On Dec 22, 1:12*am, oriel36 wrote:
On Dec 21, 5:25*am, Sanforized wrote:





Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:52:57 -0800 (PST), oriel36
wrote:

It is all far too complicated to even begin detailing the difference
between climate and meteorology...

It's not complicated at all. Climate is the average weather pattern over
some area and some time. Meteorology is the study of weather and
climate. I can't imagine any confusion there.

In a society that can't figure out the correct use
of the terms "bring" and "take" you think they can
readily deal with the contexts of climate and
weather? Given a women with intelligence probably
+1SD during a discussion about something I thought
extremely obvious, her reply was "obvious to you!"
Well damn, that budding relationship didn't last
even a weekend.

Part of the difficulty in assessing what humans
deal with well and things beyond most has to do
with a perception (and a misplaced trust) in the
value of quick wittedness. Not enough value is
placed in individuals who deal with analysis of
complex ideas on a slightly more plodding
timeframe. It is a hare and tortoise sort of
discussion. In the range of -1SD to +3SD or so
live a lot of hares with snappy answers that
frequently pass for good.

The idea that there are long term components with
low perceptibility, and doubtless some as yet
unrecognized components to climatology, is well
beyond the grasp of the great unwashed. And
they're well beyond the abilities of most of
the half baked hares as well.

As you can see,the response ffrom the Caltech guy is simpleminded
rather than simple but I do not fault him other than to say that he
approaches a complicated topic in a way suited to his intellectual
level,the problem being that most climatologists would go along with
his description of climate as an extension of weather pattterns.As any
reasonable person knows,annual weather patterns are almost
hemispherical in nature (Summer in the Southern/winter in Northern
hmispheres) so it is not a truly global view.

Looking a climate from a truly global view,it can be clearly seen that
the oscillation of temperature bands due to the motions of the Earth
sets the background conditions for seasonal weather patterns *and that
is the point of departure for a more intelligent approach to global
warming and whether it is natural or human influenced.

http://www.climateprediction.net/ima...ges/annual.gif

I can tell you that most scientists simply dispense with the
background conditions set by the daily rotational and annual motions
of the Earth and dive right in to CO2 levels as if nothing else
matters. Wanting to save the planet from irreponsible gas guzzlers may
be a noble agenda but as I have pointed out time and time again,not
knowing what causes the basic seasonal variations in daylight/darkness
and the more complicated issue of seasonal weather patterns is a poor
foundation for studying climate.

As a final note,I am absolutely bewildered at the ability to ignore an
observed *360 degree motion that all planets have with respect to the
central Sun,one which causes the seasons *when allied with daily
rotation,you can actually see the two motions going on simultaneously
using the excellent time lapse footage provided by Hubble -

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/arc...999/11/video/b

Maybe it is no longer possible for people to get excited even when
images dictate conclusions without the need for speculation and I feel
the world is a lot poorer for the loss of people who can interpret
rather than those who simply speculate without taking into account
physical considerations of their premises and conclusions.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

hi oriel
You clearly have a brilliant mind when it comes to Climatology. Do
you have a website? Do you provide
advice to Weather Bureaus?