Errrrr - if I were you I would revisit that claim since the changes we are seeing IS following what was predicted https://public.wmo.int/en/media/pre...ratures-set-reach-new-records-next-five-years
New records? Well, we have been seeing a tenth of a degree or so per decade, so it's possible. You probably won't notice.
No. I've personally been married for 36 years and already raised my kids. But I do know that the pill has been around since, what, the late 60s? I have no idea what Larc's whatever is or why it matters.
What you'll notice too is that the Church of Global Warming will begin by claiming that "Earth's average global temperature is increasing", and if questioned about it, they will try to defend their mistaken position by mistakenly treating "the atmosphere" as if it were some separate entity from the Earth (when it is really a part of Earth as a whole). They do enjoy separating out "the atmosphere" from "the Earth" whenever it is convenient for the mistaken point that they're trying to make at the time. That's why the "magic one-way blanket" argument is so stupid right on its face.... A blanket around a person does not equal an atmosphere around the Earth because: Blanket = not a part of the person, meanwhile Atmosphere = a part of the Earth. A person = a source of thermal energy, meanwhile Earth = NOT a source of thermal energy. The whole comparison is based upon this false equivalence.
By the very fact that we have mandatory voting means we have a “volatile” electorate with a lot of swinging voters. You keep an eye of what the government is doing and how they are doing it and then decide if you want one of the others (if we didn’t have mandatory voting the lazy sods wouldn’t turn up and we would end up with about three people voting). Not unusual for us to have landslide elections if we think the current crop as being arses
By a fine. Our electoral rolls are VERY accurate so less chance for voter fraud and what does happen is picked up pretty fast. I did miss one vote and the fine was $30 I think it has gone up but some are happy to pay the fine instead of voting - government doesn’t care either way they win
@Pieces of Malarkey -- Notice how bringiton has now resorted to denying any and all errors being identified, pretending that my response to him never happened? IOW, he has tipped his king. All that's left for him now is denial, repetition, and personal insults, and personal insults aren't allowed on this particular forum, so here he's left only with denial and repetition of the same three sermons over and over and over again. How does people buying blankets refute my point about why blankets are useful? @Pieces of Malarkey -- Notice how I've already walked bringiton through why and how blankets are useful to us, but he keeps preaching about how a blanket can somehow warm us even though we are our own sources of thermal energy and our body temperatures are self-regulated... @Pieces of Malarkey -- According to bringiton, the fact that he is making a false equivalence, and that his entire reasoning is based upon a false equivalence, is "irrelevant". @Pieces of Malarkey -- Notice how bringiton is still ignoring the fact that the Earth does not have a blanket around it? Notice how bringiton continues to make reference to "increasing surface temperature" while completely ignoring that the area of Earth 'outside the surface' would be cooled under such a scenario, meaning that the temperature of Earth remains the same? ALWAYS watch out for the omission that is occurring... the Church of Global Warming ALWAYS hones in on any warming while ignoring any cooling that results from said warming. All bringiton is attempting to do here is to redistribute EXISTING thermal energy from other parts of Earth and move it to the surface of Earth, increasing the temperature of Earth's surface, and then he pretends that this has somehow increased the temperature of Earth even though there's no additional thermal energy present. No, I was correct (because they both are useful because they both trap air), but now you're just shifting the conversation over from what it was about (how/why blankets are useful) and into something else (blankets are more useful than plastic wrap). You're correct that reducing heat is not 100% solely a matter of trapping air (as convection is but one form of heat). However, many people (including yourself) don't seem to know what heat is, so using that particular language just confuses people until they learn what heat is. If a blanket didn't trap air, it wouldn't be useful, which is why I focused on the trapping air part of reducing heat (convection) rather than the conduction and radiation parts of reducing heat. A person "feels" warmer under a blanket because the trapped air gets warmer because the person within that trapped air is a source of thermal energy, and the temperature difference between a person and the warmer trapped air is much less than the temperature difference between a person and the outside colder air. It has nothing to do with the blanket "warming the person" (that doesn't happen). It has to do with the person warming the trapped air underneath the blanket. IOW, it has to do with reduced heat. You are still ignoring that body temperature is self-regulated, and still missing sight of the fact that it is the reduced heat (e.g. the trapped air) that makes blankets work. @Pieces of Malarkey -- Notice how bringiton is now attempting to slyly separate "the atmosphere" from "the Earth" (because it's now convenient for him to do so)? Throughout his false equivalence example that led up to this moment, he kept comparing a blanket to "the atmosphere" and a person to "the earth". Now, all of a sudden, he wants you to suddenly believe that "the atmosphere" is no longer a part of "the earth" (just as a blanket has never been considered to be a part of the person). These are the games that physics deniers play in order to try to make sense out of their silly religion. @bringiton -- The atmosphere IS ALREADY A PART OF EARTH, remember? You can't wrap Earth around Earth; it's already Earth. A greenhouse is a bad analogy because there is no greenhouse around Earth. It's the same false equivalence that your blanket example is (no blanket around Earth). It pretends that Earth (open convection, free flow of air) is somehow a greenhouse or a blanket (closed convection, trapped air). It pretends that Earth (not a thermal energy source) is somehow a person (a thermal energy source). @Pieces of Malarkey -- bringiton is now trying to set up Sermon 2c (the whole "re-emitting" nonsense). He also continues to base his reasoning off of several false equivalences (see above). I'm not... I'm just suggesting that 'thermal energy' is better wording. It's best to avoid the word 'heat' unless people actually know what the word means. <sigh> You weren't talking about energy... you were talking about photons... You claimed that photons were "re-emitted". I corrected your claim, and even specifically noted that when the photon IS destroyed, thus is NOT "re-emitted" (because it no longer exists), the energy itself is converted (thus it is NOT destroyed). @Pieces of Malarkey -- Are you enjoying this yet?? This is what The Church has to resort to (claiming that I am somehow wrong while repeating my own correct counterargument back at me) because The Church can't stand on its own accord (because it outright denies physics). Slow down... You're now in paradox. First, you claimed that PHOTONS were "re-emitted"... Now, you're trying to claim that ENERGY is "re-emitted". Which is it? The correct answer, of course, is neither. The old photon that was emitted gets destroyed and then a new photon gets created and gets emitted. There's no "re-emitting" happening, as it's not the same photon. The energy involved with the old photon gets converted into thermal or chemical energy. When a new photon gets created, it is the result of some form of energy being converted into light energy. When new photons are created and emitted, that COOLS the material that is doing the emitting. @Pieces of Malarkey -- Notice how bringiton is now trying to bully me into submission by making reference to the vague "people who know something..." and pretending that he is "one of them" and I am not? If only I were "thmarter in my thienth", I would realize that something that doesn't happen actually happens. There can't be any "re-emission" when the subject matter is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT PHOTONS. There is no "re-emission"; there is only emission. @Pieces of Malarkey -- You're really getting some good gems of examples from bringiton of how this discussion always goes. A good opportunity to learn!! Here, bringiton is now making reference to credentials that he claims that he has (I don't believe him because he's regularly getting the basics of physics wrong). Obviously, claimed credentials are meaningless on an anonymous internet forum such as this one. It's just another form of intimidation. @Pieces of Malarkey - Notice how bringiton is completely unwilling to learn? I tried to teach him what a fact is, but he is having none of it. His loss. He brings up another word here ('reality') which most people will use quite often yet have no clue what it actually is. This is getting away from the topic at hand (that Global Warming is complete and utter BS). @Pieces of Malarkey -- Notice that bringiton is now making his response entirely about me rather than the laws of science themselves that I keep reminding him about.
No, you embrace the exact same physics violations that the catastrophic warming narrative embraces, but you just disagree with them about the warming being catastrophic. I'm trying to teach people that the entire warming narrative (whether catastrophic or not) is complete and utter physics-denying BS. Nope, I was entirely correct. You then choose to respond to something entirely different than 'Earth's global temperature' (trying to act as if surface temperature is global temperature). Continued false equivalences already detailed above. Continued attempt to redistribute EXISTING thermal energy within Earth and conclude that Earth somehow now has ADDITIONAL thermal energy. E.g. Whether you have four apples inside Basket A and three apples inside Basket B, or six apples inside basket A and one apple inside Basket B, you still have an average of 3.5 apples per basket and a total of seven apples in both baskets. Redistributing from one to the other doesn't add anything to the whole. @Pieces of Malarkey -- Here, bringiton is once again repeating my correct counterarguments back at myself as if he never made his incorrect arguments to begin with. ... remember that the ground and oceans also radiate, COOLING them. Earth is in equilibrium; it emits the same amount of energy as it absorbs in. You can't keep omitting the parts that you don't like. @Pieces of Malarkey -- Notice how bringiton, once again, focuses on only the warming aspect while completely ignoring the cooling aspect? "One big lie of omission". Earth is a black body. It is a body in which thermal activity is occurring. I'm not conflating anything. I'm been speaking about Earth as a whole this whole time... You keep trying to piecemeal it out in your failed efforts to create additional thermal energy out of nothing. The level of physics denial here is embarrassing. Are you telling me that you don't even know what temperature is? I've already told you why people buy blankets, and it is because they do a good job at reducing heat. @Pieces of Malarkey -- Notice how bringiton has now resorted to bogus position assignments?? When have I ever made any such claim? I simply corrected bringiton on why blankets are useful (because they reduce heat, not because they "warm people" who already are their own thermal energy sources via the food that they eat); I never claimed that blankets weren't useful. @Pieces of Malarkey -- You will notice that The Church always denies asserting every bit of the physics-denying crap that they assert, such as that the temperature of Earth can somehow increase without the presence of any additional thermal energy. This is where bringiton shifts over to attempting to increase the thermal energy of ONE PART OF EARTH (the surface), while trying to keep all other parts of Earth the same, while attempting to deny that he's now creating additional thermal energy out of nothing (since he's not added anything extra from the Sun). "Skin temperature" is not "body temperature". Again, you are trying to piecemeal away from discussing THE WHOLE. You are also attempting to continue a false equivalence (Earth's atmosphere is not a blanket, and a person's skin temperature is not Earth). ... via REDUCING heat. Learn it, or continue to talk nonsense on the subject permanently. Yet ANOTHER bogus position assignment. I never claimed that it was. I know what it is. I also know what emissivity is. <sigh> Heat does not flow from cold to hot, and any IR radiation from those gases COOL those gases. You keep leaving out the COOLING part of it.
Yup, you understand what's happening politically re: the Church of Global Warming and the Church of Green.
Oh! Dear THAT conspiracy accusation again! ... or by considering 'abortion' to be "healthcare"... or by dismantling the normal family unit... or by brainwashing children into wanting to have their genitals cut off... or by brainwashing children into believing that their gender is something other than male or female... or my promoting hideous physical appearances (e.g. nose rings) that make people very unattractive/undateable... or by promoting the LGBTQLMNOP+ alphabet soup agenda which all but eliminates procreation... or by considering 'pill pushing' to be "healthcare"... or by promoting unhealthy diets... or by promoting wars... the lies goes on and on
Everything bad in the world is obviously due to them damn evil climate deniers who refuse to repent of their carbon sins and accept Climate as their goddess in her righteous war against Global Warming.
That's my special power. I've been in the belly of the DC political beast. And lived to tell about it.
Wrong. No, your claim is just false. I disagree with them about the attribution of recent warming to CO2 and consequently whether adding more CO2 will cause commensurately more warming. By claiming that people buy blankets for decoration... No, you made false and absurd claims in a doomed attempt to rescue your previous false and absurd claims. No, that is what you were doing. No, your claims continue to be false. An analogy is not a false equivalence. It's just a way to help people understand an unfamiliar phenomenon by reference to something that is similar in its essentials but more familiar. No, that is just another bald falsehood from you. I identified the fact that "greenhouse" gases alter the flow of absorbed solar energy back out into space because that is what "greenhouse" gases do. It does: "greenhouse" gases create a new equilibrium at a higher surface temperature. That is an absurd, invalid, and laughably inept analogy. "Greenhouse" gases are more like putting a weir on a river: once the new equilibrium is established, the river's flow is the same as before, but there is more water in the river channel. Like the river's flow with the weir. The weir increases the amount of water in the river channel by delaying its exit. Same as "greenhouse" gases do with thermal energy. Your claim is false. I only omit your irrelevancies. That is another bald falsehood from you. Earth is not a black body, and that is not the definition of a black body. Which completely misses the point, like speaking of "the river as a whole" and claiming the weir doesn't affect the amount of water in the channel. Because surface temperature is not the same as emission temperature. I have done no such thing, any more than the weir creates water out of nothing. It is a bald fabrication on your part. Yes, but you don't seem to be embarrassed by it. No. You are telling me that you don't. I see. So, in what you are no doubt pleased to call your "mind," people buy blankets to reduce heat. Aren't you embarrassed to utter such nonsense? That is a fabrication on your part. See above. The first one might have been a typo, but now you have confirmed your absurdity. As if that could be relevant! Right: you claim people buy them to keep cool. Additional energy is present because it is retained longer before escaping to outer space. Like the water behind the weir: at equilibrium, the flow is the same as before, but now there is more water in the channel. False. <sigh> Do you or do you not understand that the water behind a weir represents an increase in the volume of water in the river channel even though the river's flow is unaltered? Yet you deny there is any difference between the earth's surface temperature and its emission temperature. No, I am identifying the fact that the whole is not the relevant part. No. It is an analogy, not a false equivalence. "Greenhouse" gases have an effect on the loss of heat from the earth's surface that is analogous to that of a blanket's effect on loss of a person's body heat, and a person's skin temperature with or without a blanket is analogous to the earth's surface temperature with or without "greenhouse" gases. Blankets do not reduce heat, they increase it, as anyone who has ever used one could inform you, if you were willing to be informed (you aren't). Learn it, or continue to talk nonsense on the subject permanently. Of course you did. No you don't, or you wouldn't have conflated them. Yet it flows from a cold blanket to the hot surface of a person's skin. Such a mystery. To you, that is. No I don't. It is precisely by impeding the cooling of greenhouse gases by IR radiation that those gases warm the earth's surface: like a blanket impeding the loss of heat from a person's skin, or a weir impeding the flow of water in a river channel. I'm not sure there is any clearer or simpler way of explaining that to you.
The issue isn't whether you skin can detect the change of a tenth of a degree. When the Mississippi is lower, it restricts shipping. When the Panama Canal has to once again cut the number of ships allowed to pass due to drought, that hits our economy. And, that's just a couple of the many impacts in THIS country. If you can't detect a tenth of a degree, nobody cares.
Read YOUR post that I responded to. You made a comment about not being able to FEEL a tenth of a degree - which is so totally irrelevant as to boggle the mind.
You're still missing the point. You and your ilk are screaming a yelling out how terrible the "warming " is yet sine 1850 the entire warming has being around 1.3C. Or about A TENTH OF A DEGEE per decade. That's the point. The fact that some CALCULATED value is a tenth of a degree hired than it ever has been calculated before means squat.
