Anthropogenic Negative Climate Change (ANCC)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sid Belzberg
    replied
    Originally posted by Bob Gillanders View Post

    Okay, happy to explain it.
    Let us zero in precisely on this sentence.

    Dilip is talking about the month of July only, and comparing it to the month of July in the past 120 years.
    How many July's are there in the past 120 years. There are 120 of them.
    He gives us the condition that there is no warming, climate is stable, so it is just random.

    So what is the probability that July 2023 is the hottest July in the past 120 years = 1/120 or 0.83%

    Much less than the 10% chance he claims.
    Yes, I agree with Bob on this; my mistake, also. However, as I pointed out, the magnitude of the change is tiny, which would indicate
    that the rate of warming, if anything, is less than the UK dataset over the last several hundred years and hence appears to be fear-mongering
    hype.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dilip Panjwani
    replied
    Originally posted by Bob Gillanders View Post

    Okay, happy to explain it.
    Let us zero in precisely on this sentence.

    Dilip is talking about the month of July only, and comparing it to the month of July in the past 120 years.
    How many July's are there in the past 120 years. There are 120 of them.
    He gives us the condition that there is no warming, climate is stable, so it is just random.

    So what is the probability that July 2023 is the hottest July in the past 120 years = 1/120 or 0.83%

    Much less than the 10% chance he claims.
    Not really.
    If the monthly records were to be randomly distributed, the fact that there are 12 months in a year has to be factored in. There can be January as the hottest January in 120 years, etc., etc.. So 120/12=10. Thus technically out of the 10 years that can have the hottest July ever, 2023 got the lottery! There was a 10% chance of getting it, anyway...

    Leave a comment:


  • Bob Gillanders
    replied
    Originally posted by Dilip Panjwani View Post

    For July 2023 to be the hottest July in records kept over 120 years, there is a 10% chance that it would happen just randomly, without any upward trends in heating.
    Okay, happy to explain it.
    Let us zero in precisely on this sentence.

    Dilip is talking about the month of July only, and comparing it to the month of July in the past 120 years.
    How many July's are there in the past 120 years. There are 120 of them.
    He gives us the condition that there is no warming, climate is stable, so it is just random.

    So what is the probability that July 2023 is the hottest July in the past 120 years = 1/120 or 0.83%

    Much less than the 10% chance he claims.
    Last edited by Bob Gillanders; Friday, 11th August, 2023, 02:15 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sid Belzberg
    replied
    Originally posted by Dilip Panjwani View Post

    O great mathematician, please explain what you are trying to say!
    If you are trying to say that July 2023 was not just the hottest July ever, but the hottest month ever, you need to remember that the hottest July ever is almost always likely to be the hottest month anyway... so why not just call it the hottest July ever...
    July indeed has a higher probability historically of being the month for the highest temperature ever with the July anomaly (difference from a baseline) often one of the highest in a given year.
    Hence the rest of Dillip's math is straightforward 12/120 does = 10%.

    The threshold for what is considered "small" is arbitrary and can vary by field, but a common threshold is 0.05. If the p-value is less than 0.05, the result is often considered statistically significant, indicating that the observed result is unlikely to have occurred by random chance alone. However, a p-value of 0.1 would not typically be considered statistically significant by this standard.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dilip Panjwani
    replied
    Originally posted by Bob Gillanders View Post

    Dilip, you may wish to brush up on your math skills.
    O great mathematician, please explain what you are trying to say!
    If you are trying to say that July 2023 was not just the hottest July ever, but the hottest month ever, you need to remember that the hottest July ever is almost always likely to be the hottest month anyway... so why not just call it the hottest July ever...

    Leave a comment:


  • Bob Gillanders
    replied
    Originally posted by Dilip Panjwani View Post

    Hi Bob,
    Besides what Sid has posted above, let us look at it in your favorite 'mathematical' way.
    For July 2023 to be the hottest July in records kept over 120 years, there is a 10% chance that it would happen just randomly, without any upward trends in heating. As you know, p=0.1 is not considered statistically significant. So, nothing to get anxious about...
    Dilip, you may wish to brush up on your math skills.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dilip Panjwani
    replied
    Originally posted by Bob Gillanders View Post
    July 2023 - Globally, hottest month on record.

    ​​​​​​https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRxI...hannel=CBCNews

    ​​​​​​https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vO_H..._channel=MSNBC
    Hi Bob,
    Besides what Sid has posted above, let us look at it in your favorite 'mathematical' way.
    For July 2023 to be the hottest July in records kept over 120 years, there is a 10% chance that it would happen just randomly, without any upward trends in heating. As you know, p=0.1 is not considered statistically significant. So, nothing to get anxious about...
    Last edited by Dilip Panjwani; Thursday, 10th August, 2023, 07:34 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sid Belzberg
    replied
    Originally posted by Bob Gillanders View Post
    July 2023 - Globally, hottest month on record.

    ​​​​​​https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRxI...hannel=CBCNews

    ​​​​​​https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vO_H..._channel=MSNBC
    "The average global ocean surface temperature hit 20.96 degrees Celsius (69.7 Fahrenheit) at the end of July, according to modern data from the European Union’s Copernicus Climate Change Service, beating the previous record of 20.95 degrees Celsius in 2016". https://cnn.it/3DK1Gao "

    .Increase .01 degrees (!) It took seven years to establish a new "RECORD" up by a whopping .01degrees. At that rate, the temp will be up all of .14285 degrees in
    100 years. That is within the range of the UK data that shows on average .5 degrees per century for several hundred years.

    You should welcome that news BobG, one less thing to worry about.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bob Gillanders
    replied
    July 2023 - Globally, hottest month on record.

    ​​​​​​https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRxI...hannel=CBCNews

    ​​​​​​https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vO_H..._channel=MSNBC
    Last edited by Bob Gillanders; Thursday, 10th August, 2023, 07:45 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bob Armstrong
    replied
    Negative Climate Change (NCC)


    8 Generally-Accepted Statements

    (Accepted by a group of Canadian Tournament Chess players

    on the Canadian national chess discussion board,

    ChessTalk (Non-Chess Topics Forum):

    https://forum.chesstalk.com/forum/ch...ss-discussion- board/217060-anthropogenic-negative-climate-change-ancc)

    Here are the 8 STATEMENTS so far (To 23/8/9) [2 are currently under “Challenge” - so noted]

    Statement # 1

    Solar Activity is the main driver of climate change. It is heat from the sun that is the "source" of the rising air/atmospheric temperature of Earth.

    Statement # 2

    Earth's mean temperature is now rising, has been for some time, and will likely continue to rise for some time in the future.

    Statement # 3

    “The term “Record-Breaking” is sometimes loosely/wrongly used in the Main Stream Media re Earth's currently rising temperature. Cities across the globe may have unique geographic and meteorological characteristics that determine current temperature variations. Fact checking may be necessary.”

    Statement # 4:

    Currently rising air/atmospheric temperature of Earth is a problem for humanity.

    Statement # 5

    Since the year 1650 (200 years before the Industrial Revolution [Started: 1850], which is the earliest global temperature recording), the Earth's mean temperature has been rising naturally (Earth has been in a natural warming cycle; it has gone through various cooling and warming cycles before this current warming one). There is surface temperature data for the period 1650 to 1850, and beyond, from the records of the UK Meteorological Observatory. Some propose that they are sufficient to use to analyze our increasing temperature problem.

    Statement # 6

    For 650,000 years, CO2 in Earth's atmosphere never rose beyond 300 parts per million (to 1949). In 1950, 100 years after the start of the Industrial Revolution [1850], the percentage of the air/atmosphere that is CO2 had spiked dramatically to 380 parts per million. Since 1950, we have now had another 75 years of the Industrial Revolution. We are seeking a source for the 2023 count for CO2 parts per million.
    [Note: The significance of CO2, and the Industrial Revolution, as factors in negative climate change is hotly debated. But it is necessary to include a factual finding on these two items, to have some common factual statement concerning them, for future Statements & debate.]

    Currently under Challenge; no Defence yet entered.

    Statement # 7

    It is essential to have alternate sources of energy; it is good that this transition is now underway; our options include renewables (solar panels, tidal, water turbines, windmills) and nuclear. Traditionally used fossil fuels, including coal, are finite, though more plentiful than commonly thought.

    Statement # 8 (Proposed)

    If farming has an effect on global negative climate change (Whether it does will be dealt with in another Statement, if possible), then any negative effect will be mitigated to some extent by the farming industry becoming “sustainable”. Sustainable agriculture is the efficient production of safe, high-quality agricultural product, in a way that protects and improves the natural environment, the social and economic conditions of the farmers, their employees and local communities, and safeguards the health and welfare of all farmed species.(Definition by Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Rural Affairs: https://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/busdev/facts/15-023.htm").

    Currently Under Challenge; has been Defended; now in processing period.


    Bob Armstrong (Group Secretary)

    Leave a comment:


  • Bob Armstrong
    replied
    Sid - Post # 1609 - 23/8/7

    "You [Bob A] called the UK meteorological data "horsecrap" but have offered nothing to disprove that the average temp within this data set rose on average .5 degrees every 100 years with or without industrial carbon emissions."

    1. I am unaware of using the word "horsecrap" ever........you have it in quotes as an verbatim quote - please provide my post # where I used this term. I believe this to be "false news".

    2. Bob A's Post # 1519 - 23/7/23

    "Statement # 4

    From 1650 (200 years before the Industrial Revolution [Started: 1850]; 1650 is earliest global temperature recording), the Earth's mean temperature has been rising naturally (Earth has been in a natural warming cycle; it has gone through various cooling and warming cycles before this current warming one). There is surface temperature data for the period 1650 to 1850, and beyond, from the records of the UK Meteorological Observatory. Some propose that they are sufficient to use to analyze our increasing temperature problem.

    Support - Sid Belzberg - Post # 1296 (23/4/29)

    "Bob, concerning statement [4 – formerly 3]. Given that heart of the early Industrial Revolution started in the UK, where manmade CO2 emissions were significant, it is an excellent platform to analyze the data.”

    [Note: Bob's Comment: Sid's statement seems a support for the statement # 4 saying that the UK MO recordings are good to use. Unless there are objections, this post of Sid's has been changed to a “Support” from a "Challenge", which was a mistake of the Secretary of the Group.]"

    Far from calling the UK meteorological data "horsecrap", I accepted, for the time being, Sid's assertion that the UK data were good to use re a longitudinal record of temperature, that claims a .5 C rise every 100 yrs., from 1650. I even brought about an editorial change re Statement # 4, to change Sid's comment from a "Challenge" to a "Support".

    Bob A

    Leave a comment:


  • Sid Belzberg
    replied
    Originally posted by Bob Gillanders View Post

    I am not so sure Lord Monckton is somebody you want to be quoting.

    ​​​​​​https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbW-...nel=potholer54
    How 2020 of you, when you can’t attack the message
    attack the messenger.
    Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Wednesday, 9th August, 2023, 01:46 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bob Gillanders
    replied
    Originally posted by Sid Belzberg View Post

    Lord Monckton has authored numerous papers on the climate issue both for the layman and scientific community.
    I am not so sure Lord Monckton is somebody you want to be quoting.

    ​​​​​​https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbW-...nel=potholer54

    Leave a comment:


  • Sid Belzberg
    replied
    Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change
    Science & Education volume 24, pages299–318 (2015)Cite this articleAbstract


    Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007–2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019–2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education.

    https://link.springer.com/article/10...191-013-9647-9

    Leave a comment:


  • Sid Belzberg
    replied
    Originally posted by Bob Armstrong View Post
    Farming

    Part II of 2; Part I above

    Click image for larger version  Name:	Farming 1.jpg Views:	0 Size:	27.6 KB ID:	228192


    B. “Non-Carnivore-Directed” Farming & Climate Change

    1. Organic Farming - Anti-Negative Climate Change


    How do farmers help climate change?

    Organic farming prohibits most synthetic inputs, which means reduced GHG emissions, as well as cleaner soil, water, and food. Furthermore, organic and sustainable techniques bring additional benefits for farmers, such as increased soil health and fertility, which leads to additional climate-friendly benefits.


    https://foodwise.org/articles/10-way...limate-change/

    2. Non-Carnivore Directed Farming


    Global elimination of meat production could save the planet

    https://news.berkeley.edu/2022/02/01...ave-the-planet

    3. Agriculture & CO2


    I. Greenhouse gas emissions and agriculture


    10% of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions are from crop and livestock production, excluding emissions from the use of fossil fuels or from fertilizer production.
    The main gases emitted by agricultural activities are:

    Conversely, agriculture helps slow climate change by storing carbon on agricultural lands. Storing, or sequestering, carbon in soil as organic matter, perennial vegetation, and in trees reduces carbon dioxide amounts in the atmosphere.

    https://agriculture.canada.ca/en/env...eenhouse-gases

    II. The Carbon Cycle

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNLUzqW8IuA

    III. Generally Accepted:

    Carbon is the primary component of all fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) that we burn to create power. Our growing use of energy has increased the volume of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere through burning fossil fuels. [ There is controversy over whether the amount of CO2 generated by man has a "significant" effect on Climate Change and rising temperature. The Anthropogenicists claim that man is increasing the air CO2 at a rate that is accelerating any "natural" warming of the Earth, due to a current warming cycle we are in.]

    4. Farming & Methane

    13 nations – many of them major cattle and food-producing states led by the United States, Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Spain – have signed onto a commitment to place farmers under new restrictions intended to reduce emissions of methane gas.

    (Above link)


    5. Farming & Food Security

    Non-Carnivore Directed Farming can produce enough food to feed many more than are currently populating the Earth.


    But to maximize productivity, and to maintain fairness, carnivore-directed farming must be stopped from gobbling up tremendously more production resources than non-carnivore-directed farming. Have you heard of any problem in the Amazon and the rain forests, due to the headlong rush for profit of the Brazilian cattle ranching industry? No? Google "Deforestation - South America"! But this transition is not happening.........why?.........Carnivore-directed farmers, as a force in the world, are quite influential, and backed by whole industries based on the products of carnivore-directed farming. This lobby works hard at justification to the public of this unfairness, and its gambling with food security, which is best maintained by non-carnivore-directed farming......there are many articles on the great disparity between the two types of farming.

    Again, it is going to be up to the elector to elect parties that are not beholden to this lobby, and who will pass laws to achieve full food security.


    6. Elimination of All Farming is Not On

    In our researching, all emphasis is on greater productivity in farming, given climate change, and how farming can reduce its carbon footprint and other negative factors. There is almost nothing we have found supporting the total elimination of farming.

    Many articles are very misleading on this point (https://www.eutimes.net/2023/06/13-n...ve-the-planet/). The headline reads "Abolishing Farming" - this is significant false reporting! "New restrictions" is not "abolishing". This is scare-mongering. The article deals with farming and the methane gas generation. It does not propose the elimination of either carnivore-directed farming nor any other kind of farming.

    The REAL News (TRN – 23/8/8)

    Copyright – TRN (23/8/6)
    Bob, this is a very nice essay but it is based on the assumption that you have yet to demonstrate that there is a climate emergency that would justify dictating to others what they eat or what they farm. In particular, I have provided evidence that it is a physical impossibility for methane and nitrous oxide emissions to have any influence on climate and yet here you are pumping out propaganda. All of this despite the utter humanitarian disaster of Sri Lanka that clearly showed that they were victims of the CCP/WEF agenda to depopulate the planet.
    Ethical animal treatment and the ethics of animals as a food source is an entirely separate issue from whether or not this should be banned and is nothing but a distraction from the debunked notion that this is a source of climate change.

    You are now unwittingly supporting the Greatest Crime Against Humanity Ever Perpetrated on Humanity, starting with mass poisoning via lethal slow-kill injections and now the same players (CCP)/WEF are pushing mass starvation.



    Net Zero is a Marxist Agenda that Canada"s Minister of the Environment and Climate Change Guilbeault is trying to force onto the country without the consent of Canadians. Former UK Government Policy advisor Lord Monckton discusses the climate scam and how it relates to the Marxist roots of the Net Zero Agenda. It goes way back to WWII:

    He has testified four times before the U.S. Congress and has spoken at United Nations climate conferences in Bali, Bonn, Copenhagen, Cancun, Durban, Rio, and Qatar. His lecture to undergraduates at the Cambridge Union Society on climate change was released as a feature-length film called Apocalypse. NO!

    He has triumphed in a debate at St Andrews University, where undergraduates voted against climate alarm for the first time at any British university, and at the Oxford Union, where undergraduates voted against climate alarm for the first time at any English university. Lord Monckton has authored numerous papers on the climate issue both for the layman and scientific community. In a paper for the World Federation of Scientists, he established that CO2 has a social benefit, not a social cost. He was also a co-author of the paper that showed the claim of “97% scientific consensus” about climate change to be false https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9. His scholarly articles on climate issues have appeared in numerous books as well as such journals as Science Bulletin, Energy and Environment, Journal of


    The Marine Navigation Industry, UK Quarterly Economic Bulletin, Physics and Society, Science & Education, and AIG News. For his work on the climate, Lord Monckton, who was Nerenberg Lecturer in Mathematics at the University of Western Ontario in 2013, has been presented with numerous honors, including the Meese-Noble Award for Freedom, the Valiant-for-Truth Award of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, the Santhigiri Ashram Award, and the Intelligence Medal of the Army of Colombia.

    Start at 1:20 of this video, the last 15 minutes, although it is fascinating all through.



    Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Wednesday, 9th August, 2023, 08:38 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X