Global warming is real

[Borgia]

@Call_me_Ishmael

Economists… not real scientists.

You got that right. Regardless, it shows velocity being used beyond dx/dt. And like I said, scientists use the term velocity beyond dx/dt. Did you see the scientific papers cited above?

[Borgia]

@WildRose

Velocity is the change in position along a line relative to the time elapsed.

And if I were as pedantic as some in here are being I would point out velocity in no way has to be along a line.

[Call_me_Ishmael]

@Borgia_dude_dude

@Call_me_Ishmael

Economists… not real scientists.

You got that right. Regardless, it shows velocity being used beyond dx/dt. And like I said, scientists use the term velocity beyond dx/dt. Did you see the scientific papers cited above?

I haven’t disputed that it is used … and understood. Have I?

I just said it’s sloppy, technically inconsistent with SI measurement system that careful scientists use, and will get you in trouble someday.

[Borgia]

@WildRose

I reject it because they have no way to tell what the temperatures were to any degree of certainty on the other continents at any point, only a global average based on the ice cores and similar data.

Do you reject that the other warming periods in your graph were from orbital forcing, which would not account for today’s warming?

[Borgia]

@Call_me_Ishmael

I just said it’s sloppy, technically inconsistent with SI measurement system that careful scientists use, and will get you in trouble someday.

You’re being sloppy linking velocity to SI cause the concept of velocity is independent of units. Feet/sec is not SI units yet is a velocity.

As noted earlier in the thread, careful scientists from the Institute of Physics and those published in Nature disagree with you.

[dantes]

It’s fine. It conveys a concept that only the most pendantic and petty would have a problem with.

[Call_me_Ishmael]

@Borgia_dude_dude

@Call_me_Ishmael

I just said it’s sloppy, technically inconsistent with SI measurement system that careful scientists use, and will get you in trouble someday.

You’re being sloppy linking velocity to SI cause the concept of velocity is independent of units. Feet/sec is not SI units yet is a velocity.

As noted earlier in the thread, careful scientists from the Institute of Physics and those published in Nature disagree with you.

Whatev buddy

[Borgia]

Oh, you’re not aware that SI refers to the metric system? How sloppy of you.

[WildRose]

@Borgia_dude_dude

@WildRose

Velocity is the change in position along a line relative to the time elapsed.

And if I were as pedantic as some in here are being I would point out velocity in no way has to be along a line.

: the rate of change of position along a straight line with respect to time : the derivative of position with respect to time

Definition of VELOCITY

At some point you should just quit.

[Yakshi]

What do the vast majority of climate scientists have to say?

[Samm]

@dantes

A bit. Looking for your analysis saying these processes require fossil fuels. Seems like you might be lacking some imagination.

Show me an alternative to fossil fuels for mining. Does Caterpillar build an electric D-10?

[Samm]

@zantax

@Yakshi

Do climate experts henpeck like this? Or do they actually know what they’re doing?

It’s as if climate experts hadn’t already expected and answered every single question these denialist forumers could even imagine.

Ok, let’s just go ahead and stipulate they are right and that catastrophic warming is on the way. Are you willing to give up your activity that causes CO2 and methane emissions right now to avoid it? Is everyone else who believes it also willing to do the same? When you answer that honestly, you will be joining me in hoping they are wrong.

That’s only part of the issue … as I noted before, doing that will not avoid “catastrophic warming.” If every industrial country on the planet cut their CO2 emissions 100%, it would reduce the projected increase (if you believe the scientist’s predictions, 2 to 3 C) in temperature by the end of the century only 0.21 to 0.28 degrees. The question really is, are you willing to completely destroy the standard of living of all humanity to keep it from getting a wee bit warmer than the alarmists claim it will get?

Reduce U.S. Carbon Emissions To Zero, And The Temperature Decrease By 2100...

https://www.cato.org/carbon-tax-temperature-savings-calculator

[Samm]

Yeah, just like the majority of folks were calling 2000 the first year of the new century when in fact, it was the last year of the 20th century. A majority does not mean right. And if you read your article the use of velocity is referring “spatial gradients.” Key word there is “spatial” i.e. position. They then lumped the rate of temperature change in with it for simplicity … for folks like you.

I find it really interesting that you and others are so determined to be ignorant. It reminds me of a Martin Luther quote, “Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” Not that calling the change of temperature over time is dangerous, but it is in the same wheelhouse as what Dr. King was referring to.

[Call_me_Ishmael]

@Borgia_dude_dude

And if I were as pedantic as some in here are being I would point out velocity in no way has to be along a line.

You might be referring to what is commonly known as speed.

Velocity, on the other hand, is a vector quantity. A vector always points along some straight line in the direction of that vector. The velocity vector of an object may change direction but that is called acceleration. If the velocity direction of an object changes continuously, then that object is undergoing acceleration even though the instantaneous magnitude of the velocity remains constant.

It is often a point of confusion -or amazement - among the non-scientific among us that an orbiting body in a circular orbit has a constantly changing velocity. It is constantly being accelerated in the direction towards the earth while the magnitude of its velocity is constant. And those who never plotted dv/dt along a circle wonder why it does not fall into the earth.

Why not stop now. You can continue to call a change in any quantity velocity but it’s technically incorrect and sloppy.

[Samm]

@dantes

Of course it’s a position. It’s a position on that scale.

That is a stretch and you know it. What if you are using a thermometer that changes color or a digital display instead of showing the expansion of a liquid or a needle on a dial? What has moved?

[Samm]

Really? Now you are just being silly.

[Samm]

@Borgia_dude_dude

@Samm

Not quite … the rate of change of position . People have a position; cars have a position; planes have a position; sound waves have a position, photons have a position. Temperature does not have a position.

If anybody is hung up it’s you guys. Just use “rate of temperature change (or increase, if you prefer)” and move on.

You are hung up on being right when you are wrong. Sorry.

No, I am hung up on being accurate. There is no right or wrong to accuracy.

[Yakshi]

And the henpecking continues.

[Samm]

@Borgia_dude_dude

Samm, there is a world outside your perspective. Like I said, I have heard coworkers use velocity as a rate of change. They aren’t wrong, just different than you.

You better tell Merriam-Webster.

3 a : rate of occurrence or action

You forgot to list definitions 1 and 2.

1
a : quickness of motion : speed the velocity of sound
b : rapidity of movement
[my horse’s] strong suit is grace & personal comeliness, rather than velocity —Mark Twain
c : speed imparted to something
the power pitcher relies on velocity —Tony Scherman
2
: the rate of change of position along a straight line with respect to time : the derivative of position with respect to time

Definition 3 does not refer to anything scientific. It refers to such things as historical changes and the turnover of money.

If you are going to use a Dictionary, you must learn that many words mean different things depending what subject you are talking about. You can’t just pick any definition from the list and use it for whatever you want.

[Samm]

@Borgia_dude_dude

@Samm

Then you are using it wrong.

Uh oh. Samm better tell dictionary.com

the rate of speed with which something happens; rapidity of action or reaction.

As I said … many words have several different meanings. You are using the wrong meaning for this discussion.