U.S. "Arctic Outbreak" this week signals the End of Global Warming

[moon]

. You can't create energy out of nothing.

Yet here it is.

 

[Hawkeye10]

At this point it is impossible to know if what we are seeing ls a climate emergency or if it is rather weaponization of weather by the New Slavers.

Our abuse with COVID suggests it is the latter.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Bill Gates for example is one slimmy son of a bitch.

 

[gfm7175]

You can't find where I said it so you deflect. How cute of you.

Here, you are denying your own previous posts.

No. I have not assumed the Earth's temperature is accurately measured.

Here, you are continuing to deny your own previous posts.

In fact every thermometer used could be off by 100 degrees. As long as they are consistently the same then a trend can be determined without knowing the exact temperature.

I can use a mercury thermometer with a scale from 1 - 100 and not know what the temperature is but by taking measurements daily I can determine if it is getting warmer or cooler without ever knowing the temperature.

Base rate fallacies.

I guess I shouldn't have used we since you are too stupid to understand this. Next time instead of "we" I will use the phrase "anyone with an average or above intelligence."

Wow. I guess you must think it is impossible to tell color temperature of anything that is emitting light.

"color temperature"??

There is not an earth's temperature at any given point.

You're being irrational. You're now claiming that there isn't, yet you keep assuming that there IS when you try to validate your global warming nonsense.

There is only an average temperature since different parts of the earth are different temperatures.

Continued paradox of yours. Earth, as a whole, has a particular temperature at any given point in time; this measured value is unknown. An AVERAGE temperature would involve multiple instances of Earth's temperature (as a whole); this calculated value is likewise unknown.

You have been told this and are incapable of understanding how an average is calculated.

I've already explained to you how to calculate an average. You can't measure Earth's temperature with one thermometer (or even 10,000 thermometers).

Now you are arguing that thermometers don't work anywhere in the world.

Now you're just being ridiculous, appealing to a fabricated extreme.

Thermometers work, but one thermometer doesn't accurately measure Earth's temperature (and not even 10,000 thermometers accurately measure Earth's temperature).

Accurately measuring Earth's temperature is not as easy as you think it is. Ergo, why nobody has been able to do it as of yet.

Simple math is hardly a holy entity. It is math. Denying math would seem to be all you can come up with.

This is what YOU are doing; especially with regard to statistical mathematics.

I guess I shouldn't have used we since you are too stupid to understand this. Next time instead of "we" I will use the phrase "anyone with an average or above intelligence."

Do you not understand how math works? It would appear not.

Your issue, not mine.

I guess I shouldn't have used we since you are too stupid to understand this. Next time instead of "we" I will use the phrase "anyone with an average or above intelligence."

Thanks for proving you don't actually live in WI.

I live in Wisconsin.

If you did you would understand how ice out works.

I understand how ice out works.

You keep trying to hone in on some small little bit of perceived warming and then use that perceived warming to claim that THE ENTIRE EARTH is warming. You are being a gullible moron. If you believe that Earth is warming, then stick with talking about THE ENTIRE EARTH (never excluding any part of it at any time).

The greater or lesser surface area of ice in some small little defined boundary (in comparison to the entire Earth) doesn't mean that the entire Earth is cooling or warming.

What is the temperature at which ice forms?

Depends. You need to be more specific.

Did it change in the last 100 years?

Did the characteristics of water change in the last 100 years?

I never claimed that the average of those thermometers is somehow the earth's temperature.

Yes, you did. Stop lying.

That is your continuous strawman that you are flailing against.

Nope, it is your position that you keep denying that you hold.

When you understand how to calculate an average, get back to me.

I've already explained to you how to calculate an average as well as what data is required in order to do so.

Or rather you can get back to anyone with an average or above intelligence.

 

[Into the Night]

Continued paradox of yours. Earth, as a whole, has a particular temperature at any given point in time; this measured value is unknown. An AVERAGE temperature would involve multiple instances of Earth's temperature (as a whole); this calculated value is likewise unknown.

Temperature is already an average. He's actually trying to discuss an average of averages!

I've already explained to you how to calculate an average. You can't measure Earth's temperature with one thermometer (or even 10,000 thermometers).

An average means nothing by itself. The margin of error value must be calculated and accompany the average in statistical math.
Further, since statistical math imports the use of random numbers, it loses the ability to predict normally inherent in mathematics.

If you run a statistical analysis on the SAME set of data twice, you will get two different results!

Statistical math has it's uses, but it's no crystal ball.

It's a little like trying to use probability math (which they also deny) to predict the next roll of the dice.

The Church of Global Warming routinely denies random number mathematics, probability mathematics, statistical mathematics, and algebra.

 

[moon]

Baloney ^

The temperature(s) of the sun

How Hot Is the Sun? Sun Temperature

Learn how hot the Sun is and take a look at the temperature range for different parts of our favorite star.

sciencenotes.org

The temperature(s) of the moon

What is the Temperature on the Moon?

The temperature on the moon can vary drastically between lunar day and night time.

www.space.com

The temperature(s) of the earth

CORE https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22297915

MANTLE https://www.livescience.com/58097-earth-mantle-is-hotter-than-realized.html

CRUST https://phys.org/news/2016-09-temperature-earth-crust.html

SURFACE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surface_temperature

ATMOSPHERE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_temperature

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Here, you are denying your own previous posts.

Show us (people who are average intelligence and above) this post you think I am denying. As IBDaMann has said, "Either support your contention or be content to have your argument summarily dismissed."

Here, you are continuing to deny your own previous posts.

Show us (people who are average intelligence and above) this post you think I am denying. As IBDaMann has said, "Either support your contention or be content to have your argument summarily dismissed."

Base rate fallacies.

Claiming a fallacy without explaining why you think it is a fallacy is a fallacy in itself in that you are simply avoiding making a refutation.

"color temperature"??

Not familiar with Stefan Boltzmann?

You're being irrational. You're now claiming that there isn't, yet you keep assuming that there IS when you try to validate your global warming nonsense.

Continued paradox of yours. Earth, as a whole, has a particular temperature at any given point in time; this measured value is unknown. An AVERAGE temperature would involve multiple instances of Earth's temperature (as a whole); this calculated value is likewise unknown.

The earth has never had a particular temperature at any given point because the temperature at the poles are never the same temperature as the equator. The average for the globe requires you to take multiple readings and average them. You might want to not bring up paradoxes since it introduces the paradox of why you sound exactly like Into the Night.

I've already explained to you how to calculate an average. You can't measure Earth's temperature with one thermometer (or even 10,000 thermometers).

This would be an example of a strawman argument on your part. Multiple readings don't give you the earth's temperature. It gives you an average. It is a statistical sampling of temperatures that is then averaged and over time can show you changes over time. At no time does it show the earth's temperature. The data isn't used to show the earth's temperature. It shows changes.

Now you're just being ridiculous, appealing to a fabricated extreme.

Thermometers work, but one thermometer doesn't accurately measure Earth's temperature (and not even 10,000 thermometers accurately measure Earth's temperature).

Denial of statistical analysis.

Accurately measuring Earth's temperature is not as easy as you think it is. Ergo, why nobody has been able to do it as of yet.

Strawman argument

This is what YOU are doing; especially with regard to statistical mathematics.

Denial of statistics

Your issue, not mine.



I live in Wisconsin.

Clearly you don't if you fail to understand what ice out is and how and why it occurs.

I understand how ice out works.

No, you don't.

You keep trying to hone in on some small little bit of perceived warming and then use that perceived warming to claim that THE ENTIRE EARTH is warming. You are being a gullible moron. If you believe that Earth is warming, then stick with talking about THE ENTIRE EARTH (never excluding any part of it at any time).

Denial of facts on your parts as you build a strawman.

The greater or lesser surface area of ice in some small little defined boundary (in comparison to the entire Earth) doesn't mean that the entire Earth is cooling or warming.

Ice out is not greater or lesser surface area of ice. Clearly you don't live in Wisconsin since you don't know what ice out is.

Depends. You need to be more specific.

Denial of facts on your part.

Did the characteristics of water change in the last 100 years?

No. Which is why the change in the average day of ice out in lakes throughout the world shows warming.

Yes, you did. Stop lying.

It's you that is lying about several things.

Nope, it is your position that you keep denying that you hold.

Show where I said what you claim. Your strawman is not evidence I said something. It is merely a fallacy on your part.

I've already explained to you how to calculate an average as well as what data is required in order to do so.

Where did you show how to calculate an average? I see no formula that you ever posted.

 

[gfm7175]

Baloney ^

The temperature(s) of the sun

How Hot Is the Sun? Sun Temperature

Learn how hot the Sun is and take a look at the temperature range for different parts of our favorite star.

sciencenotes.org

The temperature(s) of the moon

What is the Temperature on the Moon?

The temperature on the moon can vary drastically between lunar day and night time.

www.space.com

The temperature(s) of the earth

CORE https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22297915

MANTLE https://www.livescience.com/58097-earth-mantle-is-hotter-than-realized.html

CRUST https://phys.org/news/2016-09-temperature-earth-crust.html

SURFACE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surface_temperature

ATMOSPHERE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_temperature

Bogus numbers.

 

[moon]

Forum monkey ^

 

[gfm7175]

Show us (people who are average intelligence and above) this post you think I am denying. As IBDaMann has said, "Either support your contention or be content to have your argument summarily dismissed."

Show us (people who are average intelligence and above) this post you think I am denying. As IBDaMann has said, "Either support your contention or be content to have your argument summarily dismissed."

I've already answered this multiple times; I'm not going to keep repeating myself.

Claiming a fallacy without explaining why you think it is a fallacy is a fallacy in itself in that you are simply avoiding making a refutation.

No, correctly identifying a fallacy is not a fallacy.

Not familiar with Stefan Boltzmann?

I've never met either of the guys; they lived and died long before my time. I'm familiar with the law that is named after them though, but obviously YOU aren't.

The earth has never had a particular temperature at any given point because the temperature at the poles are never the same temperature as the equator.

The poles and the equator are all parts of Earth, dummy. They are all relevant with regard to "Earth's temperature".

The average for the globe requires you to take multiple readings and average them.

You aren't figuring out Earth's temperature correctly. You can't just take "multiple readings", "average them", and then call the result of that calculation "Earth's temperature". You are committing math errors GALORE if you do that.

You might want to not bring up paradoxes since it introduces the paradox of why you sound exactly like Into the Night.

This would be an example of a strawman argument on your part.

No, it's just you denying your own arguments again.

Multiple readings don't give you the earth's temperature.

Like I said, you are denying your own arguments.

It gives you an average.

Multiple readings give you a data set, not an average.

It is a statistical sampling of temperatures

Nope. You're already in error.

that is then averaged and over time can show you changes over time. At no time does it show the earth's temperature. The data isn't used to show the earth's temperature. It shows changes.

"averages" of WHAT?? "changes" of WHAT?

Denial of statistical analysis.

Strawman argument

Denial of statistics

Clearly you don't if you fail to understand what ice out is and how and why it occurs.

No, you don't.

Denial of facts on your parts as you build a strawman.

Ice out is not greater or lesser surface area of ice.

"Ice out" refers to a lesser surface area of ice (specifically when a lake becomes "ice free"). "Ice in" refers to a greater surface area of ice (specifically when a lake becomes "ice covered"). That lesser or greater surface area of ice, no matter when it happens, doesn't mean that "the entire Earth is warming". You can't reference what's happening at a small bit of Earth and pretend that it's applicable to the whole Earth.

Clearly you don't live in Wisconsin since you don't know what ice out is.

^^ I just told you what ice out is (and why your hyper-focus on it is rather stupid in the grand scheme of your even stupider belief that "the Earth is warming".

No. Which is why the change in the average day of ice out in lakes throughout the world shows warming.

No, it doesn't show that Earth is warming.

It's you that is lying about several things.

Show where I said what you claim. Your strawman is not evidence I said something. It is merely a fallacy on your part.

Your issues.

Where did you show how to calculate an average? I see no formula that you ever posted.

In an earlier response. I explained it in detail to you.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I've already answered this multiple times; I'm not going to keep repeating myself.

No, correctly identifying a fallacy is not a fallacy.

We (people of average or above intelligence) know that correctly identifying a fallacy means you can explain why something is a fallacy. Simply spouting that something is a fallacy doesn't make it a fallacy. It only shows you can't support your claim.

I've never met either of the guys; they lived and died long before my time. I'm familiar with the law that is named after them though, but obviously YOU aren't.

Clearly you aren't familiar with the law since you know nothing about color temperature.

The poles and the equator are all parts of Earth, dummy. They are all relevant with regard to "Earth's temperature".

You aren't figuring out Earth's temperature correctly. You can't just take "multiple readings", "average them", and then call the result of that calculation "Earth's temperature". You are committing math errors GALORE if you do that.

Since I never did anything of the sort it would mean you are simply building a strawman.You have not provided any evidence in support of your claim which shows that you are not actually arguing against what I have said but simply making up an argument that you think you can defeat. You are not even aware of what the data set is. It is rather difficult for you to claim I am making math errors when you don't know what the numbers are.

No, it's just you denying your own arguments again.

Like I said, you are denying your own arguments.

Multiple readings give you a data set, not an average.

I guess you don't understand the difference between readings from the same place and readings from multiple locations.

Nope. You're already in error.

"averages" of WHAT?? "changes" of WHAT?



"Ice out" refers to a lesser surface area of ice (specifically when a lake becomes "ice free"). "Ice in" refers to a greater surface area of ice (specifically when a lake becomes "ice covered"). That lesser or greater surface area of ice, no matter when it happens, doesn't mean that "the entire Earth is warming". You can't reference what's happening at a small bit of Earth and pretend that it's applicable to the whole Earth.

^^ I just told you what ice out is (and why your hyper-focus on it is rather stupid in the grand scheme of your even stupider belief that "the Earth is warming".

Yeah, you clearly don't live in Wisconsin since no one that lives there would refer to ice out in this way. You also don't seem to understand that there is more than one lake in Wisconsin let alone lakes in Canada, Japan, Russia, Europe and all through the northern and southern hemisphere. Lakes throughout the world are recording ice outs of roughly 2 weeks earlier than they were 100 years ago. Some lakes have records of ice out that are 600 years old.

No, it doesn't show that Earth is warming.

Your issues.

In an earlier response. I explained it in detail to you.

Either support your assertion or be content to have your argument summarily dismissed.

At this point we can see you don't live in Wisconsin and aren't familiar with Stefan Boltzmann.

 

[IBDaMann]

At this point we can see you don't live in Wisconsin and aren't familiar with Stefan Boltzmann.

Your post contains nothing but your mere declarations that others (gfm7175) somehow don't have the knowledge that jeopardizes your religion.

I happen to know that gfm7175 understands Stefan-Boltzmann. If you believe you have a bit of a communication breakdown and aren't getting answers that you can understand, give me a try. I can perhaps dumb it down sufficiently for you in ways that gfm7175 cannot. I've been working with him on ways to convey higher-level concepts to lower-level audiences such as yourself, but I appreciate you highlighting areas where he might need some polish.

So, what questions about Stefan-Boltzmann do you have?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Your post contains nothing but your mere declarations that others (gfm7175) somehow don't have the knowledge that jeopardizes your religion.

I happen to know that gfm7175 understands Stefan-Boltzmann. If you believe you have a bit of a communication breakdown and aren't getting answers that you can understand, give me a try. I can perhaps dumb it down sufficiently for you in ways that gfm7175 cannot. I've been working with him on ways to convey higher-level concepts to lower-level audiences such as yourself, but I appreciate you highlighting areas where he might need some polish.

So, what questions about Stefan-Boltzmann do you have?

Do you sit next to gfm at your troll farm? Is that why you know she/he understands Stefan-Boltzmann?

Does the color of a black body change if the temperature changes?

 

[IBDaMann]

Do you sit next to gfm at your troll farm? Is that why you know she/he understands Stefan-Boltzmann?

I have posted with gfm7175 for years at other sites. Stefan-Boltzmann, the killer of Climate Change, comes up often, and it kills Climate Change each and every time. I am very familiar with gfm7175's understanding of that law, especially that radiance and temperature necessarily move in the same direction. Warmizombies such as you don't grasp science sufficiently to avoid violating Stefan-Boltzmann, and hence you march headlong into claiming that CO2 reduces earth's radiance (i.e. prevents energy from escaping into space) while increasing earth's temperature (i.e. holding that radiance and temperature somehow move in opposite directions). Every time you make this argument, you broadcast that you are scientifically illiterate and that your religion is bogus.

You shouldn't hold it against gfm7175 for understanding science where you do not. It's not his fault that he paid attention when you decided to take a nap. Wait, that would be his fault. OK. My bad.

Does the color of a black body change if the temperature changes?

First, tell me if black turning to black is, in fact, a change?

 

[gfm7175]

We (people of average or above intelligence)

Speak for yourself.

know that correctly identifying a fallacy means you can explain why something is a fallacy.

I CAN explain it.

Simply spouting that something is a fallacy doesn't make it a fallacy. It only shows you can't support your claim.

No, it only shows that you are unwilling to learn.

Clearly you aren't familiar with the law since you know nothing about color temperature.

Temperature isn't a color.

Since I never did anything of the sort it would mean you are simply building a strawman.

Continued denial of your own arguments.

You have not provided any evidence in support of your claim which shows that you are not actually arguing against what I have said but simply making up an argument that you think you can defeat.

Wrong again. I don't need to provide anything, since it is YOU who is claiming that Earth is warming. YOU need to support YOUR claim, not me. I'm just pointing out your errors as you make them.

You are not even aware of what the data set is.

Neither are YOU apparently, because you haven't provided it yet... because it doesn't exist.

It is rather difficult for you to claim I am making math errors when you don't know what the numbers are.

See above.

I guess you don't understand the difference between readings from the same place and readings from multiple locations.

I guess you don't understand the difference between readings from the same place, readings from multiple locations, and the reading setup that would be required in order to find out what Earth's temperature is (to any reasonable accuracy).

Yeah, you clearly don't live in Wisconsin since no one that lives there would refer to ice out in this way.

How would you know? You don't live here, nor have you spoken to everyone who lives here.

You also don't seem to understand that there is more than one lake in Wisconsin

I'm well aware; I've personally seen a number of them. I'm even aware that, per how the WI-DNR defines a "lake", that there are roughly 15,000 lakes in Wisconsin.

What does this have to do with Earth's temperature (or that Earth is supposedly warming)?

let alone lakes in Canada, Japan, Russia, Europe and all through the northern and southern hemisphere.

Yes, there are lakes all across Earth. So?

Lakes throughout the world are recording ice outs of roughly 2 weeks earlier than they were 100 years ago. Some lakes have records of ice out that are 600 years old.

How old do you believe Earth is?

At this point we can see you don't live in Wisconsin and aren't familiar with Stefan Boltzmann.

Speak for yourself, and stop blaming me for your own problems.

 

[gfm7175]

Do you sit next to gfm at your troll farm? Is that why you know she/he understands Stefan-Boltzmann?

Proverbs 17:28 KJV: "Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding."

Proverbs 18:15 KJV: "The heart of the prudent getteth knowledge; and the ear of the wise seeketh knowledge."


There was once a time when I had no understanding at all of Stefan-Boltzmann. At that time, I "knew inside of me" that global warming was bogus, but I didn't have the proper knowledge re: science in order to clearly explain WHY that was the case. Since that particular "once upon a time", and only after I held my peace, shut my lips, had a prudent heart, and opened my ears to seek knowledge from others who HAD said knowledge, I then learned more about science, even Stefan-Boltzmann specifically, and now I have sufficient knowledge re: science in order to explain why the global warming faith is complete and utter BS, and why no rational adult would ever believe it to be true

Like me, you CAN gain this knowledge too, if you would only hold your peace, shut your lips, have a prudent heart, and open your ears to seek knowledge from others who HAVE said knowledge.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Speak for yourself.

I CAN explain it.

And yet you did not and still haven't explained it. If you can explain how it was a fallacy then do so. Since you have been unable to give a rational explanation that would leave only one other possible explanation. You can't explain it.

No, it only shows that you are unwilling to learn.

Temperature isn't a color.

We live under a yellow sun. Why do you think that is as opposed to a red or blue sun?

Continued denial of your own arguments.

Continued inability to show where I actually made such an argument.

Wrong again. I don't need to provide anything, since it is YOU who is claiming that Earth is warming. YOU need to support YOUR claim, not me. I'm just pointing out your errors as you make them.

You are just making repeated errors. You are simply throwing idiocy in the air and pretending it is sooth.

Neither are YOU apparently, because you haven't provided it yet... because it doesn't exist.

See above.

I guess you don't understand the difference between readings from the same place, readings from multiple locations, and the reading setup that would be required in order to find out what Earth's temperature is (to any reasonable accuracy).

Care to tell us what setup that would require? You have just said you understand so tell the world what that setup would be. Prove you aren't talking out of your ass and provide us(all persons with average or above intelligence) with precisely what you think is required.

How would you know? You don't live here, nor have you spoken to everyone who lives here.

How do you know I haven't spoken to everyone? Did you speak the them all to ask them? Perhaps you didn't get the email sent to all WI residents since you aren't actually a WI resident.

I'm well aware; I've personally seen a number of them. I'm even aware that, per how the WI-DNR defines a "lake", that there are roughly 15,000 lakes in Wisconsin.

Clearly you haven't seen ice outs if you refer to them as lesser ice. There can be less ice on a daily basis for over a month but ice out only occurs on one day.

What does this have to do with Earth's temperature (or that Earth is supposedly warming)?

I guess you are completely ignorant of why ice out occurs if you have to ask this question. If the earth is the same temperature as it was 150 years ago, the average day for ice out should be similar to what the average was 150 years ago. If the temperature was the same then we could expect roughly 50% of the areas with lakes to have earlier ice outs and 50% to have later ice outs since the only thing that would change would be where the arctic air moves in a given year. We might see a 60/40 split simply based on randomness. But the fact that almost 100% of the earth's areas where lakes freeze see earlier ice outs with a fair number of those areas seeing ice out occurring a full 2 weeks earlier points to the reason that ice out occurs in the first place. It is warmer.

Yes, there are lakes all across Earth. So?

How old do you believe Earth is?

I guess that makes your response a red herring since it has nothing to do with lakes warming in the last 100 years. See how I specifically showed how your statement was a fallacy by stating why it was a fallacy. A red herring is an attempt to change the subject by introducing another topic that has nothing to do with the original.

Speak for yourself, and stop blaming me for your own problems.

But you are my problem therefor you are to blame.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I have posted with gfm7175 for years at other sites. Stefan-Boltzmann, the killer of Climate Change, comes up often, and it kills Climate Change each and every time. I am very familiar with gfm7175's understanding of that law, especially that radiance and temperature necessarily move in the same direction. Warmizombies such as you don't grasp science sufficiently to avoid violating Stefan-Boltzmann, and hence you march headlong into claiming that CO2 reduces earth's radiance (i.e. prevents energy from escaping into space) while increasing earth's temperature (i.e. holding that radiance and temperature somehow move in opposite directions). Every time you make this argument, you broadcast that you are scientifically illiterate and that your religion is bogus.

You shouldn't hold it against gfm7175 for understanding science where you do not. It's not his fault that he paid attention when you decided to take a nap. Wait, that would be his fault. OK. My bad.


First, tell me if black turning to black is, in fact, a change?

You've sat next to gfm for years while posting to other sites? Do you whisper back in forth to each other in Russian?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Do you sit next to gfm at your troll farm? Is that why you know she/he understands Stefan-Boltzmann?

Does the color of a black body change if the temperature changes?

They're the same people. I call Into the Night/gfm7175/IBDaMann/Uncensored2008 Sybil for short. I believe him to be a paranoid schizophrenic and, obviously, unemployable.

Notice he types all of his posts one-handed with his other hand rubbing his, ummm....sock.

 

[gfm7175]

And yet you did not and still haven't explained it.

Right. At this point, I've just correctly identified it.

If you can explain how it was a fallacy

I can.

then do so.

No. It wouldn't do you any good; you've already proven yourself to be unwilling to learn.

Since you have been unable to give a rational explanation that would leave only one other possible explanation. You can't explain it.

I'm able to explain it.

We live under a yellow sun. Why do you think that is as opposed to a red or blue sun?

I'm not interested in your distractions. I'm interested in why any rational adult should believe that Earth is warming. You've been unable to explain that thus far.

Continued inability to show where I actually made such an argument.

Continued denial of your own argumentation.

You are just making repeated errors. You are simply throwing idiocy in the air and pretending it is sooth.

Projection.

Care to tell us what setup that would require?

Who is "us"? YOU are a singular person. And no, I don't care to tell you; it's not going to do you any good in your current lack of understanding of much more basic concepts.

You have just said you understand

Indeed I did.

so tell the world what that setup would be.

No. You're not ready to learn about that yet, since you haven't even shown yourself ready to learn about the most basic of concepts regarding this matter.

Prove you aren't talking out of your ass and provide us(all persons with average or above intelligence) with precisely what you think is required.

I don't have to prove anything to you. YOU are the one claiming that Earth is warming, so YOU need to prove to ME how that is so. The 'burden of proof' is YOURS, not mine.

How do you know I haven't spoken to everyone? Did you speak the them all to ask them? Perhaps you didn't get the email sent to all WI residents since you aren't actually a WI resident.

Because you are describing an impossibility (and included another one in this response of yours). An email is not "speaking to someone" btw.

Clearly you haven't seen ice outs if you refer to them as lesser ice.

They fall under the 'less ice cover' category.

There can be less ice on a daily basis for over a month but ice out only occurs on one day.

Not necessarily. "Obviously, you aren't from Wisconsin."

I guess you are completely ignorant of why ice out occurs if you have to ask this question. If the earth is the same temperature as it was 150 years ago, the average day for ice out should be similar to what the average was 150 years ago. If the temperature was the same then we could expect roughly 50% of the areas with lakes to have earlier ice outs and 50% to have later ice outs since the only thing that would change would be where the arctic air moves in a given year. We might see a 60/40 split simply based on randomness. But the fact that almost 100% of the earth's areas where lakes freeze see earlier ice outs with a fair number of those areas seeing ice out occurring a full 2 weeks earlier points to the reason that ice out occurs in the first place. It is warmer.

None of that means that Earth is warmer. And who says that ice out "should be" on any particular date? Any time I see the words "should be" in what is supposed to be a discussion about science, a red warning light goes off. You didn't answer my question btw: How old do you believe Earth is? I'm guessing that 150 years is but a very small fraction of that number.

I guess that makes your response a red herring since it has nothing to do with lakes warming in the last 100 years.

It's relevant. See above.