Saying any action fights climate change is utterly meaningless

“The NASA web page, one of many gov entities, has defined climate change,” as one of our readers, Russell, points out. “It is extremely broad and inclusive, and literally means any variation in weather data is climate change. See below:

Climate change, therefore, is a change in the typical or average weather of a region or city. This could be a change in a region’s average annual rainfall, for example. Or it could be a change in a city’s average temperature for a given month or season.

Climate change is also a change in Earth’s overall climate. This could be a change in Earth’s average temperature, for example. Or it could be a change in Earth’s typical precipitation patterns. The climate of a region or city is its weather averaged over many years. This is usually different for different seasons. For example, a region or city may tend to be warm and humid during summer. But it may tend to be cold and snowy during winter.

The climate of a city, region or the entire planet changes very slowly. These changes take place on the scale of tens, hundreds and thousands of years.

“By this definition climate change occurs daily. Saying any action fights climate change is utterly meaningless.”

7 thoughts on “Saying any action fights climate change is utterly meaningless

  1. Note that NASA here is not saying anything about the actual point in contention, namely – what causes climate change? From what is said here they could just as easily be talking about natural climate change.

  2. I was thinking about this term “climate change”, just the other day. It is a completely vague indistinct term, a catch-all phrase to cover their heavy investment in what the ‘climate alarmists’ used to call “Global Warming.” The alarmists apparently aren’t all that sure now that the ‘globe’ is actually warming. Should it turn out that planet Earth is instead undergoing a cooling event, then it would fall nicely under the the new globull terminology of “climate change.” As with warming explanations, alarmists will also find a way to blame or involve human activity to explain the cooling as Mother Nature’s response to our industry and use of ‘fossil-fuels.’ (Really I should have said Coal, Petroleum, and Natural Gas, because ‘fossil-fuel(s)’ is a thoroughly biased term invented by someone probably left of center.) Petroleum and Nat. Gas are not fossils, they can show no impressions of former life forms. Coal however is practically all fossil throughout, being composed of very thick beds of compressed plant material.

    Climate is also a bit of an arbitrary term, one can look at climate from many perspectives. I took a course once in Earth Sciences that was all about the climate near the ground. From the surface up about 7 or 8 inches above. Now that is a narrow view of climate. The Climate on the North side of my house/ridge/valley/mountain is different from the Climate on the South side of house/ridge/valley/mountain. There are many many Climate zones or regions that vary with latitude, altitude, orographic effect(lay of the land), prevailing winds, etc. If I was asked, “What is the climate of Earth? I’d have to say, we’ve got a million of ’em!

  3. Providing it dosen’t say Human induced climate change is the only root of all evil in the text, I havnt got an issue with it.

  4. Since they are talking about an average, the number of data points is critical. Are we talking 30 years like a lot of local weather data? Or are we talking centuries. Also critical to the analysis is the fact that the average is made up of data that includes the extreme data points. Since the extreme data points exist, why should the average become the standard.

  5. NASA forgot to point out that the climate has been changing, naturally, for hundreds of millions of years, but a hundred years ago when humans began manufacturing automobiles all the natural forces that used to cause natural climate change suddenly stopped. and since 1900 the only cause of climate change is burning fossil fuels.

  6. Interesting non-definition. I agree with the writer that what this is a definition of is weather pattern changes.

    A difference in daily temperatures for a city, for instance, could be caused by paving white concrete roads with the ground rubber tire road surface, thus changing the albedo and causing heat to be stored. That certainly changes the “climate” of the city, but it isn’t going to change the world climate, which, in theory, we are supposedly talking about.

    This definition shows the ever shrinking reliability and accuracy of government sponsored “science.”

Comments are closed.