Climate change another name for Weather

[Garpal Gumnut]

Dear GG

You give me the giggles - fancy a leftie like me talking about Pilmer.

We just drove 900 kms from South Melbourne to Sydney yesterday and the climate changed several times!! sporatic buckets of heavy rain to greet us. Tomorrow the final journey to the High country where I'm sure it will be different again.

Completing the obligatory L's, my daughter do 120 hours of driving with me I elected to burn through diesel (I make no apologies for any damage this does - my car is maintained - this is a job to be done) close to 4000 kms on all types of road (would have driven me crazy going around the suburbs) in the span of 6 days. She has done exceedingly well

Thanks Green08, while I can understand poor people like you being careful with their diesel , it really pisses me off that people like Al Gore and that pommy bastard Branson get to mouth off about Weather while wasting enormous amounts of fuel on personal travel.

And then the catch is that guys and gals like you get your opinions from them, and their ilk, and then it catches on. Suddenly modelling on computers becomes fact and then a belief.

By the way it was a glorious day in Townsville today, a light breeze, no rain. A wonderful day spent pig shooting.

gg

 

[Happy]

Thanks Green08, while I can understand poor people like you being careful with their diesel , it really pisses me off that people like Al Gore and that pommy bastard Branson get to mouth off about Weather while wasting enormous amounts of fuel on personal travel.
..

I wander if we could make majority of driving for license in driving simulator.

After all pilots do it and then they get theri licenses, also most of re-training is done on simulators too.

 

[rederob]

According to Dictionary.com climate is weather conditions. So if climate changes weather conditions change. So climate is another name for weather. Source:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/climate

If your understanding is as you prefer to define "climate" then it may be a substantial challenge to get you to appreciate the meanings of "composite", "prevailing" or "averaged" which tradionally are included in the definition.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

If your understanding is as you prefer to define "climate" then it may be a substantial challenge to get you to appreciate the meanings of "composite", "prevailing" or "averaged" which tradionally are included in the definition.

Ah, the Church of Climatology, arguing as the Christian church did 2000 years ago about how many angels could fit on the head of a pin.

If an argument is worth having , baffle the punters with postmodern words.
Alan Sokal where are you?

A beautiful evening in Townsville. A light breeze. 25 degrees. Low of 21-22 predicted tonight.

gg

 

[rederob]

Ah, the Church of Climatology, arguing as the Christian church did 2000 years ago about how many angels could fit on the head of a pin.
If an argument is worth having , baffle the punters with postmodern words.
Alan Sokal where are you?

There was no "argument".
It's a basic definition that is at question.
You keep posting your weather reports for Townsville and we will have its climate pegged in no time - well, maybe a matter of years.

 

[ghotib]

According to Dictionary.com climate is weather conditions. So if climate changes weather conditions change. So climate is another name for weather. Source:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/climate

Naughty Snake The full dictionary.com definition of climate as it relates to weather is:

the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years.

Dictionary.com doesn't say it, but it's not hard to find out that 10 years is generally the shortest period that climate is concerned with. So when people talk about climate change, they are talking about change in the average composite weather conditions over multiple decades. Obviously the daily weather is related to that, but one day's weather in once place doesn't indicate trend in global climate any more than one trade in a gold mining stock indicates a trend in the price of gold.

You can't have a sensible conversation about climate change without acknowledging the difference between climate and weather. As this thread demonstrates.

Ghoti

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

If your understanding is as you prefer to define "climate" then it may be a substantial challenge to get you to appreciate the meanings of "composite", "prevailing" or "averaged" which tradionally are included in the definition.

"Averaged" is a suspect word to say the least. Though, my preference is not to over complicate things, rather interpret things as they are, devoid of any political agenda.

Perhaps you should read the source I provided again.

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

Naughty Snake The full dictionary.com definition of climate as it relates to weather is:

Dictionary.com doesn't say it, but it's not hard to find out that 10 years is generally the shortest period that climate is concerned with. So when people talk about climate change, they are talking about change in the average composite weather conditions over multiple decades. Obviously the daily weather is related to that, but one day's weather in once place doesn't indicate trend in global climate any more than one trade in a gold mining stock indicates a trend in the price of gold.

You can't have a sensible conversation about climate change without acknowledging the difference between climate and weather. As this thread demonstrates.
Ghoti

As a non-socialist, marxist if you prefer, I don't quite understand why you say it is so hard to have debate or discussion - definitely not party mantra - about a topic which is not too complicated.

Weather: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/weather

–noun 1. the state of the atmosphere with respect to wind, temperature, cloudiness, moisture, pressure, etc.

Climate:

–noun 1. the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years.

So the problem for non thinkers is: Is weather time restricted for defining purposes, or is it much like space?

 

[spooly74]

It's from Michael Tobin at http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2008/05/falsifiability-question.html.

.....

The simplest consequence is that the surface will warm up. That this is indeed most of what happens is validated pretty much in observations, in paleodata, in theory and in simulation. Further, all those lines of evidence converge pretty much about how much warming: about 2.5 C to 3C for each doubling of CO2. (It's logarithmic in total CO2, not in emitted CO2, guys, by the way.) There's no single line of reasoning for this. There are multiple lines of evidence.
.....

Ghoti

Total CO2 in the atmosphere in 1900 ~ 280ppm
Total CO2 in the atmosphere today ~ 380ppm

Log2(380/280) x 3C = 1.32C

We've only seen half that warming since industrial times, so 2.5 - 3 degrees per doubling of CO2 can be falsified through current observation.

 

[CAB SAV]

Check out Cnn's "latest News'
Video titled -Burn wood not money-
Encouraging people to install wood heaters to save money!
F#*^K the environment.

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

An interresting read in the Australian today:http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25347937-11949,00.html

Glaciologists point out that the world has seen shrinking icecaps in the past. Ice is a dynamic environment and it is not necessarily abnormal or catastrophic when ice sheets periodically lose the quantities of ice that generated last week's headlines.

Ice-core drilling has suggested 40,000-year cycles of ice melting and refreezing.

Is it possible for an expert to show that weather is not cyclical?

 

[Green08]

Is it possible for an expert to show that weather is not cyclical?

I don't dispute the climate/weather changes are cyclical. But when the Amazon is in drought microclimatic change, mainly from deforestation thanks to no clearing technique and appalling agriculture / animal husbandary practise voiding the soil on a mass scale. The effects from greed will have disasterous results on life, and ones we haven't seen. The Amazon will not recovery to any glory.

​

http://images.google.com.au/imgres?...ll%7Cmedium%7Clarge%7Cxlarge&gbv=2&hl=en&sa=G

 

[Julia]

An interresting read in the Australian today:http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25347937-11949,00.html




Is it possible for an expert to show that weather is not cyclical?

It was reported yesterday that although ice in west of Antarctica is melting, ice in east is increasing.

 

[rederob]

Solar cycles have an impact on global temperature and, as suggested in earlier posts, may go some way to explaining why the last decade has cooled a touch. Some information on the recent records set are at: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm

 

[Knobby22]

It was reported yesterday that although ice in west of Antarctica is melting, ice in east is increasing.

The increase in the eastern ice shelf is consistent with global warming.
Warmer air holds more water which leads to more snow. I heard it explained on 774 ABC radio. There is no question that Antartartic temperatures are not increasing and in fact it was predicted more than 10 years ago that there would be increasing ice buildup however what is happening in East Antartica has been quicker than forecast.

From the article you posted Julia:

"Scientists note that stable or increased sea ice does not necessarily mean temperatures are not rising. Australian Bureau of Meteorology senior climatologist Andrew Watkins says monitoring at three sites in Australia's Antarctic territory and at Macquarie Island, Australia's sub-Antarctic territory, indicate minor warming since the mid-'50s.

Watkins points out that snowfall could be increasing in Antarctica even as temperatures rise, adding to the ice mass, and there is much uncertainty about the total volume of ice."

 

[spooly74]

The increase in the eastern ice shelf is consistent with global warming.

What exactly does 'consistent with' really mean?
Is a decade of flat/cooling global temperature, increased sea, ice all consistent with global warming?

If so, it begs the question.

What observations are inconsistent with (anthropogenic) global warming

 

[rederob]

What exactly does 'consistent with' really mean?

Looks like the naysayers are having consistent problems with rather basic terminology.
But I guess we can't be consistent all the time
I too am looking for an "expert" that thinks weather may be cyclical
I know the Tour de France is cyclical. Even the climate during the Tour is cyclical.

 

[drsmith]

The problem with the climate change debate is that it has become extremely polarised. Hard core believers on both sides defend their points of view with a religious conviction.

With climate change (whether it be on a global or regional scale, or both), life must adapt to the changing conditions. The most significant impact on humans would be a change in areas suitable for food production. We can only adapt to that at tremendous cost.

Changing the chemical composition of the atmosphere will lead to changes in the atmospheric energy budget and hence climate change whether that be on a regional or global scale. It is something we should aim to minimise as a basic principal.

Are world governments more interested in the basic principal above or do they prefer to just encourage a polarised debate on climate change with the objective being a growing acceptance over time and hence the acceptance of a carbon tax.

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

Looks like the naysayers are having consistent problems with rather basic terminology.
But I guess we can't be consistent all the time
I too am looking for an "expert" that thinks weather may be cyclical
I know the Tour de France is cyclical. Even the climate during the Tour is cyclical.

Tour de France weather. Wow this thread has progressed.

 

[GumbyLearner]

The problem with the climate change debate is that it has become extremely polarised. Hard core believers on both sides defend their points of view with a religious conviction.

Are world governments more interested in the basic principal above or do they prefer to just encourage a polarised debate on climate change with the objective being a growing acceptance over time and hence the acceptance of a carbon tax.

Great post Dr.Smith

I agree with the general thrust of your post.

The big problem that is not really being addressed on this thread in my unqualified scientific opinion is essentially how is carbon tax calculated and valued.

The current financial crisis had very little to do with the industrial capitalists and a lot more to do with the valuations and methods adopted by finance capitalists. It is these pricks who have created the trauma for the vast majority facing lay-offs, not the people who have employed them and tried to keep the continuation of the social contract between employer and employee.

The problem I have with a carbon tax is that in a similar way to the ivory tower protected finance capitalists position (eg. getting bailed out by taxpayers even though they ****ed themselves etc. etc.) These guys will just use this as a new category of wealth to enrich themselves and will make others pay for it. Certainly appears on it's face to be another con-job by the powers that be, who will collect more revenue from others and then use and exploit it for their own interests until things go wrong.

Ultimately it will be manipulated by bankers very much like the Madeoff, OTC and banking scams that have taken place during this financial crisis.

JMO

DYOR

Cheers
Gumby