Change in sea volume due to sea ice melting

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Define 'climate change' without using circular definitions. Discussing buzzwords is not productive either.

This is about all you have, isn't it ? Since you accept no definition then there can be no discussion about what does not exist. You have nullified your own existence because you are without definition.

You have not given one. So far it's just a buzzword. Care to try to define it without using circular definitions?

I am defined by Proof of Identity.

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Define 'climate change' without using circular definitions. Discussing buzzwords is not productive either.

This is about all you have, isn't it ? Since you accept no definition then there can be no discussion about what does not exist. You have nullified your own existence because you are without definition.

You have not given one. So far it's just a buzzword. Care to try to define it without using circular definitions?

I am defined by Proof of Identity.

Proof of Identity ? To quote you, mere buzzwords. Please try identifying yourself without the use of buzzwords or circular arguments.
..ITN, I have an identity. I am an environmentalist as well as a concerned citizen. I am also a wood worker. And I am also an amateur scientist.
..I happen to like science and with some of what I am pursuing I think most scientists will like it. That is one problem I have though. If I knew calculus more than understanding what formulas represent then I might not enjoy science as much. Sometimes it is more about principles than it is about the math. I think I can demonstrate that aspect of it. What math allows for is to quantify relationships and events that either happen or exist or have been considered. But at no time does math nullify any principle in physics. This has happened because of how work has to be quantified.
..And ITN, sometimes limits can allow us to do more r to see more but to have no definition or constraints is simply a none existence.

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Define 'climate change' without using circular definitions. Discussing buzzwords is not productive either.

This is about all you have, isn't it ? Since you accept no definition then there can be no discussion about what does not exist. You have nullified your own existence because you are without definition.

You have not given one. So far it's just a buzzword. Care to try to define it without using circular definitions?

I am defined by Proof of Identity.

Proof of Identity ? To quote you, mere buzzwords.

James___ wrote:
Please try identifying yourself without the use of buzzwords or circular arguments.

James___ wrote:
..ITN, I have an identity.

James___ wrote:
I am an environmentalist as well as a concerned citizen.

James___ wrote:
I am also a wood worker.

James___ wrote:
And I am also an amateur scientist.

James___ wrote:
..I happen to like science and with some of what I am pursuing I think most scientists will like it.

James___ wrote:
That is one problem I have though. If I knew calculus more than understanding what formulas represent then I might not enjoy science as much.

James___ wrote:
Sometimes it is more about principles than it is about the math.

James___ wrote:
I think I can demonstrate that aspect of it.

James___ wrote:
What math allows for is to quantify relationships and events that either happen or exist or have been considered.

James___ wrote:
But at no time does math nullify any principle in physics.

James___ wrote:
This has happened because of how work has to be quantified.

James___ wrote:
..And ITN, sometimes limits can allow us to do more r to see more but to have no definition or constraints is simply a none existence.

Wake wrote:

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Define 'climate change' without using circular definitions. Discussing buzzwords is not productive either.

This is about all you have, isn't it ? Since you accept no definition then there can be no discussion about what does not exist. You have nullified your own existence because you are without definition.

You have not given one. So far it's just a buzzword. Care to try to define it without using circular definitions?

I am defined by Proof of Identity.

Proof of Identity ? To quote you, mere buzzwords. Please try identifying yourself without the use of buzzwords or circular arguments.
..ITN, I have an identity. I am an environmentalist as well as a concerned citizen. I am also a wood worker. And I am also an amateur scientist.
..I happen to like science and with some of what I am pursuing I think most scientists will like it. That is one problem I have though. If I knew calculus more than understanding what formulas represent then I might not enjoy science as much. Sometimes it is more about principles than it is about the math. I think I can demonstrate that aspect of it. What math allows for is to quantify relationships and events that either happen or exist or have been considered. But at no time does math nullify any principle in physics. This has happened because of how work has to be quantified.
..And ITN, sometimes limits can allow us to do more r to see more but to have no definition or constraints is simply a none existence.

James - you appear to be intelligent. Our arguments invariably end up with you trying to blame things that you believe are happening on the last Popular Science article you've read. Science is not simple and science doesn't come down to one thing. It is all interconnected.

Now tell me I'm bullying you.