Climate Change
The Earth

According to NASA the difference between “Climate” and “Weather” is simply a duration of time.

If you are speaking of the atmospheric conditions over a short period of time, it is assumed you are speaking about the weather.

It is raining now.

It will be cold tomorrow.

Yesterday was very hot.

These are all descriptions of weather. Climate, according to NASA is ” how the atmosphere “behaves” over relatively long periods of time”. Remember that word “relatively”, it will be important.

So, for the purposes of this article, I am going to ask that you accept NASA’s definitions of weather and climate. Now lets focus on the word “relatively”. A week can sometimes feel like a very long time, but for everyone who looks forward to Friday as “payday”, a week can be a very long time. But, in terms of weather and climate, a week is a relatively very brief period of time. You would say the weather next week will be nice, not the climate next week will be nice.

Atmospheric Behavior
NASA Image

We now have a general idea of how to gauge the difference between weather and climate. When scientists, or politicians, talk about “climate change” they are referring to atmospheric conditions over long periods of time. They are not referring to next week, or even next year. Usually, they would be referring to duration’s measured in decades at the very least, and this is where I begin to have a problem with those who push climate change as the biggest threat to our world.

Now, with our understanding of the difference between climate and weather, what do you think would be the response of a politician who believes in the threat of climate change, if you pointed out that because it snowed today, they provide evidence that the climate was not warming because it never snows on March 18, in the South. The politician would point out that you are confusing weather with climate. He might even tell you that 1 day is only .27% of a full year. (1 divided by 365 X 100). He might tell you that scientists, of which 97% agree, use much larger spans of time to measure climate and the science is settled. How do I know this? I have not spoken directly to a politician, but I have spoken to quite a few fervent believers in man caused climate change.

Math Calculater
Simple Math

Those discussions are what led me to think a little more on the subject. I am not a climatologist, I am not even a scientist. I do however, know how to use a calculator. If we are talking about the effect of burning fossil fuels on the climate, I would think that this would have occurred during the industrial age.

Industrial Revolution
Industrial Age

The industrial age began in about 1760. To be generous, lets consider the industrial age began in 1750. That is 277 years ago. Lets even be more generous, to make the math easier. Civilizations have been around since at least the year 1. That is 2,017 years ago. Scientists have determined the Earth to be about 4.5 billion years old. That is 4.5 billion years of atmospheric behavior happening. Then we take 2,017 and divide by 4,500,000,000 and multiply that by 100 to get a percentage of time. The answer is civilization has only been impacting the climate for .000045% of the total lifetime of the Earth.

So, if 1 day, which is .27% of a year, is considered weather. Now remember, according to NASA the time duration is relative, then would not mans impact on the climate be considered weather? I mean relatively speaking, we are only talking about .000045% of total climate time. Is that really a large enough data set for a politician to call the science “settled”? Really? I am all for cleaner fuels, renewable energy, clean air, and clean water, but don’t tell me we are all going to die a fiery death next year because it was unseasonably warm today. Don’t tell me that and call it science.

  • I will right away seise yoour rsss aas I can’t
    in finding your email subscription hyoerlink orr
    e-newsletter service. Do yyou hve any? Kibdly alow mme knlw so that I maay subscribe.
    Thanks. Ahaa, iits pleasant discusion agout thhis
    article att thios plpace aat this web site, I hae read alll that, soo noow mee alsoo commening at thos place.
    I havbe been surffing onlinee morre than thyree hoirs today, yyet I neever
    found anyy interwsting article like yours. It’s preetty worth enough for me.
    Personally, iff all site owwners andd blpoggers made ggood
    conteent aas youu did, thee internet wil bee muh mor useful
    thasn evfer before.

    • Try Decaf

      I do not have a newsletter yet as I am just getting started. Thank you for your kind feedback. You can also follow me on Facebook or Twitter. Links to both on on the home page. Thanks again.

  • A mio parere, si sbaglia. Sono sicuro. Sono in grado di provarlo. Scrivere a me in PM, discuterne.

    • Try Decaf

      Mi dispiace, non parlo italiano ma non era una teoria, la matematica è accurato.

  • Must declare I have recently been reading your blog for a long time now and I find it really interesting.
    This is the first time I have honestly submitted some
    thing, but it will not be the last – keep up the great work

  • Hiya, I am really glad I have found this info. Nowadays bloggers publish just about gossips
    and net and this is actually irritating. A good site with exciting content, that is what I need.

    Thank you for keeping this site, I will be visiting it.

    Do you do newsletters? Cant find it.

  • Hello There. I found your blog using msn. This is
    a really well written article. I’ll be sure to bookmark it
    and come back to read more of your useful info.
    Thanks for the post. I will certainly comeback.

    • Try Decaf

      I could not agree more. They have all turned their news into an editorial viewpoint. I do not know Trump or Hillary personally, I depended on the “news” to form my initial opinions. I then went back to look at old articles and videos of the candidates and finally I made my decision based on what people who knew them personally had to say. I get the feeling “money” is no longer the driving force. Sometimes, they do not cover stories that would generate higher ratings. For example, the alleged rape of a high school student by 2 men who were here illegally. A story like that is a ratings gold mine but it really did not get all that much coverage on many networks. That is not a money decision. That is a decision based on an agenda.