Tweet
Originally posted by Sid Belzberg
View Post
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbW-...nel=potholer54
-
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 messageOriginally posted by Bob Gillanders View Post
attack the messenger.Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Wednesday, 9th August, 2023, 01:46 PM.Comment
-
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 AComment
-
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)
Comment
-
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=MSNBCLast edited by Bob Gillanders; Thursday, 10th August, 2023, 07:45 AM.Comment
-
"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 "Originally posted by Bob Gillanders View Post
.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.Comment
-
Hi Bob,Originally posted by Bob Gillanders View Post
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.Comment
-
Dilip, you may wish to brush up on your math skills.Originally posted by Dilip Panjwani View Post
Comment
-
O great mathematician, please explain what you are trying to say!Originally posted by Bob Gillanders View Post
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...Comment
-
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.Originally posted by Dilip Panjwani View Post
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.
Comment
-
Okay, happy to explain it.Originally posted by Dilip Panjwani View Post
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.Comment
-
Not really.Originally posted by Bob Gillanders View Post
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...Comment
-
Yes, I agree with Bob on this; my mistake, also. However, as I pointed out, the magnitude of the change is tiny, which would indicateOriginally posted by Bob Gillanders View Post
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.
Comment
-
I see, so you are simply assuming that July is always the hottest month of the year therefore If we break down those 120 opportunities, that averages to one opportunity for a "hottest July ever" every 10 years (because 120/12 = 10). That makes sense however, your logic implies an even distribution of "hottest ever" Julys across the 120 years, but it's not a guarantee that every 10-year segment would have one "hottest ever" July.Originally posted by Dilip Panjwani View Post
In the real world, it's entirely possible to have decades without any record-breaking temperatures and other decades with multiple record-breakers.
Your framework simplifies the problem by dividing the 120 years by 12 months, thereby suggesting a uniform distribution of one "hottest ever" July every 10 years. However, in reality, these events don't necessarily follow such a neat pattern.
The 10% probability gives a simplified and even distribution, but it doesn't account for the real-world variability and the possibility of long stretches without a record or short stretches with multiple records.
The main point is why the MSM is so eager to point out that there is a new record but fails to emphasize that it is only .01 degrees higher than the old one seven years earlier. BobG avoids this obvious fact that clearly shows that the rate of warming is not newsworthy as it is no different than the last 300 years.
In fact,if anything, the headline could say the Rate of Warming Over The last Seven years is Decelerating,Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Friday, 11th August, 2023, 09:25 AM.Comment
-
Passive arson?
Hawaii has a robust emergency siren warning system. It sat silent during the deadly wildfires
“Nobody at the state and nobody at the county attempted to activate those sirens based on our records,”
“On my cell phone, we had warnings of strong winds and possible fires; but no real … warning like the Amber Alerts or those storms that we would normally get that would vibrate and make loud noises from our phones. We didn’t get any of that. There were no sirens.”
Why doesn't Canada have a national wildfire-fighting force?
Harjit Sajjan, Canada's minister of emergency preparedness, said the country already has "sufficient resources to manage the wildfires."
Comment
Comment