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.
"Nobody’s Moving to US ‘Climate Havens.’ The Federal Government Could Help
Millions of Americans are migrating to cities that are exposed to higher risk of extreme heat, flooding and hurricanes. We need a plan to turn them around, now."
"Nobody’s Moving to US ‘Climate Havens.’ The Federal Government Could Help
Millions of Americans are migrating to cities that are exposed to higher risk of extreme heat, flooding and hurricanes. We need a plan to turn them around, now."
There is more than enough information (including misinformation) all around on potential climate disasters, etc. for citizens to see. And they are very capable of making decisions that are best for them. So let us keep the dirty hand of stupid 'government' out of this, please...
Last edited by Dilip Panjwani; Sunday, 14th July, 2024, 02:22 PM.
"But what stunned scientists wasn’t the temperature of the hottest day ever recorded, which was up slightly from last year, it was how much hotter than usual it’s been during the rest of the year, between these two summer peaks. Instead of returning to something close to normal, average global surface temperatures have remained stubbornly high for more than a year now."
"This summer tied with last year’s for Japan’s hottest on record, with the three months between June and August being 1.76 degrees Celsius hotter than average, the Meteorological Agency said Monday.
The second-hottest summer was in 2010, when it was 1.08 C higher than average, illustrating the extent of the heat this year and last as well as the upward creep in temperatures due to climate change. National records began in 1898."
"This summer tied with last year’s for Japan’s hottest on record, with the three months between June and August being 1.76 degrees Celsius hotter than average, the Meteorological Agency said Monday.
The second-hottest summer was in 2010, when it was 1.08 C higher than average, illustrating the extent of the heat this year and last as well as the upward creep in temperatures due to climate change. National records began in 1898."
Note: Hottest July on Record: most number of "extremely hot days" (35 C+) for a July.
Bob A (Anthropogenicist)
Bob, I have good news for you: a new paper debunks the climate alarmist view that human-driven CO2 has any impact whatsoever on atmospheric
carbon dioxide increase, the sea rules!
Multivariate Analysis Rejects the Theory of Human-caused Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Increase: The Sea Surface Temperature Rules
Dai Ato Independent researcher, Osaka, Japan ORCID:0000-0002-6049-5039
Abstract The impact of certain factors on the changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂) concentrations has yet to be elucidated. In particular, the impacts of sea surface temperature (SST) on the balance of CO₂ emissions and absorption in the atmosphere and the human use of fossil fuels have not been rigorously compared. In this study, the impact of each factor was examined using multivariate analysis. Publicly available data from prominent climate research and energy-related organizations were used. Multiple linear regression analysis was performed using the annual changes in atmospheric CO₂ levels for each year as the objective variable. The SST and human emissions for each year were the explanatory factors. After 1959, the model using the SST derived from NASA best represented the annual CO₂ increase (regression coefficient B = 2.406, P < 0.0002, model R² = 0.663, P < 7e-15). However, human emissions were not a determining factor in any of the regression models. Furthermore, the atmospheric CO₂ concentration predicted, using the regression equation obtained for the SST derived from UK-HADLEY centre after 1960, showed an extremely high correlation with the actual CO₂ concentration (Pearson correlation coefficient r = 0.9995, P < 3e-92). The difference was 1.45 ppm in 2022. In conclusion, this study is the first to use multiple regression analysis to demonstrate that the independent determinant of the annual increase in atmospheric CO₂ concentration was SST, which showed strong predictive ability. However, human CO₂ emissions were irrelevant. This result indicates that atmospheric CO₂ has fluctuated as natural phenomenon, regardless of human activity.
Should you do the right thing, even when you know that if you do the wrong thing, it is statistically irrelevant (& I haven't bought this argument yet)?
And it does appear true that increased atmospheric CO2 brings more problems than benefits (e.g. the creation of the non-porous canopy of greenhouse gases around the Earth).
Should you do the right thing, even when you know that if you do the wrong thing, it is statistically irrelevant (& I haven't bought this argument yet)?
And it does appear true that increased atmospheric CO2 brings more problems than benefits (e.g. the creation of the non-porous canopy of greenhouse gases around the Earth).
Bob A
Virtue signaling is a luxury we can not afford.
1) Money earmarked for big batteries, high-voltage transmission lines,
and wind turbines can now be diverted into health, improved living
standards, and elimination of poverty.
2) Legions of climate grifters can now spend their time in productive endeavors.
3) We won’t have to kill wildlife by destroying their native habitat by constructing wind turbines.
4) The little children will no longer have to be scared.
5) Carbon tax can be eliminated, and money can be allocated to enable people to start their businesses.
I can go on, but I am sure you catch my drift; this is a time to
rejoice and go back to cheap energy and prosperity.
"Greenhouse gases are those that trap heat in the atmosphere. SF6 and other fluorinated gases can be thousands of times more powerful at warming the planet than carbon dioxide, and yet, because they tend to escape in relatively small amounts, we hardly ever talk about them. Taken alone, their effects might be minor compared with those of carbon dioxide, but together, these gases add significantly to the challenge of addressing climate change."
"Greenhouse gases are those that trap heat in the atmosphere. SF6 and other fluorinated gases can be thousands of times more powerful at warming the planet than carbon dioxide, and yet, because they tend to escape in relatively small amounts, we hardly ever talk about them. Taken alone, their effects might be minor compared with those of carbon dioxide, but together, these gases add significantly to the challenge of addressing climate change."
Bob, it's over. The ocean's temperature drives CO2 concentration, and the other gases, such as methane, are in such small quantities that they are irrelevant despite higher radiative forcing power, as highly credentialed mainstream physicists have already proven in this thread.
The jig is up. Get over It! Time to peddle your thoroughly debunked, incredibly harmful bullshit elsewhere. One percent (human driven) of .04 percent of "greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere are not a control knob to the climate. We now have reproducible evidence to prove it; Reproducible empirical data is what drives science.
"Consensus" is something scientifically illiterate journalists and power-hungry ignorant Marxists pretend drive science.
Even by your own fucked up ideas of "generally accepted," you already accepted the below despite your "best efforts'!
The two seminal papers by distinguished atmospheric physicists, William Happer of the Princeton University Department of Physics and William A. van Wijngaarden of the York University, Canada, Department of Physics and Astronomy prove that Methane and Nitrous Oxide emissions have no statistically meaningful effect on warming hence farming does not have anything to do with climate change.
Methane and Climate
Abstract
Atmospheric methane (CH4 ) contributes to the radiative forcing of Earth’s atmosphere. Radiative forcing is the difference in the net upward thermal radiation from the Earth through a transparent atmosphere and radiation through an otherwise identical atmosphere with greenhouse gases. Radiative forcing, normally specified in Watts per square meter (W m−2), depends on latitude, longitude and altitude, but it is often quoted for a representative temperate latitude and for the altitude of the tropopause, or for the top of the atmosphere. For current concentrations of greenhouse gases, the radiative forcing at the tropopause, per added CH4 molecule, is about 30 times larger than the forcing per added carbon-dioxide (CO2 ) molecule. This is due to the heavy saturation of the absorption band of the abundant greenhouse gas, CO2 . But the rate of increase of CO2 molecules, about 2.3 ppm/year (ppm = part per million), is about 300 times larger than the rate of increase of CH4 molecules, which has been around 0.0076 ppm/year since the year 2008. So the contribution of methane to the annual increase in forcing is one tenth (30/300) that of carbon dioxide. The net forcing from CH4 and CO2 increases is about 0.05 W m−2 year−1. Other things being equal, this will cause a temperature increase of about 0.012 C year−1. Proposals to place harsh restrictions on methane emissions because of warming fears are not justified by facts
C. A. de Lange1, J. D. Ferguson2, W. Happer3, and W. A. van Wijngaarden4
1Atomic, Molecular and Laser Physics, Vrije Universiteit, De Boelelaan 1081, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
2University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine, USA 3Department of Physics, Princeton University, USA
4Department of Physics and Astronomy, York University, Canada
November 10, 2022
Abstract
Higher concentrations of atmospheric nitrous oxide (N2O) are expected to slightly warm Earth’s surface because of increases in radiative forcing. Radiative forcing is the difference in the net upward thermal radiation flux from the Earth through a transparent atmosphere and radiation through an otherwise identical atmosphere with greenhouse gases. Radiative forcing, normally measured in W m−2, depends on lati- tude, longitude and altitude, but it is often quoted for the tropopause, about 11 km of altitude for temperate latitudes, or for the top of the atmosphere at around 90 km. For current concentrations of greenhouse gases, the radiative forcing per added N2O molecule is about 230 times larger than the forcing per added carbon dioxide (CO2) molecule. This is due to the heavy saturation of the absorption band of the relatively abundant greenhouse gas, CO2, compared to the much smaller saturation of the absorption bands of the trace greenhouse gas N2O. But the rate of increase of CO2 molecules, about 2.5 ppm/year (ppm = part per million by mole), is about 3000 times larger than the rate of increase of N2O molecules, which has held steady at around 0.00085 ppm/year since the year 1985. So, the contribution of nitrous oxide to the annual increase in forcing is 230/3000 or about 1/13 that of CO2. If the main greenhouse gases, CO2, CH4 and N2O have contributed about 0.1 C/decade of the warming observed over the past few decades, this would correspond to about 0.00064 K per year or 0.064 K per century of warming from N2O. Proposals to place harsh restrictions on nitrous oxide emissions because of warming fears are not justified by these facts. Restrictions would cause serious harm; for example, by jeopardizing world food supplies.
Tweet
Comment