36:34 As far as we know from observing countries and factories: 1. Countries cannot *_sustainably_* be powered by wind and solar. 2. Factories cannot *_sustainably_* be powered by wind and solar.
"tipping points". When the instability of our climate change effects make large scale agriculture impossible, having a green desert will not matter. Nature can not keep up with the speed of change of the climate change we are driving. Mass extinction is underway, just read the science.
We are already suffering from the elimination of fossil fuel, and the introduction of uncertain power deliver and we no idea what the results will be for the climate.
"Flooding never happened before". A special in England was at a place that had centuries of flood records on marks made on a centuries old structure. It seemed to confirm flooding had gotten worse in the last 50 years. The interviewer asked about a mark several feet higher than any of the others. That was a flood about four hundred years earlier. The interviewer was astounded. Germany has similar records -- if you go back far enough. When the world was about 2 to 3 degrees warmer, most of the world experienced bumper crops and peace was the norm. When things cooled, crops failed and wars happened.
Who *told* you that flooding had gotten(vile americanism try become) worse in the last 50 years," and why do you belief them and how do you know that was not caused if caused at all, by you having " bad thoughts" or n warning on socks on Wednesdays(both of which are known to affect the climate)? Are you entire unaware of the research showing beyond all doubt that the mere contemplation of left-handed badgers after 3PM on Wednesdays during years that are prime numbers causes the sun to get hotter? All that climate-change/ global-warming religious mumbo jumbo is superstitious nonsense It is not at all uncommon for the superstitious and religious, such as the followers of the religion of climate-change/global-warming _ism to fall into the post hoc fallacy; it is a common on side affect of that psychological phenomenon that is religion, with which superstition goes hand in hand..
The entire religion of global warming or climate change/global-warming_ism is based upon one fundamental misapprehension which, if you remove it, causes the entire theory or religion to collapse, and the fundamental misapprehension is that there either is or can be, any such thing as a Global temperature. It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth. A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate. Planet Earth doesn’t have ‘a temperature’, one figure that says it all. There are oceans, landmasses, ice, the atmosphere, day and night, and seasons. Also, the temperature of Earth never gets to equilibrium: just as it’s starting to warm up on the sunny-side, the sun gets ‘turned off’; and just as it’s starting to cool down on the night-side, the sun gets ‘turned on’. The ‘temperature of Earth’ is therefore as much of a contrived statistic as the GDP of a country. (If the Earth was in equilibrium, that is, if it absorbed and re-emitted the Sun’s radiation perfectly, as a ‘blackbody’, then its rotation would be irrelevant, and the temperature would be a constant 6 ⁰C. Mocking up the effects of Earth’s albedo brings the ‘blackbody’ temperature down to -18 ⁰C, and including greenhouse warming brings it back up to around 15 ⁰C.) ‘The climate’ is difficult to define: is it a trend over one decade, century, or millennium? For what sized region is it defined ? Weather is very variable - how can we go from weather to climate? Furthermore, climate change on human timescales is a very small effect, and the empirical data needed for climate models have large ‘error’ bars. If you cannot define what is changing, you cannot say it is changing; It is essential to understand that no man apprehend or experience the entire planet -the whole-thing all-at-once. You cannot even sense apprehend experience yourself - he-whole-thing, all-at-once, so how could you possibly experience something as gigantic as the planet on which you live, other than piecemeal and seriatim - little bit after little bit. If you remove the fallacy that there either is or can be, any such thing as a “Global Temperature” , the entire edifice of climate change and/or global warming, collapses, because it is contingent on the idea that there can be , or is, a “ Global Temperature, which is a thermodynamic and mathematical impossibility. While it is possible to treat temperature statistically locally, it is meaningless to talk about a global temperature for Earth. The Globe consists of a huge number of components which one cannot just add up and average. That would correspond to calculating the average phone number in the phone book. That is meaningless. Or talking about economics, it does make sense to compare the currency exchange rate of two countries, whereas there is no point in talking about an average 'global exchange rate'. If temperature decreases at one point and it increases at another, the average will remain the same as before, but it will give rise to an entirely different thermodynamics and thus a different climate. If, for example, it is 10 degrees at one point and 40 degrees at another, the average is 25 degrees. But if instead there is 25 degrees both places, the average is still 25 degrees. These two cases would give rise to two entirely different types of climate, because in the former case one would have pressure differences and strong winds, while in the latter there would be no wind. It's the old old cry:" We hab offended de gods."- superstitious nonsense , a classic example of flock mentality relying on the fallacy that there is a democracy of truth- that old ovine fallacy argumentum ad populum
"Net zero" supposedly means net zero greenhouse gasses of which carbon dioxide - an essential atmospheic gas makes up 0.01% of 1% of greenhouses gasses without which this planet would freeze. The one thing the climate-change/global warming religious loons never mention is whether or not the Earth is in themodynamic equilibrium, which is fundamental to the nonsense id ea of so-called global warming. the very idea that men(human beings/dreaming machines can fin-tune that temperatures of the planet is simply asinine. the climate is always changing and *Has_Always been changing is that the factor affecting is which are many and varied are always change *Not* because " we hab offended de gods" Carbon Dioxide is *Not* Sinful, without it nothing would grow and the planet freeze. For "Net zero be sure to turn of the sun which shining on the oceans or any water creates that greenhouse gas that makes up 90% of all greenhouse gasses water vapour which you and all living creatures breath out along with carbon dioxide all the time, do for net zero stop breathing and switch off the sun. Global warming, my arse! Any one that supposes that men(human being/dreaming machines can fine tune something as vast and complex as the climate of the planet Earth is either insane or stupefied by religion.
31:4431:4931:52 No, *_the logarithmic effect_* of marginal increases in CO2 on temperature is neither: 1. a "mathematical proposition"; nor 2. a function of diminishing percentage of total CO2.
51:2851:34 The *_production tax credit_* is forcing wind-and-solar onto the grid at negative prices, which is leading ultimately to a state of *_permanent-blackout._*
32.30. Wrong! Methane does not stay in the atmosphere for 100s of years. I think it is about 5, and then it converts to CO2. The good general does not have enough science knowledge. He needs to review Happer /wijngaarden 's work.
Alaska Lush sage Meadows, as far as I can see replacing glacial, outwash and slow if not stop flood waters sorry releasing water. Birds are nesting in the edges. Pete is being deposited and bears are feeding on the sugars and proteins in the edges. The climate is being moderated.
50:00 Attempted management of CO2 emissions is not an effective way of preventing sea-level rise. Also, sea-level rise is beneficial to people, as it makes ocean-trade easier.
"We're one of the largest green house gas emitters" We don't hold a candle to China and India. The US, compared to 40 years ago, simply letting private industry give us better insulators and LED lighting worked miracles. Hybrid cars also are amazing pollution reducers.
Nope. Baseload is what is always on and doesn't change. Like nuclear power is great for baseload. It can run at 90% all year round year after year. They cannot peak on demand or load-follow. Wind and solar are not pure base load. They are the opposite of pure base load. They come and go as they please. So on those windless nights, fogged in quiet mornings, or weeks of gentle rain then the godly fossil fuels fill in the energy holes.
Certainly Americans do all the mowing and blowing and driving around that they can. Change is nowhere to be seen. Our city puts Roundup on everything. Stunted plants, stunted people! Just the only choice for conservatives.
Conservatives win because they tell the stories and they ask the questions. Too bad we didn't try to own an internet and to blacklist all of them. We don't do anything.
If futile gestures are your thing, go for it; it won't make the *slightest* difference to anything. lok chaps this is serious and it calls for a futile gesture
The entire religion of global warming or climate change is based upon one fundamental misapprehension which, if you remove it, causes the entire theory or religion to collapse, and the fundamental misapprehension is that there either is Nor can be, any such thing as a Global temperature. It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth. A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate. Planet Earth doesn’t have ‘a temperature’, one figure that says it all. There are oceans, landmasses, ice, the atmosphere, day and night, and seasons. Also, the temperature of Earth never gets to equilibrium: just as it’s starting to warm up on the sunny-side, the sun gets ‘turned off’; and just as it’s starting to cool down on the night-side, the sun gets ‘turned on’. The ‘temperature of Earth’ is therefore as much of a contrived statistic as the GDP of a country. (If the Earth was in equilibrium, that is, if it absorbed and re-emitted the Sun’s radiation perfectly, as a ‘blackbody’, then its rotation would be irrelevant, and the temperature would be a constant 6 ⁰C. Mocking up the effects of Earth’s albedo brings the ‘blackbody’ temperature down to -18 ⁰C, and including greenhouse warming brings it back up to around 15 ⁰C.) ‘The climate’ is difficult to define: is it a trend over one decade, century, or millennium? For what sized region is it defined ? Weather is very variable - how can we go from weather to climate? Furthermore, climate change on human timescales is a very small effect, and the empirical data needed for climate models have large ‘error’ bars. If you cannot define what is changing, you cannot say it is changing; It is essential to understand that no man apprehend or experience the entire plant -the whole-thing all-at-once. You cannot even sense apprehend experience yourself - he-whole-thing, all-at-once, so how could you possibly experience something as gigantic as the planet on which you live, other than piecemeal and seriatim - little bit after little bit. If you remove the fallacy that there either is or can be, any such thing as a “Global Temperature” , the entire edifice of climate change and/or global warming, collapses, because it is contingent on the idea that there can be , or is, a “ Global Temperature, which is a thermodynamic and mathematical impossibility. While it is possible to treat temperature statistically locally, it is meaningless to talk about a global temperature for Earth. The Globe consists of a huge number of components which one cannot just add up and average. That would correspond to calculating the average phone number in the phone book. That is meaningless. Or talking about economics, it does make sense to compare the currency exchange rate of two countries, whereas there is no point in talking about an average 'global exchange rate'. If temperature decreases at one point and it increases at another, the average will remain the same as before, but it will give rise to an entirely different thermodynamics and thus a different climate. If, for example, it is 10 degrees at one point and 40 degrees at another, the average is 25 degrees. But if instead there is 25 degrees both places, the average is still 25 degrees. These two cases would give rise to two entirely different types of climate, because in the former case one would have pressure differences and strong winds, while in the latter there would be no wind.
The entire religion of global warming or climate change is based upon one fundamental misapprehension which, if you remove it, causes the entire theory or religion to collapse, and the fundamental misapprehension is that there either is or can be, any such thing as a Global temperature. It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth. A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate. Planet Earth doesn’t have ‘a temperature’, one figure that says it all. There are oceans, landmasses, ice, the atmosphere, day and night, and seasons. Also, the temperature of Earth never gets to equilibrium: just as it’s starting to warm up on the sunny-side, the sun gets ‘turned off’; and just as it’s starting to cool down on the night-side, the sun gets ‘turned on’. The ‘temperature of Earth’ is therefore as much of a contrived statistic as the GDP of a country. (If the Earth was in equilibrium, that is, if it absorbed and re-emitted the Sun’s radiation perfectly, as a ‘blackbody’, then its rotation would be irrelevant, and the temperature would be a constant 6 ⁰C. Mocking up the effects of Earth’s albedo brings the ‘blackbody’ temperature down to -18 ⁰C, and including greenhouse warming brings it back up to around 15 ⁰C.) ‘The climate’ is difficult to define: is it a trend over one decade, century, or millennium? For what sized region is it defined ? Weather is very variable - how can we go from weather to climate? Furthermore, climate change on human timescales is a very small effect, and the empirical data needed for climate models have large ‘error’ bars. If you cannot define what is changing, you cannot say it is changing; It is essential to understand that no man apprehend or experience the entire plant -the whole-thing all-at-once. You cannot even sense apprehend experience yourself - he-whole-thing, all-at-once, so how could you possibly experience something as gigantic as the planet on which you live, other than piecemeal and seriatim - little bit after little bit. If you remove the fallacy that there either is or can be, any such thing as a “Global Temperature” , the entire edifice of climate change and/or global warming, collapses, because it is contingent on the idea that there can be , or is, a “ Global Temperature, which is a thermodynamic and mathematical impossibility. While it is possible to treat temperature statistically locally, it is meaningless to talk about a global temperature for Earth. The Globe consists of a huge number of components which one cannot just add up and average. That would correspond to calculating the average phone number in the phone book. That is meaningless. Or talking about economics, it does make sense to compare the currency exchange rate of two countries, whereas there is no point in talking about an average 'global exchange rate'. If temperature decreases at one point and it increases at another, the average will remain the same as before, but it will give rise to an entirely different thermodynamics and thus a different climate. If, for example, it is 10 degrees at one point and 40 degrees at another, the average is 25 degrees. But if instead there is 25 degrees both places, the average is still 25 degrees. These two cases would give rise to two entirely different types of climate, because in the former case one would have pressure differences and strong winds, while in the latter there would be no wind.
36:34 As far as we know from observing countries and factories:
1. Countries cannot *_sustainably_* be powered by wind and solar.
2. Factories cannot *_sustainably_* be powered by wind and solar.
Important fact: Higher CO2 levels green deserts. The greener deserts cool the land and help feed people.
"tipping points".
When the instability of our climate change effects make large scale agriculture impossible, having a green desert will not matter. Nature can not keep up with the speed of change of the climate change we are driving. Mass extinction is underway, just read the science.
We are already suffering from the elimination of fossil fuel, and the introduction of uncertain power deliver and we no idea what the results will be for the climate.
Intro describing a flooded Florida is vivid -- and ignores the history of Holland.
59:05 59:10 Wind and solar aren't part of any grid where they weren't forced onto that grid by government.
The youngster is right.
"Flooding never happened before". A special in England was at a place that had centuries of flood records on marks made on a centuries old structure. It seemed to confirm flooding had gotten worse in the last 50 years. The interviewer asked about a mark several feet higher than any of the others. That was a flood about four hundred years earlier. The interviewer was astounded.
Germany has similar records -- if you go back far enough.
When the world was about 2 to 3 degrees warmer, most of the world experienced bumper crops and peace was the norm. When things cooled, crops failed and wars happened.
Who *told* you that flooding had gotten(vile americanism try become) worse in the last 50 years," and why do you belief them and how do you know that was not caused if caused at all, by you having " bad thoughts" or n warning on socks on Wednesdays(both of which are known to affect the climate)?
Are you entire unaware of the research showing beyond all doubt that the mere contemplation of left-handed badgers after 3PM on Wednesdays during years that are prime numbers causes the sun to get hotter?
All that climate-change/ global-warming religious mumbo jumbo is superstitious nonsense
It is not at all uncommon for the superstitious and religious, such as the followers of the religion of climate-change/global-warming _ism to fall into the post hoc fallacy; it is a common on side affect of that psychological phenomenon that is religion, with which superstition goes hand in hand..
The entire religion of global warming or climate change/global-warming_ism is based upon one fundamental misapprehension which, if you remove it, causes the entire theory or religion to collapse, and the fundamental misapprehension is that there either is or can be, any such thing as a Global temperature.
It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth.
A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate.
Planet Earth doesn’t have ‘a temperature’, one figure that says it all. There are oceans, landmasses, ice, the atmosphere, day and night, and seasons. Also, the temperature of Earth never gets to equilibrium: just as it’s starting to warm up on the sunny-side, the sun gets ‘turned off’; and just as it’s starting to cool down on the night-side, the sun gets ‘turned on’. The ‘temperature of Earth’ is therefore as much of a contrived statistic as the GDP of a country. (If the Earth was in equilibrium, that is, if it absorbed and re-emitted the Sun’s radiation perfectly, as a ‘blackbody’, then its rotation would be irrelevant, and the temperature would be a constant 6 ⁰C. Mocking up the effects of Earth’s albedo brings the ‘blackbody’ temperature down to -18 ⁰C, and including greenhouse warming brings it back up to around 15 ⁰C.)
‘The climate’ is difficult to define: is it a trend over one decade, century, or millennium? For what sized region is it defined ? Weather is very variable - how can we go from weather to climate? Furthermore, climate change on human timescales is a very small effect, and the empirical data needed for climate models have large ‘error’ bars.
If you cannot define what is changing, you cannot say it is changing; It is essential to understand that no man apprehend or experience the entire planet -the whole-thing all-at-once. You cannot even sense apprehend experience yourself - he-whole-thing, all-at-once, so how could you possibly experience something as gigantic as the planet on which you live, other than piecemeal and seriatim - little bit after little bit.
If you remove the fallacy that there either is or can be, any such thing as a “Global Temperature” , the entire edifice of climate change and/or global warming, collapses, because it is contingent on the idea that there can be , or is, a “ Global Temperature, which is a thermodynamic and mathematical
impossibility. While it is possible to treat temperature statistically locally, it is meaningless to talk about a global temperature for Earth. The Globe consists of a huge number of components which one cannot just add up and average. That would correspond to calculating the average phone number in the phone book. That is meaningless. Or talking about economics, it does make sense to compare the currency exchange rate of two countries, whereas there is no point in talking about an average 'global exchange rate'.
If temperature decreases at one point and it increases at another, the average will remain the same as before, but it will give rise to an entirely different thermodynamics and thus a different climate. If, for example, it is 10 degrees at one point and 40 degrees at another, the average is 25 degrees. But if instead there is 25 degrees both places, the average is still 25 degrees. These two cases would give rise to two entirely different types of climate, because in the former case one would have pressure differences and strong winds, while in the latter there would be no wind.
It's the old old cry:" We hab offended de gods."- superstitious nonsense , a classic example of flock mentality relying on the fallacy that there is a democracy of truth- that old ovine fallacy argumentum ad populum
"Net zero" supposedly means net zero greenhouse gasses of which carbon dioxide - an essential atmospheic gas makes up 0.01% of 1% of greenhouses gasses without which this planet would freeze.
The one thing the climate-change/global warming religious loons never mention is whether or not the Earth is in themodynamic equilibrium, which is fundamental to the nonsense id ea of so-called global warming. the very idea that men(human beings/dreaming machines can fin-tune that temperatures of the planet is simply asinine. the climate is always changing and *Has_Always been changing is that the factor affecting is which are many and varied are always change *Not* because " we hab offended de gods"
Carbon Dioxide is *Not* Sinful, without it nothing would grow and the planet freeze.
For "Net zero be sure to turn of the sun which shining on the oceans or any water creates that greenhouse gas that makes up 90% of all greenhouse gasses water vapour which you and all living creatures breath out along with carbon dioxide all the time, do for net zero stop breathing and switch off the sun.
Global warming, my arse!
Any one that supposes that men(human being/dreaming machines can fine tune something as vast and complex as the climate of the planet Earth is either insane or stupefied by religion.
1:14:37 1:14:42 Wind and solar have *_not_* gotten cheaper. Wind and solar *_remain_* infinitely-expensive, on a sustained basis.
This "debate" apparently took place on Tuesday, March 1st, 2022 at the University of Miami.
31:44 31:49 31:52 No, *_the logarithmic effect_* of marginal increases in CO2 on temperature is neither:
1. a "mathematical proposition"; nor
2. a function of diminishing percentage of total CO2.
What was the final vote? The video seems to be cut early.
47:32 47:34 "We've got the money."
Because Americans have (relative) energy-freedom, and propery-rights and rule-of-law.
51:28 51:34 The *_production tax credit_* is forcing wind-and-solar onto the grid at negative prices, which is leading ultimately to a state of *_permanent-blackout._*
32.30. Wrong! Methane does not stay in the atmosphere for 100s of years. I think it is about 5, and then it converts to CO2. The good general does not have enough science knowledge. He needs to review Happer /wijngaarden 's work.
Alaska
Lush sage Meadows, as far as I can see replacing glacial, outwash and slow if not stop flood waters sorry releasing water. Birds are nesting in the edges. Pete is being deposited and bears are feeding on the sugars and proteins in the edges. The climate is being moderated.
50:00 Attempted management of CO2 emissions is not an effective way of preventing sea-level rise.
Also, sea-level rise is beneficial to people, as it makes ocean-trade easier.
7:52 Wesley Clark introduction.
9:24 Alex Epstein introduction.
11:25 Wesley Clark starts.
17:37 Alex Epstein starts.
"We're one of the largest green house gas emitters" We don't hold a candle to China and India.
The US, compared to 40 years ago, simply letting private industry give us better insulators and LED lighting worked miracles. Hybrid cars also are amazing pollution reducers.
CO2 is not a pollutant.
59:21 Wind and solar are pure baseload fuels. They cannot load-follow, and they cannot peak on demand, *_so therefore they are pure baseload fuels._*
Nope. Baseload is what is always on and doesn't change. Like nuclear power is great for baseload. It can run at 90% all year round year after year. They cannot peak on demand or load-follow. Wind and solar are not pure base load. They are the opposite of pure base load. They come and go as they please. So on those windless nights, fogged in quiet mornings, or weeks of gentle rain then the godly fossil fuels fill in the energy holes.
Certainly Americans do all the mowing and blowing and driving around that they can. Change is nowhere to be seen. Our city puts Roundup on everything. Stunted plants, stunted people! Just the only choice for conservatives.
The idiocy of that question!!!
Conservatives win because they tell the stories and they ask the questions. Too bad we didn't try to own an internet and to blacklist all of them. We don't do anything.
Not worth their inflated salaries
If futile gestures are your thing, go for it; it won't make the *slightest* difference to anything.
lok chaps this is serious and it calls for a futile gesture
The entire religion of global warming or climate change is based upon one fundamental misapprehension which, if you remove it, causes the entire theory or religion to collapse, and the fundamental misapprehension is that there either is Nor can be, any such thing as a Global temperature.
It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth.
A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate.
Planet Earth doesn’t have ‘a temperature’, one figure that says it all. There are oceans, landmasses, ice, the atmosphere, day and night, and seasons. Also, the temperature of Earth never gets to equilibrium: just as it’s starting to warm up on the sunny-side, the sun gets ‘turned off’; and just as it’s starting to cool down on the night-side, the sun gets ‘turned on’. The ‘temperature of Earth’ is therefore as much of a contrived statistic as the GDP of a country. (If the Earth was in equilibrium, that is, if it absorbed and re-emitted the Sun’s radiation perfectly, as a ‘blackbody’, then its rotation would be irrelevant, and the temperature would be a constant 6 ⁰C. Mocking up the effects of Earth’s albedo brings the ‘blackbody’ temperature down to -18 ⁰C, and including greenhouse warming brings it back up to around 15 ⁰C.)
‘The climate’ is difficult to define: is it a trend over one decade, century, or millennium? For what sized region is it defined ? Weather is very variable - how can we go from weather to climate? Furthermore, climate change on human timescales is a very small effect, and the empirical data needed for climate models have large ‘error’ bars.
If you cannot define what is changing, you cannot say it is changing; It is essential to understand that no man apprehend or experience the entire plant -the whole-thing all-at-once. You cannot even sense apprehend experience yourself - he-whole-thing, all-at-once, so how could you possibly experience something as gigantic as the planet on which you live, other than piecemeal and seriatim - little bit after little bit.
If you remove the fallacy that there either is or can be, any such thing as a “Global Temperature” , the entire edifice of climate change and/or global warming, collapses, because it is contingent on the idea that there can be , or is, a “ Global Temperature, which is a thermodynamic and mathematical
impossibility. While it is possible to treat temperature statistically locally, it is meaningless to talk about a global temperature for Earth. The Globe consists of a huge number of components which one cannot just add up and average. That would correspond to calculating the average phone number in the phone book. That is meaningless. Or talking about economics, it does make sense to compare the currency exchange rate of two countries, whereas there is no point in talking about an average 'global exchange rate'.
If temperature decreases at one point and it increases at another, the average will remain the same as before, but it will give rise to an entirely different thermodynamics and thus a different climate. If, for example, it is 10 degrees at one point and 40 degrees at another, the average is 25 degrees. But if instead there is 25 degrees both places, the average is still 25 degrees. These two cases would give rise to two entirely different types of climate, because in the former case one would have pressure differences and strong winds, while in the latter there would be no wind.
The entire religion of global warming or climate change is based upon one fundamental misapprehension which, if you remove it, causes the entire theory or religion to collapse, and the fundamental misapprehension is that there either is or can be, any such thing as a Global temperature.
It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth.
A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate.
Planet Earth doesn’t have ‘a temperature’, one figure that says it all. There are oceans, landmasses, ice, the atmosphere, day and night, and seasons. Also, the temperature of Earth never gets to equilibrium: just as it’s starting to warm up on the sunny-side, the sun gets ‘turned off’; and just as it’s starting to cool down on the night-side, the sun gets ‘turned on’. The ‘temperature of Earth’ is therefore as much of a contrived statistic as the GDP of a country. (If the Earth was in equilibrium, that is, if it absorbed and re-emitted the Sun’s radiation perfectly, as a ‘blackbody’, then its rotation would be irrelevant, and the temperature would be a constant 6 ⁰C. Mocking up the effects of Earth’s albedo brings the ‘blackbody’ temperature down to -18 ⁰C, and including greenhouse warming brings it back up to around 15 ⁰C.)
‘The climate’ is difficult to define: is it a trend over one decade, century, or millennium? For what sized region is it defined ? Weather is very variable - how can we go from weather to climate? Furthermore, climate change on human timescales is a very small effect, and the empirical data needed for climate models have large ‘error’ bars.
If you cannot define what is changing, you cannot say it is changing; It is essential to understand that no man apprehend or experience the entire plant -the whole-thing all-at-once. You cannot even sense apprehend experience yourself - he-whole-thing, all-at-once, so how could you possibly experience something as gigantic as the planet on which you live, other than piecemeal and seriatim - little bit after little bit.
If you remove the fallacy that there either is or can be, any such thing as a “Global Temperature” , the entire edifice of climate change and/or global warming, collapses, because it is contingent on the idea that there can be , or is, a “ Global Temperature, which is a thermodynamic and mathematical
impossibility. While it is possible to treat temperature statistically locally, it is meaningless to talk about a global temperature for Earth. The Globe consists of a huge number of components which one cannot just add up and average. That would correspond to calculating the average phone number in the phone book. That is meaningless. Or talking about economics, it does make sense to compare the currency exchange rate of two countries, whereas there is no point in talking about an average 'global exchange rate'.
If temperature decreases at one point and it increases at another, the average will remain the same as before, but it will give rise to an entirely different thermodynamics and thus a different climate. If, for example, it is 10 degrees at one point and 40 degrees at another, the average is 25 degrees. But if instead there is 25 degrees both places, the average is still 25 degrees. These two cases would give rise to two entirely different types of climate, because in the former case one would have pressure differences and strong winds, while in the latter there would be no wind.
is the climate change a tax reason? Why are you serious?😂