Is There Climate Change?

IBdaMann wrote:
I'm not sure what "climate" is but I have these basic questions about it:

1) Does "Climate" change and how do you know?
1a) Can "Climate" be measured? If so, what equipment can thus measure it? If not, how can you tell if it has changed?

2) What are the units of measure for "climate"?
- 2a) How many of these "climate" units of measure does earth have in total?

3) Is there a "Climate" function? If so, what is it?
- 3a) Is "Climate Change" simply the 1st derivative of the "Climate" function?

-----

Bonus question for Surface Detail: Is "Climate" a wave or a particle?



.

Ceist wrote:Is the earth flat?
Is the earth more than 10,000 years old?

Ceist wrote: Well if someone doesn't want to spend many years studying the foundational sciences and all the evidence themselves, ...

Ceist wrote: they can look at what the National Academy of Sciences says (and every Science Institution in the world).

IBdaMann wrote:
I'm not sure what "climate" is but I have these basic questions about it:

1) Does "Climate" change and how do you know?
1a) Can "Climate" be measured? If so, what equipment can thus measure it? If not, how can you tell if it has changed?

2) What are the units of measure for "climate"?
- 2a) How many of these "climate" units of measure does earth have in total?

3) Is there a "Climate" function? If so, what is it?
- 3a) Is "Climate Change" simply the 1st derivative of the "Climate" function?

-----

Bonus question for Surface Detail: Is "Climate" a wave or a particle?



.

MK001 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
I'm not sure what "climate" is but I have these basic questions about it:

1) Does "Climate" change and how do you know?
1a) Can "Climate" be measured? If so, what equipment can thus measure it? If not, how can you tell if it has changed?

2) What are the units of measure for "climate"?
- 2a) How many of these "climate" units of measure does earth have in total?

3) Is there a "Climate" function? If so, what is it?
- 3a) Is "Climate Change" simply the 1st derivative of the "Climate" function?

-----

Bonus question for Surface Detail: Is "Climate" a wave or a particle?



.

Climate, which comes from the Greek klima meaning 'area', usually refers to a region's long-term weather patterns. This is measured in terms of average precipitation (i.e. the amount of annual rainfall, snow etc), maximum and minimum temperatures throughout the seasons, sunshine hours, humidity, the frequency of extreme weather, and so on.

Yes climate is always changing and always has - Dynamic equilibrium
Measured by thermometer, barometer etc
Multiple units for temperature pressure etc
No there is not a climate function
Bonus question - Dickhead

Into the Night wrote:

MK001 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
I'm not sure what "climate" is but I have these basic questions about it:

1) Does "Climate" change and how do you know?
1a) Can "Climate" be measured? If so, what equipment can thus measure it? If not, how can you tell if it has changed?

2) What are the units of measure for "climate"?
- 2a) How many of these "climate" units of measure does earth have in total?

3) Is there a "Climate" function? If so, what is it?
- 3a) Is "Climate Change" simply the 1st derivative of the "Climate" function?

-----

Bonus question for Surface Detail: Is "Climate" a wave or a particle?



.

Climate, which comes from the Greek klima meaning 'area', usually refers to a region's long-term weather patterns. This is measured in terms of average precipitation (i.e. the amount of annual rainfall, snow etc), maximum and minimum temperatures throughout the seasons, sunshine hours, humidity, the frequency of extreme weather, and so on.

Yes climate is always changing and always has - Dynamic equilibrium
Measured by thermometer, barometer etc
Multiple units for temperature pressure etc
No there is not a climate function
Bonus question - Dickhead

These are units we use to measure weather, but because there is no quantity for 'a long time', there is no unit for climate nor any definition of climate but vague meaning. This makes it unsuitable for use in the quantitative science world.

What is 'dynamic' equilibrium? You have equilibrium or you do not. Do you not?

MK001 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
What is 'dynamic' equilibrium? You have equilibrium or you do not. Do you not?

Dynamic equilibrium means it is always moving the point of equilibrium due to outside forces. so basically if all factors remained the same an equilibrium would be acheived but in the case of a global system that point contiues to move because of whatever force you would care to mention; perhaps the heat generated by IBdamanns massive output of dung.

Into the Night wrote:

MK001 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
What is 'dynamic' equilibrium? You have equilibrium or you do not. Do you not?

Dynamic equilibrium means it is always moving the point of equilibrium due to outside forces. so basically if all factors remained the same an equilibrium would be acheived but in the case of a global system that point contiues to move because of whatever force you would care to mention; perhaps the heat generated by IBdamanns massive output of dung.

But isn't that just trying to describe an equilibrium with insufficient factors? If something moves to change the equilibrium, that something should be part of the factors to determine equilibrium in the first place, shouldn't it?

This sounds a bit like counting grains of sand to determine the length of the coastline.

MK001 wrote:
Climate, which comes from the Greek klima meaning 'area', usually refers to a region's long-term weather patterns.

MK001 wrote: This is measured in terms of average precipitation (i.e. the amount of annual rainfall, snow etc), maximum and minimum temperatures throughout the seasons, sunshine hours, humidity, the frequency of extreme weather, and so on.

MK001 wrote: Yes climate is always changing and always has - Dynamic equilibrium

No there is not a climate function

MK001 wrote: Measured by thermometer, barometer etc

IBdaMann wrote:

MK001 wrote:
Climate, which comes from the Greek klima meaning 'area', usually refers to a region's long-term weather patterns.

So any two people discussing "climate" are probably each separately referring to his/her own personally defined time period, meaning the two are discussing entirely different things while believing they are discussing the same thing. Sounds like religion to me.

You can observe this effect by listening to two Christians who agree with each other on some concept about the "human soul." Later, when you ask them each individually it will turn out that their underlying understandings of "human soul" differ, which throws their agreement out the window, making one wonder to what they believed they were discussing in the first place. The same goes for "climate," "Global Warming," "greenhouse effect," "greenhouse gas," "purgatory," "rapture" and other religious terms.

MK001 wrote: This is measured in terms of average precipitation (i.e. the amount of annual rainfall, snow etc), maximum and minimum temperatures throughout the seasons, sunshine hours, humidity, the frequency of extreme weather, and so on.

You can't take the average over a time interval until you nail down the time interval. If anyone is free to choose his/her own time interval willy-nilly and that serves as the definition of "climate" then it is as I said, "climate" holds a different personal meaning to each worshiper.

MK001 wrote: Yes climate is always changing and always has - Dynamic equilibrium

No there is not a climate function

So "climate" could just be an eternal constant, like "God" is in Christianity. You have no way of knowing. You admit that there is no "climate" function, so there is obviously no "climate" function that ever changes. On the one hand you insist, with certainty, that "climate" changes but then you admit to knowing of no "climate" function that indicates "climate" changes.

MK001 wrote: Measured by thermometer, barometer etc

So after all that, it turns out that "climate" is not a completely notional set of trends/averages/statistics that are averaged over some period of time. It turns out that "climate" is a real, physical, tangible thing that can be measured!

So to keep "climate" completely unfalsifiable you declare it to be a tangible, measurable thing when it's convenient to do so, but then when convenience shifts you declare it to be something completely notional like an "average."

A football player can get warmer but his scoring averages cannot.

I don't think you have thought this through very well.

MK001 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

MK001 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
What is 'dynamic' equilibrium? You have equilibrium or you do not. Do you not?

Dynamic equilibrium means it is always moving the point of equilibrium due to outside forces. so basically if all factors remained the same an equilibrium would be acheived but in the case of a global system that point contiues to move because of whatever force you would care to mention; perhaps the heat generated by IBdamanns massive output of dung.

But isn't that just trying to describe an equilibrium with insufficient factors? If something moves to change the equilibrium, that something should be part of the factors to determine equilibrium in the first place, shouldn't it?

This sounds a bit like counting grains of sand to determine the length of the coastline.

You can only factor in what is there to be factored. If you consider earths oorbit to be in a state of equilibrium, then if you hit the earth with a very large asteroid it point of equilibrium will shift and it will modify its orbit to try and obtain that steady state. Now before it achieves that steady state it gets hit again (bad day) the point of equilibrium will shift again and soon on. Thats how I view the Global climate the equilibrium point is always being messed up by something whether its a volcanic discharge or man made emissions; it does not matter. All I am saying is that The climate system can never achieve equilibrium because the set point keeps moving.

Into the Night wrote: If the sun changes, there is no equilibrium to seek. It just is. We will see the effect in less than 24 hours.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote: If the sun changes, there is no equilibrium to seek. It just is. We will see the effect in less than 24 hours.

Technically there would be a new equilibrium. It would not take long as you point out, but the earth would require a certain non-zero amount of time to rise (or lower) in temperature.

Remember, equilibrium means "input equals output". The equilibrium is that amount of input or output.

The moment solar output changes, input no longer equals output.

This is where Planck's law comes in. The output (earth's thermal radiation) is dependent on earth's temperature. As the earth's temperature adjusts to the new input, earth's thermal radiation also adjusts accordingly.

And guess what...the new temperature of the earth will coincidentally stop adjusting exactly at the point the adjusting earth's thermal radiation equals the new solar input.

However, that new input/output amount is the new equilibrium. The brief time required for earth to reach its new temperature is the time required for it to reach its new equilibrium.


.

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote: If the sun changes, there is no equilibrium to seek. It just is. We will see the effect in less than 24 hours.

Technically there would be a new equilibrium. It would not take long as you point out, but the earth would require a certain non-zero amount of time to rise (or lower) in temperature.

Remember, equilibrium means "input equals output". The equilibrium is that amount of input or output.

The moment solar output changes, input no longer equals output.

This is where Planck's law comes in. The output (earth's thermal radiation) is dependent on earth's temperature. As the earth's temperature adjusts to the new input, earth's thermal radiation also adjusts accordingly.

And guess what...the new temperature of the earth will coincidentally stop adjusting exactly at the point the adjusting earth's thermal radiation equals the new solar input.

However, that new input/output amount is the new equilibrium. The brief time required for earth to reach its new temperature is the time required for it to reach its new equilibrium.


.

MK001 wrote: Wouldn't the different coefficients of heating of different substances have to be factored in?

MK001 wrote: like differing albedos (ice vs Ocean) etc .