If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
Yet more MSM horseshit from our Marxist WEF useful idiot.
Constant dire predictions have been an attempt to counter effective criticism of polar bears as AGW icon says outgoing PGSG chair
Posted on July 3, 2021 | Comments Offon Constant dire predictions have been an attempt to counter effective criticism of polar bears as AGW icon says outgoing PGSG chair
In an unexpected statement, Dag Vongraven (the out-going Chairman of the Polar Bear Specialist Group) suggests that much of the incessant dire warnings of doom about the future of polar bears from PBSG members has been a counter-measure to offset the effective efforts by myself and others to expose the flawed rhetoric this group promotes.
You may remember Vongraven, who in 2014 famously sent me an email alerting me to a PBSG statement that later came back to bite them (in part because it was included in a CBC documentary called The Politics of Polar Bearslater that year, see below):
It is important to realize that this range [i.e. their polar bear population estimate] never has been an estimate of total abundance in a scientific sense, but simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand.
Will this be another? You be the judge.
In an interview available only in Norwegian on the website for the Norwegian Polar Institute, Dag Vongraven expressed his opinion that “climate change will ultimately lead to the extinction of the polar bear population in Svalbard and major parts of the Russian Arctic“. This dire prediction was reported in English by the Barents Observer (2 July 2021).
However, it turns out Vongraven had more to say which the reporter for the Observer left out but which the folks who write IcePeople (2 July 2021) thought was worth a mention. They wrote:
Vongraven, incidentally, acknowledges in this week’s report [sic, they mean the NPI interview] the increasing visibility of climate change deniers in recent years – and declares that’s partially why there’s an increasing number of dire reports being released.
“Before the (specialist group) meeting in Tromsø in 2009, a physical meeting in the specialist group for polar bears and a report every four years was enough, but after 2009 this has been insufficient because there has been a constant demand for information about the polar bear’s status and future prospects,” he said. “But the increase is also due to the fact that climate deniers and this type of force have become much more active, and polar bears as a symbol of climate change have been reduced as ‘climate hysteria.’”
By the way, the IcePeople piece also provided a link to my July 1 blog post (“Barents Sea polar bears thriving despite huge summer ice loss spring research results are in”), in which I reported the results of spring 2021 research on polar bears in Svalbard posted for all to see on the NPI website by NPI polar bear biologists. Apparently, to some people, posting data such as this is evidence of “denier activity”.
The failure of Svalbard area polar bears to show evidence of harm to their health or population size from the huge decline in summer sea ice seen in the Barents Sea is a problem because it is such a stark contrast to the continued claim that polar bears in Southern and Western Hudson Bay have already registered significant declines in body condition and cub survival in response to only a fraction of the ice loss experienced by Svalbard bears. As I pointed out last year and in The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened, this contradiction is one of the real conundrums that plague the PBSG.
Meanwhile, the PBSG website is unavailable because the NPI has stopped hosting (as it has done since 2001) and the PBSG must ‘transition’ to a new platform. In the announcement I saw 28 May 2021, there was no hint of how long this might take. Therefore, this website link produces only a snapshot of the PBSG homepage and an obituary for Markus Dyck: the rest of it, with all the content from years ago, is effectively gone. Good thing I’ve downloaded virtually all of their content to my own archive over the years.
Therefore, without the NPI interview as reported by the Barents Observer, we would never know that Vongraven was stepping down as PBSG chairman to be replaced by Nick Lunn (Canada) and Kristin Laidre (USA/Greenland) as co-chairs, which as far as I know has never been done before (having two chairmen). It’s certainly high time for this group to have a female chair (which they have certainly never had before) but it looks to me like this bunch of macho-men don’t expect a woman to do the job competently all by herself. Perhaps I’m wrong: maybe she is so busy she declined the post unless she had help. However, I find it odd that none of the previous male chairs have ever needed to share the chairman load.
Lastly, as an added bonus to Vongraven admitting that my colleagues and I have been doing a good job in exposing the unsubstantiated hysteria around polar bear predictions of doom, the IcePeople article link to the NPI interview inadvertently led me to their ‘publications’ page (which I had not seen before). There you will find links to papers by NPI researchers and critically, pdf copies for download of many papers that are not otherwise available except by journal subscriptions. A gold mine. Thanks, guys!
Below: The CBC’s ‘The Politics of Polar Bears’ (from 2014), short version (the full length version has disappeared):
Earth is Approaching "Tipping Points" in Earth's Environment
"A drumbeat of recent reports has driven home the fact that our planet’s complex environmental systems are undergoing profound upheavals as a result of human activity.
Glaciers around the world, from Greenland to Switzerland to Antarctica, are melting faster than expected as atmospheric and ocean heat hit new highs.
New research suggests that up to half of the Amazon rainforest could rapidly transform into grasslands or weakened ecosystems in the coming decades as a result of deforestation, climate change and drought. Those stresses could eventually drive the entire forest ecosystem, home to a tenth of the planet’s land species, past a tipping point that would trigger a forest-wide collapse.
And a new study suggests that a crucial network of ocean currents that carries warm water into the North Atlantic is showing early signs of collapse because of an influx of fresh water from melting glaciers.
All of these developments appear worrisome on the surface. But, most concerning of all, they raise the specter that the planet may be approaching some of the so-called tipping points that could trigger severe and irreversible changes."
Earth is Approaching "Tipping Points" in Earth's Environment
"A drumbeat of recent reports has driven home the fact that our planet’s complex environmental systems are undergoing profound upheavals as a result of human activity.
Glaciers around the world, from Greenland to Switzerland to Antarctica, are melting faster than expected as atmospheric and ocean heat hit new highs.
New research suggests that up to half of the Amazon rainforest could rapidly transform into grasslands or weakened ecosystems in the coming decades as a result of deforestation, climate change and drought. Those stresses could eventually drive the entire forest ecosystem, home to a tenth of the planet’s land species, past a tipping point that would trigger a forest-wide collapse.
And a new study suggests that a crucial network of ocean currents that carries warm water into the North Atlantic is showing early signs of collapse because of an influx of fresh water from melting glaciers.
All of these developments appear worrisome on the surface. But, most concerning of all, they raise the specter that the planet may be approaching some of the so-called tipping points that could trigger severe and irreversible changes."
"Swedish farmers have now JOINED the European-wide farmer's protest. Something big, something historic, has been taking place all over Europe over the last few months. Farmers in 20 European countries have taken to the streets to protest against unfair policies driven in large by the climate agenda. If you have only been reading the mainstream media, you might not have realized how large these protests actually are.
I've been following this, and tens of thousands of farmers all over Europe have been protesting for months. They've blockaded Paris, they've blockaded airports, they've even built walls around government buildings in protests. These protests are nothing but historic, yet you barely see anything about it in the news.
The farmers are saying NO to the World Economic Forum agenda. Now, the protests have reached Sweden, with farmers taking to the streets with hundreds of their tractors, with some carrying banners reading "No farmers, No food, No future." It's estimated that hundreds of 9f tractors joined the protests in the Swedish region of Skåne.
You see, this all comes back to the UN Agenda 2030. They have outlined several "Global Goals" that is to be implemented all over the world in time for the year 2030. One of these goals is "Climate Action". And they have decided that farmers are polluting too much.
Instead, if you are to listen to the World Economic Forum, people should be eating insects and fake meat to save the planet. There was even a guest at this year's World Economic Forum who said that fishing and farming were akin to "ecocide" and should be "recognized legally as a serious crime". Yes, you read that correctly.
So, the plan is that you will eat fake meat and insects to save the planet. In reality, this is not much different from what happened under the Soviet Union. Stalin called farmers the "enemy of the people." The Communists seized the farmer's land. The result was that millions of people were starved to death. Now, we are seeing the elites wanting to seize control of the food supply in the name of climate change. Farmers are now once again being painted as “enemies” because they supposedly pollute the earth.
UNREAL SCENES Police tried to stop the farmers from protesting outside the EU headquarters in Brussels. Farmers used their tractors to break through the police barriers.
Today is Polar Bear Day! From a population of just 12,000 bears in the late 1960s, numbers have almost tripled to 32,000 in 2023!!! But, hey! weren't you told that your fossil emissions are killing them?
State of Polar Bear Report 2023 - with data from all agencies involved in estimating Population numbers. https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uplo...Bears-2023.pdf
The news comes from a new study linking the dramatic decline in this polar bear subpopulation in northeast Alaska and Canada to a loss of sea ice due to climate change action.
3. For most subpopulations with repeated censuses, data suggest a slight increase in the last 10-25 years (Study done in 2020 (?) - article is Nov. 13, 2020)
Today, polar bears are among the few large carnivores that are still found in roughly their original habitat and range–and in some places, in roughly their natural numbers.
Although most of the world’s 19 populations have returned to healthy numbers, there are differences between them. Some are stable, some seem to be increasing, and some are decreasing due to various pressures.
Status of the polar bear populations
Updated 2021 with data from the IUCN Polar Bear Specialists Group:
3 populations are in decline
2 populations are increasing
4 populations are stable
10 populations are data-deficient (information missing or outdated) In the future
By 2040, scientists predict that only a fringe of ice will remain in Northeast Canada and Northern Greenland when all other large areas of summer ice are gone. This “Last Ice Area” is likely to become important for polar bears and other life that depends on ice.
A projection of sea ice in the archipelago, supported by WWF, shows that much of the region is facing significant ice loss in the coming decades – with potentially serious consequences for polar bears.
Global polar bear numbers are projected to decline by 30% by 2050.
The news comes from a new study linking the dramatic decline in this polar bear subpopulation in northeast Alaska and Canada to a loss of sea ice due to climate change action.
3. For most subpopulations with repeated censuses, data suggest a slight increase in the last 10-25 years (Study done in 2020 (?) - article is Nov. 13, 2020)
Today, polar bears are among the few large carnivores that are still found in roughly their original habitat and range–and in some places, in roughly their natural numbers.
Although most of the world’s 19 populations have returned to healthy numbers, there are differences between them. Some are stable, some seem to be increasing, and some are decreasing due to various pressures.
Status of the polar bear populations
Updated 2021 with data from the IUCN Polar Bear Specialists Group:
3 populations are in decline
2 populations are increasing
4 populations are stable
10 populations are data-deficient (information missing or outdated) In the future
By 2040, scientists predict that only a fringe of ice will remain in Northeast Canada and Northern Greenland when all other large areas of summer ice are gone. This “Last Ice Area” is likely to become important for polar bears and other life that depends on ice.
A projection of sea ice in the archipelago, supported by WWF, shows that much of the region is facing significant ice loss in the coming decades – with potentially serious consequences for polar bears.
Global polar bear numbers are projected to decline by 30% by 2050.
Hi Bob,
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the WEF are heavily involved with the Worldwide Fund. The World Wild Life Fund has also collaborated closely
With the Eco Health Alliance through Fauci, NIH gave grants to the Eco Health Alliance that funded the Wuhan Institute of Virology to create the Sars-Cov2 virus together with several other labs, including the University of North Carolina and the Winnipeg level 4 bio lab.
Hence, the sources you are providing to make a case for a declining Polar bear population in Canada are conflicted and unreliable. The Trudeau Governments stats are also unreliable for the same reasons
"2023 marked 50 years of international cooperation to protect polar bears across the Arctic. Those efforts should be hailed as a conservation success story: from late-1960s population estimate by the US Fish and Wildlife Service of about 12,000 individuals, numbers have almost tripled, to just over 32,000 in 2023 (with a wide range of potential error for both estimates). •
There were no reports from the Arctic in 2023 indicating polar bears were being harmed due to lack of suitable habitat, in part because Arctic sea ice in summer has not declined since 2007. • Contrary to expectations, a study in Svalbard found a decrease in polar bears killed in defense of life or property over the last 40 years, despite profound declines in sea ice over the last two decades. •
A survey of Southern Hudson Bay polar bears in 2021 showed an astonishing 30% increase over five years, which adds another 223 bears to the global total. • A concurrent survey of Western Hudson Bay polar bears in 2021 showed that numbers had not declined since 2011, which also means they have not declined since 2004. Movement of polar bears across the boundaries with neighbouring subpopulations may account for the appearance of a decline, when none actually occurred. •
The IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group has ignored a 2016 recommendation that the boundaries of three Hudson Bay subpopulations (Western HB, Southern HB, and Foxe Basin) be adjusted to account for genetic distinctiveness of bears inhabiting the Hudson Bay region. A similar boundary issue in the western Arctic between the Chukchi Sea, and the Southern and Northern
Beaufort subpopulations, based on known movements of bears between regions, has been acknowledged since 2014 but has not yet been resolved. • The US Fish and Wildlife Service and the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group, in their 2023 reports, failed to officially acknowledge the newfound South-East Greenland bears as the 20th subpopulation, despite undisputed evidence that this is a genetically distinct and geographically isolated group. Numbers are estimated at 234 individuals."
Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Tuesday, 27th February, 2024, 02:45 PM.
"For the past year, oceans around the world have been substantially warmer than usual. Last month was the hottest January on record in the world’s oceans, and temperatures have continued to rise since then. The heat wave has been especially pronounced in the North Atlantic.
“The North Atlantic has been record-breakingly warm for almost a year now,” McNoldy said. “It’s just astonishing. Like, it doesn’t seem real.”
Across the unusually warm Atlantic, in Cambridge, England, Rob Larter, a marine scientist who tracks polar ice levels, is equally perplexed.
“It’s quite scary, partly because I’m not hearing any scientists that have a convincing explanation of why it is we’ve got such a departure,” he said. “We’re used to having a fairly good handle on things.But the impression at the moment is that things have gone further and faster than we expected. That’s an uncomfortable place as a scientist to be.”"
"For the past year, oceans around the world have been substantially warmer than usual. Last month was the hottest January on record in the world’s oceans, and temperatures have continued to rise since then. The heat wave has been especially pronounced in the North Atlantic.
“The North Atlantic has been record-breakingly warm for almost a year now,” McNoldy said. “It’s just astonishing. Like, it doesn’t seem real.”
Across the unusually warm Atlantic, in Cambridge, England, Rob Larter, a marine scientist who tracks polar ice levels, is equally perplexed.
“It’s quite scary, partly because I’m not hearing any scientists that have a convincing explanation of why it is we’ve got such a departure,” he said. “We’re used to having a fairly good handle on things.But the impression at the moment is that things have gone further and faster than we expected. That’s an uncomfortable place as a scientist to be.”"
Bob,
In your other thread, I recently posted a hypothesis involving a theoretical model in explaining a phenomenon of pairs of sub-atomic particles that tend to instantaneously correlate (i.e., spin in opposite directions) no matter what distance they are apart. They could be lightyears apart, yet one spins in one direction, and its partner billions of miles away spins exactly the opposite instantaneously. Correlation is many times faster than the speed of light; according to Einstein, it is a physical impossibility, and this perplexed him until the end of his life.
A few models have offered to explain this, but none can be proven or disproven. One idea was that the pairs are preprogrammed to spin at certain times opposite each other with no \communication at all. The problem with this idea is they would have to be preprogrammed with infinite scenarios for this to work. They would have to know in advance when exactly the other is going to change its spin. The main weakness is that this hypothesis can neither be proven nor disproven.
The great philosopher Karl Popper posited that the strongest hypothesis is easily falsifiable. Anyone can make up a model to fit the data, but as in the example above, if it is not easy to disprove, the model is of very little value. Note that the model Alicia and I posted offers a proposed experiment that can easily prove our model to be wrong. That makes it a much stronger hypothesis, and that is the essence of what science is about!
The hypothesis is that even though the Sun is 100 times larger than the Earth, we can somehow modulate the climate by reducing or increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere as if it is a thermostat button (CO2 only forms .04 percent of the atmosphere.). The problem with this hypothesis is that it can neither be proven nor disproven that this tiny percentage of the atmosphere (.04 percent) is a thermostat button. One easy hypothesis to prove or disprove is that if we go below .02 percent, all vegetation on Earth dies, including all humans, as a result.
So now let me give you an example of a climate change hypothesis that has been proven last year. The IPCC estimates of temperatures consist of gathering temperature in a mix of urban and rural weather stations. This tends to skew the average temperature upwards; urban areas are always warmer because of the man-made energy generated to heat them. Yet urban areas only cover around 3% of the earth's land surface at a maximum.
Dr. William Soon painstakingly took out urban areas and only looked at temperature data for rural areas and found that the average temperature increase per century is indeed only.55 degrees compared to the grossly inflated IPCC estimates of .8 degrees plus per century This, lines up well with the UK temperature that I showed earlier, which goes up only .5 degrees per century. Not only that but this rural data showed that during some period in the mid-twentieth century when CO2 was going up temperature was going down. No correlation was found with CO2 emissions and temperature data that is non-urban.
in other words attributing global warming to CO2 emissions when it is puffed up data by artificially heated cities is a gross misrepresentation of the data.
New study suggests global warming could be mostly an urban problem
Updated: Oct 3, 2023
A new study published in the scientific peer-reviewed journal, Climate, by 37 researchers from 18 countries suggests that current estimates of global warming are contaminated by urban warming biases.
The study also suggests that the solar activity estimates considered in the most recent reports by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) likely underestimated the role of the Sun in global warming since the 19th century.
It is well-known that cities are warmer than the surrounding countryside. While urban areas only account for less than 4% of the global land surface, many of the weather stations used for calculating global temperatures are located in urban areas. For this reason, some scientists have been concerned that the current global warming estimates may have been contaminated by urban heat island effects. In their latest report, the IPCC estimated that urban warming accounted for less than 10% of global warming. However, this new study suggests that urban warming might account for up to 40% of the warming since 1850.
The study also found that the IPCC’s chosen estimate of solar activity appeared to have prematurely ruled out a substantial role for the Sun in the observed warming.
When the authors analysed the temperature data only using the IPCC’s solar dataset, they could not explain any of the warming since the mid-20th century. That is, they replicated the IPCC’s iconic finding that global warming is mostly human-caused. However, when the authors repeated the analysis using a different estimate of solar activity – one that is often used by the scientific community – they found that most of the warming and cooling trends of the rural data could actually be explained in terms of changing solar activity.
The lead author of the study, Dr. Willie Soon, of the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES-Science.com) described the implications of their findings,
“For many years, the general public has been assuming that the science on climate change is settled. This new study shows that this is not the case.”
Another author of the study, Prof. Ana Elias, the Director of the Laboratorio de Ionosfera, Atmósfera Neutra y Magnetosfera (LIANM) at the Universidad Nacional de Tucumán, Argentina, explained:
“This analysis opens the door to a proper scientific investigation into the causes of climate change.”
This study finds similar conclusions to another study that was recently published in a separate scientific peer-reviewed journal, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics. This other study involved many of the same co-authors (led by Dr. Ronan Connolly, also at the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences). It took a different approach to analysing the causes of climate change – using an additional 25 estimates of solar activity and three extra temperature estimates.
For media inquiries, please contact Dr. Ronan Connolly (Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences) at ronan@ceres-science.com.
Links to both studies mentioned:
W. Soon, R. Connolly, M. Connolly, S.-I. Akasofu, S. Baliunas, J. Berglund, A. Bianchini, W.M. Briggs, C.J. Butler, R.G. Cionco, M. Crok, A.G. Elias, V.M. Fedorov, F. Gervais, H. Harde, G.W. Henry, D.V. Hoyt, O. Humlum, D.R. Legates, A.R. Lupo, S. Maruyama, P. Moore, M. Ogurtsov, C. ÓhAiseadha, M.J. Oliveira, S.-S. Park, S. Qiu, G. Quinn, N. Scafetta, J.-E. Solheim, J. Steele, L. Szarka, H.L. Tanaka, M.K. Taylor, F. Vahrenholt, V.M. Velasco Herrera and W. Zhang (2023). "The Detection and Attribution of Northern Hemisphere Land Surface Warming (1850–2018) in Terms of Human and Natural Factors: Challenges of Inadequate Data", Climate, 11(9), 179; https://doi.org/10.3390/cli11090179. (Open access).
R. Connolly, W. Soon, M. Connolly, S. Baliunas, J. Berglund, C.J. Butler, R.G. Cionco, A.G. Elias, V. Fedorov, H. Harde, G.W. Henry, D.V. Hoyt, O. Humlum, D.R. Legates, N. Scafetta, J.-E. Solheim, L. Szarka, V.M. Velasco Herrera, H. Yan and W.J. Zhang (2023). "Challenges in the detection and attribution of Northern Hemisphere surface temperature trends since 1850". Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23(10), 105015. https://doi.org/10.1088/1674-4527/acf18e. (Open access).
Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Wednesday, 28th February, 2024, 11:26 AM.
Dutch political commentator, Eva Vlaardingerbroek: Unelected globalists are using the pretext of "reducing nitrogen emissions" to shut down the global farming industry, so people will have no choice but to eat insects and lab-grown "meat", under the banner of UN Agenda 2030. "The people behind this want to establish a one world government, a 'New World Order', in which they decide what we eat, when we eat, where we travel, when we travel, who we meet, and what we are allowed to spend our money on. Basically, control over every single aspect of our lives." "They don't want us to eat foods that make us strong. They want us to eat synthetic meat created by Bill Gates. They want us to eat bugs, they want us to drink soy milk, so that we become weak and obedient, and we do as they say."
"The hypothesis is that even though the Sun is 100 times larger than the Earth, we can somehow modulate the climate by reducing or increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere as if it is a thermostat button (CO2 only forms .04 percent of the atmosphere.). The problem with this hypothesis is that it can neither be proven nor disproven that this tiny percentage of the atmosphere (.04 percent) is a thermostat button."
[A side issue, though an important one: "One easy hypothesis to prove or disprove is that if we go below .02 percent, all vegetation on Earth dies, including all humans, as a result."
Anthropogenic Negative Climate Change Response
Statistics Lie
I assume Sid is correct that given the Earth's atmosphere from soil to space, the AVERAGE proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere is 4%.
So what.........?
Averages destroy the fact of concentrations existing in reality, as opposed to pure mathematics creating a totally uniform model.
So what is in fact happening is not THROUGHOUT the whole atmosphere! There is a problem due to concentration of CO2 (And other greenhouse gases) at a particular level of Earth's atmosphere.
What man is doing, is, approximately half-way up the atmosphere, creating a concentration of certain gases. And so half-way up the atmosphere, encircling the whole earth, is the start of the "egg shell" - this is a belt or canopy that is being generated that is "different" from the rest of the diffuse atmosphere. This shell is transparent but of a higher density than the atmosphere below it and above it, re the particular gases of concern.
It is an agglomeration of gases (Methane, CO2, etc.) which allow through the solar energy of the sun. This solar energy heats the atmosphere and Earth's soil. In the past, the heat energy has then been reflected back into the vacuum of space. So there was relative stability of Earth's temperature re solar energy........we did have different long ages of rising and falling temperature, but this was due to other factors.
What is new, since the dawn of human industrialization (Around 1850), is the introduction of, and greater local intensification of, the "egg shell", the greenhouse gas canopy.
Consequence
Now what is happening is that the Earth's reflected heat is escaping LESS than it did into space. Very slowly and incrementally, the Earth/Atmosphere within the "egg shell/Greenhouse Gas Canopy" experienced rising heat/temperature, that was being TRAPPED!!
Conclusion
1. Man must pinpoint his human activities that are generating the most greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
2. He must, at some cost, but without total destruction of society, cease those activities which are producing these greenhouse gases.
3. Science (Mainstream) tells us that Earth has a "Tipping Point" with respect to the combination of factors that make Earth's Environment hospitable to man (And most other Earthly life). If man causes "CHANGE" to some of these factors, there comes a point at which Nature can no longer RETURN to its former state. In other words, a new PERMANENT Environment will be created.
4. Should man succeed in creating such a new, permanent Earthly environment, then man is on a slow suicidal curve towards extinction. Mainstream science says that humans (And much other life) will find that the new environment is totally HOSTILE to their continued existence on this planet.
"The hypothesis is that even though the Sun is 100 times larger than the Earth, we can somehow modulate the climate by reducing or increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere as if it is a thermostat button (CO2 only forms .04 percent of the atmosphere.). The problem with this hypothesis is that it can neither be proven nor disproven that this tiny percentage of the atmosphere (.04 percent) is a thermostat button."
[A side issue, though an important one: "One easy hypothesis to prove or disprove is that if we go below .02 percent, all vegetation on Earth dies, including all humans, as a result."
Anthropogenic Negative Climate Change Response
Statistics Lie
I assume Sid is correct that given the Earth's atmosphere from soil to space, the AVERAGE proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere is 4%.
So what.........?
Averages destroy the fact of concentrations existing in reality, as opposed to pure mathematics creating a totally uniform model.
So what is in fact happening is not THROUGHOUT the whole atmosphere! There is a problem due to concentration of CO2 (And other greenhouse gases) at a particular level of Earth's atmosphere.
What man is doing, is, approximately half-way up the atmosphere, creating a concentration of certain gases. And so half-way up the atmosphere, encircling the whole earth, is the start of the "egg shell" - this is a belt or canopy that is being generated that is "different" from the rest of the diffuse atmosphere. This shell is transparent but of a higher density than the atmosphere below it and above it, re the particular gases of concern.
It is an agglomeration of gases (Methane, CO2, etc.) which allow through the solar energy of the sun. This solar energy heats the atmosphere and Earth's soil. In the past, the heat energy has then been reflected back into the vacuum of space. So there was relative stability of Earth's temperature re solar energy........we did have different long ages of rising and falling temperature, but this was due to other factors.
What is new, since the dawn of human industrialization (Around 1850), is the introduction of, and greater local intensification of, the "egg shell", the greenhouse gas canopy.
Consequence
Now what is happening is that the Earth's reflected heat is escaping LESS than it did into space. Very slowly and incrementally, the Earth/Atmosphere within the "egg shell/Greenhouse Gas Canopy" experienced rising heat/temperature, that was being TRAPPED!!
Conclusion
1. Man must pinpoint his human activities that are generating the most greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
2. He must, at some cost, but without total destruction of society, cease those activities which are producing these greenhouse gases.
3. Science (Mainstream) tells us that Earth has a "Tipping Point" with respect to the combination of factors that make Earth's Environment hospitable to man (And most other Earthly life). If man causes "CHANGE" to some of these factors, there comes a point at which Nature can no longer RETURN to its former state. In other words, a new PERMANENT Environment will be created.
4. Should man succeed in creating such a new, permanent Earthly environment, then man is on a slow suicidal curve towards extinction. Mainstream science says that humans (And much other life) will find that the new environment is totally HOSTILE to their continued existence on this planet.
Bob A (Anthropogenicist)
Originally posted by bob Armstrong}
assume Sid is correct that given the Earth's atmosphere from soil to space, the AVERAGE proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere is 4%.
So what.........? .
First of all you misquoted me the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is 400 PPM or .04% not 4%! If you want to debate me learn to count!
Originally posted by bob Armstrong
There is a problem due to concentration of CO2 (And other greenhouse gases) at a particular level of Earth's atmosphere.
You have ZERO evidence to prove this is a "problem." The evidence you have relied on is completely debunked in peer-reviewed papers. Besides learning to count
you need to learn to read If you want to have a rational debate. Read my post-1930 again and tell me what is wrong with Dr. Soon's paper. I am all ears!!!!!
Tweet
Comment