Is Climate Change Possible Redux

[Into the Night]

The word 'climate' (which the Church of Global Warming seems to thing can 'change' somehow) has not values associated with it. 'Climate' first appeared in the English lexicon around the late 14th century and it's definition has not changed.

This word is a subjective description. It has no values. A rainy climate is always a rainy climate. A warm climate is always a warm climate.
Climate cannot change. Describing two different climates does not create a change of any kind. It is simply describing two different climates and saying they are the same (a false equivalence fallacy).

As a side note, 'health' cannot change either. Like 'climate', health is a subjective description. It cannot change for the same reason climate cannot change. There is no value associated with 'health' that can 'change'. It is simply describing two different descriptions of a 'health' and considering them the same...another false equivalence fallacy.

 

[gfm7175]

Poor Dimlight...........

 

[Into the Night]

The base claim of the Church of Global Warming is that the Earth is somehow warming and 'Changing the Climate' (their current favorite chant, which only shows their inability to speak and understand English). The term 'Climate Change' is only one of a long series of attempts to rename their religion, since people don't believe the lies for very long.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, the pH of the oceans, the total snow and ice on Earth, the total 'storm activity' (another subjective term!), the total atmospheric carbon dioxide content, etc.; yet the Church of Global Warming claims to know in detail all of these values. This, of course, denies statistical math. There are simply not enough sensors for any of these values to even begin a sensible statistical analysis, nor is it possible to build enough of them.

Temperature, for example, can vary as much as 20 deg F per mile. This can be seen across weather fronts, variances of terrain, mountain wave effects, etc. The 'temperature' is also only surface temperature. NO significant measurements are made of the interior of Earth, or above the Earth (other than weather balloons and occasionally an aircraft, hardly enough to calculate a global value!).

The problem is threefold:

1) Thermometers are not uniformly spaced. They are concentrated along road and in cities (they must be serviced!). This leaves vast tracts of area not covered by any thermometer. Spacing distribution is significant. Thermometers MUST be uniformly spaced.

2) There are not enough thermometers, nor is it possible to build enough of them. The current so-called 'dataset' uses a sufficient number of thermometers that, if they were uniformly spaced (they aren't!), it would result in ONE thermometer for an area about the size of Virginia. Since variance is 20 deg F per mile, mathematically, they are GUESSING.

3) Statistical math makes use of random numbers. This takes away any capability of the normal predictive nature of mathematics. Statistical math is a useful summary method, but it cannot tell the future. Indeed, two different summaries on the SAME DATASET will result in two completely different summaries!

 

[ZenMode]

There is no 'measure of health'. There is not 'unit of health'. There is no 'unit of climate' either. Your word games won't work.

The topic is 'climate'. Go learn English. I have already answered your question. RQAA.

The topic isn't climate or health. The topic is the claim that a lack of a single unit of measure means that change isn't possible.

Again, you and your brethren can keep playing dumb and avoiding my questions, but it's clear that you are playing dumb and avoiding my questions.

So, give me your definition or description of health that describes something that is unchanging.

 

[ZenMode]

Nope. You have defined nothing. You are attempting a redefinition fallacy.

Nope. They are just two different descriptions of 'health'. Health cannot change.

RQAA.

Do they remain in a static state of health indefinitely or..... does it change over time?

 

[ZenMode]

As is typical, members of the Church of Global Warming (who are leftists) are going for word games, projections, and insults. They have nothing.

They continue to believe that a Magick Holy Gas has the capability to create energy out of nothing purely by it's existence. This of course ignore the 1st law of thermodynamics: E(t+1) = E(t) - U where 'E' is energy, 'U' is work (or force over time), and 't' is time. Since there is no work, 'U' is zero, and E(t+1) = E(t). You cannot create energy out of nothing.

They continue to believe that a Magick Holy Gas has the capability to reduce entropy by somehow 'trapping' heat (which is not possible), and that a colder gas in the atmosphere can somehow heat the warmer surface. This of course ignores the 2nd law of thermodynamics: e(t+1) >= e(t) there 'e' is 'entropy' (or available energy to produce work), and 't' is time. You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas or trap heat. This equation defines the concept of 'heat' and gives it a direction. Energy always dissipates. It never gathers on it's own. You have to put work into it, which itself is an expenditure of energy!

They continue to believe the a Magick Holy Gas has the capability to trap light or try to say it is a one way gate for energy (a humunculus fallacy). This of course ignores the Stefan-Boltzmann law: r = C * e * t^4, where 'r' is radiance in watts per square area, 'C' is a natural constant, 'e' is a measured constant 'emissivity' that can only be measured by accurately the temperature of the radiating surface, and 't' is temperature in deg K. All frequencies of light are considered in this equation. There is no 'frequency' component in the equation (it can actually be generated from Planck's law by integrating all frequencies of light combined). There is no sequence. You cannot set aside this law for any length of time. Everything above absolute zero radiates light due to its temperature! That includes carbon dioxide or any other Magick Holy Gas. You cannot trap light!

"They continue to believe that a Magick Holy Gas has the capability to create energy out of nothing purely by it's existence. "

You continue to spread this lie. Nobody that speaks intelligently about global warming/climate change would ever say that ANY gas creates energy.

Educate yourself of what is actually believed to be the cause of climate change because absolutely no part of it involves a gas creating energy.

 

[Into the Night]

The topic isn't climate

Yes it is.

or health.

YOU brought up that strawman. You have only yourself to blame.

The topic is the claim that a lack of a single unit of measure means that change isn't possible.

I suggest you go read the OP again to rediscover what the topic is.

Again, you and your brethren can keep playing dumb and avoiding my questions,

You aren't asking any questions.

but it's clear that you are playing dumb and avoiding my questions.

You aren't asking any questions.

So, give me your definition or description of health that describes something that is unchanging.

I don't need to define 'health' for you. The meaning hasn't changed since 1560.

 

[Into the Night]

Do they remain in a static state of health indefinitely or..... does it change over time?

No such thing as 'static' health. 'Health' is neither static nor dynamic.

 

[Into the Night]

"They continue to believe that a Magick Holy Gas has the capability to create energy out of nothing purely by it's existence. "

You continue to spread this lie.

The 1st law of thermodynamics is not a lie. It is a theory of science. You cannot just discard it.

Nobody that speaks intelligently about global warming/climate change would ever say that ANY gas creates energy.

YOU do. DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!

Educate yourself of what is actually believed to be the cause of climate change because absolutely no part of it involves a gas creating energy.

Yet you made EXACTLY that argument. DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!

You also have made the argument that a Magick Holy Gas can somehow heat a warmer surface, and that it can 'trap' heat and light; ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

 

[ZenMode]

The 1st law of thermodynamics is not a lie. It is a theory of science. You cannot just discard it.

YOU do. DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!

Yet you made EXACTLY that argument. DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!

You also have made the argument that a Magick Holy Gas can somehow heat a warmer surface, and that it can 'trap' heat and light; ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Again, nobody who understands climate change would say that a gas creates energy. Do you believe a blanket create energy? Do you believe that an actual greenhouse creates energy? Do you believe that the insulation in the walls of your house creates energy?

 

[ZenMode]

No such thing as 'static' health. 'Health' is neither static nor dynamic.

What do you mean by health? Can you give me a description and/or definition?

 

[ZenMode]

Yes it is.

YOU brought up that strawman. You have only yourself to blame.

I suggest you go read the OP again to rediscover what the topic is.

You aren't asking any questions.

You aren't asking any questions.

I don't need to define 'health' for you. The meaning hasn't changed since 1560.

I want to make sure that we are in agreement on the topic of health. Can you give me your description and/or definition?

 

[Into the Night]

Again, nobody who understands climate change would say that a gas creates energy.

YOU did! DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!

Do you believe a blanket create energy?

A blanket won't heat a rock.

Do you believe that an actual greenhouse creates energy?

Apparently YOU do!

Do you believe that the insulation in the walls of your house creates energy?

Apparently YOU do!

Did you know there is no greenhouse roof over Earth, and there is no insulation around Earth?
Did you know that carbon dioxide conducts heat better than any other common gas in the atmosphere?

 

[Into the Night]

What do you mean by health? Can you give me a description and/or definition?

RQAA

 

[Into the Night]

I want to make sure that we are in agreement on the topic of health. Can you give me your description and/or definition?

RQAA

 

[ZenMode]

RQAA

Lol.....Nope. You never gave me your definition/description. You already knew that, so why lie?

Try again.

 

[ZenMode]

RQAA

More lies. Making statements ABOUT health isn't giving a definition or description.

Again, why lie?

 

[ZenMode]

YOU did! DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!

A blanket won't heat a rock.

Apparently YOU do!

Apparently YOU do!

Did you know there is no greenhouse roof over Earth, and there is no insulation around Earth?
Did you know that carbon dioxide conducts heat better than any other common gas in the atmosphere?

I never said there was a greenhouse over the earth. You already knew that but still insist on playing dumb. Nice straw man, though.

So that you don't try to pull your usual retarded and dishonest RQAA bullshit, you have not answered these questions:

• Do you believe a blanket creates energy?
• Do you believe that an actual greenhouse creates energy?
• Do you believe that the insulation in the walls of your house creates energy?

 

[ADreamOfLiberty]

Zen I would recommend that you not exhaust yourself with Into the Night, something wrong with that guy's thought process.