placeholder

You're repeating yourself. You've got nothing.

When was the last time there was a more sudden change in global temperature than in the recent past? Today's Climate Change Proves Much Faster Than Changes in Past 65 Million Years The climate is changing at a pace that's far faster than anything seen in 65 million years, a report out of Stanford University says. The amount of global temperature increase and the short time over which it's occurred create a change in velocity that outstrips previous periods of warming or cooling, the scientists said in research published in today's Science. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/todays-climate-change-proves-much-faster-than-changes-in-past-65-million-years/ Globally resolved surface temperatures since the Last Glacial Maximum In contrast with previous proxy-based reconstructions6,7 our results show that global mean temperature has slightly but steadily warmed, by ~0.5 °C, since the early Holocene (around 9 thousand years ago). When compared with recent temperature changes11, our reanalysis indicates that both the rate and magnitude of modern warming are unusual relative to the changes of the past 24 thousand years. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03984-4

I think vincentrj is confused. I'm guessing he believes that absent 100% homogeneity, overall warming doesn't count.

What do you mean there's no sound or reliable evidence. for globally coherent global warming? Average temperature of the troposphere and oceans has been on a sharp upward trend. Are you positing some mass conspiracy among the world's climatologists? Or do you believe that globally coherent means 100% homogeneity? I guess you must because you believe exceptions like a few glaciers somehow disprove....honestly, I don't even know how you exactly think they disprove anthropogenic global warmng. Every year record high and record low temperatures are set. The question is do the highs outnumber the lows or the lows the highs. You think because some place report record lows that proves that there's no trend? And no, Antarctica doesn't have a significant trend of increasing sea ice. In fact, for this year it has hit a record low. Climatologists aren't sure why. They don't think that it necessarily due to global warming. Antarctic Sea Ice Hits a Record Low, but Role of Warming Is Unclear Then, around the year 2014, the Antarctic trend abruptly reversed itself and the sea ice began rapidly declining. It hit a record-low minimum in 2017 and 2018, then rebounded slightly before hitting new records in 2022 and 2023. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/antarctic-sea-ice-hits-a-record-low-but-role-of-warming-is-unclear/ And in the eos article you linked to, to justify their claim that antarctic sea is is increasing the authors linked to this article: Understanding climate: Antarctic sea ice extent "The satellite record spans over four decades, and although the ice has shown increasing and decreasing trends over portions of that record, few of those trends have been statistically significant. Year-to-year variability has dominated, especially over the last decade. Since the year 2013, Antarctic sea ice has exhibited its highest and lowest extents on record—highest-ever winter maximum in September 2014, and lowest-ever summer minimum in February 2022. But the overall trend, as of early 2022, is nearly zero." https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/understanding-climate-antarctic-sea-ice-extent In short, it's trends that count. Isolated counterexamples are not proof of anything.

If the funding from this tax rise is adequate to protect Medicare, why does it require naivete to believe it?

Well, since the sentence is correctly punctuated, technically not. "I'm only asking why it needs more funding if it's already successful, if you don't know, just say you don't know. " But even so, how does that change the irrelevance of 'if it's already successful."

Not clear that constitutionally he can create a militia independent of Federal authority: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." — US Constitution, article II, section 2, clause 1[26]

If you agree that your comment wasn't sensible, then yes.

I've come to realiize that it's best not tot feed this troll. All he does is post cheerleader like comments in order to draw in serious people like yourself. Starve him.

because of what you said: "I'm only asking why it needs more funding if it's already successful" Why is being successful relevant? Now if you had written "I'm only asking why it needs more funding" that would be sensible.

Apparently, you believe that "successful" or even "most successful" are the same as "perfect"?

Well, London actually has an extensive and expensive barrier system to keep it from flooding. And they seem to be on top of the potential threat https://tyndall.ac.uk/news/will-london-soon-be-underwater/

Run by the left? What are you on about?

It's not a promising sign when someone resorts to playing word games with a scientific issue. I try to be careful and specify either human caused climate change or anthropogenic climate change. Trying to exploit a lapse, particularly when the context is clear, is just a cheap deflection. I had adequately explained why using 20000 years as a denominator instead of 7000 was disingenyuous. What exactly don't you understand about that? The Michael Mann Hockey Stick has since been confirmed by many independent studies using different data. This link will take you to a convenient compendium of those studies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large-scale_temperature_reconstructions_of_the_last_2,000_years And obviously it continues to be confirmed by this century's global temperature averages. Much of the denialism nonsense began after 1997-1998. That was a year of a very powerful El Nino. El Ninos give a powerful boost to global temperature. So, subsequently when temperatures declined from that year, the denialists claimed that it was due to global cooling. Because, apparently, in Denialist World, regression analyses and trendlines aren't a thing. Well, it's 2023 now, and despite the fact that there haven't been any El Ninos since 2016, that 1997-98 el nino year is cooler than all of them. In fact, it doesn't even qualify for the top 10 warmest years anymore.

Let's start with the last thing first. Don Easterbrook is a crank who predicted global cooling starting at about 2000 Comparison of "skeptic" geologist Don Easterbrook's projections of global cooling from his presentation at the 2008 American Geophysical Union annual meeting (green and blue) with observational data from the NASA GISS land-ocean dataset (red), showing the time period 1900 to 2100. Easterbrook's temperature projections can be compared directly to the measurements in the overlapping period 2000 to 2010, where the IPCC and virtually all climate scientists have predicted continued warming. Easterbrook's projections are inaccurate because he doesn't use a physics-based approach but simply relies on correlations from past climate patterns and largely ignores the now-dominant effect of human greenhouse gas emissions. https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=23 Here's the actual record of global temperature average since 1900 The "study" of Easterbrook's that you cite was published in 2011. Was it even peer reviewed? In fact the medieval warm period was not global nor was the Little Ice Age No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2

And here's another reason. Poland receives the most net EU funding of any EU member. By far.

If not for Al Gore there wouldn't be this program to slow and ultimately reverse climate change? Funny. People falsely credit Al Gore with claiming he invented the Internet. The fact is that the it's the overwhelming consensus of the climatological community that significant damage is already being inflicted by climate change and if it climbs over 1.5 degrees it starts to get a lot worse.

Another reason it's ridiculous is that Poland is a member of NATO. It's not going to risk membership in NATO in order to share a lot more border with Russia than it already does. If you meant that the west of ukraine is almost all polish, that's false, It's about 25% ethnically polish. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Ukraine

Well, even if he did say it, who cares? He's not a scientist. If that's what he said, his remarks don't reflect the opinion of the huge majority of climatologists. Certainly they don't reflect the consensus of the IPCC. So what's your point?

Actually, it's Russia making the unfounded claim that Poland is planning to annex parts of Ukraine. You seem to be repeating a distorted version of Russian disinformation by adding in that there were negotiations under way.. And that you claim "for sure something both countries think about as it seems very logical" is very revealing about where you are coming from. But is clearly ridiculous. You think Poles want to absorb millions of Ukrainians into their polity? That's got to be a political disaster in the making. Why Russia Keeps Insisting That Poland Is Preparing to Partition Ukraine The Russian leadership has repeatedly made the outlandish claim that Poland is preparing to annex territories in western Ukraine. Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) director Sergei Naryshkin recently made this assertion, and he was not the first to do so. Over the past months, Russian President Vladimir Putin several times stated that the idea of absorbing Ukraine is still alive and well in Poland, while Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev warned that Warsaw “is already making moves to seize western Ukrainian territories.” https://carnegieendowment.org/politika/88585 The article goes on to point out that Russia has also claimed that Hungary and Romania want a piece of Ukraine, too.

But there was nothing in that which affected the validity of the evidence. In effect, he took advantage of the fact the Trump's White House regime was so disorganized that it didn't know how to stall. If this approach tainted the evidence gathered, that would be news to the judge adjudicating the case.

I didn't quote your original statement which didn't specify. But why is Al Gore's opinion even relevant. The IPCC, composed mainly of scientist/reviewers has published reviews of a huge amount of climatological research repeatedly. Those are the expert judgments worth paying attention to. Citing non-scientists opinions, or the hypocritical behavior of wealthy individuals has no bearing on the science. They're just transparent attempts at deflection.

You got a link for that? Or was that also a rumor? Or just an outright falsehood?

Actually, it began rising before he became mayor. Hmmm... And as for out control.... still premature to make that claim

And unless you were listening to voices in your head, is there an external verifiable source for this rumor. If not, this could be just a worthless piece of disinformation. The kind used to poison discussion.