Why Should Anyone Believe in Global Warming?

[IBDaMann]

Ok, that's your definition

Nope. It's what all American children learned in elementary school, back before the Marxist takeover that hijacked a large portion of the English words, to include the word "climate." I remember being somewhat confused at learning about sub-tropical climates because I couldn't figure out what it meant, exactly, to be "less than tropical" ... but I was young. This contradictory nonsense of a "global climate" (which amounts to "universal local conditions") only came about with the advent of your religion. No member of your congregation has ever been able to describe this "global climate" or "the climate" that your church heralds in the same way that I can describe any of the earth's millions of climates. This is precisely because your "global climate" is nothing more than a nasty contradiction in terms.

Let's confirm this. In your next post, describe earth's global climate for JPP. Finish this list:

* The climate of Buffalo, NY is humid continental, with four distinct seasons: warm to hot summers, cold and snowy winters, and moderate spring and fall seasons.
* The climate of Helsinki, Finland is transitional, with somewhat cold winters and mild summers.
* The climate of Riyadh, Saudi Arabia , experiences a hot desert climate, characterized by extremely high temperatures, arid conditions, and very little precipitation.
* The climate of Mendoza, Argentina is arid and temperate, often characterized by sunny days and relatively low humidity.
* The global climate is ... ?

which, not surprisingly, supports what you want to believe,

Wrong wording. The correct definition of "climate," obvious in the list above, is the definition I gave you. There is no data in the list above and no numerical values that can change, ... only subjective characterizations. Read the above list again if you somehow missed this lesson when you were a child.

but is not the actual [dogmatic] definition [of the Global Warming faith].

Tell me something I don't already know. I think we can all agree that your religion has hijacked this word like a group of Hamas terrorists, and won't release any hostages until all science has withdrawn from every Climate Ground Zero!

cli·mate noun - the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period.

Can't be. A climate is timeless. Check the list above that you are going to complete for us. There are no time frames or periods. Climates have no data, no numerical values that can change, no time periods, and don't necessarily involve weather, so the part about "weather conditions" has to be removed.

Look.

e.g. The political climate of Washington, D.C during elections is angry, paranoid and hate-filled. (note: no data, no weather, no time periods and no numerical values that can change)
e.g. The pending hostile takeover has made for a very tense working climate at the corporate headquarters. (note: no data, no weather, no time periods and no numerical values that can change)

These two examples are proper English. You really should use the correct definition of "climate" which is, as I told you, what we all learned before the Marxist restructuring, i.e. subjective characterization of local conditions.

The obvious question is why would you intentionally disregard the actual definition of climate in deference to a religious term that you know is manufactured to support dogma?

 

[IBDaMann]

Cleanly you didn't watch the MIT video where the amount of energy that reaches the thermopile at the end of the tube is being measured.

You like to open FALSE statements with the word "Clearly." You are one very confused individual. You are the one who didn't read my post thoroughly explaining this cheap, two-bit circus act that targets the gullible, like all Global Warming recruiters do.

You know that I watched the video because I told you about the greenhouse effect narrative at the beginning, and that the parlor trick was nonetheless performed indoors and not out in the sun. You know that I know that you were mesmerized by the opening sermon such that you never noticed the bait-and-switch. You OBEDIENTLY prayed along with the Climate clergy over the course of the Climate service and never called booooolsch't when you very well should have.

You were taken. You were fooled. It's just a parlor trick

So if you are correct that everything absorbs energy, why is there a change when CO2 is introduced into the tube?

Why are you asking me about something I already explained thoroughly? Why do you think that all IR is the same? Have you even learned what "heat" is? What about what "science" is?

 

[ZenMode]

Nope. It's what all American children learned in elementary school, back before the Marxist takeover that hijacked a large portion of the English words, to include the word "climate." I remember being somewhat confused at learning about sub-tropical climates because I couldn't figure out what it meant, exactly, to be "less than tropical" ... but I was young. This contradictory nonsense of a "global climate" (which amounts to "universal local conditions") only came about with the advent of your religion. No member of your congregation has ever been able to describe this "global climate" or "the climate" that your church heralds in the same way that I can describe any of the earth's millions of climates. This is precisely because your "global climate" is nothing more than a nasty contradiction in terms.

Let's confirm this. In your next post, describe earth's global climate for JPP. Finish this list:

* The climate of Buffalo, NY is humid continental, with four distinct seasons: warm to hot summers, cold and snowy winters, and moderate spring and fall seasons.
* The climate of Helsinki, Finland is transitional, with somewhat cold winters and mild summers.
* The climate of Riyadh, Saudi Arabia , experiences a hot desert climate, characterized by extremely high temperatures, arid conditions, and very little precipitation.
* The climate of Mendoza, Argentina is arid and temperate, often characterized by sunny days and relatively low humidity.
* The global climate is ... ?


Wrong wording. The correct definition of "climate," obvious in the list above, is the definition I gave you. There is no data in the list above and no numerical values that can change, ... only subjective characterizations. Read the above list again if you somehow missed this lesson when you were a child.


Tell me something I don't already know. I think we can all agree that your religion has hijacked this word like a group of Hamas terrorists, and won't release any hostages until all science has withdrawn from every Climate Ground Zero!


Can't be. A climate is timeless. Check the list above that you are going to complete for us. There are no time frames or periods. Climates have no data, no numerical values that can change, no time periods, and don't necessarily involve weather, so the part about "weather conditions" has to be removed.

Look.

e.g. The political climate of Washington, D.C during elections is angry, paranoid and hate-filled. (note: no data, no weather, no time periods and no numerical values that can change)
e.g. The pending hostile takeover has made for a very tense working climate at the corporate headquarters. (note: no data, no weather, no time periods and no numerical values that can change)

These two examples are proper English. You really should use the correct definition of "climate" which is, as I told you, what we all learned before the Marxist restructuring, i.e. subjective characterization of local conditions.

The obvious question is why would you intentionally disregard the actual definition of climate in deference to a religious term that you know is manufactured to support dogma?

Do you believe there are objective characteristic differences between a desert climate and a tropical climate?

Do you believe that, within a given desert climate, there can be changes in precipitation and temperature or do you believe that a desert climate location gets exactly XX amount of rain per year and has an average temperature that never changes, year over year?

 

[gfm7175]

As mentioned before, this is not an accurate comparison because energy from the sun is constantly flowing to and hitting the Earth.

As mentioned before, think of it as apples constantly being brought inside and placed into the baskets, and constantly being grabbed from the baskets and eaten at a rate commensurate with there being seven apples inside of the combined two baskets at any given time.

What you're comparing would be if we turn on the sun for an hour, made the car temperature increase, then turned the sun off and watching the energy equalize inside/outside the car. That doesn't happen.

Bogus position assignment.

The sun's energy is hitting the Earth 24/7.

Yeah, and energy is radiating from the Earth 24/7. You can't just forget about radiance whenever it is convenient for you to forget about it.

 

[gfm7175]

Agree or disagree? I'm just trying to establish agreement on a v e r y simple truth.

Why is it so difficult to agree that the inside of a car sees a significant increase in temperature with no magical creation of energy? Does that fact the you don't believe climate change is real somehow mean you can't acknowledge other scientific realities.

Continued beating of a dead horse that already answered your stupid false-equivalence-based question umpteen different times while it was alive.

 

[Into the Night]

Ok, that's your definition which, not surprisingly, supports what you want to believe, but is not the actual definition.

cli·mate
noun
the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period.

a region with particular prevailing weather conditions.

the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation

The obvious question is why you would intentionally disregard actual definitions of climate in favor of your own, manufactured definition.

Redefinition fallacy. Climate has no temperature, no velocity, and no rain gauge. Your word games aren't going to work.

 

[Into the Night]

More avoidance.

By you. Asking the same question over and over mindlessly, even though it's been answered multiple times, is just avoidance.
RQAA.

 

[ZenMode]

Continued beating of a dead horse that already answered your stupid false-equivalence-based question umpteen different times while it was alive.

Not my fault you refuse to answer an incredibly simple question, one that we all know the answer to.

 

[Into the Night]

Avoidance. Question wasn't answered.

Blatant lie. Argument of the Stone fallacy. RQAA.

 

[Into the Night]

Cleanly you didn't watch the MIT video where the amount of energy that reaches the thermopile at the end of the tube is being measured.

When air is pushed into the tube, there is no change in the amount of energy reaching the thermopile. When CO2 is pushed into the tube, there is a measurable change in the amount of energy reaching the thermopile. We should expect that to be the case because CO2 absorbs the energy, unlike air (primarily nitrogen and oxygen).

So if you are correct that everything absorbs energy, why is there a change when CO2 is introduced into the tube?

In case you care to actually watch the video:

RQAA.

 

[Into the Night]

Again, for the sake of keeping this simple......

We both know that the temperature inside of a car increases when the windows are closed, and the car is sitting in the sun.

Do you agree that there is no additional energy being created, by the sun, for that to happen?

RQAA.

 

[ZenMode]

Redefinition fallacy. Climate has no temperature, no velocity, and no rain gauge. Your word games aren't going to work.

I asked before and am asking again…

Are there any measurable, objective difference between a desert climate and a tropical climate?

 

[Into the Night]

We both know that the inside of a car experiences a significant temperature increase when the windows are closes and the car is sitting in the sun. This happens without there being any additional energy coming from the sun. What law of physics does that violate?

RQAA

 

[Into the Night]

As mentioned before, this is not an accurate comparison because energy from the sun is constantly flowing to and hitting the Earth. What you're comparing would be if we turn on the sun for an hour, made the car temperature increase, then turned the sun off and watching the energy equalize inside/outside the car.

That doesn't happen. The sun's energy is hitting the Earth 24/7.

Pointing out your own false equivalence now?

 

[Into the Night]

Once you understand the actual definition of climate, you will not ask such silly questions.

You don't get to redefine 'climate'.

 

[Into the Night]

QED that you don't even read and comprehend anyone's posts and are only here to preach.

He quite literally provided a definition of 'climate' for you... His words: "A climate is a subjective, human characterization of a local area."

I have also provided the eytomology of the word 'climate'. He is STILL trying to redefine it.

 

[Into the Night]

So, there are no objective characteristics that differentiate, for example, a desert climate from a tropical climate? All differences are made up in our minds?

RQAA.

 

[Into the Night]

Nope. I've never said the Earth was a car. I'm just trying to establish what we all know, which is that the inside of a car WILL see an increase in temperature DESPITE there being no additional energy magically created by the sun.

Then stop saying the Earth is a car.
Earth is not a car.
RQAA

 

[Into the Night]

Do you ever feel like you're beating a dead horse?

Apparently he doesn't. I don't think he even realizes it's dead!

 

[Into the Night]

Agree or disagree? I'm just trying to establish agreement on a v e r y simple truth.

Why is it so difficult to agree that the inside of a car sees a significant increase in temperature with no magical creation of energy? Does that fact the you don't believe climate change is real somehow mean you can't acknowledge other scientific realities.

Earth is not a car. RQAA. You are denying science. Apparently you don't understand what 'reality' means either, or how it's defined.

English is used here, dude. You're going to have to learn it.