| 28-01-2021 17:35 |
Swan ★★★★★
(5719) |
Harry C wrote:
It has occurred to me that we are being conditioned to expect something that's unreasonable. Look at the word "climate". According to Merriam Webster, definitions include:
1 : a region of the earth having specified climatic conditions
2a : the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation
3 : the prevailing influence or environmental conditions characterizing a group or period
What Climate Scientist want us to believe is unrealistic because they have a variable description of climate. We, as the people that are being manipulated by this ambiguity in language, must demand more. They must define what climate has been with a higher degree of certainty and more specificity of location, weather and time. Since they haven't and can't, why should we be alarmed? We're just 'tilting at windmills'. What's worse, is they have set it up such that it can never ever be declared that anything has been corrected.
I'll leave open the discussion of the physical effect of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere on temperature. However if we can't define the problem any more precisely and the expected result, how do we know it's corrected? Let's say we achieve carbon neutrality and the climate still doesn't conform, which is likely due to the myriad of assumptions that have been "smoothed" to yield the answer they want. Do we get to tar and feather the proponents of the proven (at that time) hoax?
I join the calls that I have read herein to "define climate change". We can't fight what's undefined and nothing more than a colloquial phrase.
Climate change is exactly as it says, meaning that the climate is changing. Since this change is so old as it predates the existence of the Earths climate, it is natural. So we need to be fighting environmental degradation by pollutants not altering mythical human induced climate change |
| 28-01-2021 19:33 |
gfm7175 ★★★★★
(3314) |
Swan wrote:
Harry C wrote:
It has occurred to me that we are being conditioned to expect something that's unreasonable. Look at the word "climate". According to Merriam Webster, definitions include:
1 : a region of the earth having specified climatic conditions
2a : the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation
3 : the prevailing influence or environmental conditions characterizing a group or period
What Climate Scientist want us to believe is unrealistic because they have a variable description of climate. We, as the people that are being manipulated by this ambiguity in language, must demand more. They must define what climate has been with a higher degree of certainty and more specificity of location, weather and time. Since they haven't and can't, why should we be alarmed? We're just 'tilting at windmills'. What's worse, is they have set it up such that it can never ever be declared that anything has been corrected.
I'll leave open the discussion of the physical effect of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere on temperature. However if we can't define the problem any more precisely and the expected result, how do we know it's corrected? Let's say we achieve carbon neutrality and the climate still doesn't conform, which is likely due to the myriad of assumptions that have been "smoothed" to yield the answer they want. Do we get to tar and feather the proponents of the proven (at that time) hoax?
I join the calls that I have read herein to "define climate change". We can't fight what's undefined and nothing more than a colloquial phrase.
Climate change is exactly as it says, meaning that the climate is changing.
"Climate change" cannot be defined as "climate change". That is a circular definition. You cannot use undefined terminology to define undefined terminology, as the terminology still ultimately remains undefined.
Additionally, there is no such thing as "the climate" when referring to Earth as a whole. Earth has MANY differing climates throughout it, not just a single "global climate" (there is no such thing).
Swan wrote:
Since this change is so old as it predates the existence of the Earths climate, it is natural.
What "change"? How does the "change" of "climate" predate "climate"? That makes no sense.
Swan wrote:
So we need to be fighting environmental degradation by pollutants not altering mythical human induced climate change
What "environmental degradation"? What "pollutants"? I'm not making a claim of non-existence of whatever you're talking about; I just want to know what specifically are you referring to... |
| 28-01-2021 21:25 |
IBdaMann ★★★★★
(14403) |
gfm7175 wrote:Swan wrote:
Since this change is so old as it predates the existence of the Earths climate, it is natural.
What "change"? How does the "change" of "climate" predate "climate"? That makes no sense.
I told you, Climate is a religious deity that predates the earth, much in the same way that many Christians believe that God predates the earth or that many Muslims believe that Allah predates the earth, or that many Hindus believe that Brahma predates the earth, etc...
Global Warming and Climate Change are WACKY Marxist cult religions that demand unquestioned belief and that are quick to launch an Inquisition against any dissenting view. It is the main religion of those running the DNC.
I know you knew this.
gfm7175 wrote:Swan wrote:
So we need to be fighting environmental degradation by pollutants not altering mythical human induced climate change
What "environmental degradation"? What "pollutants"? I'm not making a claim of non-existence of whatever you're talking about; I just want to know what specifically are you referring to...
Did you notice the artful compound fallacy? Instead of supporting his argument, Swan is demanding that you prove his goalpost-shifting to be FALSE!
Good luck.
.
I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit
A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles
Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris
Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit
If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles
Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles
Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn
You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.
The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank
:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude
IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
| 28-01-2021 22:12 |
Swan★★★★★
(5719) |
gfm7175 wrote:
Swan wrote:
Harry C wrote:
It has occurred to me that we are being conditioned to expect something that's unreasonable. Look at the word "climate". According to Merriam Webster, definitions include:
1 : a region of the earth having specified climatic conditions
2a : the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation
3 : the prevailing influence or environmental conditions characterizing a group or period
What Climate Scientist want us to believe is unrealistic because they have a variable description of climate. We, as the people that are being manipulated by this ambiguity in language, must demand more. They must define what climate has been with a higher degree of certainty and more specificity of location, weather and time. Since they haven't and can't, why should we be alarmed? We're just 'tilting at windmills'. What's worse, is they have set it up such that it can never ever be declared that anything has been corrected.
I'll leave open the discussion of the physical effect of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere on temperature. However if we can't define the problem any more precisely and the expected result, how do we know it's corrected? Let's say we achieve carbon neutrality and the climate still doesn't conform, which is likely due to the myriad of assumptions that have been "smoothed" to yield the answer they want. Do we get to tar and feather the proponents of the proven (at that time) hoax?
I join the calls that I have read herein to "define climate change". We can't fight what's undefined and nothing more than a colloquial phrase.
Climate change is exactly as it says, meaning that the climate is changing.
"Climate change" cannot be defined as "climate change". That is a circular definition. You cannot use undefined terminology to define undefined terminology, as the terminology still ultimately remains undefined.
Additionally, there is no such thing as "the climate" when referring to Earth as a whole. Earth has MANY differing climates throughout it, not just a single "global climate" (there is no such thing).
Swan wrote:
Since this change is so old as it predates the existence of the Earths climate, it is natural.
What "change"? How does the "change" of "climate" predate "climate"? That makes no sense.
Swan wrote:
So we need to be fighting environmental degradation by pollutants not altering mythical human induced climate change
What "environmental degradation"? What "pollutants"? I'm not making a claim of non-existence of whatever you're talking about; I just want to know what specifically are you referring to...
The Earth does have an average climate where temps range from
Temperature extremes
According to the World Meteorological Organization, the coldest place on Earth is Vostok Station in Antarctica, where it reached minus 128.6 F (minus 89.2 C) on July 21, 1983. The coldest inhabited place is Oymyakon, Russia, a small village in Siberia, where it dips down to an average of minus 49 F (minus 45 C) and once hit a low of minus 96.16 F (minus 71 C).
Which location holds the record as the hottest place on Earth is a matter of some contention. El Azizia, Libya, held the top hot spot for 90 years. Temperatures allegedly climbed to 136.4 F (58 C) on Sept. 13, 1922. But the World Meteorological Organization stripped the town southwest of Tripoli of that distinction in 2012. A committee of climate experts from nine countries concluded that the temperature had been documented in error by an inexperienced observer.
So the "new" hottest place on Earth is Greenland Ranch (Furnace Creek) in Death Valley, Calif., where it reached 134 F (56.7 C) on July 10, 1913. But even that distinction depends on what is being measured. Death Valley's record is for the highest air temperature. A higher surface temperature of 159.3 F (70.7 C) was recorded by a Landsat satellite in 2004 and 2005 in the Lut Desert in Iran.
So what the Earth actually has is a variety of micro climates |
| 28-01-2021 22:20 |
gfm7175★★★★★
(3314) |
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:Swan wrote:
Since this change is so old as it predates the existence of the Earths climate, it is natural.
What "change"? How does the "change" of "climate" predate "climate"? That makes no sense.
I told you, Climate is a religious deity that predates the earth, much in the same way that many Christians believe that God predates the earth or that many Muslims believe that Allah predates the earth, or that many Hindus believe that Brahma predates the earth, etc...
Global Warming and Climate Change are WACKY Marxist cult religions that demand unquestioned belief and that are quick to launch an Inquisition against any dissenting view. It is the main religion of those running the DNC.
I know you knew this.
gfm7175 wrote:Swan wrote:
So we need to be fighting environmental degradation by pollutants not altering mythical human induced climate change
What "environmental degradation"? What "pollutants"? I'm not making a claim of non-existence of whatever you're talking about; I just want to know what specifically are you referring to...
Did you notice the artful compound fallacy? Instead of supporting his argument, Swan is demanding that you prove his goalpost-shifting to be FALSE!
Good luck.
.
Yeah, I doubt that my discussion with him will be going anywhere... I just have way too many questions and clarification requests for him rather than blindly accepting his preaching... |
|
| 28-01-2021 22:22 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(14403) |
Swan wrote: The Earth does have an average climate where temps range from Temperature extremes
I presume you don't realize just how nonsensical your statement is. Let's see if we can get your light bulb to come on, shall we?
What is the earth's average climate? Does it even make any sense?
Is it rainforest and arid? Arctic sub-tropical? Foggy and clear? What?
Swan wrote: According to the World Meteorological Organization,
What are you STUPID? Don't you even know the difference between WEATHER and CLIMATE? You have to be a moron to not know the difference. Sheesh.
Stay focused. What is the earth's global climate?
.
I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit
A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles
Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris
Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit
If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles
Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles
Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn
You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.
The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank
:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude
IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
| 28-01-2021 23:01 |
gfm7175★★★★★
(3314) |
Swan wrote:
The Earth does have an average climate where temps range from ... DELETED copy/paste of measured temperature extremes...
Here, you are speaking of the observed range of temperatures on Earth's surface, not of any "average climate".
Climate cannot be "averaged", as climate is not a quantifiable thing as temperature is, so there is no such thing as an "average climate". IBD did a good job of providing a thought exercise for you about this.
Swan wrote:
So what the Earth actually has is a variety of micro climates
You are now in paradox. You originally referred to something called "the climate", as if Earth has a global climate, and now you are referring to "micro climates", as if Earth has numerous climates. Which is it?
Edited on 28-01-2021 23:01 |
| 29-01-2021 03:11 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(21596) |
Swan wrote:
Harry C wrote:
It has occurred to me that we are being conditioned to expect something that's unreasonable. Look at the word "climate". According to Merriam Webster, definitions include:
1 : a region of the earth having specified climatic conditions
2a : the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation
3 : the prevailing influence or environmental conditions characterizing a group or period
What Climate Scientist want us to believe is unrealistic because they have a variable description of climate. We, as the people that are being manipulated by this ambiguity in language, must demand more. They must define what climate has been with a higher degree of certainty and more specificity of location, weather and time. Since they haven't and can't, why should we be alarmed? We're just 'tilting at windmills'. What's worse, is they have set it up such that it can never ever be declared that anything has been corrected.
I'll leave open the discussion of the physical effect of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere on temperature. However if we can't define the problem any more precisely and the expected result, how do we know it's corrected? Let's say we achieve carbon neutrality and the climate still doesn't conform, which is likely due to the myriad of assumptions that have been "smoothed" to yield the answer they want. Do we get to tar and feather the proponents of the proven (at that time) hoax?
I join the calls that I have read herein to "define climate change". We can't fight what's undefined and nothing more than a colloquial phrase.
Climate change is exactly as it says, meaning that the climate is changing.
Climate has no value. What is changing? You cannot define 'climate change' as 'climate change'. Circular definition.
Swan wrote:
Since this change is so old as it predates the existence of the Earths climate, it is natural.
There is no global climate.
Swan wrote:
So we need to be fighting environmental degradation by pollutants
Define 'pollutant'. Define 'environmental degradation'.
Swan wrote:
not altering mythical human induced climate change
Define 'climate change'.
This post is FULL of basically nothing but buzzwords as subjects. Void argument fallacies.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 29-01-2021 03:18 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21596) |
Swan wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Swan wrote:
Harry C wrote:
It has occurred to me that we are being conditioned to expect something that's unreasonable. Look at the word "climate". According to Merriam Webster, definitions include:
1 : a region of the earth having specified climatic conditions
2a : the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation
3 : the prevailing influence or environmental conditions characterizing a group or period
What Climate Scientist want us to believe is unrealistic because they have a variable description of climate. We, as the people that are being manipulated by this ambiguity in language, must demand more. They must define what climate has been with a higher degree of certainty and more specificity of location, weather and time. Since they haven't and can't, why should we be alarmed? We're just 'tilting at windmills'. What's worse, is they have set it up such that it can never ever be declared that anything has been corrected.
I'll leave open the discussion of the physical effect of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere on temperature. However if we can't define the problem any more precisely and the expected result, how do we know it's corrected? Let's say we achieve carbon neutrality and the climate still doesn't conform, which is likely due to the myriad of assumptions that have been "smoothed" to yield the answer they want. Do we get to tar and feather the proponents of the proven (at that time) hoax?
I join the calls that I have read herein to "define climate change". We can't fight what's undefined and nothing more than a colloquial phrase.
Climate change is exactly as it says, meaning that the climate is changing.
"Climate change" cannot be defined as "climate change". That is a circular definition. You cannot use undefined terminology to define undefined terminology, as the terminology still ultimately remains undefined.
Additionally, there is no such thing as "the climate" when referring to Earth as a whole. Earth has MANY differing climates throughout it, not just a single "global climate" (there is no such thing).
Swan wrote:
Since this change is so old as it predates the existence of the Earths climate, it is natural.
What "change"? How does the "change" of "climate" predate "climate"? That makes no sense.
Swan wrote:
So we need to be fighting environmental degradation by pollutants not altering mythical human induced climate change
What "environmental degradation"? What "pollutants"? I'm not making a claim of non-existence of whatever you're talking about; I just want to know what specifically are you referring to...
The Earth does have an average climate where temps range from
There is no such thing as a global climate. Climate is not temperature. Climate is a subjective term that has no quantitative value. I think you mean 'temperature change'. However, it is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
Swan wrote:
Temperature extremes
[quote]Swan wrote:
According to the World Meteorological Organization, the coldest place on Earth is Vostok Station in Antarctica, where it reached minus 128.6 F (minus 89.2 C) on July 21, 1983. The coldest inhabited place is Oymyakon, Russia, a small village in Siberia, where it dips down to an average of minus 49 F (minus 45 C) and once hit a low of minus 96.16 F (minus 71 C).
[quote]Swan wrote:
Which location holds the record as the hottest place on Earth is a matter of some contention. El Azizia, Libya, held the top hot spot for 90 years. Temperatures allegedly climbed to 136.4 F (58 C) on Sept. 13, 1922. But the World Meteorological Organization stripped the town southwest of Tripoli of that distinction in 2012. A committee of climate experts from nine countries concluded that the temperature had been documented in error by an inexperienced observer.
So the "new" hottest place on Earth is Greenland Ranch (Furnace Creek) in Death Valley, Calif., where it reached 134 F (56.7 C) on July 10, 1913. But even that distinction depends on what is being measured. Death Valley's record is for the highest air temperature.
These are recorded temperatures at weather stations. As for the rest of Oymyakon or Death Valley, who knows?
Swan wrote:
A higher surface temperature of 159.3 F (70.7 C) was recorded by a Landsat satellite in 2004 and 2005 in the Lut Desert in Iran.
Satellites are incapable of measuring an absolute temperature. The emissivity of Earth is unknown and can't be measured.
Swan wrote:
So what the Earth actually has is a variety of micro climates
There is no such thing as a 'micro' climate. Climate has no specific area.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |