Hey Tim. It's a natural cycle. It last about 65-70 years.
The rate of warming between the recent cycle and the last one was identical.
The 50s, 60s and 70s were cooler than the 80s, 90s and 2000s.
But there has been no increase in the temperature anomaly in 17 years.
So we are heading into the cooling half of the cycle once again.
Weather was more severe and more extreme in the COOLER 50s-70s than it was during the warmer 80s-2000s.
Since the mid 70s the number of violent tornadoes trended downward. So did worldwide tropical cyclone energy.
We are currently extending a record for the longest length of time since a major hurricane (Cat 3 or higher) has hit the US.
Last major hurricane was Wilma in 2005. (9 years!)
Tornado numbers have been well below average for the past three years.
Antarctic sea ice is at record levels.
Arctic sea ice is up 64% compared to 2012.
Now if you want to discuss land use changes (like what happens to regional weather when you cut down lots of trees for instance) then let's talk. It was found that cutting the forests around Mt. Kilimanjaro was responsible for reducing the moisture level in the air that moved up the mountain. Less moisture, less snow. Man caused that but it had nothing to do with CO2.
I wonder how the regional weather is affected by clearing all that land for Apple's solar farms?
Land use changes, building more roads, houses and buildings is the major cause of increased flooding.
With less open land to absorb rain water, there is increased runoff. This results in larger and more frequent flash floods.
Man made but not anything to do with anything we put in the air.
I have lived all of my 52 years in the same central Texas city. In the 60s and 70s dust storms were a frequent occurrence. Winds would blow west Texas dust into central Texas. Did you know that droughts are more frequent in cooler periods?
With us once again entering the cooling half of the natural cycle I will not be surprised to see dust storms return within 10-15 years.
Now Tim, Where the hell is the new mini?
Can you show me where the 70-year cycle starts and stops here? (ocean surface temperature historical data)
If you zoom out far enough, we’re going to end up as a supernova remnant again, just like the iron in your blood, so there really is no change, right? Unfortunately, our civilization has to survive on the zoomed in view, where the change shows up in graphs spanning many generations.
Seems to me that instead of reducto ad absurdum it would make more sense to show history since the dawn of human civilization, ~12,000 years ago.
Seems to me that instead of reducto ad absurdum it would make more sense to show history since the dawn of human civilization, ~12,000 years ago.
Well, I think 12,000 year history is absurd too, when determining if "change" equals "true." If we're looking at not having enough freshwater to irrigate crops that feed the current population (we have more living humans than dead ones right now), then why does it matter what kind of climate the Sumerians were dealing with?
At any rate, I'm not seeing studies further back than 1k years, but it doesn't look promising:
The chief argument for those who deny that the Earth's climate could be adversely affected by human activity, is that there is no scientific proof whatsoever. Ironically, these are generally the same people who believe there is a god, a savior and a heaven despite the same lack of scientific evidence.
I don't believe in any god, and also, many of those "climate change" slobs that are marching are more religious than actual religious people. They're ignorant, they're fanatical, they believe in unproven science and propaganda, and they're tools for marching around like hypocritical ignoramuses. Their made up cause is their religion.
The whole idiotic movement could have saved a whole bunch of fossil fuels by merely staying home.
Here's a picture of Al Gore, Apple's embarrassment, marching in the event.
Whilst you're bad for not being a Christian, I agree with you about the religious bent of the climate change fanatics.
Oh, it's quite easy to be optimistic about climate change. The shift of terms from a hysterical "global warming" to a more benign "climate change" hints that the latter ended some seventeen years ago. We've now had more recent years with flat temperatures than rising ones.
The only credible risk is that sun seems to be hinting we might be entering another period like the prolonged sunspot minimum called the Maunder Minimum (1645-1715).
That means a serious cooling trend, one in which carbon in the air will be a plus. Keep in mind this means really cold. Climatologist call that period the Little Ice Age. The Thames often froze over thickly enough the city held fairs out on the ice.
That failure is to be expected. Every other scientific hysteria had been contrived to put in place a political agenda. Why should this one be any different? The population explosion hysteria of the late 1960s, for instance, was to get abortion legalized. And as the opening paragraph of Roe v. Wade hints, that was for "eugenic" purposes with "racial overtones." Think little black babies.
The more recent climate hysteria was to get global controls in everything from industry to personal life. Essentially, with the fall of the USSR, the Old Reds became the New Greens, with the usual crowd of clueless fellow travelers.
Their attempt at a global regulatory agenda has clearly failed. The movement has degenerated into little more than the Obama administration's crony capitalist subsides for solar plants and wind factories. Global warming has morphed into crooked politics.
Tim Cook may actually be making smart marketing moves. He seems to be playing this hysteria in ways that help the sale of Apple products without imposing any real costs on the company or demanding any real lifestyle changes on upscale consumers.
Your iPhone, which probably contains as much aluminum as a couple of cans of pop, is recycled, so you can take that 6,000-mile vacation without feeling a twinge of guilty for Mother Earth.
Yes, that makes no sense, but none of these hysterias made sense. Fears about feeble-minded immigrants hit their peak just as one of those groups, East European Jews, was exploding out of poverty and swamping our major universities. And the 'Population Bomb' was championed just as the pill sent (white) birthrates plummeting throughout the developed world.
Fear is a common technique to get people to abandon their reasoning facilities. For those of us who don't scare easily, is all seems silly. The only real thing to worry about is what crooked politicians may do with our money before it fades away.
--Michael W. Perry, editor of Eugenics and Other Evils (one of those scientific hysterias)
Well said.
It was only in the 70s or 80s, I can't remember which, that the consensus amongst scientists was that we were soon to be heading into a mini Ice Age. Perhaps that's the science you were referring to in relation to the solar activity. At any rate, they were wrong; we entered a period of sustained warming. That all finished seventeen years ago. Maybe their timing was off. Weather has always been hard to predict, or 'climate' as we're supposed to call it now.
If you don't like what Tim Cook is doing and stands for, then sell your shares, stop buying Apple and go elsewhere.
Are you insane?" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
Apple makes the best devices around, and I look forward to buying a new iPad next month.
I can use Apple devices as much as I please, something that I have been doing for a very long time now. That doesn't mean that I will agree with Apple on every political issue that comes up.
Indeed.
Apple was much more likeable under Steve Jobs, because there was absolute focus by Jobs on the product. When Cook comments on world affairs that detract from the focus of the company, he invites scorn and derision.
Prediction: in 2 years Tim Cook retires from Apple and annouces he's running for Congress. When he talks about political/societal issues he gets animated, but when talking about tech it's like he's reading from a script. It's easy to tell where his heart is.
DING DING DING BINGO!!! The global warming to the climate change bait and switch. Now it's not only when the earth gets "warmer" but now even when it just changes!!!
I thought people were not supposed to fear 'change'..? And whatever happened to "hope and change"? Sounds like climate change might be rather nice. ????
Precisely! One of the great things about England is that the weather is very unpredictable and changes a lot. It's odd that 'climate change' is supposed to have a negative connotation.
Hey Tim. It's a natural cycle. It last about 65-70 years.
The rate of warming between the recent cycle and the last one was identical.
The 50s, 60s and 70s were cooler than the 80s, 90s and 2000s.
But there has been no increase in the temperature anomaly in 17 years.
So we are heading into the cooling half of the cycle once again.
Weather was more severe and more extreme in the COOLER 50s-70s than it was during the warmer 80s-2000s.
Since the mid 70s the number of violent tornadoes trended downward. So did worldwide tropical cyclone energy.
We are currently extending a record for the longest length of time since a major hurricane (Cat 3 or higher) has hit the US.
Last major hurricane was Wilma in 2005. (9 years!)
Tornado numbers have been well below average for the past three years.
Antarctic sea ice is at record levels.
Arctic sea ice is up 64% compared to 2012.
Now if you want to discuss land use changes (like what happens to regional weather when you cut down lots of trees for instance) then let's talk. It was found that cutting the forests around Mt. Kilimanjaro was responsible for reducing the moisture level in the air that moved up the mountain. Less moisture, less snow. Man caused that but it had nothing to do with CO2.
I wonder how the regional weather is affected by clearing all that land for Apple's solar farms?
Land use changes, building more roads, houses and buildings is the major cause of increased flooding.
With less open land to absorb rain water, there is increased runoff. This results in larger and more frequent flash floods.
Man made but not anything to do with anything we put in the air.
I have lived all of my 52 years in the same central Texas city. In the 60s and 70s dust storms were a frequent occurrence. Winds would blow west Texas dust into central Texas. Did you know that droughts are more frequent in cooler periods?
With us once again entering the cooling half of the natural cycle I will not be surprised to see dust storms return within 10-15 years.
Now if you want to discuss land use changes (like what happens to regional weather when you cut down lots of trees for instance) then let's talk. It was found that cutting the forests around Mt. Kilimanjaro was responsible for reducing the moisture level in the air that moved up the mountain. Less moisture, less snow.
Holy crap, that makes a boatload of sense. The way to prove this definitively would be to replant the forests and watch to see if the snow comes back (despite the rest of the world continuing to progress along the ‘inexorable’ path).
Precisely! One of the great things about England is that the weather is very unpredictable and changes a lot. It's odd that 'climate change' is supposed to have a negative connotation.
Weather and climate are not the same thing. That's what a lot of climate change deniers can't get their head around.
Precisely! One of the great things about England is that the weather is very unpredictable and changes a lot. It's odd that 'climate change' is supposed to have a negative connotation.
Weather and climate are not the same thing. That's what a lot of climate change deniers can't get their head around.
Ah, I was wondering how long I'd wait for someone to bite.
NEWSFLASH: weather and climate are the same thing. Weather is local. Climate is a description of the weather.
Ah, I was wondering how long I'd wait for someone to bite.
NEWSFLASH: weather and climate are the same thing. Weather is local. Climate is a description of the weather over a long period of time.
FTFY
Not really.
Weather can be described over a long period of time, too. Climate is a potted summary of the characteristics of a country's weather. So England has a mild climate. Some places have a tropical climate, etc. But within that concise description is a huge variety. England can be bitterly cold and also stiflingly hot. It can be damp, pleasant, grey, windy, frosty, or anything you can imagine. These are observations of the weather of that place.
You couldn't really sum up the weather of the earth with any accuracy as it's too disparate. The scientific mantra of twenty years ago - 'getting a bit warmer - doesn't tell you much.
Weather can be described over a long period of time, too. Climate is a potted summary of the characteristics of a country's weather. So England has a mild climate. Some places have a tropical climate, etc. But within that concise description is a huge variety. England can be bitterly cold and also stiflingly hot. It can be damp, pleasant, grey, windy, frosty, or anything you can imagine. These are observations of the weather of that place.
You couldn't really sum up the weather of the earth with any accuracy as it's too disparate. The scientific mantra of twenty years ago - 'getting a bit warmer - doesn't tell you much.
If you're going to try to reject scientific observations, you should probably stick to recognized sources for your vocabulary.
Weather is a state of conditions. Temperature, humidity, wind speed and direction, barometric pressure, cloud cover, etc.
Climate:
Webster: 2a: 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
Dictionary.com: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.
Google: the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period.
Wikipedia: Climate is a measure of the average pattern of variation in temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, precipitation, atmospheric particle count and othermeteorological variables in a given region over long periods of time. Climate is different from weather, in that weather only describes the short-term conditions of these variables in a given region.
Weather can be described over a long period of time, too. Climate is a potted summary of the characteristics of a country's weather. So England has a mild climate. Some places have a tropical climate, etc. But within that concise description is a huge variety. England can be bitterly cold and also stiflingly hot. It can be damp, pleasant, grey, windy, frosty, or anything you can imagine. These are observations of the weather of that place.
You couldn't really sum up the weather of the earth with any accuracy as it's too disparate. The scientific mantra of twenty years ago - 'getting a bit warmer - doesn't tell you much.
If you're going to try to reject scientific observations, you should probably stick to recognized sources for your vocabulary.
Weather is a state of conditions. Temperature, humidity, wind speed and direction, barometric pressure, cloud cover, etc.
Climate:
Webster: 2a: 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
Dictionary.com: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.
Google: the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period.
Wikipedia: Climate is a measure of the average pattern of variation in temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, precipitation, atmospheric particle count and othermeteorological variables in a given region over long periods of time. Climate is different from weather, in that weather only describes the short-term conditions of these variables in a given region.
Quite.
Thanks for confirming what I've already said. Weather and climate are the same thing.
Comments
Hey Tim. It's a natural cycle. It last about 65-70 years.
The rate of warming between the recent cycle and the last one was identical.
The 50s, 60s and 70s were cooler than the 80s, 90s and 2000s.
But there has been no increase in the temperature anomaly in 17 years.
So we are heading into the cooling half of the cycle once again.
Weather was more severe and more extreme in the COOLER 50s-70s than it was during the warmer 80s-2000s.
Since the mid 70s the number of violent tornadoes trended downward. So did worldwide tropical cyclone energy.
We are currently extending a record for the longest length of time since a major hurricane (Cat 3 or higher) has hit the US.
Last major hurricane was Wilma in 2005. (9 years!)
Tornado numbers have been well below average for the past three years.
Antarctic sea ice is at record levels.
Arctic sea ice is up 64% compared to 2012.
Now if you want to discuss land use changes (like what happens to regional weather when you cut down lots of trees for instance) then let's talk. It was found that cutting the forests around Mt. Kilimanjaro was responsible for reducing the moisture level in the air that moved up the mountain. Less moisture, less snow. Man caused that but it had nothing to do with CO2.
I wonder how the regional weather is affected by clearing all that land for Apple's solar farms?
Land use changes, building more roads, houses and buildings is the major cause of increased flooding.
With less open land to absorb rain water, there is increased runoff. This results in larger and more frequent flash floods.
Man made but not anything to do with anything we put in the air.
I have lived all of my 52 years in the same central Texas city. In the 60s and 70s dust storms were a frequent occurrence. Winds would blow west Texas dust into central Texas. Did you know that droughts are more frequent in cooler periods?
With us once again entering the cooling half of the natural cycle I will not be surprised to see dust storms return within 10-15 years.
Now Tim, Where the hell is the new mini?
Can you show me where the 70-year cycle starts and stops here? (ocean surface temperature historical data)
I’ve never understood why so many people seem to refuse to show measurements older than ~150 years.
I’ve never understood why so many people seem to refuse to show measurements older than ~150 years.
If you zoom out far enough, we're going to end up as a supernova remnant again, just like the iron in your blood, so there really is no change, right?
Unfortunately, our civilization has to survive on the zoomed in view, where the change shows up in graphs spanning many generations.
Seems to me that instead of reducto ad absurdum it would make more sense to show history since the dawn of human civilization, ~12,000 years ago.
Ugh.
I agree with this!
That you side with the illiterate doesn't surprise me.
Seems to me that instead of reducto ad absurdum it would make more sense to show history since the dawn of human civilization, ~12,000 years ago.
Well, I think 12,000 year history is absurd too, when determining if "change" equals "true." If we're looking at not having enough freshwater to irrigate crops that feed the current population (we have more living humans than dead ones right now), then why does it matter what kind of climate the Sumerians were dealing with?
At any rate, I'm not seeing studies further back than 1k years, but it doesn't look promising:
The chief argument for those who deny that the Earth's climate could be adversely affected by human activity, is that there is no scientific proof whatsoever. Ironically, these are generally the same people who believe there is a god, a savior and a heaven despite the same lack of scientific evidence.
I don't believe in any god, and also, many of those "climate change" slobs that are marching are more religious than actual religious people. They're ignorant, they're fanatical, they believe in unproven science and propaganda, and they're tools for marching around like hypocritical ignoramuses. Their made up cause is their religion.
The whole idiotic movement could have saved a whole bunch of fossil fuels by merely staying home.
Here's a picture of Al Gore, Apple's embarrassment, marching in the event.
Whilst you're bad for not being a Christian, I agree with you about the religious bent of the climate change fanatics.
Climate change is religion for atheists.
Oh, it's quite easy to be optimistic about climate change. The shift of terms from a hysterical "global warming" to a more benign "climate change" hints that the latter ended some seventeen years ago. We've now had more recent years with flat temperatures than rising ones.
The only credible risk is that sun seems to be hinting we might be entering another period like the prolonged sunspot minimum called the Maunder Minimum (1645-1715).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum
That means a serious cooling trend, one in which carbon in the air will be a plus. Keep in mind this means really cold. Climatologist call that period the Little Ice Age. The Thames often froze over thickly enough the city held fairs out on the ice.
That failure is to be expected. Every other scientific hysteria had been contrived to put in place a political agenda. Why should this one be any different? The population explosion hysteria of the late 1960s, for instance, was to get abortion legalized. And as the opening paragraph of Roe v. Wade hints, that was for "eugenic" purposes with "racial overtones." Think little black babies.
The more recent climate hysteria was to get global controls in everything from industry to personal life. Essentially, with the fall of the USSR, the Old Reds became the New Greens, with the usual crowd of clueless fellow travelers.
Their attempt at a global regulatory agenda has clearly failed. The movement has degenerated into little more than the Obama administration's crony capitalist subsides for solar plants and wind factories. Global warming has morphed into crooked politics.
Tim Cook may actually be making smart marketing moves. He seems to be playing this hysteria in ways that help the sale of Apple products without imposing any real costs on the company or demanding any real lifestyle changes on upscale consumers.
Your iPhone, which probably contains as much aluminum as a couple of cans of pop, is recycled, so you can take that 6,000-mile vacation without feeling a twinge of guilty for Mother Earth.
Yes, that makes no sense, but none of these hysterias made sense. Fears about feeble-minded immigrants hit their peak just as one of those groups, East European Jews, was exploding out of poverty and swamping our major universities. And the 'Population Bomb' was championed just as the pill sent (white) birthrates plummeting throughout the developed world.
Fear is a common technique to get people to abandon their reasoning facilities. For those of us who don't scare easily, is all seems silly. The only real thing to worry about is what crooked politicians may do with our money before it fades away.
--Michael W. Perry, editor of Eugenics and Other Evils (one of those scientific hysterias)
Well said.
It was only in the 70s or 80s, I can't remember which, that the consensus amongst scientists was that we were soon to be heading into a mini Ice Age. Perhaps that's the science you were referring to in relation to the solar activity. At any rate, they were wrong; we entered a period of sustained warming. That all finished seventeen years ago. Maybe their timing was off. Weather has always been hard to predict, or 'climate' as we're supposed to call it now.
If you don't like what Tim Cook is doing and stands for, then sell your shares, stop buying Apple and go elsewhere.
Are you insane?
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
Apple makes the best devices around, and I look forward to buying a new iPad next month.
I can use Apple devices as much as I please, something that I have been doing for a very long time now. That doesn't mean that I will agree with Apple on every political issue that comes up.
Indeed.
Apple was much more likeable under Steve Jobs, because there was absolute focus by Jobs on the product. When Cook comments on world affairs that detract from the focus of the company, he invites scorn and derision.
Prediction: in 2 years Tim Cook retires from Apple and annouces he's running for Congress. When he talks about political/societal issues he gets animated, but when talking about tech it's like he's reading from a script. It's easy to tell where his heart is.
Sadly true.
DING DING DING BINGO!!! The global warming to the climate change bait and switch. Now it's not only when the earth gets "warmer" but now even when it just changes!!!
I thought people were not supposed to fear 'change'..? And whatever happened to "hope and change"? Sounds like climate change might be rather nice. ????
Precisely! One of the great things about England is that the weather is very unpredictable and changes a lot. It's odd that 'climate change' is supposed to have a negative connotation.
Hey Tim. It's a natural cycle. It last about 65-70 years.
The rate of warming between the recent cycle and the last one was identical.
The 50s, 60s and 70s were cooler than the 80s, 90s and 2000s.
But there has been no increase in the temperature anomaly in 17 years.
So we are heading into the cooling half of the cycle once again.
Weather was more severe and more extreme in the COOLER 50s-70s than it was during the warmer 80s-2000s.
Since the mid 70s the number of violent tornadoes trended downward. So did worldwide tropical cyclone energy.
We are currently extending a record for the longest length of time since a major hurricane (Cat 3 or higher) has hit the US.
Last major hurricane was Wilma in 2005. (9 years!)
Tornado numbers have been well below average for the past three years.
Antarctic sea ice is at record levels.
Arctic sea ice is up 64% compared to 2012.
Now if you want to discuss land use changes (like what happens to regional weather when you cut down lots of trees for instance) then let's talk. It was found that cutting the forests around Mt. Kilimanjaro was responsible for reducing the moisture level in the air that moved up the mountain. Less moisture, less snow. Man caused that but it had nothing to do with CO2.
I wonder how the regional weather is affected by clearing all that land for Apple's solar farms?
Land use changes, building more roads, houses and buildings is the major cause of increased flooding.
With less open land to absorb rain water, there is increased runoff. This results in larger and more frequent flash floods.
Man made but not anything to do with anything we put in the air.
I have lived all of my 52 years in the same central Texas city. In the 60s and 70s dust storms were a frequent occurrence. Winds would blow west Texas dust into central Texas. Did you know that droughts are more frequent in cooler periods?
With us once again entering the cooling half of the natural cycle I will not be surprised to see dust storms return within 10-15 years.
Now Tim, Where the hell is the new mini?
Good to see a summary of the big picture.
Now if you want to discuss land use changes (like what happens to regional weather when you cut down lots of trees for instance) then let's talk. It was found that cutting the forests around Mt. Kilimanjaro was responsible for reducing the moisture level in the air that moved up the mountain. Less moisture, less snow.
Holy crap, that makes a boatload of sense. The way to prove this definitively would be to replant the forests and watch to see if the snow comes back (despite the rest of the world continuing to progress along the ‘inexorable’ path).
Trees are good. The more, the better.
Precisely! One of the great things about England is that the weather is very unpredictable and changes a lot. It's odd that 'climate change' is supposed to have a negative connotation.
Weather and climate are not the same thing. That's what a lot of climate change deniers can't get their head around.
Precisely! One of the great things about England is that the weather is very unpredictable and changes a lot. It's odd that 'climate change' is supposed to have a negative connotation.
Weather and climate are not the same thing. That's what a lot of climate change deniers can't get their head around.
Ah, I was wondering how long I'd wait for someone to bite.
NEWSFLASH: weather and climate are the same thing. Weather is local. Climate is a description of the weather.
Ah, I was wondering how long I'd wait for someone to bite.
NEWSFLASH: weather and climate are the same thing. Weather is local. Climate is a description of the weather over a long period of time.
FTFY
Ah, I was wondering how long I'd wait for someone to bite.
NEWSFLASH: weather and climate are the same thing. Weather is local. Climate is a description of the weather over a long period of time.
FTFY
Not really.
Weather can be described over a long period of time, too. Climate is a potted summary of the characteristics of a country's weather. So England has a mild climate. Some places have a tropical climate, etc. But within that concise description is a huge variety. England can be bitterly cold and also stiflingly hot. It can be damp, pleasant, grey, windy, frosty, or anything you can imagine. These are observations of the weather of that place.
You couldn't really sum up the weather of the earth with any accuracy as it's too disparate. The scientific mantra of twenty years ago - 'getting a bit warmer - doesn't tell you much.
Not really.
Weather can be described over a long period of time, too. Climate is a potted summary of the characteristics of a country's weather. So England has a mild climate. Some places have a tropical climate, etc. But within that concise description is a huge variety. England can be bitterly cold and also stiflingly hot. It can be damp, pleasant, grey, windy, frosty, or anything you can imagine. These are observations of the weather of that place.
You couldn't really sum up the weather of the earth with any accuracy as it's too disparate. The scientific mantra of twenty years ago - 'getting a bit warmer - doesn't tell you much.
If you're going to try to reject scientific observations, you should probably stick to recognized sources for your vocabulary.
Weather is a state of conditions. Temperature, humidity, wind speed and direction, barometric pressure, cloud cover, etc.
Climate:
Webster: 2a: 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
Dictionary.com: 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.
Google: the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period.
Wikipedia: Climate is a measure of the average pattern of variation in temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, precipitation, atmospheric particle count and othermeteorological variables in a given region over long periods of time. Climate is different from weather, in that weather only describes the short-term conditions of these variables in a given region.
Not really.
Weather can be described over a long period of time, too. Climate is a potted summary of the characteristics of a country's weather. So England has a mild climate. Some places have a tropical climate, etc. But within that concise description is a huge variety. England can be bitterly cold and also stiflingly hot. It can be damp, pleasant, grey, windy, frosty, or anything you can imagine. These are observations of the weather of that place.
You couldn't really sum up the weather of the earth with any accuracy as it's too disparate. The scientific mantra of twenty years ago - 'getting a bit warmer - doesn't tell you much.
If you're going to try to reject scientific observations, you should probably stick to recognized sources for your vocabulary.
Weather is a state of conditions. Temperature, humidity, wind speed and direction, barometric pressure, cloud cover, etc.
Climate:
Webster: 2a: 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
Dictionary.com: 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.
Google: the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period.
Wikipedia: Climate is a measure of the average pattern of variation in temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, precipitation, atmospheric particle count and othermeteorological variables in a given region over long periods of time. Climate is different from weather, in that weather only describes the short-term conditions of these variables in a given region.
Quite.
Thanks for confirming what I've already said. Weather and climate are the same thing.
Quite.
Thanks for confirming what I've already said. Weather and climate are the same thing.
Sorry, you can't read? Should I send audio?