Long Term Climate Change Perspective

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Long Term Climate Change Perspective

Long Term Climate Change Perspective08-04-2016 00:30
evolutionist ☆☆☆☆☆ (1)	Ever since I learned about the Butterfly Effect, discovered by Edward Lorenz, I've been baffled at the Climate Change discussion. I thought – and I still think – that he conclusively proved that the climate is fundamentally unpredictable. Sure, there are trends and ages, but the Man is just one factor among the multitude. I'm very worried about sea life and the extinction of species but I'm afraid there's a serious anthropocentric bias in the whole discussion. Every other story about mammoths, vanished civilizations and extinct species mentions climate warming and cooling as a matter of fact. At turns, the Earth has been a snowball and a smothering hothouse. Evolution has been pushing on, despite of comets hitting the ground and volcanos erupting. Life has a way of keeping its head up. Oceans have risen and fallen, Ice Ages come and gone. There's been several great extinctions before Man, yet Life has always prevailed. I don't deny climate change at all, because it's always been around, from the year zero. Hoping to prevent it is a superstition, a fantasy of anthropocentric delusions of omnipotence and ignorance. What we should do, is to protect the keystone species like the big sea mammals – and clean up the plastic pollution from the seas. Forget about the coal emissions - Ma Gaia will take care of that.
08-04-2016 07:01
IBdaMann★★★★★ (15126)	evolutionist wrote: . I don't deny climate change at all, because it's always been around, from the year zero.. Are you sure? What is "climate" and what are its units of measure? How can I measure "climate" myself so I can verify that it has changed? 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
12-05-2016 23:28
JamesTankard ☆☆☆☆☆ (5)	IBdaMann wrote: evolutionist wrote: . I don't deny climate change at all, because it's always been around, from the year zero.. Are you sure? What is "climate" and what are its units of measure? How can I measure "climate" myself so I can verify that it has changed? Climate does change over time as several proxies indicate. Around 50 million years ago changes in the assemblages of tropical plankton found in the fossil record as well as oxygen isotope ratios from marine foraminifera indicate that temperatures were much warmer. High levels of 12C isotope found in fossilized organic sources all over the world suggests that between 2500 and 8000 billion tons of carbon must have been added to the atmosphere and oceans combined leading up to this warm period called the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. Today, we have added about 300 billion tons of carbon since the pre-industrial era , but the rate of carbon emissions today is 5-10x higher than during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum.
14-05-2016 12:20
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1361)	evolutionist wrote: Ever since I learned about the Butterfly Effect, discovered by Edward Lorenz, I've been baffled at the Climate Change discussion. I thought – and I still think – that he conclusively proved that the climate is fundamentally unpredictable. Sure, there are trends and ages, but the Man is just one factor among the multitude. I'm very worried about sea life and the extinction of species but I'm afraid there's a serious anthropocentric bias in the whole discussion. Every other story about mammoths, vanished civilizations and extinct species mentions climate warming and cooling as a matter of fact. At turns, the Earth has been a snowball and a smothering hothouse. Evolution has been pushing on, despite of comets hitting the ground and volcanos erupting. Life has a way of keeping its head up. Oceans have risen and fallen, Ice Ages come and gone. There's been several great extinctions before Man, yet Life has always prevailed. I don't deny climate change at all, because it's always been around, from the year zero. Hoping to prevent it is a superstition, a fantasy of anthropocentric delusions of omnipotence and ignorance. What we should do, is to protect the keystone species like the big sea mammals – and clean up the plastic pollution from the seas. Forget about the coal emissions - Ma Gaia will take care of that. Yes. Although the Gaia bit makes you sound unscientific.
15-05-2016 02:37
IBdaMann★★★★★ (15126)	JamesTankard wrote:Climate does change over time How do you know? What is "climate" exactly and what are the units of measure? Fossils? Are you really just talking about archeology? Tim the Plumber never clarified when I asked him. . 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 Edited on 15-05-2016 02:38
15-05-2016 18:10
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1361)	IBdaMann wrote: JamesTankard wrote:Climate does change over time How do you know? What is "climate" exactly and what are the units of measure? Fossils? Are you really just talking about archeology? Tim the Plumber never clarified when I asked him. The units are the same as used for weather. The aspect of climate you are interested in determines the units you will be using. I agree that thinking of thousanths of a degree of temperature change is utterly silly in either weather or climate but that does not make the words meaningless. Lots of words have inprecise definitions. Such as wealth.
16-05-2016 06:46
Into the Night★★★★★ (23897)	Tim the plumber wrote: IBdaMann wrote: JamesTankard wrote:Climate does change over time How do you know? What is "climate" exactly and what are the units of measure? Fossils? Are you really just talking about archeology? Tim the Plumber never clarified when I asked him. The units are the same as used for weather. The aspect of climate you are interested in determines the units you will be using. I agree that thinking of thousanths of a degree of temperature change is utterly silly in either weather or climate but that does not make the words meaningless. Lots of words have inprecise definitions. Such as wealth. The word climate in almost any dictionary specified a phrase similar to 'a long time'. This means there is no unit of measurement transposable between meteorology (weather) and climate. Yes, you can mention temperature, for example, but because it's a value measured 'over a long time' that remains unspecified, there is no meaning to it. It cannot be considered a sample for use in the world of science. This is the fundamental reason 'climate' doesn't work in data collection for scientific purposes. There is no way to quantify it, as 'a long time' is not a quantifiable unit of time. 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
20-05-2016 13:36
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1361)	The same can be said for the word history. Despite this there are large history sections in libaries and book shops and we all know what it is about. Words do not need precise definitions to work in the way they are intended often. Edited on 20-05-2016 13:36
20-05-2016 22:31
Tai Hai Chen ★★★★☆ (1085)	Climate is usually, but not exclusively, defined as weather averaged over 30 years. This is not universally accepted definition. Climate can be defined as weather averaged over 1 year, 10 years, 100 years, 1000 years, 10000 years, 100000 years, and so on.
21-05-2016 02:07
Into the Night★★★★★ (23897)	Tai Hai Chen wrote: Climate is usually, but not exclusively, defined as weather averaged over 30 years. This is not universally accepted definition. Climate can be defined as weather averaged over 1 year, 10 years, 100 years, 1000 years, 10000 years, 100000 years, and so on. And who chose these arbitrary numbers as the 'standard number of years before you call something a climate'? Certainly not any dictionary. 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
21-05-2016 12:39
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1361)	You define what climate, what time periods, where and what about it when you use the word. It's like history. Or communication. Or fashion. Not a word with a single easy definition but we all know what area you mean. Easy unless you are being obstructive. Edited on 21-05-2016 12:39
21-05-2016 22:13
Into the Night★★★★★ (23897)	Tim the plumber wrote: You define what climate, what time periods, where and what about it when you use the word. It's like history. Or communication. Or fashion. Not a word with a single easy definition but we all know what area you mean. Easy unless you are being obstructive. You cannot quantify climate, so you cannot describe its rate of change. You cannot quantify history, so you cannot describe its rate of change. You can quantify communication, so you can describe the rate of communication. You cannot quantify fashion. so you cannot describe its rate of change. Any others words you need clarification on? 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
24-05-2016 04:38
IBdaMann★★★★★ (15126)	Tai Hai Chen wrote:Climate is usually, but not exclusively, defined as weather averaged over 30 years. What does "averaged" weather look like? Can you give me an example of a one-week global "climate"? (just average the global weather over one week) . 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
24-05-2016 04:44
IBdaMann★★★★★ (15126)	Tim the plumber wrote:Easy unless you are being obstructive. Great! It's easy. I wouldn't want to ask you something difficult. Please give me an example of a one-week global weather average. . 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
11-05-2026 05:09
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3285)	This was slightly less than 10 years ago. YARP (Yellow And Red Parrot, aka "ITN" or Into the Night) had already found his niche here. Gotta get that "unambiguous definition" for "climate". "The word 'climate' in almost any dictionary specified a phrase similar to "a long time". - YARP This was before the metamorphosis was complete. YARP still acknowledged that there was "such a thing" as "climate" that people agreed on definitions for, and that DICTIONARIES were a place where agreed upon definitions were listed. Why must it be a "long time" before you call it "climate"? Because it is the consistent pattern of weather that defines "climate", and about three decades of data are needed to confirm its consistency. "There is no way to quantify it, as 'a long time' is not a quantifiable unit of time." - YARP And that is why no published scientific paper regarding climate change uses "a long time" as the interval for comparison of averages, etc. Thirty years is a favorite interval among climate scientists to make such comparisons of past and present, to discern if anything has "changed". There are quite a few variables that can be measured very precisely at the regional scale to quantitatively characterize the climate "regime". Regional average temperature and its variation over time, precipitation and its distribution over time, wind and its average velocity over time. Average annual values can be quantified. Average daily highs and lows. Monthly averages, for the "Hottest July ever recorded" kind of thing. It is all very quantifiable. Just ask the omniscient gods at Google! [b]"What are some examples of regional climate regimes?"[/b] Google say: "Regional climate regimes are large-scale, distinctive weather patterns shaped by geography ocean currents, and latitude, covering areas hundreds to thousands of kilometers wide. Major examples include... * Mediterranean climate: Characterized by warm, dry summers and mild, rainy winters, typical of regions near the Mediterranean Sea, California, and parts of Western Australia." - Google, 2026 Using the "a long time" interval of 30 years, the shift in "Mediterranean" climate weather patterns has been discernable for more than forty years already. The QUANTIFIABLE climate change has been exhaustively characterized by people who actually study this kind of science. But this ten year old post was from a time when YARP at least admitted that dictionaries PRETENDED to publish agreed upon definitions for terms such as "climate". If you are not afraid to learn what climate IS, it will become much easier to understand why (virtually) everyone insists that climate CAN change over time, and why nearly all climate scientists insist that it is changing in a new way before our eyes as we observe and measure it. Into the Night wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: IBdaMann wrote: JamesTankard wrote:Climate does change over time How do you know? What is "climate" exactly and what are the units of measure? Fossils? Are you really just talking about archeology? Tim the Plumber never clarified when I asked him. The units are the same as used for weather. The aspect of climate you are interested in determines the units you will be using. I agree that thinking of thousanths of a degree of temperature change is utterly silly in either weather or climate but that does not make the words meaningless. Lots of words have inprecise definitions. Such as wealth. The word climate in almost any dictionary specified a phrase similar to 'a long time'. This means there is no unit of measurement transposable between meteorology (weather) and climate. Yes, you can mention temperature, for example, but because it's a value measured 'over a long time' that remains unspecified, there is no meaning to it. It cannot be considered a sample for use in the world of science. This is the fundamental reason 'climate' doesn't work in data collection for scientific purposes. There is no way to quantify it, as 'a long time' is not a quantifiable unit of time. So, why choose 30 years as the magick "a long time" interval to use for averaging and discerning consistent patterns in quantifiable climate data? Honestly, I don't know what went on the discussions among climate scientists to settle on 30 years, but I know my own research benefitted from having a MINIMUM sample size of 27 for comparison. The statistical power takes a leap between 26 and 27 that is well worth including at least ONE more in the set. So, I can at least understand why it would be at least 27 years, and 26 years would be TOO FEW for it to be "a long time" that PROVES if the "pattern" has changed. Edited on 11-05-2026 05:52
11-05-2026 05:57
Into the Night★★★★★ (23897)	Im a BM wrote: ...deleted whining... There are quite a few variables that can be measured very precisely at the regional scale to quantitatively characterize the climate "regime". Climate has no variables. Im a BM wrote: Regional average temperature and its variation over time, Climate has no temperature. Im a BM wrote: precipitation Climate has no precipitation. Im a BM wrote: and its distribution over time, Climate is not statistical math. Im a BM wrote: wind and its average velocity over time. Climate has no wind speed or direction. Im a BM wrote: Average annual values can be quantified. Climate has no time interval. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Im a BM wrote: Average daily highs and lows. Monthly averages, for the "Hottest July ever recorded" kind of thing. It is all very quantifiable. Base rate fallacy. Im a BM wrote: Google say: "Regional climate regimes are large-scale, distinctive weather patterns shaped by geography ocean currents, and latitude, covering areas hundreds to thousands of kilometers wide. Major examples include... Google is not sentient. Climate is not a government or kingdom. Climate is not weather. Climate is not an ocean current. Im a BM wrote: * Mediterranean climate: Characterized by warm, dry summers and mild, rainy winters, typical of regions near the Mediterranean Sea, California, and parts of Western Australia." - Google, 2026 California is not in the Mediterranean. Australia is not in the Mediterranean. Summer everywhere tends to be dry. Winter everywhere tends to be wet. Im a BM wrote: Using the "a long time" interval of 30 years, Climate is not a time interval. Im a BM wrote: the shift in "Mediterranean" climate weather patterns has been discernable for more than forty years already. Climate is not a weather pattern. A Mediterranean climate is always a Mediterranean climate. Im a BM wrote: The QUANTIFIABLE climate change Climate has no quantity. Im a BM wrote: has been exhaustively characterized by people who actually study this kind of science. Climate is not a branch of science. Im a BM wrote: If you are not afraid to learn what climate IS, Climate is a subjective description. Im a BM wrote: it will become much easier to understand why (virtually) everyone insists that climate CAN change over time, Climate has no values. Im a BM wrote: and why nearly all climate scientists Climate is not a branch of science. Im a BM wrote: insist that it is changing in a new way before our eyes as we observe and measure it. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. 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
11-05-2026 08:29
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3285)	Climate is NOT! "Climate has no (8 identified features/characteristics alleged to be LACKING)" "Climate is not (8 identified things that are NOT climate)" So hard to get Into the Night to share the big secret of what something IS.. "Climate is a subjective description." That is the only actual definition offered. DEFINE YOUR TERMS! What do you think you are communicating when you write the term "climate"? What IS it? What kind of a "subjective description" is climate? Why would it not be possible for a "subjective description" to "change"? Hasn't your "argument" trapped itself in a paradox? Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: ...deleted whining... There are quite a few variables that can be measured very precisely at the regional scale to quantitatively characterize the climate "regime". Climate has no variables. Im a BM wrote: Regional average temperature and its variation over time, Climate has no temperature. Im a BM wrote: precipitation Climate has no precipitation. Im a BM wrote: and its distribution over time, Climate is not statistical math. Im a BM wrote: wind and its average velocity over time. Climate has no wind speed or direction. Im a BM wrote: Average annual values can be quantified. Climate has no time interval. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Im a BM wrote: Average daily highs and lows. Monthly averages, for the "Hottest July ever recorded" kind of thing. It is all very quantifiable. Base rate fallacy. Im a BM wrote: Google say: "Regional climate regimes are large-scale, distinctive weather patterns shaped by geography ocean currents, and latitude, covering areas hundreds to thousands of kilometers wide. Major examples include... Google is not sentient. Climate is not a government or kingdom. Climate is not weather. Climate is not an ocean current. Im a BM wrote: * Mediterranean climate: Characterized by warm, dry summers and mild, rainy winters, typical of regions near the Mediterranean Sea, California, and parts of Western Australia." - Google, 2026 California is not in the Mediterranean. Australia is not in the Mediterranean. Summer everywhere tends to be dry. Winter everywhere tends to be wet. Im a BM wrote: Using the "a long time" interval of 30 years, Climate is not a time interval. Im a BM wrote: the shift in "Mediterranean" climate weather patterns has been discernable for more than forty years already. Climate is not a weather pattern. A Mediterranean climate is always a Mediterranean climate. Im a BM wrote: The QUANTIFIABLE climate change Climate has no quantity. Im a BM wrote: has been exhaustively characterized by people who actually study this kind of science. Climate is not a branch of science. Im a BM wrote: If you are not afraid to learn what climate IS, Climate is a subjective description. Im a BM wrote: it will become much easier to understand why (virtually) everyone insists that climate CAN change over time, Climate has no values. Im a BM wrote: and why nearly all climate scientists Climate is not a branch of science. Im a BM wrote: insist that it is changing in a new way before our eyes as we observe and measure it. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
11-05-2026 18:48
Into the Night★★★★★ (23897)	Im a BM wrote: "Climate is a subjective description." That is the only actual definition offered. What do you think you are communicating when you write the term "climate"? What IS it? What kind of a "subjective description" is climate? Why would it not be possible for a "subjective description" to "change"? Hasn't your "argument" trapped itself in a paradox? You really should learn English, Robert. Then you would know what subjective means. You might even find out what climate means as well. Climate cannot change. You could benefit from etymology as well. You might even be able to find out what philosophy means, and how it defines words like 'science', 'religion', 'real', 'morality', etc.; and why they are defined that way. Google will not teach you. AI will not teach you. A dictionary will not teach you. I am convinced that the reason you try to bullshit your way through life with buzzwords and meaningless tripe is due to your poor English skills. You never really learned the language. Your mathematics skills could use some work as well. Yet another example of our terrible education system in this country. 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 Edited on 11-05-2026 19:00
11-05-2026 20:41
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3285)	Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: "Climate is a subjective description." That is the only actual definition offered. What do you think you are communicating when you write the term "climate"? What IS it? What kind of a "subjective description" is climate? Why would it not be possible for a "subjective description" to "change"? Hasn't your "argument" trapped itself in a paradox? You really should learn English, Robert. Then you would know what subjective means. You might even find out what climate means as well. Climate cannot change. You could benefit from etymology as well. You might even be able to find out what philosophy means, and how it defines words like 'science', 'religion', 'real', 'morality', etc.; and why they are defined that way. Google will not teach you. AI will not teach you. A dictionary will not teach you. I am convinced that the reason you try to bullshit your way through life with buzzwords and meaningless tripe is due to your poor English skills. You never really learned the language. Your mathematics skills could use some work as well. Yet another example of our terrible education system in this country. I nevur rilly liked coledge verry much. "A cat and THEIR feces.." (ITN) If anyone else butchered the grammer like that IBdaMann would be all over it. At least YOU avoided getting damaged by the education system when you dropped out of college. No contamination by "buzzwords". Your evasions regarding ANY definition of chemistry terms suggests that you might not be what the average Joe would recognize as a "chemist". And you just HAVE to troll EVERYTHING I post, you obnoxious DICK!
11-05-2026 21:50
Into the Night★★★★★ (23897)	Im a BM wrote: Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: "Climate is a subjective description." That is the only actual definition offered. What do you think you are communicating when you write the term "climate"? What IS it? What kind of a "subjective description" is climate? Why would it not be possible for a "subjective description" to "change"? Hasn't your "argument" trapped itself in a paradox? You really should learn English, Robert. Then you would know what subjective means. You might even find out what climate means as well. Climate cannot change. You could benefit from etymology as well. You might even be able to find out what philosophy means, and how it defines words like 'science', 'religion', 'real', 'morality', etc.; and why they are defined that way. Google will not teach you. AI will not teach you. A dictionary will not teach you. I am convinced that the reason you try to bullshit your way through life with buzzwords and meaningless tripe is due to your poor English skills. You never really learned the language. Your mathematics skills could use some work as well. Yet another example of our terrible education system in this country. I nevur rilly liked coledge verry much. "A cat and THEIR feces.." (ITN) If anyone else butchered the grammer like that IBdaMann would be all over it. At least YOU avoided getting damaged by the education system when you dropped out of college. No contamination by "buzzwords". ...deleted remaining whining... You can't blame your illiteracy on anybody else, Robert. Only YOU can do something about it. Whining will not help you learn English, philosophy, mathematics, or science. 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
12-05-2026 02:48
IBdaMann★★★★★ (15126)	Into the Night wrote: If anyone else butchered the grammer like that IBdaMann would be all over it. This is incorrectly written. You are missing a comma, you need to use the subjunctive and "grammar" is spelled with two 'a's, not an 'a' and an 'e'. You should have written "If anyone else were to butcher grammar as you did, IBdaMann would be all over it like white on snow."
12-05-2026 04:04
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3285)	IBdaMann wrote: evolutionist wrote: . I don't deny climate change at all, because it's always been around, from the year zero.. Are you sure? What is "climate" and what are its units of measure? How can I measure "climate" myself so I can verify that it has changed? "evolutionist" was a new member who posted just ONE time. The vast majority of climate-debate.com members who ever posted at all only posted ONE time. IBdaMann didn't get a chance to go full retard on evolutionist. Never got to call him a scientifically illiterate moron and accuse him of being a dishonest and evil Marxist. evolutionist must have been one of those who fled to the hills when confronted with the blinding light of IBdaMann's "science" and "truth".
12-05-2026 19:25
Into the Night★★★★★ (23897)	Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann wrote: evolutionist wrote: . I don't deny climate change at all, because it's always been around, from the year zero.. Are you sure? What is "climate" and what are its units of measure? How can I measure "climate" myself so I can verify that it has changed? "evolutionist" was a new member who posted just ONE time. ...deleted remaining whining... Whining doesn't answer the question, Robert. Evasion. Answer the questions put to you. 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
12-05-2026 20:14
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3285)	Im a BM wrote: This was slightly less than 10 years ago. YARP (Yellow And Red Parrot, aka "ITN" or Into the Night) had already found his niche here. Gotta get that "unambiguous definition" for "climate". "The word 'climate' in almost any dictionary specified a phrase similar to "a long time". - YARP This was before the metamorphosis was complete. YARP still acknowledged that there was "such a thing" as "climate" that people agreed on definitions for, and that DICTIONARIES were a place where agreed upon definitions were listed. Why must it be a "long time" before you call it "climate"? Because it is the consistent pattern of weather that defines "climate", and about three decades of data are needed to confirm its consistency. "There is no way to quantify it, as 'a long time' is not a quantifiable unit of time." - YARP And that is why no published scientific paper regarding climate change uses "a long time" as the interval for comparison of averages, etc. Thirty years is a favorite interval among climate scientists to make such comparisons of past and present, to discern if anything has "changed". There are quite a few variables that can be measured very precisely at the regional scale to quantitatively characterize the climate "regime". Regional average temperature and its variation over time, precipitation and its distribution over time, wind and its average velocity over time. Average annual values can be quantified. Average daily highs and lows. Monthly averages, for the "Hottest July ever recorded" kind of thing. It is all very quantifiable. Just ask the omniscient gods at Google! [b]"What are some examples of regional climate regimes?"[/b] Google say: "Regional climate regimes are large-scale, distinctive weather patterns shaped by geography ocean currents, and latitude, covering areas hundreds to thousands of kilometers wide. Major examples include... * Mediterranean climate: Characterized by warm, dry summers and mild, rainy winters, typical of regions near the Mediterranean Sea, California, and parts of Western Australia." - Google, 2026 Using the "a long time" interval of 30 years, the shift in "Mediterranean" climate weather patterns has been discernable for more than forty years already. The QUANTIFIABLE climate change has been exhaustively characterized by people who actually study this kind of science. But this ten year old post was from a time when YARP at least admitted that dictionaries PRETENDED to publish agreed upon definitions for terms such as "climate". If you are not afraid to learn what climate IS, it will become much easier to understand why (virtually) everyone insists that climate CAN change over time, and why nearly all climate scientists insist that it is changing in a new way before our eyes as we observe and measure it. Into the Night wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: IBdaMann wrote: JamesTankard wrote:Climate does change over time How do you know? What is "climate" exactly and what are the units of measure? Fossils? Are you really just talking about archeology? Tim the Plumber never clarified when I asked him. The units are the same as used for weather. The aspect of climate you are interested in determines the units you will be using. I agree that thinking of thousanths of a degree of temperature change is utterly silly in either weather or climate but that does not make the words meaningless. Lots of words have inprecise definitions. Such as wealth. The word climate in almost any dictionary specified a phrase similar to 'a long time'. This means there is no unit of measurement transposable between meteorology (weather) and climate. Yes, you can mention temperature, for example, but because it's a value measured 'over a long time' that remains unspecified, there is no meaning to it. It cannot be considered a sample for use in the world of science. This is the fundamental reason 'climate' doesn't work in data collection for scientific purposes. There is no way to quantify it, as 'a long time' is not a quantifiable unit of time. So, why choose 30 years as the magick "a long time" interval to use for averaging and discerning consistent patterns in quantifiable climate data? Honestly, I don't know what went on the discussions among climate scientists to settle on 30 years, but I know my own research benefitted from having a MINIMUM sample size of 29 for comparison. The statistical power takes a leap between 28 and 29 that is well worth including at least ONE more in the set. So, I can at least understand why it would be at least 29 years, and 28 years would be TOO FEW for it to be "a long time" that PROVES if the "pattern" has changed.
12-05-2026 23:23
Into the Night★★★★★ (23897)	...deleted repetitious spam and whining...corrected quoting problem... Im a BM wrote: So, why choose 30 years as the magick "a long time" interval to use for averaging and discerning consistent patterns in quantifiable climate data? Climate is not data. Your choice of 30 years is just another random number. Climate has no time interval. Im a BM wrote: Honestly, I don't know what went on the discussions among climate scientists to settle on 30 years, but I know my own research benefitted from having a MINIMUM sample size of 29 for comparison. Climate is not a branch of science. Climate is not a 'sample size'. Climate is not data. Im a BM wrote: The statistical power takes a leap between 28 and 29 that is well worth including at least ONE more in the set. Meaningless statement ignored. Im a BM wrote: So, I can at least understand why it would be at least 29 years, and 28 years would be TOO FEW for it to be "a long time" that PROVES if the "pattern" has changed. Climate is not a 'pattern'. Climate is not weather. Climate has no data. Climate has no values that can change. Climate is a subjective word. Go learn English. Meaningless buzzwords are not English. Go learn what 'climate', 'subjective', 'science', and 'real' mean. Go learn mathematics. I suggest you concentrate on algebra, probability mathematics, statistical mathematics, and random number mathematics. Go learn what the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics are. Go learn the Stefan-Boltzmann fallacy. I have already given them to you, but you simply ignored it, just as you ignore these theories of science. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. It is not possible to measure the precipitation of the Earth. It is not possible to measure the pH of the oceans. It is not possible to measure the total snow and ice on Earth. You cannot trap heat. You cannot trap light. You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat. You cannot manufacture a 'pattern' where none exists. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. No gas or vapor has the capability to significantly change the pH of the oceans. 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

Join the debate Long Term Climate Change Perspective:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Real Perspective on Warming - NASA Data	17	27-04-2024 04:30
The term ai was invented at Dartmouth in 1956, it was bogus then and is still bogus	0	03-05-2023 17:03
Ding Dong the Witch is dead. That said queen elizabeth lived long enough to kill Princess Diana first	252	04-10-2022 18:36
As long as we're talking about scams and climate ...	17	16-04-2022 20:38
How long will the dollar last?	18	30-01-2021 04:30