Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Lol... Five sigma? So how did they determine the standard deviation of temperature and if so, what is the temperature going to be next year? In the end, it's I made up a whole bunch of assumptions until five sigma says it's true... They don't even explain it in the article...
"...Confidence that human activities were raising the heat at the Earth’s surface had reached a “five-sigma” level, a statistical gauge meaning there is only a one-in-a-million chance that the signal would appear if there was no warming."
Huh? What signal? Does the author think "sigma" is a kind of signal? And how was this five-sigma confidence arrived at? There's not even a hint of an explanation in the article.
Quote:
“The narrative out there that scientists don’t know the cause of climate change is wrong,” he told Reuters. “We do.” Mainstream scientists say the burning of fossil fuels is causing more floods, droughts, heat waves and rising sea levels.
The debate is over. Mankind is altering the climate; we are as certain of that as we are that the Earth is round and it orbits the Sun.
If so, it sure isn't due to anything in this article.
OK, well, there we have it...Time to ban gasoline and diesel as motor vehicle fuels.
If the experts are SOOO certain, thats about the least we can do at this point.
actually if the "experts" are truly right, then we should ban ALL internal combustion engines, as well as ANY engine that burns ANY kind of fuel, fossil or otherwise as even alternative fuels would add to the CO2 emissions.
but my questions have always been, what happens if we institute all the taxes and regulations that the left wants to add to combat climate change, destroying the worlds economies and spending untold trillions of dollars, and nothing happens. what then?
or lets say we do all that, and it works too well, and the planet goes into a world ice age, complete with advancing glaciers to the point where all the worlds land masses are encased in ice several hundred thick. what then?
or lets say it doesnt work, and the global mean temperature continues to rise. again then what?
to date NO ONE has answered ANY of these questions. why? are you lefties afraid to? do you alarmist think these questions are ridiculous and not worthy of answers? are you that arrogant that you think you can tax and regulate the environment and make it do what you want it to do?
lets get a bit of reality here. these taxes and regulations the left wants to institute to combat climate change are not about climate change at all, they are about controlling the worlds population. but they dont want the people to know that, instead they make up this garbage about climate change to scare everyone so they are more accepting of government control.
"Alarmists" is a politically oriented term that deniers constantly use to try to insult, denigrate and de-legitimize people who disagree with them for the purposes of trying to stifle discussion and the expression of dissenting viewpoints on this topic.
"The last four years have been the hottest since records began in the 19th century."
I wasn't aware that a means of measuring global surface temperatures was in place in the 1800s.
What was this system, and why haven't we heard about it until just now?
How was the worldwide temperature data collected in the 1800s?
Were temperatures measured in the morning or evening during the 19th century?
Have the same weather stations been in place all that time or are different ones used now?
Has the equipment used to measure the temperature in the 1800s changed?
Has the areas surrounding the stations changed since the 1800s, e.g., become an airport, parking lot, sewage treatment plant, etc.?
How, if at all, has the manner in which sea surface temperatures are measured changed?
Do they still throw a bucket over the side of the ship to get a sample?
Are the sea lanes used in the 1800s the same ones they use today?
Who counted the clouds in the 19th century and made note of their type, density and altitude?
As a percentage of the warming effect, what has been the contribution of refrigerants in the stratosphere impeding the formation of ozone?
What part of the warming effect is attributable to changes in the Earth's albedo?
Has the top greenhouse gas (water vapor) increased or decreased since the 19th century, and what has been the effect of this change on average global surface temperature?
In the past several thousand years, why did surface temperatures appear to change over decades and centuries while concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere remained relatively stable?
If CO2 causes global warming, shouldn't an easily verifiable linear or exponential relationship exist between CO2 levels and surface temperatures?
"...Confidence that human activities were raising the heat at the Earth’s surface had reached a “five-sigma” level, a statistical gauge meaning there is only a one-in-a-million chance that the signal would appear if there was no warming."
“The narrative out there that scientists don’t know the cause of climate change is wrong,” he told Reuters. “We do.” Mainstream scientists say the burning of fossil fuels is causing more floods, droughts, heat waves and rising sea levels.
The debate is over. Mankind is altering the climate; we are as certain of that as we are that the Earth is round and it orbits the Sun.
Should we up our global warming game and see if we can alleviate the next Ice Age?
"...Confidence that human activities were raising the heat at the Earth’s surface had reached a “five-sigma” level, a statistical gauge meaning there is only a one-in-a-million chance that the signal would appear if there was no warming."
“The narrative out there that scientists don’t know the cause of climate change is wrong,” he told Reuters. “We do.” Mainstream scientists say the burning of fossil fuels is causing more floods, droughts, heat waves and rising sea levels.
The debate is over. Mankind is altering the climate; we are as certain of that as we are that the Earth is round and it orbits the Sun.
What evidence? Because some scientists claim? How do I not know they haven't doctored the evidence in their favor? Scientists will say and do anything to keep those federal grants coming, and to get the government to back funding climate change is like having a credit care that doesn't have a limit.
So weary of this debate....can we finally move on to the "what will we do about it" debate? Can we please have that??!!. Would love to see Republicans put forth competing proposals rather than just being the party of "no" all the time with respect to climate.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
