Anthropogenic Negative Climate Change (ANCC)

[Dilip Panjwani]

Say what? You need to explain how your "simple math" comes up with these numbers! Fox sends many red flags up as well.....

Do you get it after reading my responses to Bob G and Sid?

[Dilip Panjwani]

Commonly Accepted Statements on Negative Climate Change

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.

Update


Challenge # 1 - Sid Belzberg - Post # 1296 - 23/4/29

"Bob, concerning statement 2. - Uk Met Observatory is the only source of direct thermometer data going back over 300 years. The average rate is .5 degrees every 100 Years."


Challenge # 2 - Dilip Panjwani - Post # 1486 - 23/7/22

"Siimple math for the 10000 cities around the world:
If we look at the climate records of the last 120 years, and assume that there was no change whatsoever in the climate over this period, more than 1000 cities could have 30 hottest ever days every year. Given that the climate is not the same every year, there could be some years with 2000 cities having 60 hottest ever days...!!
Well, 2023 is the year CNN and other MSM decide to act like a broken record about broken records, but keeping the simple math shown above in mind, is there any real evidence that we are approaching a crisis? Does not seem so..."

Defence # 1 - Bob Armstrong - Post # 1485 - 23/7/20

"Sid's facts "support" Statement # 2! He asserts evidence that the average rate of increase is ".5 degrees every 100 years" over a 300 year period. This confirms "the temperature is now rising, and has been for some time". Arguably, if it has been rising for 300 years, and you look at all the human problems arising from this rising heat (See Statement # 3), then heat is going to "likely continue to rise for some time in the future". We, of course, at this point in developing our Statements, have not taken on the issue, yet, of whether this trend of .5 degrees per 100 years is the expected increase for the future."

Defence # 2 - Fred Harvey - Post # 1487 - 23/7/23

"Say what? You need to explain how your "simple math" comes up with these numbers! Fox sends many red flags up as well....."

Defence # 3 - Bob Gillanders - Post # 1488 - 23/7/23

"...taking Dilip's parameters: 10,000 cities, records for last 120 years, assuming no climate change, how many cities would see their hottest days this year?

more than 100 years of data, so less than 1% chance each city would see their hottest day, okay.
10,000 cities x 1% = 100 cities.....so if no climate change, less than 100 cities would see hottest days this year.
so if more 100 cities are seeing hottest days, then climate change is real."

Challenge # 2 Supplement - Sid Belzberg - Post # 1489 - 23/7/23

I think Dillip's point was as follows

1. Dillip assumes that there has been no change in the climate over the last 120 years, and each city experiences its highest-ever temperature on the same 30 days each year.
2. Under this assumption, some cities would consistently have extreme heat events on those specific days every year.
3. Even if only 10% of the 10000 cities (1000 cities) experienced this pattern, it would still lead to a substantial number of record-breaking temperatures worldwide. In fact if even 1% had record temperatures it is still good for a news report every 3-4 days(!)

The underlying idea here seems to be that with a large number of cities globally, even a relatively small proportion experiencing extreme heat events consistently could result in a significant impact in terms of the number of record-breaking temperatures.
Given the CETIS data set (UK Meteorological Centre data going back 300 years), we have seen, on average a very modest .5 degrees temp every 100 years, so this data would support Statement 1
insofar as for practical purposes almost no climate change but enough so that on the same days every year you would see "record Temps".
So statement 1 is not unreasonable based on real-world data.
So even if a small percentage of cities around the world experience record-breaking temp on their hot days, it leads to a significant number of reporting events. For example, in Scotland and the UK alone, there are over 5000 towns. One percent of this (50) allows for a weekly news story of record-breaking temp, whether it is the coldest day of the year or the hottest day of the year.

Bob A (As group Secretary)

Bob A, now that I have further clarified my math in the two posts above, you may want to make the corrections in your post...

[Dilip Panjwani]

I think Dilip's point was as follows

1. Dilip assumes that there has been no change in the climate over the last 120 years, and each city experiences its highest-ever temperature on the same 30 days each year.
2. Under this assumption, some cities would consistently have extreme heat events on those specific days every year.
3. Even if only 10% of the 10000 cities (1000 cities) experienced this pattern, it would still lead to a substantial number of record-breaking temperatures worldwide. In fact, if even 1% had record temperatures once a year (not 30) it is still good for a news report every 3-4 days(!)

The underlying idea here seems to be that with a large number of cities globally, even a relatively small proportion experiencing extreme heat events consistently could result in a significant impact in terms of the number of record-breaking temperatures.
Given the CETIS data set (UK Meteorological Centre data going back 300 years), we have seen, on average a very modest .5 degrees temp every 100 years, so this data would support Statement 1.
Hence your statement supports the notion that climate change is real as the UK data shows that climate change is real at a very modest .5 degrees every century hence based on a model of only 1 percent record temps it is easy to catastrophe these events without taking into account that these patterns are repeatable. There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent. However, there is ample evidence that CO₂-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly.

Sorry, Sid, not so...maybe I was not clear enough. It does not have to be the same 1000 cities each year or the same 30 days each year...even cool cities can have 'hottest ever' dates (calendar dates, not the other type of dates which you would consider the hotter the better) in any season, and when CNN cites records, it is generally referring to records for particular dates, I think)... Please see my explanation to Bob G, above.

[Dilip Panjwani]

Oh oh, I like simple math, let me jump in here!

taking Dilip's parameters: 10,000 cities, records for last 120 years, assuming no climate change, how many cities would see their hottest days this year?

more than 100 years of data, so less than 1% chance each city would see their hottest day, okay.
10,000 cities x 1% = 100 cities.....so if no climate change, less than 100 cities would see hottest days this year.
so if more 100 cities are seeing hottest days, then climate change is real.

Dilip, do you want to check my math?

You are on the right track, but you forget that there are 365 days in a year. If you look at only one city, over 120 years, every year would have 3 record breaking days, even if there is no climate change. But if you are looking at records of 10000 cities, 3 record breaking days in each of 10000 cities for any particular calendar date (like the hottest ever July 5, or the hottest ever August 1, or the hottest ever Christmas Day etc), or given the inconsistencies of nature (nothing is uniformly distributed), it could be 30 record breaking days in just 1000 cities....which would also lead to every year of the 120 years having the same number of record breaks; yet CNN will get anxious about it...

[Bob Armstrong]

Commonly Accepted Statements on Negative Climate Change

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.

Update


Challenge # 1 - Sid Belzberg - Post # 1296 - 23/4/29

"Bob, concerning statement 2. - Uk Met Observatory is the only source of direct thermometer data going back over 300 years. The average rate is .5 degrees every 100 Years."


Challenge # 2 - Dilip Panjwani - Post # 1486 - 23/7/22

"Siimple math for the 10000 cities around the world:
If we look at the climate records of the last 120 years, and assume that there was no change whatsoever in the climate over this period, more than 1000 cities could have 30 hottest ever days every year. Given that the climate is not the same every year, there could be some years with 2000 cities having 60 hottest ever days...!!
Well, 2023 is the year CNN and other MSM decide to act like a broken record about broken records, but keeping the simple math shown above in mind, is there any real evidence that we are approaching a crisis? Does not seem so..."

Defence # 1 - Bob Armstrong - Post # 1485 - 23/7/20

"Sid's facts "support" Statement # 2! He asserts evidence that the average rate of increase is ".5 degrees every 100 years" over a 300 year period. This confirms "the temperature is now rising, and has been for some time". Arguably, if it has been rising for 300 years, and you look at all the human problems arising from this rising heat (See Statement # 3), then heat is going to "likely continue to rise for some time in the future". We, of course, at this point in developing our Statements, have not taken on the issue, yet, of whether this trend of .5 degrees per 100 years is the expected increase for the future."

Defence # 2 - Fred Harvey - Post # 1487 - 23/7/23

"Say what? You need to explain how your "simple math" comes up with these numbers! Fox sends many red flags up as well....."

Defence # 3 - Bob Gillanders - Post # 1488 - 23/7/23

"...taking Dilip's parameters: 10,000 cities, records for last 120 years, assuming no climate change, how many cities would see their hottest days this year?

more than 100 years of data, so less than 1% chance each city would see their hottest day, okay.
10,000 cities x 1% = 100 cities.....so if no climate change, less than 100 cities would see hottest days this year.
so if more 100 cities are seeing hottest days, then climate change is real."

Challenge # 2 Supplement - Sid Belzberg - Post # 1489 - 23/7/23

I think Dillip's point was as follows

1. Dillip assumes that there has been no change in the climate over the last 120 years, and each city experiences its highest-ever temperature on the same 30 days each year.
2. Under this assumption, some cities would consistently have extreme heat events on those specific days every year.
3. Even if only 10% of the 10000 cities (1000 cities) experienced this pattern, it would still lead to a substantial number of record-breaking temperatures worldwide. In fact if even 1% had record temperatures it is still good for a news report every 3-4 days(!)

The underlying idea here seems to be that with a large number of cities globally, even a relatively small proportion experiencing extreme heat events consistently could result in a significant impact in terms of the number of record-breaking temperatures.
Given the CETIS data set (UK Meteorological Centre data going back 300 years), we have seen, on average a very modest .5 degrees temp every 100 years, so this data would support Statement 1
insofar as for practical purposes almost no climate change but enough so that on the same days every year you would see "record Temps".
So statement 1 is not unreasonable based on real-world data.
So even if a small percentage of cities around the world experience record-breaking temp on their hot days, it leads to a significant number of reporting events. For example, in Scotland and the UK alone, there are over 5000 towns. One percent of this (50) allows for a weekly news story of record-breaking temp, whether it is the coldest day of the year or the hottest day of the year.

Bob A (As group Secretary)