14 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

There's really nothing to debate here.

so why bother posting it.... it's a bit like discussing transport and posting a picture of a bus

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

What can you say about those charts other than global atmospheric and sea temperatures are rising at an alarming level? That was the intention. So that uninformed people who think it's just another spurious record hot day can crawl back under their respective rocks.

nobody is that uninformed - we all have known that since the 1980s

Just now, kwilco said:

nobody is that uninformed - we all have known that since the 1980s

Are you suggesting that their aren't zillions of people on this board who don't think it's about burning fossil fuels and that it's just a natural cycle or that the broken records are just outlier events?

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

They are visually self explanatory. The trend is unmistakable and the cause of that trend can only be greenhouse gases. Human activities produce the overwhelming majority of greenhouse gases. There's really nothing to debate here.

That meaningless twaddle of a response does not answer my question regarding'

"How can "The videos offer irrefutable evidence"?

Has this been adjudicated by the Supreme Court or similar?

24 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

That meaningless twaddle of a response does not answer my question regarding'

"How can "The videos offer irrefutable evidence"?

Has this been adjudicated by the Supreme Court or similar?

Are the graphs not showing a pattern of persistent and marked increases in the temperature of the air and the seas?

18 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

That meaningless twaddle of a response does not answer my question regarding'

"How can "The videos offer irrefutable evidence"?

Has this been adjudicated by the Supreme Court or similar?

Evidence for man-made global warming hits 'gold standard': scientists

Evidence for man-made global warming has reached a “gold standard” level of certainty, adding pressure for cuts in greenhouse gases to limit rising temperatures, scientists said on Monday...

They said 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.

Such a “gold standard” was applied in 2012, for instance, to confirm the discovery of the Higgs boson subatomic particle, a basic building block of the universe.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-temperatures-idUSKCN1QE1ZU

 

10 hours ago, kwilco said:

So what? We all know about global warming, what does that bring to the discussion without a comment?

If you had been following this topic you would know that there are a large number of climate change deniers who are keen on electing climate change deniers to government office and punishing businesses that try to do something about climate change.

 

Encouraging people who are in a hole to stop digging is the first step in getting out of the hole.

16 minutes ago, heybruce said:

a large number of climate change deniers who are keen on electing climate change deniers to government office and punishing businesses that try to do something about climate change.

there is no argument for climate denial - whether they vote or not is a different matter - you are entitled to vote that the world is flat - but it isn't.

THere may be a discussion of how to change the mind of a denier but that too is impossible - like Brexiteers, they aren't interested in evidence or reasoning.

As such there is no [point in discussing that. THey are beyond any form of =discussion.

The title of the topic is "Climate records tumble, leaving Earth in uncharted territory - scientists" - nothing to do with is there or isn't there climate change - deniers need tp be removed from the thread as they are off topic.

8 hours ago, placeholder said:

global warming has reached a “gold standard” level of certainty

What an incredibly unscientific term for so called scientists to use!

In which scientific table is the "Gold Standard" defined?

3 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

What an incredibly unscientific term for so called scientists to use!

In which scientific table is the "Gold Standard" defined?

"The gold standard of something is simply a great or excellent example. A gold standard is the best of the best.  "

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/gold standard#:~:text=The gold standard of something,type of%3A monetary standard%2C standard

8 hours ago, ozimoron said:

Are the graphs not showing a pattern of persistent and marked increases in the temperature of the air and the seas?

As you are obviously unable to answer the two basic questions I asked you the stuff you post will have to be treated with the contempt it deserves!

4 hours ago, heybruce said:

Encouraging people who are in a hole to stop digging is the first step in getting out of the hole.

Getting people to stop digging holes in the first place might help!

2 minutes ago, sirineou said:

"The gold standard of something is simply a great or excellent example. A gold standard is the best of the best.  "

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/gold standard#:~:text=The gold standard of something,type of%3A monetary standard%2C standard

That is your scientific answer is it?  It really adds credibility to the statement! ????

2 hours ago, scottiejohn said:

That is your scientific answer is it?  It really adds credibility to the statement! ????

Gold Standard is often used in scientific research.

 

Peer Review:  Publication’s Gold Standard

 

Reporting through peer review is considered to be the gold standard to communicate outcomes and is regarded as a credible mechanism for assessing the quality

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264248597_Peer_Review_Publication's_Gold_Standard

2 hours ago, scottiejohn said:

That is your scientific answer is it?  It really adds credibility to the statement! ????

It is not a scientific term it is an Idiom . 

he said global warming has reached a “gold standard” level of certainty" "

 

Meaning : " The gold standard of something is simply a great or excellent example. A gold standard is the best of the best. "

 

By your inability to understand that simple explanation I can see why you might have difficulties grasping the concept of global warming. 

 

Why not just reply to my post . "Fair enough. , I missed  it"  why do you need to come back with an attack on my credibility? Don't you realise that such an attack reflect badly on yours? 

1 hour ago, scottiejohn said:

What an incredibly unscientific term for so called scientists to use!

In which scientific table is the "Gold Standard" defined?

"In most cases, a five-sigma result is considered the gold standard for significance, corresponding to about a one-in-a-million chance that the findings are just a result of random variations"  https://phys.org/news/2012-02-sigma.html

1 hour ago, scottiejohn said:

What an incredibly unscientific term for so called scientists to use!

In which scientific table is the "Gold Standard" defined?

What nonsense. He said the research met the Six Sigma standard. That same standard considered stringentenough to confirm the existence of the Higgs boson.

The use of "Gold Standard" was just a way of conveying to laymen what it signifies.

7 hours ago, placeholder said:

The use of "Gold Standard" was just a way of conveying to laymen what it signifies.

That it is meaningless BS!

18 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

That it is meaningless BS!

Tell that to the scientists who confirmed the existence of the Higgs Boson.

Edited July 29, 20232 yr by placeholder

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

Tell that to the scientists who confirmed the existence of the Higgs Boson.

And the connection is?

1 minute ago, scottiejohn said:

And the connection is?

The six sigma standard was considered stringent enough in the scientific community to justify the claim that they had proved the existence of the Higgs Boson. In other words, the odds that they had gotten it were were infinitesimal. Six standard deviations are very small odds indeed.

Edited July 29, 20232 yr by placeholder

Just now, placeholder said:

The six sigma standard was considered stringent enough in the scientific community to justify the claim that they had proved the existence of the Higgs Boson. In other words, the odds that they had gotten it were were infinitesimal. Six standard deviations are very small odds indeed.

Yet more BS that has nothing to do with either the OP or my questions.

3 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

Yet more BS that has nothing to do with either the OP or my questions.

You may think it's enough simply to deny something is relevant without explaining why it is irrelevant. In other words, you're being irrational.