New santer study totally debunked not a lot of people know that electricity dance moms episode


In the end, I believe the study electricity cost las vegas is an attempt to exaggerate the level of agreement between satellite (even UAH) and model warming trends, providing supposed “proof” that the warming is due to increasing CO2, even though natural sources of temperature change (temporary El Nino warming, volcanic cooling early in the record, and who knows what else) can be misinterpreted by their method as human-caused warming.

They haven’t shown what they say they showed. In particular they have not identified a unique anthropogenic fingerprint, or provided a credible control for natural variability over the sample period. Their claim to have attained a “gold static electricity diagram standard” of proof are unwarranted, in part because statistical modelling can never do that, and in part because of the specific problems in their model.

Despite continued growth in atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases, global mean surface and tropospheric temperatures have shown slower warming since 1998 than previously. Possible explanations for the slow-down include internal climate variability, external cooling influences and observational errors. Several recent modelling studies have examined the contribution of early twenty-first-century volcanic eruptions to the muted surface warming. Here we present a detailed analysis of the impact e suvidha electricity bill lucknow of recent volcanic forcing on tropospheric temperature, based on observations as well as climate model simulations. We identify statistically significant correlations between observations of stratospheric aerosol optical depth and satellite-based estimates of both tropospheric temperature and short-wave fluxes at the top of the atmosphere. We show that climate model simulations without the effects of early twenty-first-century volcanic eruptions overestimate the tropospheric warming observed since 1998. In two simulations with more realistic volcanic influences following the 1991 Pinatubo eruption, differences between simulated and observed gas after eating eggs tropospheric temperature trends over the period 1998 to 2012 are up to 15% smaller, with large uncertainties in the magnitude of the effect. To reduce these uncertainties, better observations of eruption-specific properties of volcanic aerosols are needed, as well as improved representation of these eruption-specific properties in climate model simulations.

In my world of manufacturing Engineering five sigma is not a “gold standard”. It means all results fall inside a boundary of five times the average (RMS) error properly called “one standard devistion” or “sigma” as shorthand assuming a Gauss curve of error distribution. Six sigma is the gold standard we work to achieve as a measure of whether results are “good enough”. To make the high risk gas leak chicago political decisions like thise being made to change to “sustainable” energy the data had to exceed Six Sigma.

To make the claim they are at five sigma they must show the data they have is a Gauss curve (or “normal distribution”) and what exactly that data is. They make no apparent effort to illustrate any such thing but simply make the wild statement “it meets the gold standard of five sigma” meaning to blind us with what they are pretending is too arcane for us simple folk to understand. Just as few are now convinced by the i electricity bill com Higgs Boson “proof” (and by his body language I don’t think Prof Higgs was at the time) I have to cling firmly to my profound doubts about AGW.