The climate “changes all the time”

Skeptics of climate frequently point out that climate changes all the time, therefore it is impossible whether any observed changes in climate are related to human activity

Lets extend this thought process to a different example in order to better understand the logic: the price of gasoline. We all know that the price of gasoline changes all the time.... just like the climate. We all know that the price of gasoline changes because of many factors that we cannot understand... just like the climate

I propose that we levy an increasing tax on gasoline.... one added cent per month of tax (just like we are constant adding carbon to the atmosphere. So.... the temperature of the climate and the price of gasoline will continue to change.... and in both cases we will be unable to draw any conclusion on why they are changing, correct. So i propose that this gasoline tax is a free source of money until someone can prove that the price of gasoline has changed because og the gasoline tax

 

Yup, climate changes all the time. I will made clear, however, that there is no such thing as a "global climate"... There is no one climate that represents the whole globe. Climate is a very localized term which refers to something along the lines of "weather over a long period of time".

These Global Warming zealots outright reject not only logic, but science and mathematics as well.

 

The opposite is true.

 

Nope, I was correct. I will give a brief overview of each one...

LOGIC: AGW zealots reject logic because they form their argumentation around words which are circularly defined (such as "global warming" and "climate change"). Circular definitions do not work; they are meaningless, as they do not make reference to anything outside of themselves. Thus, any argumentation based on such a circular definition is a void argument.

SCIENCE: AGW zealots also reject science, typically rejecting the laws of thermodynamics as well as the stefan boltzmann law. They have two main arguments: the "magick blanket argument" and the "bouncing photon argument". These arguments attempt to make heat flow uphill (from cold to hot instead of hot to cold, in violation of the 2nd LoT), and also attempt to decrease radiance of Earth while increasing temperature of Earth (the SB Law states that radiance and temperature are directly proportional).

MATHEMATICS: AGW zealots reject mathematics when they claim that a "global temperature" can be accurately measured using current technology. In actuality, there is no way to accurately measure it. The Earth is about 197 million sq miles. NASA (if I recall correctly) makes claim to about 7,500 land based thermometers (which are NOT uniformly spaced nor are they simultaneously read by the same observer, as required by statistical mathematics, but for sake of argument, I will assume that they are). That would mean that each thermometer covers an area of approx. 26,266 sq miles, or similar to the size of West Virginia. Now, do you really think that one thermometer can accurately measure the temperature of anywhere within West Virginia? Obviously not... especially when one thinks about the range and variance of temperatures... Temperatures have been observed to range from -128deg F to 134deg F (262deg F range) and have been observed to vary by as much as 20deg F per MILE and 49degF per TWO MINUTES. This shows the importance of close proximity and simultaneous reading of thermometers to get any sort of semi-accurate result. Thus, in order to bring the margin of error down to +-10deg F, we would need approx. 200 million thermometers, many more than NASA's 7,500...

BUT, but what about magickal satellites??!! Well, satellites do not measure absolute temperature; they measure light. The issue with converting that light reading into a temperature reading is that we don't know the emissivity of Earth. We don't know how much light is a result of Earth's radiation nor how much is a result of starlight, moonlight, etc... In order to figure out the emissivity of Earth, we would need to know what we are trying to figure out in the first place, the temperature of Earth. Thus, a chicken and egg issue...

AGW is nothing more than a religion based on a circularly-defined buzzword. It is a void argument. It rejects laws of science. It rejects statistical mathematics. I'm not going to believe in a religion which requires me to reject logic, science, and mathematics...

 

It changes given cyclical changes in CO2 ppm. That's why surface temp. anomaly and the latter track each other.

The problem is that current CO2 ppm is way above the maximum for natural cycles the last half-billion years or so.

 

Just wait till the Methane kicks in.

 

If climate was as simple as the price of gasoline you'd have a point but your attempt to equate understanding the earth and even the solar system to understanding the price of a commodity is kind of pathetic.

 

Your basic premise is ridiculous. The assertion of real scientists is that the amount of additional change in climate so far has been undecipherable by our current methods. And, because we cannot granularly discriminate out the exact amount of change our adding 3-4% of the total CO2 output of the natural processes of the world adds, it is unlikely that we can create a definitive model that maps what portion of the change we are seeing that is being produced by our CO2 emissions.

More, any modern approach designed to ameliorate the effects has a model more designed thusly. Instead of a unilateral tax with built in cost increases, your actual design model is to instantiate reservations of privilege that are immune to those costs while inflicting them on your political underlings. This is the classic elitist model to further buttress their legislative income reservations in our economy. This is why you see tax advantages granted to the more wealthy as they adopt the much more expensive but non taxed over time methods of transportation, ie electric cars, or adoption of "renewable" energy sources like solar or wind which cost them more, but are never exposed to the more regressive taxation models their annuities are guaranteed by.

 

We have no way of accurately measuring global CO2 ppm. It is not uniformly distributed across the atmosphere.

Random number inputs yield random number outputs. Meaningless!

We do not have nearly enough stations to accurately measure the CO2 ppm of Earth. Plus, Mauna Loa is obviously cooking their data (rather than providing raw data), as nearby volcanic eruptions should be making their data spike, but there have been no such spikes in their data. In addition, you have no idea what happened 500 million plus years ago; you weren't there to observe it. That is purely religious belief on your part, not science. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. You have no accessible way of falsifying what "natural CO2 cycles" were from 500 million years ago. Science has no theories about past unobserved events.

 

Yes, the Earth's climate is constantly changing.

Here's the problem that just ins't sinking into the heads of some conservatives. The climate changes in natural rhythms - and EVERY climate researcher knows this. It just normal does it over long periods of time - thousands of years - which gives living things time to adapt and/or move. Problem today is the RATE of the change (100 years instead of thousands) and the fact that 4 BILLION people now live in areas that will be directly impacted along with trillions of dollars in infrastructure.

 

You claim that absent the fundamental knowledge of historic certainty, which you cannot provide. So, absent actual science you'll invoke spiritual knowledge instead. Just like a religious devotee does. Classic. I would point out that your assertion is also factually incorrect, as we have study and data to refute your claim. Just sayin,...

 

Methane forms naturally underground. It is not causing the Earth to increase in temperature.

 

No, actually they don't. We know no such thing. What we do know is that randomly, there are catastrophic events that trigger rapid changes, and there are natural changes that induce rapid changes, and there have been times when natural changes failed to reflect in the climate proxy record. We know these things. To suggest that these changes must proceed casually or slowly is a misreading of the natural proxy record. The reality is that the earth very recently had climates with thousands of CO2 ppm as recorded in the proxies, and that these periods were both proceeded by rapid catastrophic periods or not. That is the data record. The model simulations smooth those records out because models cannot be programmed to understand this type of rapid variation. It's a failing of the methods. That you invest in the belief in them is astounding.

 

Earth does not have a climate. It has NUMEROUS climates at any given time. Climate is a very localized term; it can't be applied globally.

There is no "THE climate"... Climate is not a goddess, contrary to Global Warming mythology. Climate is, rather, weather [within a particular locality] over a long period of time.

Even accepting your religious belief of 100 years, and religiously accepting your random meaningless data, you do realize that temperatures at a particular location can easily vary by 120deg F in a six month period, right??

 

Gosh - do I believe the thousands of Climatologists ... or do I believe random internet guy who slept at a Holiday Inn last night ...
decisions, decisions ...

 

Where it comes from s irrelevant but it indeed traps radiation that otherwise escapes to space.

 

There is no such thing as global weather.
Weather is both short term and local

Climate on the other hand is defined as both long term and regional... the region subject to definition of the discussion at hand

Climate is defined as the average state of everyday's weather condition over a period of 30 years.[1][2] It is measured by assessing the patterns of variation in temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, precipitation, atmospheric particle count and other meteorological variables in a given region over long periods of time. Climate differs from weather, in that weather only describes the short-term conditions of these variables in a given region.
​

Lets suppose that there was some life on mars
Lets suppose that they were interested in the earth
They could and would most likely point instruments at the earth that would give them a general reading of earths temperature and its temperature fluctuations. That is what is referenced as earths climate. Venus has a climate, mars has a climate, the moon, Saturn has a climate has a climate, and earth has a climate. And all of these climates can be measured

 

Does methane form naturally underground on the moon.
I had understood that methane is organic and forms as a product of organic processes.

 

Is there anyone here who doubts the science of green house gasses? We can for example take a 2 liter bottle of normal air, and an other 2liter mottle of co2.... and set these in the sun to see if there is a different resulting temperature. We could similarly capture methane which is the primary component of natural gas, put it in a 2liter bottle, and perform the experiment.,..

These are all very simple experiments. They have been done and are posted on YouTube. And any of us can perform the experiments ourselves to check

 

No, it doesn't, nor does any other "magick gas". Heat cannot be trapped, tecoyah... Entropy never decreases in an isolated system. "Greenhouse gases" cannot heat the Earth's surface, as heat only flows from hot to cold; it does NOT flow from cold to hot. Your assertions here are in violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

 

Okay...believe as you will.

 

Correct. Weather is the state of the atmosphere at a specific location and time. It is not global, so neither is climate.

Climate is merely "weather over a long period of time". Since weather is localized, climate is also localized.

​

Nope. It is not possible to point a 'magick instrument' at the Earth and determine its absolute temperature.

Wrong. Climate is weather over a long period of time. It is localized, so Earth has MANY climates.

Nope, none of them have a climate. They all have numerous climates.

 

What is simple about the price of gasoline?
I was just trying to compare two complex systems with a small additive long term change. In the case of climate... the small additive long term change is co2. In the case of the price of gasoline, i proposed a similar small long term artificial change as an incremental tax

If we passed tax i proposed... no one could predict the future price of gasoline... so, therefore is it not reasonable to conclude that it is impossible to know the tax impact on gasoline prices in the same way that it is impossible to accurately model the impact of increasing co2 ..... therefore we can ignore both impacts?

 

Here is just such a “magic” instrument called an infrared thermometer.... you can buy one to see if it works

 

I could record average temperatures at my house, at my city, at my county, at my state, in my region, in my country, on my continent, and on my planet