery substance, produced by flowering plants each growing season, is carried in the wind, and billions of grains of it end up buried at the bottoms of lakes, ponds, rivers, and oceans. The oldest pollen becomes fossilized, and is often found in sedimentary rocks that have formed over thousands of years. Since all plant species produce their own unique type of pollen, scientists can tell what plants grew during certain periods in the earth's history. Also, they can make accurate estimates about changes in climate. This is because for every type of pollen, certain habitat conditions would have been necessary for that particular kind of plant to survive and thrive.
Marine fossils such as these provide clues about climatic conditions during the fossilized creatures' lifetime.
Underwater Cities
Coral reefs can also provide important clues to climates of the past. There are many different types of corals, but "stony corals" build huge reefs in warm, tropical seas. Coral reefs are made up of millions of tiny animals called coral polyps, which are cousins of the jellyfish. Although polyps differ in size, they are usually quite small—about the size of a pinhead. The polyps form protective skeletons by extracting calcium carbonate—the same material that is found in teeth, bones, and shells—from the salty, tropical ocean waters in which they live. As the skeletons grow, coral reefs are formed, and become as hard as rocks. These huge structures are often called underwater cities because they are the largest biologically built structures on Earth.
Coral reefs have grown to gigantic proportions over the centuries. Scientists study a reef's layers to learn about long-term climate changes.
Every time a piece of coral skeleton is created, it leaves a record of the conditions under which it was created. For instance, when water temperatures change, the chemistry (or makeup) of the skeletons also changes. The result is that coral formed in the summer looks different than coral formed in the winter, so it is easy for paleoclimatologists to know in which season the coral was formed. As coral reefs grow, growth bands form that are very much like the growth rings found in trees. Sometimes these bands are visible to the naked eye, and sometimes scientists can only see the bands by x-raying them.
To gather samples of coral, scientists go on diving expeditions in tropical areas, where they search for massive coral reefs built by stony coral. Using drills that are connected to a compressor mechanism on a ship, the divers extract cores of the coral, much the same way cores are extracted from trees. Their goal is to drill in areas where the most growth has occurred, as the NOAA explains: "Think of the coral's structure as being very similar to an onion sliced in half, with a new ring added each year. If you wanted to drill into an onion to sample as many rings as possible, you would core from the surface directly towards the center. This is exactly how scientists go about getting as long a sample as possible from each coral." 9
Once scientists have carefully extracted the cores, they label and box them for shipment to their laboratories. There they x-ray the coral to examine the growth bands, which helps them determine the seasons in which the corals grew. With this proxy climate data, paleoclimatologists can analyze how climates fluctuated in the reef over hundreds of years.
Unlocking Secrets in Ancient Ice
Just as scientists gain clues about climate from warm, tropical seas, they can also gather knowledge from the coldest places on the earth. In fact, some of the most revealing indicators of historical climates come from studies of glaciers and ice sheets in the world's polar regions. To gather samples of ancient ice, scientists travel to remote areas of Antarctica, where temperatures can dip as low as -129 degrees Fahrenheit.
Massive ice domes, ice sheets, and glaciers are found in the Arctic and in Antarctica. These ice formations developed over hundreds of thousands of years as layers of snow pressed together. More precipitation continued to pile on top of the snow, squeezing the layers and slowly forming ice. As the layers accumulated, air bubbles were trapped inside, forming distinct lines that can be counted as easily as tree rings. Scientists examine the layers to determine the age of the ice and the approximate climate during a given period. They can also tell how much snow fell during a year, as well as what kind of air, dust, volcanic material, and other microscopic particles—including pollution—existed at the time the ice sheets were formed.
About 98 percent of the world's ancient ice is located in the polar regions, and most scientists choose to focus on those areas when they study ice. Others, however, believe that ice from tropical areas is even more crucial in order to understand how climates have changed over time. Lonnie Thompson is a glaciologist who studies ancient ice in areas such as South America and Africa. These regions have hot, tropical climates, but they also have very high mountain ranges where ice sheets and glaciers can be found. Thompson sometimes climbs mountains three or four miles high. On one expedition, he and his team worked for three weeks at an altitude above twenty-three thousand feet.
Thompson's work is challenging as well as dangerous. With the help of local porters and animals called yaks, he and his team haul about six tons of equipment to the top of a mountain. There they must endure bone-chilling cold, the threat of avalanches, and such high altitudes that it is hard to breathe. There is also the risk of frequent windstorms. One particularly fierce storm knocked Thompson's tent from its moorings and nearly blew him off a mountain.
This mammoth Antarctic glacier dwarfs the scientist at its base. Glacial ice cores give scientists a historical record of climate changes.
During a typical expedition, Thompson and his team accumulate about four tons of ice samples, which means they must drag ten tons of equipment back down the mountain. He says it is well worth the effort, though, and he explains why he thinks ice is the best possible archive of the history of the earth's climate: "Understanding how the climate system works and has worked in the natural system is absolutely essential for any prediction of what's going to happen to the climate in the future." 10 Thompson adds that by examining ancient ice, scientists can determine climate conditions and changes over thousands of years in the past.
Whether they explore ice domes in Antarctica, glaciers in Tibet, or ice sheets at the top of Africa's Kilimanjaro, scientists gather samples by using powerful drills to bore into the ice. The deeper the drill goes—and that can be several miles—the further it travels back in time. (Thompson's oldest ice sample is more than seven hundred thousand years old.) After drilling, scientists extract cores of ice and carefully package them in insulated containers, so the samples can be sent to their laboratories for analysis. Thompson says that by collecting ice samples, scientists can compile a frozen history of the earth.
Modern Instruments for Measuring
The reason scientists use proxy climate data obtained from ice, trees, coral reefs, and other products of nature is because they want to understand what the earth's climate was like long ago. Scientists use these types of data along with modern devices so they can learn more about how climate has changed over time, as well as how historical and current climates compare with each other.
Thermometers, which measure temperatures of the earth's surface, have been used to determine climate for only about 130 years. Some scientists, like Dr. S. Fred Singer, who is an atmospheric physicist, question the accuracy of thermometers because they are often used near cities, which are warmer than open country. Singer explains his views: "You have to be very careful with surface record. . . . As cities expand, they get warmer. And therefore they affect the readings. And it's very difficult to eliminate this—what's called the urban heat island effect." 11
Dr. John Firor, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, says it is true that cities are generally warmer than open country. He adds, however, that thermometers can provide accurate measurements even in cities, and he explains how: One can find empty holes in the ground—abandoned oil wells, for instance—and put down a long line of thermometers. This allows measurement of the temperature of soil or rocks many levels down. The reason this works is because over time, the warmth at the surface is conducted to deeper levels. So, the temperature deep down in the hole relates to the surface temperature of long ago. This is also true when the surface is cold—the coolness is conducted down over time. Many holes have been measured in recent years, and what we've found is that the record of past temperatures confirms what is measured from carefully placed surface thermometers. 12
Watching from Space
A highly sophisticated way of monitoring the earth's climate is through the use of satellites. Since the 1950s, NASA satellites have been observing Earth's atmosphere, oceans, land, snow, and ice from high in space. The data they provide can help scientists develop a better understanding of how these different elements interact with each other to influence climate and weather.
One example is Terra , a satellite that was launched by NASA in 1999. Terra , named after the Latin word for land, is about the size of a small school bus, and its mission is to circle Earth for about six years. The satellite is fitted with a variety of sensitive instruments that are designed for specific purposes, such as measuring the chemical composition of clouds and gauging the temperature of the land. Terra 's MICR instrument has nine separate digital cameras that take pictures of Earth from different angles, while its MOPITT instrument uses light sensors to measure concentrations of methane gas and carbon monoxide, two heat-trapping gases. The satellite's instrument MODIS measures cloud cover and also monitors changes in Earth due to fires, earthquakes, droughts, or flooding. An instrument called CERES measures both incoming energy from the sun and reflected energy from Earth and studies the role that clouds play in this energy balance.
In the spring of 2002, NASA launched another satellite called Aqua , whose mission is to gather information about the earth's bodies of water. Aqua will circle the planet every sixteen days for six years, and its sophisticated instruments will measure such things as global precipitation, evaporation, humidity, and ocean circulation. This data will help scientists better understand the balance between the earth's oceans, land, and atmosphere, as well as how global climate change influences this balance.
The Aqua satellite gathers data about a hurricane visible on Earth's surface. Aqua 's data helps scientists understand global climatic changes.
In the future, NASA will launch more satellites to study global climate change. The organization describes the goal for these studies as follows: As we learn more about our home planet, new questions arise, drawing us deeper into the complexities of Earth's climate system. We don't know the answers to many other important questions, like: Is the current warming trend temporary, or just the beginning of an accelerating increase in global temperatures? As temperatures rise, how will this affect weather patterns, food production systems, and sea level? Are the number and size of clouds increasing and, if so, how will this affect the amount of incoming and reflected sunlight, as well as the heat emitted from Earth's surface? . . . How will climate change affect human health, natural resources, and human economies in the future? NASA's Earth Observing System, and Terra in particular, will help scientists answer these questions, as well as some we don't even know to ask yet. 13
Unraveling the Mystery
Scientists are the first to say that there are many unknown factors involved in the study of global climate change. Products of nature such as ice cores, coral reefs, ocean and lake sediments, and trees can offer valuable clues about changing climates in the ancient past. Modern instruments like satellites can provide knowledge about current activities affecting the earth's land, oceans, and atmosphere. Assembling the pieces of this global environmental puzzle is the focus of scientists and researchers all over the world. They know for sure that the earth is warming—and using the many tools available to them, it is their mission to find out why.
Read more: http://www.scienceclarified.com/scitech/Global-Warming/The-Study-of-Climate-Change.html#ixzz3ahsVcQEY
Five Unusual Ways Scientists Are Studying Climate Change
Fossilized urine, old naval logbooks and the recent speeds of satellites are among the unexpected records that track changing climate
By Joseph Stromberg
Source: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/five-unusual-ways-scientists-are-studying-climate-change-1308349/
SMITHSONIAN.COM
AUGUST 23, 2013
Image via NASA
The effects of climate change can be seen everywhere. It’s melting Antarctica’s ice sheets, dooming major cities to future flooding, damaging coffee harvests and even changing the taste of apples. This distressing situation nonetheless presents scientists with an opportunity. Because the climate change is so widespread, it can be studied by examining a tremendous range data. Many of these data are collected from satellite images, extracted through analyzing ice cores or found from sifting through atmospheric temperature records. But some are collected from a bit more unorthodox sources. In no particular order, here’s our rundown of 5 unusual ways scientists are currently studying the changing climate:
Image via Quaternary Science Reviews/Chase et. al.
1. Fossilized Urine
The hyrax—a small, herbivorous mammal native to Africa and the Middle East—has a pair of uncommon habits. The animals tend to inhabit the same cracks in rock for generations, and they also like to urinate in the exact same spot, over and over and over again. Because their urine contains traces of leaves, grasses and pollen, the layers of dried urine that build up and fossilize over thousands of years have given a team of scientists (led by Brian Chase of Montpellier University) a rare look at ancient plant biodiversity and how it’s been affected by broader changes in climate.
Further, the nitrogen in the urine—an element that’s long been important to those who utilize the scientific properties of pee—along with the urine’s carbon content tell an important story as layer after layer of the dessicated substance, called hyraceum, is analyzed. In drier times, plants are forced to incorporate heavier isotopes of these elements into their tissues, so urine layers that contain an abundance of heavy isotopes indicate that the hyrax relieved themselves after ingesting relatively parched plants. Stacked layers of the excretions thus allow scientists to track humidity through time.
“Once we have found a good layer of solid urine, we dig out samples and remove them for study,” Chase told The Guardian in an article about his unusual work. “We are taking the piss, quite literally—and it is proving to be a highly effective way to study how climate changes have affected local environments.” His team’s most valuable data set? One particular pile of fossilized urine that has been accreting for an estimated 55,000 years.
Image via Wikimedia Commons/NOAA
2. Old Naval Logbooks
Few people care more about the weather than sailors. Old Weather, a citizen science project, hopes to take advantage of that fact to better understand the daily weather of 100 years ago. As part of the project, anyone can create an account and manually transcribe the daily logbooks of 18th and 19th century vessels that sailed the Arctic and elsewhere.
The work is still in its beginning stages: So far, 26,717 pages of records from 17 different ships have been transcribed, with roughly 100,000 pages to go. Eventually, once enough data has been transcribed, scientists from around the world who are coordinating the project will use these ultra-detailed weather reports to paint a fuller picture of how microvariations in Arctic weather correspond with long-term climate trends.
Although there’s no pay offered, there’s the satisfaction of adding to our record on climate variations over the past few centuries. Plus, transcribe enough and you’ll get promoted from “cadet” to “lieutenant” to “captain.” Not bad for a modern day scrivener.
Image via Wikimedia Commons/NASA
3. Satellite Speeds
Not long ago, a group of scientists who study how the atmosphere behaves at high altitudes noticed something strange about several satellites in orbit: They were consistently moving faster than calculations indicated they should. When they tried to figure out why, they discovered that the thermosphere—the uppermost layer of the atmosphere, starting roughly 50 miles up, through which many satellites glide—was slowly losing its thickness over time. Because the layer, made of up sparsely distributed gas molecules, was losing its bulk, the satellites were colliding with fewer molecules as they orbited and thus experienced less drag.
Why, though, was the thermosphere undergoing such change? It turned out that higher levels of carbon dioxide emitted at the surface were gradually drifting upwards into the thermosphere. At that altitude, the gas actually cools things down, because it absorbs energy from collisions with oxygen molecules and emits that stored energy into space as infrared radiation.
For years, scientists had assumed the carbon dioxide released from burning fossil fuels didn’t reach higher than about 20 miles above the Earth’s surface, but this research—the first to measure the concentrations of the gas this high up—showed that climate change can even affect our uppermost atmospheric layers. The group plans to look back and see how historical changes in satellite speeds might reflect carbon dioxide levels in the past. They will also continue to track satellite speeds and levels of carbon dioxide in the thermosphere to see how our aeronautical calculations might have to take climate change into account in the future.
Image via Flickr user Shazron
4. Dog Sleds
Unlike many sorts of climate data, information on sea ice thickness can’t be directly collected by satellites—scientists instead infer thicknesses from satellite measurements of the ice’s height above sea level and a rough approximation of ice’s density. But getting true measurements of sea ice thicknesses must be done manually with sensors that send magnetic fields through the ice and pick up signals from the water below it—the fainter the signals, the thicker the ice. So our knowledge of real ice thicknesses is constrained to the locations where researchers have actually visited.
In 2008, when Scottish researcher Jeremy Wilkinson first traveled to Greenland to collect such measurements on ice thickness, his team interviewed dozens of local Inuit people who spoke about the difficulties thinner sea ice posed for their traditional mode of transportation, the dog sled. Soon afterward, Wilkinson got an idea. ”We saw the large number of dog teams that were on the ice everyday and the vast distances they covered. Then came the light bulb moment—why don’t we put sensors on these sleds?” he told NBC in 2011 when the idea was finally implemented.
Since then, his team has attached the sensors to the sleds owned by a few dozen volunteers. As the Inuits glide over the sea ice on their sleds, the instruments take a measurement of the ice’s thickness every second. His team has now deployed the sled-mounted sensors in each of the last three years to collect the data. The information collected not only helps scientists gauge the accuracy of thicknesses derived from orbiting satellites, but also helps climate scientists better understand how sea ice is locally responding to warmer temperatures as seasons and years change.
Image via Wikimedia Commons/Glenn Williams
5. Narwhal-Mounted Sensors
Narwhals are renowned for their ability to dive to extreme depths: They’ve been measured going as far as 5,800 feet down, among the deepest dives of any marine mammal. Starting in 2006, NOAA researchers have used this ability to their advantage, by strapping sensors that measure temperature and depth to the animals and using the data to track Arctic water temperatures over time.
The strategy gives scientists access to areas of the Arctic ocean that are normally covered by ice during the winter—because the Narwhals’ dives, which can last as long as 25 minutes, often take them under areas of the water that are frozen on top—and is much less expensive than equipping a full icebreaker ship and crew to take measurements. Before using narwhals, temperatures of the Arctic waters at remote depths were inferred from long-term historical averages. Using the unorthodox method has helped NOAA document how these historical averages have underrepresented the extent to which Arctic waters are warming, particularly in Baffin Bay, the body of water between Greenland and Canada.
Principle 6c
first slide
Observations and experiments are used to construct and refine climate models
The models represent our climate system and they make predictions about its future behavior. Results from these models lead to better understanding of the links between the atmosphere-ocean system and the climate and inspire more observations and experiments. Over time, this process of running the model, making more observations, and conducting experiments, then refining the model and running it again results in more and more reliable projections of future climate conditions.
Given how complex the climate system is and how difficult it is to predict weather, how can computer models possibly simulate the future climate? This question is frequently raised in the public debates around climate change, but much less frequently among scientists familiar with the contributions modeling has made to climate science. Read more…
Observations and experiments are used to construct and refine climate models
The models represent our climate system and they make predictions about its future behavior. Results from these models lead to better understanding of the links between the atmosphere-ocean system and the climate and inspire more observations and experiments. Over time, this process of running the model, making more observations, and conducting experiments, then refining the model and running it again results in more and more reliable projections of future climate conditions.
Given how complex the climate system is and how difficult it is to predict weather, how can computer models possibly simulate the future climate? This question is frequently raised in the public debates around climate change, but much less frequently among scientists familiar with the contributions modeling has made to climate science.
Like many technological developments, computer models had a military origin. They were first used in World War II in the development of the atomic bomb. These models rely on data and mathematical formulas to run various scenarios. The results of different models are compared to one another; those that can replicate known data patterns (the real world) with a minimum of starting data are considered to be the best estimation of the climate. Once known patterns can be replicated, the models can be used to generate future predictions.
Watch the video for this principle to see for yourself just how well computer climate models predict the climate of the real world. Then click the button beneath the video to explore a climate model for yourself.
Click the button below to learn all about how climate models work.
Click the button below to explore an actual model.
Pretty Cool—Try it!
You can explore an actual climate model (the one used in the video above) by clicking here: http://earth.nullschool.net
Once there, use the graphics below and at right to learn how to navigate the model.
At first glance, it may look complicated, but it’s really not. Give it a shot and see.
Why trust climate models? It’s a matter of simple science
How climate scientists test, test again, and use their simulation tools.
Source: http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/09/why-trust-climate-models-its-a-matter-of-simple-science/
by Scott K. Johnson - Sep 5, 2013 7:00pm MDT
Model simulation showing average ocean current velocities and sea surface temperatures near Japan.
IPCC
Talk to someone who rejects the conclusions of climate science and you’ll likely hear some variation of the following: “That’s all based on models, and you can make a model say anything you want.” Often, they'll suggest the models don't even have a solid foundation of data to work with—garbage in, garbage out, as the old programming adage goes. But how many of us (anywhere on the opinion spectrum) really know enough about what goes into a climate model to judge what comes out?
Climate models are used to generate projections showing the consequences of various courses of action, so they are relevant to discussions about public policy. Of course, being relevant to public policy also makes a thing vulnerable to the indiscriminate cannons on the foul battlefield of politics.
Skepticism is certainly not an unreasonable response when first exposed to the concept of a climate model. But skepticism means examining the evidence before making up one’s mind. If anyone has scrutinized the workings of climate models, it’s climate scientists—and they are confident that, just as in other fields, their models are useful scientific tools.
It’s a model, just not the fierce kind
Climate models are, at heart, giant bundles of equations—mathematical representations of everything we’ve learned about the climate system. Equations for the physics of absorbing energy from the Sun’s radiation. Equations for atmospheric and oceanic circulation. Equations for chemical cycles. Equations for the growth of vegetation. Some of these equations are simple physical laws, but some are empirical approximations of processes that occur at a scale too small to be simulated directly.
Cloud droplets, for example, might be a couple hundredths of a millimeter in diameter, while the smallest grid cells that are considered in a model may be more like a couple hundred kilometers across. Instead of trying to model individual droplets, scientists instead approximate their bulk behavior within each grid cell. These approximations are called “parameterizations.”
Connect all those equations together and the model operates like a virtual, rudimentary Earth. So long as the models behave realistically, they allow scientists to test hypotheses as well as make predictions testable by new observations.
Some components of the climate system are connected in a fairly direct manner, but some processes are too complicated to think through intuitively, and climate models can help us explore the complexity. So it's possible that shrinking sea ice in the Arctic could increase snowfall over Siberia, pushing the jet stream southward, creating summer high pressures in Europe that allow India’s monsoon rains to linger, and on it goes… It's hard to examine those connections in the real world, but it's much easier to see how things play out in a climate model. Twiddle some knobs, run the model. Twiddle again, see what changes. You get to design your own experiment—a rare luxury in some of the Earth sciences.
Enlarge / Diagram of software architecture for the Community Earth System Model. Coupled models use interacting components simulating different parts of the climate system. Bubble size represents the number of lines of code in each component of this particular model.
Kaitlin Alexander, Steve Easterbrook
In order to gain useful insights, we need climate models that behave realistically. Climate modelers are always working to develop an ever more faithful representation of the planet’s climate system. At every step along the way, the models are compared to as much real-world data as possible. They’re never perfect, but these comparisons give us a sense for what the model can do well and where it veers off track. That knowledge guides the use of the model, in that it tells us which results are robust and which are too uncertain to be relied upon.
Andrew Weaver, a researcher at the University of Victoria, uses climate models to study many aspects of the climate system and anthropogenic climate change. Weaver described the model evaluation process as including three general phases. First, you see how the model simulates a stable climate with characteristics like the modern day. “You basically take a very long run, a so-called ‘control run,'” Weaver told Ars. “You just do perpetual present-day type conditions. And you look at the statistics of the system and say, 'Does this model give me a good representation of El Niño? Does it give me a good representation of Arctic Oscillation? Do I see seasonal cycles in here? Do trees grow where they should grow? Is the carbon cycle balanced?'”
Next, the model is run in changing conditions, simulating the last couple centuries using our best estimates of the climate “forcings” (or drivers of change) at work over that time period. Those forcings include solar activity, volcanic eruptions, changing greenhouse gas concentrations, and human modifications of the landscape. “What has happened, of course, is that people have cut down trees and created pasture, so you actually have to artificially come in and cut down trees and turn it into pasture, and you have to account for this human effect on the climate system,” Weaver said.
The results are compared to observations of things like changing global temperatures, local temperatures, and precipitation patterns. Did the model capture the big picture? How about the fine details? Which fine details did it simulate poorly—and why might that be?
Enlarge / Comparison of observed (top) and simulated (bottom) average annual precipitation between 1980 and 1999.
IPCC
At this point, the model is set loose on interesting climatic periods in the past. Here, the observations are fuzzier. Proxy records of climate, like those derived from ice cores and ocean sediment cores, track the big-picture changes well but can’t provide the same level of local detail we have for the past century. Still, you can see if the model captures the unique characteristics of that period and whatever regional patterns we’ve been able to identify.
This is what models go through before researchers start using them to investigate questions or provide estimates for summary reports like those produced for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Supercomputers and “Hindcasts”
Over the past decade, the use of supercomputers have allowed climate scientists to do “hindcasts” looking at past events, even going back thousands of years, comparing the modeling results with actual paleoclimate observations. Now there are a variety of large, complex Global Climate Models (GCM) and Earth-system Models of Intermediate Complexity (EMIC) that take into account incoming and outgoing energy, and the interactions of atmosphere, oceans, land surface, ice, organisms, and human activities.
Computer models are just one type of scientific model. A scientific model is any simplified representation of a natural phenomenon based on observations. Most children build models of the solar system in school to gain a deeper understanding of the relationships between planets in the sun. Rutherford's famous model of the atom led to more and more accurate models over time, which are still being added to today. While no scientific model is perfectly accurate, they each provide some valuable insight into the working of natural systems. Like other scientific efforts, computer modeling improves over time with the combined work of many scientists and peer review.
An example of a hind cast, showing just how good the models are at predicting is shown at right. It shows the average (red line) of 58 model simulations (yellow lines) of global average temperature compared to observations (black line). It matches pretty well.
Principle 6d
Our understanding of climate differs in important ways from our understanding of weather
Our understanding of climate differs in important ways from our understanding of weather. Climate scientists’ ability to predict climate patterns months, years, or decades into the future is constrained by different limitations than those faced by meteorologists in forecasting weather days to weeks into the future.
Weather forecasters try to answer questions like: What will the temperature be tomorrow? Will it rain? How much rain will we have? Will there be thunderstorms? Today, most weather forecasts are based on models. A weather forecaster looks at the model output to figure out the most likely scenario. The accuracy of weather forecasts depend on both the model and on the forecaster's skill. Weather forecasts are accurate for up to a week.
Climate predictions take a much longer-term view. These predictions try to answer questions like how much warmer will the Earth be 50 to 100 years from now? Read More…
Our understanding of climate differs in important ways from our understanding of weather
Our understanding of climate differs in important ways from our understanding of weather. Climate scientists’ ability to predict climate patterns months, years, or decades into the future is constrained by different limitations than those faced by meteorologists in forecasting weather days to weeks into the future.
Weather forecasters try to answer questions like: What will the temperature be tomorrow? Will it rain? How much rain will we have? Will there be thunderstorms? Today, most weather forecasts are based on models. A weather forecaster looks at the model output to figure out the most likely scenario. The accuracy of weather forecasts depend on both the model and on the forecaster's skill. Weather forecasts are accurate for up to a week.
Climate predictions take a much longer-term view. These predictions try to answer questions like how much warmer will the Earth be 50 to 100 years from now?
Climate predictions want to know for example, how much more precipitation will there be in 25 years or 50 years? How much will sea level rise in 100 years? Climate predictions are made using global climate models. Unlike weather forecast models, climate models cannot use observations because there are no observations in the future.
You can use a sport analogy to help you understand the difference between weather forecasting and climate model predictions. Imagine you are watching a football game between the worst team in the NFL, which in 2015 happened to be the Tennessee Titans, and the best team, the Seattle Seahawks. If you tried to forecast the outcome of any single play or how many yards one of those teams might gain after 4 downs, you would have trouble. Because a lot of different things could happen in a single play or group of plays—there could be a series of successful runs or passes, or there could be a fumble, a pass interception. But your prediction would be easier and more accurate if you knew a lot about the team with the ball—whether they like to pass or run the ball and generally how good their offense was. You could make an even better prediction if you knew how good the other team’s defense was. This kind of prediction is similar in many ways to predicting the weather. If you know a lot about how weather works and you have good data and statistics on the regions conditions, you have a fair chance of forecasting what the weather will be like tomorrow. Weather deals with specific temperatures and precipitation conditions during a given day or few days.
Now let’s say you want to predict the outcome of the game before the game even starts. Or lets say you want to predict which of those two teams will probably be in the top-five at season’s end and which team will probably be among the bottom-five ranked teams. You would have no trouble making those kinds of predictions, and in fact you would probably be willing to put money on your prediction because you know right now the number-one ranked team will most likely win the game and make the top five at season’s end, and the lowest-ranked team will most likely lose the game and remain close to the bottom in the rankings. This kind of prediction is similar in many ways to predicting the climate. Climate deals with long term averages and the big picture.
Which kind of prediction would you feel more comfortable making?
Weather Vs Climate: The Difference
Source: http://www.diffen.com/difference/Climate_vs_Weather
Climate | Weather | |
Definition | Describes the average conditions expected at a specific place at a given time. A region's climate is generated by the climate system, which has five components: atmosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere, land surface, and biosphere. | Describes the atmospheric conditions at a specific place at a specific point in time. Weather generally refers to day-to-day temperature and precipitation activity |
Components | Climate may include precipitation, temperature, humidity, sunshine, wind velocity, phenomena such as fog, frost, and hail storms over a long period of time. | Weather includes sunshine, rain, cloud cover, winds, hail, snow, sleet, freezing rain, flooding, blizzards, ice storms, thunderstorms, steady rains from a cold front or warm front, excessive heat, heat waves and more |
Forecast | By aggregates of weather statistics over periods of 30 years | By collecting meteorological data, like air temperature, pressure, humidity, solar radiation, wind speeds and direction etc. |
Determining factors | Aggregating weather statistics over periods of 30 years ("climate normals"). | Real-time measurements of atmospheric pressure, temperature, wind speed and direction, humidity, precipitation, cloud cover, and other variables |
About | Climate is defined as statistical weather information that describes the variation of weather at a given place for a specified interval. | Weather is the day-to-day state of the atmosphere, and its short-term (minutes to weeks) variation |
Time period | Measured over a long period | Measured for short term |
Study | Climatology | Meteorology |
Principle 6e
Local Relevance
How Foresters in the Pacific Northwest Use Climate Models to Predict Changes in Ecosystems
In trying to predict future climate changes, it is vital to carefully choose the right models to use and to be careful in how you use them.
“The problem is that models have to simplify the world,” says Dave Peterson, a research forester with the PNW Research Station. “But they can be useful for giving us ideas about what we should be looking for and where we should be looking for it.”
Models that look at potential impacts on a particular resource, such as snowmelt, hydrology, or vegetation, can provide valuable perspectives, but Peterson warns land managers to proceed with caution.
“A species distribution model might say that a plant species is likely to move 100 miles north in the future,” he says. “But the model can’t tell you how it would get there, or how well it will compete with the vegetation that’s already there.”
Although longer-term growing conditions might be suitable for a particular species in a new location, the path to that location may not be straightforward. For example, higher temperatures and less precipitation could make it difficult for seeds to regenerate, or a disturbance might make it difficult for seeds to land in suitable habitat.
“You could be looking at a two- or three- hundred-year window—it has a pretty good chance of happening, but it could be a pretty messy couple of centuries,” says Peterson.
The study team looked at a wide range of vegetation models. It reviewed the major classes of vegetation models; described their basic function, strengths, and weak- nesses; discussed the contribution each could make toward understanding and projecting vegetation responses to future climatic changes; and made recommendations about how to use the output.
“Model output can be used as a basis for discussion among resource teams that are considering management and climate change adaptation actions,” says Kerns, “but we suggest that folks also factor in long-term data from the paleoecological record (data from fossils to reconstruct the ecosystems of the past.), observational and experimental studies, and local knowledge, to assess potential and plausible climate-change effects. We want people to step away from thinking about models as a definite forecast, and instead use them as a ‘what if’ scenario—more of a thought process than a prediction.”
The research team synthesized multiple model projections for future vegetation responses to disturbances, changing environmental controls, and elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide for key species in the five major biomes of the Pacific Northwest. The models agree that alpine and subalpine forests and habitats are most at risk, primarily because of warming temperatures, earlier snowmelt, and longer growing seasons.
Models for dry coniferous forests, savannas and woodlands, and shrub-steppe are less consistent in their predictions. “The models generally predict warmer temperatures, but they tend to be a little inconsistent about precipitation,” says Peterson. “It’s harder to make confident decisions based on the projections from these models for some of those biomes.”
Principle 6f
Misconceptions about this Principle
The Misconception
Scientists can’t even predict the weather, how can they predict the climate?
The misconception or myth goes something like this: “..Since modern computer models cannot, with any certainty, predict the weather two weeks from now, how can we rely upon computer models to predict what the Earth's climate might be like a hundred years from now? They can't! Yet people want you to believe that these models can predict the future. I bet I can do at least as well with a crystal ball.”
The Science
Climate models do not predict day to day weather, which can be variable. Instead, they predict climate averages.
The science says: this claim is based more on an appeal to emotion than fact. The inference is that climate predictions, decades into the future, cannot be possibly right when the weather forecast for the next day has some uncertainty. In spite of the claim in this myth, short term weather forecasts are highly accurate and have improved dramatically over the last three decades. Read more…
Source: https://www.skepticalscience.com/weather-forecasts-vs-climate-models-predictions.htm
The Science
Climate models do not predict day to day weather, which can be variable. Instead, they predict climate averages.
The science says: this claim is based more on an appeal to emotion than fact. The inference is that climate predictions, decades into the future, cannot be possibly right when the weather forecast for the next day has some uncertainty. In spite of the claim in this myth, short term weather forecasts are highly accurate and have improved dramatically over the last three decades.
However, slight errors in initial conditions make a forecast beyond two weeks nearly impossible. Atmospheric science students are taught "weather is what you get and climate is the weather you expect". This is why this common skeptical argument doesn't hold water. Climate models are not predicting day to day weather systems. Instead, they are predicting climate averages.
Figure 1: Record highs are an example of extreme weather, but an increase in record highs versus record lows is a symptom of a changing climate. From Meehl et al.*
A change in temperature of 7º Celsius from one day to the next is barely worth noting when you are discussing weather. Seven degrees, however, make a dramatic difference when talking about climate. When the Earth's average temperature was 7ºC cooler than the present, ice sheets a mile thick were on top of Manhattan!
A good analogy of the difference between weather and climate is to consider a swimming pool. Imagine that the pool is being slowly filled. If someone dives in, there will be waves. The waves are weather, and the average water level is the climate. A diver jumping into the pool the next day will create more waves, but the water level (in other words, the climate) will be higher as more water flows into the pool (as the pool slowly fills). In the atmosphere, the water hose in this imaginary pool is equivalent to increasing greenhouse gases. They will cause the climate to warm (because of the greenhouse effect) but we will still have changing weather (waves). Climate scientists use models to forecast the average water level in the pool, not the waves. For a better analogy of the difference between weather and climate, watch this video.
Source: https://www.skepticalscience.com/weather-forecasts-vs-climate-models-predictions.htm
Check your Knowledge of this Principle
To pass this knowledge check you will need to have read the main paragraphs for each topic of the principle.