Remember me
▼ Content

Eureka



Page 1 of 212>
Eureka07-08-2019 18:02
olyz
☆☆☆☆☆
(44)
The ruling money oligarchy was looking for an excuse to rule the world when Gore had his eureka moment. Money alone does it but you need a benign excuse to defuse resistance.


Other

1) What is the ph of sea water around ice core air bubbles with 4000ppm CO2?

2) There is climate change. The Sahara desert was once a jungle. Ice age effect.

3) There have been massive changes in sea level. England and Europe, Russia and America, Africa and Europe, were once connected. Ice age effect.
Continental sinking, rising, and shifting is still going on.

4) We are still in an ice age.

5) The earth is a thin crust on a core of molten iron in a 0degK environment. That is not a stable situation.
07-08-2019 18:19
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
olyz wrote:2) There is climate change. The Sahara desert was once a jungle. Ice age effect.

That's local environment change. The global climate has never changed. Prove me wrong.

olyz wrote: 3) There have been massive changes in sea level. England and Europe, Russia and America, Africa and Europe, were once connected. Ice age effect.

Suppose I were to claim that the sea level has never changed and that tectonic plates simply shift around.

Prove me wrong.

olyz wrote: Continental sinking, rising, and shifting is still going on.

Suppose I were to claim that no continents have ever sunk or emerged from submersion. Prove me wrong.

olyz wrote: 4) We are still in an ice age.

Suppose I were to claim that there has never been an ice age in which an entire hemisphere was frozen at the same time. Prove me wrong.

olyz wrote:5) The earth is a thin crust on a core of molten iron in a 0degK environment. That is not a stable situation.

Show me a 0degK environment.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
07-08-2019 18:52
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
olyz wrote:
The ruling money oligarchy was looking for an excuse to rule the world when Gore had his eureka moment. Money alone does it but you need a benign excuse to defuse resistance.


Other

1) What is the ph of sea water around ice core air bubbles with 4000ppm CO2?

Unknown. Ice is not sea water for one thing.
olyz wrote:
2) There is climate change.

Not possible. You can't change a desert climate into anything but desert climate. You can't change tropical climate into anything but tropical climate.
olyz wrote:
The Sahara desert was once a jungle.

If true, the Sahara, which is now a desert climate, was once a tropical climate. Climate hasn't changed. A desert climate is still a desert climate and a tropical climate is still a tropical climate.
olyz wrote:
Ice age effect.

How do you know? Were you there?
olyz wrote:
3) There have been massive changes in sea level. England and Europe, Russia and America, Africa and Europe, were once connected. Ice age effect.

I hear once there was no land at all during a great flood that came from God too.
olyz wrote:
Continental sinking, rising, and shifting is still going on.

True.
olyz wrote:
4) We are still in an ice age.

I live in the Seattle area. That's quite a ways north. There are no massive ice sheets covering the area. Yesterday it was 90 deg F.
olyz wrote:
5) The earth is a thin crust on a core of molten iron in a 0degK environment.

Space is not 0 deg K. The space around Earth is actually quite warm (around -250 deg F). You just can't feel it.
olyz wrote:
That is not a stable situation.

A stable situation is death. Since you are writing this, I assume you aren't dead.


The Parrot Killer
07-08-2019 19:06
olyz
☆☆☆☆☆
(44)
There is geological evidence for my assertions. Sea shells on mountain tops. Yes, the cause is shifting of tectonic plates is more specific.

Local climate: Local environment physically experienced and observed by an individual.
Global climate: Global (spatial) variation of local climate at a particular time. Impossible to quantify.

The hallmark of freely flowing BS is lack of definition of terms, although in the global warming context the change in global average temperature at sea level as a concept is acceptable as a basis for discussion.
07-08-2019 20:00
olyz
☆☆☆☆☆
(44)
Ice age: Period of ice sheet expansion and contraction, lasting billions of years. Right now we are in a contraction but "scientists" conveniently "end" the last ice age at around 10000 years ago.

To determine ph of ice surrounding an air bubble with 4000ppm CO2, melt it.
07-08-2019 20:30
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
olyz wrote:
There is geological evidence for my assertions. Sea shells on mountain tops. Yes, the cause is shifting of tectonic plates is more specific.

See? The Great Flood of Noah happened!
olyz wrote:
Local climate: Local environment physically experienced and observed by an individual.
Global climate: Global (spatial) variation of local climate at a particular time. Impossible to quantify.

No such thing. Climate is usually defined something similar to 'weather over a long time'. The 'long time is unspecified'. Weather has no quantifiable value.

There is such a thing as a desert climate, a tropical climate, a marine climate, etc. There is no such thing as a global climate, for there is no such thing as a global weather.
olyz wrote:
The hallmark of freely flowing BS is lack of definition of terms,

Okay. I'll go with that. Define 'climate change' and 'global warming'.
olyz wrote:
although in the global warming context

Define 'global warming'.
olyz wrote:
the change in global average temperature at sea level as a concept is acceptable as a basis for discussion.

From when to when? Why are those two points in time important? Why are any other two points in time not important?

How are you measuring global average temperature?

Define 'global warming'.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 07-08-2019 20:30
07-08-2019 20:34
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
olyz wrote:
Ice age: Period of ice sheet expansion and contraction, lasting billions of years. Right now we are in a contraction but "scientists" conveniently "end" the last ice age at around 10000 years ago.

To determine ph of ice surrounding an air bubble with 4000ppm CO2, melt it.


Why do you have to melt it? How do you maintain an air bubble with 4000ppm of CO2 in it?


The Parrot Killer
07-08-2019 20:37
olyz
☆☆☆☆☆
(44)
Ice cores. How reliable is ice core aging. Who knows.
08-08-2019 00:17
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
olyz wrote: There is geological evidence for my assertions.

... but no proof.

olyz wrote: Sea shells on mountain tops.

I'm betting that the people that dumped those shells there are laughing at how confused you are.

olyz wrote: Global climate: Global (spatial) variation of local climate at a particular time. Impossible to quantify.

You bet it's impossible to quantify ... it's a logical contradiction! How do you have a global variation of something local? What would a global variation of my backyard look like?

olyz wrote:The hallmark of freely flowing BS is lack of definition of terms,

You certainly don't have to twist my arm on this one.

olyz wrote: ... although in the global warming context the change in global average temperature at sea level as a concept is acceptable as a basis for discussion.

In such a discussion, what is the presumed cause for the change in the average sea level atmospheric temperature? Why doesn't the discussion simply involve the average global temperature? Are you saying that the average temperature at sea level changes in one direction while other average atmospheric temperatures change in the other direction in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
08-08-2019 01:16
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(593)
IBdaMann wrote:The global climate has never changed. Prove me wrong.


What do you mean by this? and I will resist the temptation to ask you to define climate : )
08-08-2019 01:46
olyz
☆☆☆☆☆
(44)
If, for example, you define local climate as temperature, then there is indeed a global variation at a particular instant of time.
08-08-2019 02:08
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(593)
olyz wrote:
If, for example, you define local climate as temperature, then there is indeed a global variation at a particular instant of time.


Easier to just call it temperature or local temperature.
08-08-2019 02:20
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(593)
IBdaMann wrote:
Suppose I were to claim that no continents have ever sunk or emerged from submersion. Prove me wrong.


You don't believe the evidence for Beringia?

I take you don't believe there ever was an ice age?
08-08-2019 03:16
olyz
☆☆☆☆☆
(44)
If, for example, you define local climate as temperature, it certainly does have a global variation at a particular point in time.
08-08-2019 04:57
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(973)
olyz wrote:
If, for example, you define local climate as temperature, it certainly does have a global variation at a particular point in time.


Why would you need two words, to mean the same thing? If you are talking about temperature, you say temperature.

Climate is a subjective description of the environment around you. Temperature is only part of it. Water also plays an important role as well, since it's a huge part of the surface. There are dry, moist, damp, humid, and wet climates, each can be cold, warm, or hot as well. These climates can change with the seasons, but general follow the same basic cycle every year.
08-08-2019 05:34
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Suppose I were to claim that no continents have ever sunk or emerged from submersion. Prove me wrong.


You don't believe the evidence for Beringia?

I take you don't believe there ever was an ice age?

You missed the point entirely.

Each hypothetical claim was followed by a "prove me wrong." If you can't prove the supposition false then you have no basis for badgering someone who believes the supposition to be true. That would be like attacking someone for accepting science.

Olyz apparently binds his beliefs to speculations about the past. I am showing that not sharing his speculations about the past becomes sufficient to not share his beliefs.


As far as what I believe about ice ages, I would say that I am not entirely convinced there were periods where almost all the earth was covered in ice at the same time.

I believe that virtually all of the earth was, at one time or another, under ice, just not all at the same time. Look at the earth today. There's a patch of ice over Greenland. I imagine future archaeologists claiming that all of Europe and parts of Africa were under ice during the 21st century by pointing to "evidence" in Greenland.

Prove to me that an entire hemisphere was all under ice at the same time. Sure, you could punt and simply attack me for not blindly believing what you were taught to believe, but I know that I have never been presented evidence to believe simultaneous global ice sheets.

Individual ice sheets at different times, sure. Simultaneous, ... there's no reason to believe it.

Prove me wrong. Hint: I will grant you the past existence of ice sheets at all points on earth. You need to show they occurred at the same time. Good luck.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
08-08-2019 05:35
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
olyz wrote:
If, for example, you define local climate as temperature, it certainly does have a global variation at a particular point in time.

No. This post doesn't make any more sense than the previous.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
08-08-2019 05:53
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:The global climate has never changed. Prove me wrong.


What do you mean by this? and I will resist the temptation to ask you to define climate : )

That which does not exist cannot change.

All things that do not exist are identical in their nonexistence.

The Global Climate is a logical contradiction and therefore does not exist. Oh, it therefore cannot change.

By the way, I have no problem defining my terms.

Climate: a human characterization of local conditions bounded by a time frame/constraint, e.g., daytime, winter, 1977, etc...

Examples:

The daytime summer climate of Phoenix, AZ, is extremely hot; heavy outdoor physical exertion should be avoided.

The political climate in Washington D.C. leading up to midterms is very contentious and divisive.

The business climate at that law firm during tax season is one of high stress and exhaustive work schedules.


... and remember that "global" is the opposite of "local."

... and remember that human characterizations do not require any data.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
08-08-2019 07:01
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
olyz wrote:
If, for example, you define local climate as temperature, it certainly does have a global variation at a particular point in time.


Okay. So you define 'climate' is 'temperature'. To you, these are synonyms. I will note that this is your definition in the future. It seems silly, since we already have the word 'temperature', and you feel you need a 2nd word to describe 'temperature', and there is already a definition of 'climate' that has nothing to do with temperature, but that's you. I will use the word 'temperature'.

You refer to a single point in time. Nothing changes in a single point of time. There is zero time interval. No change of any quantifiable value is possible.

Therefore, I will assume you mean TWO points in time, which remain unspecified.

Now before you go any further, please be sure to describe why any two points in time you use are significant, and why any other two points in time are not significant.


The Parrot Killer
08-08-2019 07:17
olyz
☆☆☆☆☆
(44)
I did not define climate as temperature. I used temperature as a particular climate variable to make a point.

Sorry, I don't know how to quote passages from other posts.
08-08-2019 07:52
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
olyz wrote:
I did not define climate as temperature. I used temperature as a particular climate variable to make a point.

Sorry, I don't know how to quote passages from other posts.


You are now locked in paradox:
1) climate is temperature.
2) climate is not temperature.

Which is it, dude? Arguing both sides of a paradox is irrational. You MUST discard one argument utterly, never to use it again, to clear your paradox. Denying your paradox does not make it go away.


The Parrot Killer
08-08-2019 08:10
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(593)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Climate is a subjective description of the environment around you.


No it's a measured collection of what we humans call "the weather": Climate

IBdaMann wrote:badgering someone who believes the supposition to be true....
As far as what I believe about ice ages, I would say that I am not entirely convinced there were periods where almost all the earth was covered in ice at the same time.
I believe that virtually all of the earth was, at one time or another, under ice, just not all at the same time.
.


Yeah I was just wanting to clarify what the supposition was

I didn't even know there was a theory that the whole earth was ever an ice ball.

IBdaMann wrote:
Examples:
The daytime summer climate of Phoenix, AZ, is extremely hot; heavy outdoor physical exertion should be avoided.


Or the climate in Arizona is much warmer and dryer on average that that of Ireland.
Edited on 08-08-2019 08:11
08-08-2019 16:45
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
tmiddles wrote:Or the climate in Arizona is much warmer and dryer on average that that of Ireland.

Sure. This works.

You are delineating two separate climates by geographical locality and saying that regardless of the time frame, selected, Phoenix (not necessarily Arizona) will be warmer and dryer, for the most part, that Ireland.

You presented a human characterization without any data. You hit the nail on the head.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
08-08-2019 20:47
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Climate is a subjective description of the environment around you.


No it's a measured collection of what we humans call "the weather": Climate

Weather is not quantifiable. How much 'weather' are we talking about? Weather itself is a description, not a quantity. Further, how much is 'a long time'? Climate is usually defined as weather over 'a long time' or something similar. The time is unspecified. It is NOT measured.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:badgering someone who believes the supposition to be true....
As far as what I believe about ice ages, I would say that I am not entirely convinced there were periods where almost all the earth was covered in ice at the same time.
I believe that virtually all of the earth was, at one time or another, under ice, just not all at the same time.
.


Yeah I was just wanting to clarify what the supposition was

I didn't even know there was a theory that the whole earth was ever an ice ball.

Both are theories. Neither is a theory of science.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Examples:
The daytime summer climate of Phoenix, AZ, is extremely hot; heavy outdoor physical exertion should be avoided.


Or the climate in Arizona is much warmer and dryer on average that that of Ireland.

Yup. Another demonstration that climate, as well as weather, are descriptive and subjective by nature. There is quantity of 'weather'. There is no quantity of 'climate'. Therefore, climate doesn't change. There is no way to describe a change.

A desert climate will always be a desert climate, even when the desert is no more or some other desert appears.

A marine climate will always be a marine climate, even if some place currently in a marine climate becomes a desert.

Weather has no data. Climate has no data. There is no quantity. There is not change. There is no change of quantity.

The only data is about some aspect of weather that has been quantified. Things like temperature, humidity, sky cover from 0 to 100%, wind speeds, etc.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 08-08-2019 20:53
08-08-2019 21:56
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
Into the Night wrote:Both are theories. Neither is a theory of science.

Actually, mine is just a belief. I'm not even offering a theory. If anything, my belief is simply one of not being convinced of a theory (re: the standard ice age speculation).

... and of course I employed no science in the formation of my belief other than perhaps the scientific method by questioning whether the ice age theory is externally consistent with it's unsupported assumption that the earth's average global temperature simply plummeted. Could it have because of some external event? Sure. Do I have any reason for simply assuming that such an external event occurred? No.

Into the Night wrote: Yup. Another demonstration that climate, as well as weather, are descriptive and subjective by nature. There is quantity of 'weather'. There is no quantity of 'climate'. Therefore, climate doesn't change. There is no way to describe a change.

Well put. Weather is entirely measurable and is constantly changing whereas a climate is a subjective, unmeasurable characterization that cannot change ... unless the subjective characterization changes, i.e.

Guy from Maine: Phoenix's climate is way too hot. Take me back to Maine!

Guy originally from Maine after three years of acclimation: Phoenix's climate is nice and warm, unlike Maine's!

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
08-08-2019 22:33
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(593)
IBdaMann wrote:climate ...
You presented a human characterization without any data.


Into the Night wrote:
No it's a measured collection of what we humans call "the weather"


If I told you that the specs on a piece of machinery were to my liking it would be the same as saying the climate was to my liking. It's a known, consistent set of data.

Do as you will but the vocabulary battles on here are not fruitful in my opinion.

Climate=Weather I don't know of anyone who thinks different. That's temperature, wind, precipitation, ect.

On here everyone should just say temperature since that's invariably what they mean.

But if I said the specs on a Ford Pinto are inherently a threat to human safety it's just more useful to get to the point and not quibble about what I meant by specs when we both know.

A good reminder on this board would be:
"Did you mean temperature? Than just say temperature"
Edited on 08-08-2019 22:34
09-08-2019 03:24
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
tmiddles wrote:If I told you that the specs on a piece of machinery were to my liking it would be the same as saying the climate was to my liking. It's a known, consistent set of data.

Nope. There's no data involved. It's just a subjective characterization that is usually a gut feel.

Would you have to look up any weather data on Phoenix for the summer of 2004 in order to verify that, yes, Phoenix's climate is still the same as that year?

Answer: no, of course not. WHATEVER the unknown data, Phoenix did not deviate from your characterization.

tmiddles wrote: Do as you will but the vocabulary battles on here are not fruitful in my opinion.

Then stop trying to redefine words.

You have to know that I have been speaking English my entire life and I know what words mean. The moment you try to misuse them, you can bet that I'm going to know. I hope that you don't think you are going to be able to somehow fool me.

And you should stop allowing yourself to be manipulated. You know very well that you have never researched a single dataset before characterizing a climate. Never. So why do you somehow believe that I will be as gullible as you?

Data is not involved in characterizing a climate. Human experience is. Period. End of story.

tmiddles wrote:Climate=Weather I don't know of anyone who thinks different.

Well you can't say that anymore. It would be accurate to say that only the gullibly naive allow themselves to be manipulated into regurgitating something that stupid, usually after being bent over furniture.

tmiddles wrote:On here everyone should just say temperature since that's invariably what they mean.

Speak for yourself.

When I discuss a climate, I do it properly. I render my characterization of the local conditions.

Let's do another one: Wow, that Pensacola climate is *humid*!

Tell me I'm misusing the term. Tell me that I can't say what I said because I didn't make my assessment from reviewing any data (I simply felt/experienced it). Tell me that I have to limit my climate discussion to "temperature." Go on, support your assertion that I am somehow not precisely on target.

I don't know who it is you are trusting for your (mis)information but you are getting reamed.

tmiddles wrote:But if I said the specs on a Ford Pinto are inherently a threat to human safety it's just more useful to get to the point and not quibble about what I meant by specs when we both know.

Nope. This is a terrible example. You don't speak in characterizations when you are discussing specific dangers.

A better example would be to say that you don't particularly like the way Ford Fiestas drive because they are very sluggish whereas Kia Rios have more pep. Characterization based on experience, no data required. Yes, you could opt to discuss performance data, but more importantly, you don't have to.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
09-08-2019 06:49
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(593)
IBdaMann wrote:
When I discuss a climate, I do it properly. I render my characterization of the local conditions.


Where are you getting this definition?

To me, most and the dictionary:
the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period.
synonym: Weather

Weather:
the state of the atmosphere at a place and time as regards heat, dryness, sunshine, wind, rain, etc.

"Climate" is short hand for the temperature, humidity, wind and in general the weather.

All of those things are easily measurable in a location, top the news reports and in fact people are and always have been fairly obsessed with that data.

It would be no different for you to say that when I talk about the time of day it's my personal characterization of 4:03PM on a Tuesday.
09-08-2019 07:03
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
tmiddles wrote:Where are you getting this definition?

We've been over this. I speak English.

tmiddles wrote:To me, most and the dictionary:the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period.
synonym: Weather


You only get to make this claim after you have refuted my point that you EVADED:


Let's do another one: Wow, that Pensacola climate is *humid*!

Tell me I'm misusing the term. Tell me that I can't say what I said because I didn't make my assessment from reviewing any data (I simply felt/experienced it). Tell me that I have to limit my climate discussion to "temperature." Go on, support your assertion that I am somehow not precisely on target.


There's no data in a climate. If you are talking data then you might very well be talking about weather but you aren't talking about a climate.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
09-08-2019 07:03
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
tmiddles wrote:Where are you getting this definition?

We've been over this. I speak English.

tmiddles wrote:To me, most and the dictionary:the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period.
synonym: Weather


You only get to make this claim after you have refuted my point that you EVADED:


Let's do another one: Wow, that Pensacola climate is *humid*!

Tell me I'm misusing the term. Tell me that I can't say what I said because I didn't make my assessment from reviewing any data (I simply felt/experienced it). Tell me that I have to limit my climate discussion to "temperature." Go on, support your assertion that I am somehow not precisely on target.


There's no data in a climate. If you are talking data then you might very well be talking about weather but you aren't talking about a climate.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
09-08-2019 08:02
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(593)
IBdaMann wrote:my point that you EVADED:

Let's do another one: Wow, that Pensacola climate is *humid*!

Tell me I'm misusing the term.

There's no data in a climate.



It's a general aggregate term yes. It's convenient because it introduces a category to the listener. Now in discussing Pensacola someone chose to give their emotional reaction to their assertion that the humidity was relatively high (from the reference point of the average weather that the speaker and listener know in their location). They also chose the accuracy level for their need which was simply to say that it was a lot more than average. They chose to be vague. The word Climate didn't force this on them.

Climate would be an incomprehensible, literally, answer to a question as it's a topic.

When someone says "let's talk about climate" it's a known set of weather measurements but they may only want to talk about some of them. Also the accuracy of their discussion will depend on why they want to talk about it.

If someone says that the climate really has changed or will the natural question would be, if your don't already know what they mean, to ask how? Not "define Climate"

Global Warming advocates talk about temperature mainly but also how the changes it could cause would effect things like Hurricanes, the jet stream, and some wind and humidity events.

"Climate Change" is the best title because "Climate" generally means "Weather" in the long term, not just this weekend.
Edited on 09-08-2019 08:04
10-08-2019 05:14
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:my point that you EVADED:

Let's do another one: Wow, that Pensacola climate is *humid*!

Tell me I'm misusing the term.

There's no data in a climate.



It's a general aggregate term yes. It's convenient because it introduces a category to the listener. Now in discussing Pensacola someone chose to give their emotional reaction to their assertion that the humidity was relatively high (from the reference point of the average weather that the speaker and listener know in their location). They also chose the accuracy level for their need which was simply to say that it was a lot more than average. They chose to be vague. The word Climate didn't force this on them.

Climate would be an incomprehensible, literally, answer to a question as it's a topic.

When someone says "let's talk about climate" it's a known set of weather measurements but they may only want to talk about some of them. Also the accuracy of their discussion will depend on why they want to talk about it.

If someone says that the climate really has changed or will the natural question would be, if your don't already know what they mean, to ask how? Not "define Climate"

Define 'climate change'.
tmiddles wrote:
Global Warming advocates talk about temperature mainly but also how the changes it could cause would effect things like Hurricanes, the jet stream, and some wind and humidity events.

Define 'global warming'.
tmiddles wrote:
"Climate Change" is the best title because "Climate" generally means "Weather" in the long term, not just this weekend.

You cannot define 'climate change' as 'climate change'. Circular definition.

Define 'climate change'.


The Parrot Killer
10-08-2019 05:25
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(593)
Into the Night wrote:
Define 'climate change'.
[quote][b]tmiddles wrote
Define 'global warming'.


NP

Climate is the weather overall, long term (as in not this weekend but all year)

It's no less difficult a word than talking about the economy of North Dakota. Sure it's complex but we both know what an economy is.

So Climate Change is a change in the weather, that's all

It's a subject matter not a description of a specific event. It should beg the question "How's the weather going to change"

Global= world wide Warming = increase in the temperature

So Global warming refers to an increase in the temperature due to human activity (this is how it's been defined). We may not be able to measure the mean temperature of Earth with great precision but there is one.
10-08-2019 07:25
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Define 'climate change'.
[quote]tmiddles wrote
Define 'global warming'.


NP

Climate is the weather overall, long term (as in not this weekend but all year)

It's no less difficult a word than talking about the economy of North Dakota. Sure it's complex but we both know what an economy is.

So Climate Change is a change in the weather, that's all

You are still trying to define 'climate change' as 'climate change', by simply choosing a shorter time interval. Circular definition. Define 'climate change'.
[b]tmiddles wrote:
It's a subject matter not a description of a specific event. It should beg the question "How's the weather going to change"

Since you have defined 'climate' over a short time interval, you are still trying to define 'climate change' with 'climate change'.
tmiddles wrote:
Global= world wide Warming = increase in the temperature

So Global warming refers to an increase in the temperature due to human activity (this is how it's been defined). We may not be able to measure the mean temperature of Earth with great precision but there is one.

So...'global warming' is 'global warming'?? Circular definition. You cannot define a word with itself.

Define 'global warming'.


The Parrot Killer
10-08-2019 08:41
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(593)
Into the Night wrote:Circular definition.


Do you accept that "the economy of North Dakota" is clear an does not require a question like "Define economy"?
10-08-2019 17:15
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
tmiddles wrote:Do you accept that "the economy of North Dakota" is clear an does not require a question like "Define economy"?

It requires definition if your usage is unclear.

If I were to say "The economy of North Dakota is affectionate at times but it is destroying my back yard" you would be well within reason to ask me what the hell I'm talking about, even if I were to claim that it is settled science.

There are rules for a proper definition. There are rules for proper use of terms and pronouns.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
10-08-2019 17:39
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
tmiddles wrote: Climate is the weather overall, long term (as in not this weekend but all year)

... and that makes no sense.

This notion is summarily dismissed until you can specify what the earth's climate, i.e. weather overall, is right now ... or for any one-minute interval of your choosing.

... which eliminates your next silly notion:

tmiddles wrote: So Climate Change is a change in the weather, that's all

Nope.

tmiddles wrote: It should beg the question "How's the weather going to change"

Great! Give me an example of a change of the global "climate" keeping in mind your definitions:

tmiddles wrote: Global= world wide Warming = increase in the temperature


tmiddles wrote: So Global warming refers to an increase in the temperature....

Which temperature? There are many.

tmiddles wrote: ... due to human activity (this is how it's been defined).

You knew this was coming ... define "human activity". Are you claiming that the definition includes human thought as a cause for Global Warming?

Holding one's breath is certainly a human activity. Is that supposedly a cause of Global Warming?

tmiddles wrote: We may not be able to measure the mean temperature of Earth with great precision but there is one.

I see you continue to insist on conflating "accuracy" and "precision." Any particular reason?

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
11-08-2019 01:22
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(593)
IBdaMann wrote:"The economy of North Dakota is affectionate at times but it is destroying my back yard"


First time I did a real LOL in a while. Very funny.

So FINALLY I'm getting an indication of what you and ITN are objecting to.

So Climate is a synonym of Weather which has well established parameters of temperature, wind, ect. But Climate implies it is in general, for the whole year and so on. None of that is problematic if you're talking about a particular location on Earth.

"If I were a tour guide and said the climate of the grand canyon is is considerably warmer and with far less snow fall today than at the time when giant glaciers carved these canyons." you and ITN would not demand the tour guide define Climate Change in that usage???

What you all are saying is that the "Climate of Earth" is a nonsensical concept because it's not one thing it's an incredibly complex mix of multiple climates?

Do I have that right?
11-08-2019 03:33
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
tmiddles wrote:So Climate is a synonym of Weather which has well established parameters of temperature, wind, ect.

This is your claim. I claim that "climate" and "weather" are completely separate concepts.

Now I am happy to let you define your terms, but you end up making the same contradictory statements that get summarily dismissed.

Before we go any further, just pick your favorite 5-minute interval in earth's history and tell me what the global climate was for that interval.

We can clear this whole thing up right here, right now.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
11-08-2019 05:59
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(593)
IBdaMann wrote: I claim that "climate" and "weather" are completely separate concepts....

just pick your favorite 5-minute interval in earth's history and tell me what the global climate was for that interval.

We can clear this whole thing up right here, right now.
.


OK good point. Thats the same question as asking what is the weather of Earth to me.

The dictionary pretty much lines up with my understanding of the word:
cli·mate
noun
the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period.

So asking me "what is the weather of Earth between 4:00PM and 4:05PM GMT on 8/9/19" would be the correct question as "Climate" is used to describe full range of weather in an area long term (annually usually of course). So I guess I could throw all of the weather reports and satelite data at you?

But forget about what you want to know about "Climate", that's immaterial since you don't. What is being discussed in "Climate Change" is "Global Warming" which would be a increase in temperature for all of Earth.

Now we have no trouble in discussing the emissivity of a planet in recognizing that the surface temperature has a value (even if it cannot be determined) and that that value can change if the energy input or emissity value changes.

So If I asked you "Hey IBDamann, the new NASA plan to change the trajectory of Earth's orbit to bring us closer to the sun is surely going to result in climate change" and you said "Really tmiddles? What would you expect to change about the climate" and I said "Well I would expect the planet to get warmer of course and for the mean temperature everywhere to go up due to the increased energy from the sun, I call that global warming, because it's the globe getting warmer".

That's a perfectly normal conversation and I'm having trouble seeing how any of those words should be replaced with better ones.

Now you might say "Do you know the average temperature of Earth?" and I would say "NO" and you would say "then global warming is impossible". At which point I would not know what to say because it would be awkward.
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate Eureka:

Remember me

▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact