General Climate Change Discussion

[weather eater]

I am, always have been and when it comes to sceptics, I know quite a few of us think the same.

The disagreements arise over the percentage which is attributable to man made versus natural. I still can't find the science to support the "CO2 is driving the warming", I've looked lots. At best, it may be contributing but driving the change? Nope.

Do you mean you don’t agree with the science or dispute the interpretation of the mathematics involved, because I can find even with a quick internet search reams of information on how CO2 drives global warming and if you believe that science to be wrong or inadequate what are your qualifications to make that call.

As far as I can see the important thing here is not what’s driving GW but are CO2 emissions making a substantial difference in escalating that warming. If you believe that the driving force behind the warming that we have seen is natural fluctuations in the planets climate, can you prove this is the case because if you can’t then your case has no more validity than the proponents of AGW have for theirs. I also repeat the question I posed earlier how many of the experts in natural climate fluctuations are sceptics, I have a sneaky suspicion that its not many of them. In truth the problem for all sides of the debate is the paucity of the time scale in relation to the earths climate that accurate data is available for, we can loosely access past climate by ice core etc and we know that sudden climate shifts do happen but we can only speculate on the driving forces behind those shifts. It is always worrying when man starts to meddle in things he does not understand clearly, especially when dealing with potentially chaotic systems.

[Android]

Easterly anomolies in the central pacific tropics just weakened and are almost negative (ie positive westerlies)..first time since september

I don't know if the positive westerlies have held but SST in the east tropical pacific has increased significantly in the past week

http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data...t.3.26.2009.gif

vs

http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data...ht.4.2.2009.gif

http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/intraseas...850u_tlon.shtml

http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/intraseas...heat_tlon.shtml

Edited April 3, 2009 by Android

[Guest]

Do you mean you don’t agree with the science or dispute the interpretation of the mathematics involved, because I can find even with a quick internet search reams of information on how CO2 drives global warming and if you believe that science to be wrong or inadequate what are your qualifications to make that call.

As far as I can see the important thing here is not what’s driving GW but are CO2 emissions making a substantial difference in escalating that warming. If you believe that the driving force behind the warming that we have seen is natural fluctuations in the planets climate, can you prove this is the case because if you can’t then your case has no more validity than the proponents of AGW have for theirs. I also repeat the question I posed earlier how many of the experts in natural climate fluctuations are sceptics, I have a sneaky suspicion that its not many of them. In truth the problem for all sides of the debate is the paucity of the time scale in relation to the earths climate that accurate data is available for, we can loosely access past climate by ice core etc and we know that sudden climate shifts do happen but we can only speculate on the driving forces behind those shifts. It is always worrying when man starts to meddle in things he does not understand clearly, especially when dealing with potentially chaotic systems.

My position is that I am really an ignoramus as far as the technical matters of this argument is concerned and any maths are way above my head but try to look at this subject from common sense point of view allied with what little physics I know.

Amongst the things I consider are say, the planet Venus, where CO2 constitutes a goodly part of the atmosphere. I think the surface temperature is something like 800c. Yes, it is nearer the sun and bound to get more heating but if this planet were to have an atmosphere similar to our own, I wonder what the average surface temperature would be then. In fact I do not believe that it is beyond the realms of physics to calculate such a temperature. I am not sure as to how much H2O there is in the atmosphere and if this were to condense out, what would it mean as far as surface water is concerned such as oceans and glaciers etc. whish would be bound to have an effect. I believe I heard that a day on this planet is equivalent to a year, meaning that that there would always be a dark side. Would this become an area of permafrost and glaciation?

If anybody has an answer it would be interesting to know.

My concern about this planet Earth is that the effects of CO2 could be exponential and as I understand it a raise of 5C could possibly trigger a release of a further greenhouse gas, methane, of which there is plenty trapped beneath the ocean beds and this could possibly raise the temperature by a further 5C, making a rise of 10C, making parts, if not all of the tropics uninhabitable and would melt the icecaps with the resultant rise in sea levels.

I sometimes wonder whether some of the protagonists on both sides of the argument may not be getting too blinkered in their views and tend to look for arguments to support their particular view, whereas it might be better to stand back and view all the evidence on both sides as a whole.

In my limited view, it stands to reason that the CO2 for example, created by man must have some effect over and above the natural cycles, as to how much of an effect it has I have absolutely no idea.

I therefore come to the view that climate change is part man made and part due to natural cycles. At the same time, since nobody seems to know for sure, should we continue to pump the CO2 into the atmosphere, or should we be more prudent and take steps to curb it? My inclination is to curb it and I doubt that future generations will be too happy about the anti global warming camp got it wrong. Dare we take the chance?

[jethro]

Do you mean you don’t agree with the science or dispute the interpretation of the mathematics involved, because I can find even with a quick internet search reams of information on how CO2 drives global warming and if you believe that science to be wrong or inadequate what are your qualifications to make that call.

As far as I can see the important thing here is not what’s driving GW but are CO2 emissions making a substantial difference in escalating that warming. If you believe that the driving force behind the warming that we have seen is natural fluctuations in the planets climate, can you prove this is the case because if you can’t then your case has no more validity than the proponents of AGW have for theirs. I also repeat the question I posed earlier how many of the experts in natural climate fluctuations are sceptics, I have a sneaky suspicion that its not many of them. In truth the problem for all sides of the debate is the paucity of the time scale in relation to the earths climate that accurate data is available for, we can loosely access past climate by ice core etc and we know that sudden climate shifts do happen but we can only speculate on the driving forces behind those shifts. It is always worrying when man starts to meddle in things he does not understand clearly, especially when dealing with potentially chaotic systems.

I mean the known scientific facts or law associated with the properties of CO2, exclude it as being a possible cause of the majority of the warming in recent decades. CO2 in the atmosphere has a logarithmic effect, this is fact. To be responsible for, or driving the recent (last 20-30 years) of warming, this fact would have to be false.

When it comes to proving that natural forces are responsible, the onus is upon those who claim otherwise to substantiate their claim; or at least that's how science always used to be. Climate and temperatures do fluctuate up and down, we have reams of historical evidence for this. We don't have to go too far back to look either, we have quite an accurate record of the warmer decades at the beginning of the 20th century, today's temperatures are not a great deal higher than then - at best, CO2 MAY account for this difference. But that's still assuming all natural forces are behaving in just the same manner as back then, we have no way of measuring this and until we do, it is impossible to say natural forces alone cannot be held responsible.

Something is remiss in our knowledge of this, leaving aside the accuracy (or otherwise) of models and their predictions; when they are programmed with all the known data, including CO2 emissions, they cannot replicate the warming of the early 20th century. Many have tried and failed. Whatever that missing forcing is, which prevents the models replicating that period, may well be responsible for a large portion of modern warming. Our knowledge of climate and what drives changes is still very much a work in progress, the popular "consensus" argument has been over-stated somewhat.

[Methuselah]

It's the onus of anyone prepared to make sweeping claims (from either side of the false dichotomy so-to-speak) to back up those claims with data/evidence...For natural forces to be 100% responsible for CC, CO2 would have to cease being a greenhouse gas. And, quite frankly, that is about as unlikely to occur as solar radiation suddenly ceasing to affect climate...

The problem with straw man arguments is that they achieve nothing.

[jethro]

It's the onus of anyone prepared to make sweeping claims (from either side of the false dichotomy so-to-speak) to back up those claims with data/evidence...For natural forces to be 100% responsible for CC, CO2 would have to cease being a greenhouse gas. And, quite frankly, that is about as unlikely to occur as solar radiation suddenly ceasing to affect climate...

The problem with straw man arguments is that they achieve nothing.

But there is nothing "straw man" in the logarithmic properties of CO2. Explain the last 20-30 years of warming, using this know, scientific law.

When it comes to science, I'm afraid the onus has always been on those claiming to have over-turned known law, to prove why they are right. It's how ideas progress from back of the envelope to hypothesis, to theory, to law.

As I've said time and again, nothing is 100% responsible but at best, CO2 is a tiny contributor, not the big, bad, bogeyman we've been told.

[Thundery wintry showers]

But are natural cycles really more of a known law than greenhouse gas concentration-assisted warming? Many aspects of natural cycles are actually less well understood than the CO2-temperature feedbacks. And "known law" is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. And in climate change any attempt to provide "proof" either way is doomed to failure due to our incomplete knowledge of the climate system, so the disbelievers are put automatically into a win-win situation regardless of the actual truth. Evidence and probability are the best we have.

The "CO2 is definitely only a small contributor", when there are arguments and counterarguments on both sides, is as guilty of saying things are settled when they aren't as saying "CO2 is definitely a big contributor".

[Devonian]

But there is nothing "straw man" in the logarithmic properties of CO2. Explain the last 20-30 years of warming, using this know, scientific law.

Jethro, yes the CO2 effect is logarithmic, but lets do a thought experiment to see why I think I can show you're wrong to use this as you do.

When you double CO2 concentration you get about 1C warming - we agree about that. Since this warming effect gets less with greater concentration (because it is logarithmic) most of the warming is at the 'start' of each doubling - we agree about that as well.

But, it does depend at what concentration you start you calculation.

Lets start a calculation in 1980 with the CO2 conc of ~340ppm and then double that CO2 concentration to 680ppm. By you're argument most of the ~1C warming due to that doubling will be at the start of the doubling (because CO2 warming is logarithmic)? Right? And what do we see now CO2 is 380ppm - warming! Otoh you could argue that the change from 340ppm to 380ppm was the end of a CO2 concentration doubling from 190ppm so there should be less warming! You see the problem? You can argue both there should be more warming now and less warming due to the logarithmic effect. But, it can not be both!

So, yes, the warming effect of doubling CO2 con is logarithmic but that's not the whole story. A better way to look at it is that there will be warming due to a certain increase of CO2 conc and that can be calculated.

And of course, CO2 is not only increasing the rate of increase has quickened.

One more thing. I don't think, and never have said, all the warming, all the climate change, we see is due to CO2. Lets have no more of that strawman from people.

When it comes to science, I'm afraid the onus has always been on those claiming to have over-turned known law, to prove why they are right. It's how ideas progress from back of the envelope to hypothesis, to theory, to law.

As I've said time and again, nothing is 100% responsible but at best, CO2 is a tiny contributor, not the big, bad, bogeyman we've been told.

Sit back and let the science be placed at your feet?

Edited April 3, 2009 by Devonian

[Gray-Wolf]

If we are to believe that the 'conditions' to provide us with a strong 'Nino already exist at depth the the change from near neutral to 'Nino will be far swifter than many are proposing. As the sun has already crossed the equator we need only wait for the environmental lapse to 'catch up' for a very rapid transition to 'Nino conditions to take hold (July?).

The possible impacts on a failing Arctic system need no flagging.

[Thundery wintry showers]

El Nino does not have much impact on Arctic temperatures, it's mainly in the tropics where we see a big difference. 1998 for instance was not a particularly warm year in the Arctic, and there wasn't a major ice melt that summer.

[Methuselah]

But there is nothing "straw man" in the logarithmic properties of CO2. Explain the last 20-30 years of warming, using this know, scientific law.

When it comes to science, I'm afraid the onus has always been on those claiming to have over-turned known law, to prove why they are right. It's how ideas progress from back of the envelope to hypothesis, to theory, to law.

As I've said time and again, nothing is 100% responsible but at best, CO2 is a tiny contributor, not the big, bad, bogeyman we've been told.

As you have also said 'time and again' - 'we do not fully understand all of the natural feedbacks, blah blah blah...' I take it the allusion to logarithmicity is something to do with that cockeyed claim (made by DENIERS and not by genuine sceptics!) that all of the wavlengths of light that make CO2 a greenhouse gas are already used-up? Another great unknown which, as your fellow 'sceptics' are so fond of saying, is nothing more than theory?

You last sentence is nothing more than opinion dressed-up as fact; but it may be right - who knows?

[MR EXTREMES]

this planet has warmed and cooled for millions of years we have had our run of warming from the 70s just a normal cycle after coming out of the last mini ice age,

id like to add,

yes it was a mini ice age so flip the coin ok yes warming has happened but we still have a full blown ice age to deal with.

ofcoarse nobody really knows why major ice ages have happened.

temps have stablised now and dropped back to the average,

well so they say but really they dont know what a true average is,

there have been warmer periods in earths history absolutely sure of that there,

are to many people saying to much stuff and the truth becomes messy.

its a chance for the people who rule our lives to make some money there are some that really feel its true there are some that feel its a normal cycle and there and some that think its all over the top.

i dont know but im sure im not on the side of gw,

but that does not mean its not good to take the crap we breathin out of our climate and that we should have a cleaner planet.

but i tell you this when you get a mr nasa predicting a solar cycle like he has then you laugh because its a joke he for one will climb in the pocket of gw alarmist far far to soon to be predicting things you know little about.

nasa are lerning this fast,

now solar maximium could happen anytime oh wait a minute so could a ice age oh wait a minute we could enter the next super hot cycle.

climate change is normal its something that happens lets clean up,

but IF its caused by us then hey nature will resolve the problem itself im sure of that.

but i think its aload of rubbish and major changes are taking place already with cooler climate looking more likely for now anyway.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

what we have are any number of people with an entrenched view point looking for evidence to justify that view point, nobody is willing to face the idea that both man made and natural forcings may be both at play, as I have said before many of the scientists who are convinced by the AGW argument are experts in climate change and that includes natural forcing, indeed many of them are the source of what we know about natural forcing.

I would not include myself in that. And I think that isn't strictly true of many other sceptics either. It is the % split that is very much in doubt.

However it is true to say that I believe that AGW forcings are grossly overstated and that natural and cyclical indicators play a much greater role in what drives our climate. As they always have done - as I posted yesterday.

I'm not sure that many of the AGW scientists are experts on natural forcings. The science is clouded by the preconceived idea that human forcings are so overwhelming that they will override any magnitude of natural forcings. So many feedback mechanisms are so poorly understood that it is amazing that such a conclusion can be arrived at. With natural forcings as uncertain as they are, then I don't see how they can profess to be experts on them especially when such preconceptions exist to skew the parameters from the start.

The tenure of the IPCC in terms of its inaccuracy in projections so far does bear this point out.

Edited April 3, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[MR EXTREMES]

I would not include myself in that. And I think that isn't strictly true of many other sceptics either. It is the % split that is very much in doubt.

However it is true to say that I believe that AGW forcings are grossly overstated and that natural and cyclical indicators play a much greater role in what drives our climate. As they always have done - as I posted yesterday.

I'm not sure that many of the AGW scientists are experts on natural forcings. The science is clouded by the preconceived idea that human forcings are so overwhelming that they will override any magnitude of natural forcings. So many feedback mechanisms are so poorly understood that it is amazing that such a conclusion can be arrived at. With natural forcings as uncertain as they are, then I don't see how they can profess to be experts on them especially when such preconceptions exist to skew the parameters from the start.

The tenure of the IPCC in terms of its inaccuracy in projections so far does bear this point out.

excellent and i totally agree

[Devonian]

I would not include myself in that. And I think that isn't strictly true of many other sceptics either. It is the % split that is very much in doubt.

However it is true to say that I believe that AGW forcings are grossly overstated and that natural and cyclical indicators play a much greater role in what drives our climate. As they always have done - as I posted yesterday.

I'm not sure that many of the AGW scientists are experts on natural forcings. The science is clouded by the preconceived idea that human forcings are so overwhelming that they will override any magnitude of natural forcings. So many feedback mechanisms are so poorly understood that it is amazing that such a conclusion can be arrived at. With natural forcings as uncertain as they are, then I don't see how they can profess to be experts on them especially when such preconceptions exist to skew the parameters from the start.

The tenure of the IPCC in terms of its inaccuracy in projections so far does bear this point out.

Humm, if we don't understand natural forcing that surely means we don't understand them? So we don't understand if they will +ve feedback or -ve feedback or neither? Or are you saying you think you do understand them and that you think they will override AGW?

[weather eater]

But are natural cycles really more of a known law than greenhouse gas concentration-assisted warming? Many aspects of natural cycles are actually less well understood than the CO2-temperature feedbacks. And "known law" is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. And in climate change any attempt to provide "proof" either way is doomed to failure due to our incomplete knowledge of the climate system, so the disbelievers are put automatically into a win-win situation regardless of the actual truth. Evidence and probability are the best we have.

The "CO2 is definitely only a small contributor", when there are arguments and counterarguments on both sides, is as guilty of saying things are settled when they aren't as saying "CO2 is definitely a big contributor".

Firstly a good debate all round, but I have to agree with this post, if you set out a proposition whether it be natural cycles or AGW you must exhibit evidence to make your case. I would still like to know if any paleoclimatologists are sceptics and if not why not because surely their knowledge is central to the debate. As I understand it much evidence of sudden climate shifts is now coming to light outside of known climate cycles and there is much debate on what was the driving force behind those shifts, also we have no idea how much forcing is necessary to tip us into a sudden climate shift it seems to me to be likely that our actions could tip the balance if they go on unchecked and it is possible that they have already done so, time as ever will tell.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

In truth the problem for all sides of the debate is the paucity of the time scale in relation to the earths climate that accurate data is available for, we can loosely access past climate by ice core etc and we know that sudden climate shifts do happen but we can only speculate on the driving forces behind those shifts. It is always worrying when man starts to meddle in things he does not understand clearly, especially when dealing with potentially chaotic systems.

Wrt to the 'time' issue I made a post yesterday about the AGW argument which addresses the 'moment' in climate history wheras the natural forcings relate to the 'time' in climate history.

Regarding the bold highlighted bit, I very much agree. And all the more reason not to conclude that we know best when we don't understand properly the mechansims of potentially chaotic systems. Again, I would ask, what basis of a mandate for AGW action is that?

[Thundery wintry showers]

Because we can talk in terms of probability even when we don't have certainty, and the question is therefore a risk assessment of what happens if AGW is being overstated vs. what happens if it isn't. And that's before we bring various "sustainability" issues into the equation. All in all, maintaining the current status quo, often justified via the "free market capitalism is the solution to everything and must be protected at any cost" agenda, is unlikely to be among our best options...

[Methuselah]

I'm not sure that many of the AGW scientists are experts on natural forcings. The science is clouded by the preconceived idea that human forcings are so overwhelming that they will override any magnitude of natural forcings. So many feedback mechanisms are so poorly understood that it is amazing that such a conclusion can be arrived at. With natural forcings as uncertain as they are, then I don't see how they can profess to be experts on them especially when such preconceptions exist to skew the parameters from the start.

No it isn't!

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Humm, if we don't understand natural forcing that surely means we don't understand them? So we don't understand if they will +ve feedback or -ve feedback or neither? Or are you saying you think you do understand them and that you think they will override AGW?

To clarify better perhaps for you, I am suggesting that the role in terms of impact of natural forcings is not understood by many climate scientists. But I also am suggesting that the reason for the clouding of this issue is due to the preconceptions that exist about AGW.

It just so happens that much AGW supposition is dependant on certain large assumed postiive feedbacks in areas where there is much uncertainty over natural (negative) feedbacks which may also exist. The clouds feedback is a primary example in terms of the way that CO2 is either an amplified positive feedback for global warmth (AGW supposition) or that different cloud formations may induce reverse negative feedbacks with CO2 lost into space (sceptic belief)

So in this way, the AGW approach to science is taking a gamble with the greyest areas which happen to be amongst the most critical areas in terms of whether there is significant warming (as is dangerously assumed) or whether the amount of CO2 produced becomes immaterial becasue there is a natural mechanism that is so large it swallows it up and the assumed positive warmth amplifier is rendered redundant and/or dysfunctional (that is, assuming it exists in the first place)

And then there is the sun...cycles of which NASA cannot forecast with any reliability over the shortest period. How much of an ultra negative feedback might exist there?

No it isn't!

Short and sweet!

Show me where?

Edited April 3, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Methuselah]

Wrt to the 'time' issue I made a post yesterday about the AGW argument which addresses the 'moment' in climate history wheras the natural forcings relate to the 'time' in climate history.

Moment of force, moment of forcing, moment of inertia - NOT moment in time...How many more times?

Short and sweet!

Show me where?

Show me where it is... Because I certainly do not assume it...

)

So in this way, the AGW approach to science is taking a gamble with the greyest areas which happen to be amongst the most critical areas in terms of whether there is significant warming (as is dangerously assumed) or whether the amount of CO2 produced becomes immaterial becasue there is a natural mechanism that is so large it swallows it up and the assumed positive warmth amplifier is rendered redundant and/or dysfunctional (that is, assuming it exists in the first place)

And the 'sceptics' play with the very same 'greyest areas' in order to justify a buisiness as usual outlook.

[Thundery wintry showers]

It is true that the predictions of 2-4C warming over the 21st century are dependent on positive feedback mechanisms. Current rates of warming (taking the average of the last 30 years) would give 1-2C warming over the coming century.

But it's a bit too early to be dismissing their claims of heightened warming rates in the future!

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Because we can talk in terms of probability even when we don't have certainty, and the question is therefore a risk assessment of what happens if AGW is being overstated vs. what happens if it isn't. And that's before we bring various "sustainability" issues into the equation. All in all, maintaining the current status quo, often justified via the "free market capitalism is the solution to everything and must be protected at any cost" agenda, is unlikely to be among our best options...

What justifies 'probability' in such circumstances? 'Possibility' is surely the very best that can be said? And that is fairly generous.

If there is so much uncertainty over an issue, how can it therefore be deemed to be serious without understanding the wholse story? Or is it deemed serious based on the suppositions of AGW which make it serious? It is a 'probability' in your own eyes because you subscribe strongly to AGW theory.

Taking a hypothetical sceptic line, I 'could' start jumping up and down and suggest that we will need all the CO2 we can muster to keep us warm 'in case' the sleeping sun sends us into another ice age within the next 50 to 100 years. Get enough people to sign up to it, persuade a few governments that it is too serious to dismiss, and then assemble a crack team of scientists to 'get on the case'. They then present a report/series of reports based on the selected data and the suitable conclusion to fit the scenario is that the risk of avoiding action is too great against the threat of the ravages of a freeze that will stop all our crops growing and make the earth inhospitable to live. On that basis of such a concocted 'probability' there would be a proposed mandate for action - irrespective of lots of uncertainties.

Whilst I believe that cyclical cooling, following the recent cyclical warming, is much more likely than hothouse armeggeddon and lands disappearing beneath surging seas, I don't happen to subscribe to the view that anything as extreme as hypothesised above will happen in a long while, but on the other hand why should I agree with a similar principle/theory at the other end of the spectrum that has a similar tenuous half mandate in terms of potential catastrophe and is ridden with uncertain holes? Research costs money, which we as taxpayers all have to pay for, and action costs even more. So, if we are going to fork out lets at least do some logical research not based on supposition (and in the right order) and decide more clearly exactly what we are acting on (if we need to act at all) and not act on unfinished half baked suppositions that could at the least be needless and misdirected but at most could be expensive, and waste time dealing for REAL KNOWN problems that exist in the world beyond the AGW fad. The poorest countries are poor enough as ever and the world atm isn't in the best of shape financially. If I am going to have a conscience I would rather pay tax in these directions (for eg) rather than fantasy climate calamaties.

If a proper audit was done and there emerged some real proof of AGW, and then possibility became a true probability then a case for a measured action would be more justified but there is no evidence worth acting on atm that says that CO2 etc are having anything like the clout assumed to overide our climate beyond that of natural cyclical variability.

Just can't see it. Sorry.

Moment of force, moment of forcing, moment of inertia - NOT moment in time...How many more times?

But all those collective 'moments' still add up to a 'moment in time'. A moment is not necessarily a constant - in fact it rarely is.

And the 'sceptics' play with the very same 'greyest areas' in order to justify a buisiness as usual outlook.

On the contrary, speaking for myself at least, I would suggest that the greyest areas are the areas to be taken most seriously. At least if the truth is what one is searching for.

It is true that the predictions of 2-4C warming over the 21st century are dependent on positive feedback mechanisms. Current rates of warming (taking the average of the last 30 years) would give 1-2C warming over the coming century.

But it's a bit too early to be dismissing their claims of heightened warming rates in the future!

That 30 year period doesn't reflect the latest third of the period whereby there has been no warming. So the 'current' assumed rate of warming at 1-2C is dubious already, let alone speculation over the coming century!

It doesn't inspire confidence for long term projections.

[7andY]

Moment of force, moment of forcing, moment of inertia - NOT moment in time...How many more times?

Moment: a definite period or stage, as in a course of events; juncture: at this moment in history.

from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moment

Try as you might, you can't force a physics only definition on us...

[Methuselah]

But all those collective 'moments' still add up to a 'moment in time'. A moment is not necessarily a constant - in fact it rarely is.

As far as I have always been led to believe, Force contains only two quantities, magnitude and direction - but definitely not time?? Obviously both can change over time, but they cannot add-up to time...

But okay, I confess. My use of the word moment was a little lazy. Maybe force component would have been better, as no number of force-components can add-up to a quantity of seconds?

Moment: a definite period or stage, as in a course of events; juncture: at this moment in history.

from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moment

Try as you might, you can't force a physics only definition on us...

That's true, but sometimes a word's meaning is dictated by its context; and I was speaking in the context of physics. But anyway, see my other response...