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.
Homework For BobA
Understand this graph:
Summary: Going from 400PPM (where we are now) to 800PPM of CO2 has no additional heat trapped as
the heat is fully absorbed in the first 400PM.
Physically proven https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwar...ative_transfer
Proposed Statement 10 -Additional carbon beyond 400 PPM where we are today has no impact on the climate as all heat is absorbed in the first 400 PPM
Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Monday, 14th August, 2023, 11:49 PM.
Secondly, the statement does not take any position on whether or not farming DOES have a negative effect on climate. It is clear that this requires an entirely new separate statement if any version can gain general acceptability.
Proposed Statement 9 -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.
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.
No, the Canadian governments (Federal and Provincial and local) did not have "sufficient resources".
But this is partly because Canada has had a record number of wildfires this year so far.
And fire officials are saying that increased numbers of wildfires per month will continue through to the end of the wildfire season this year.
This is due to climate change & global warming (Whether Anthropogenic or Natural; and despite the undocumented arguments of Climate Change Naturalists that the "majority" of wild fires are deliberate arson by climate-freaked lefties).
I have a young relative who is an Ontario wild-fire fighter, and has been for a few years. He has not advised me of any deliberate arson case allegations in his area. There are some that it is suspected were accidental related to campers.
Bob A (Anthropogenicist)
Originally posted by Bob Armstrong
despite the undocumented arguments of Climate Change Naturalists that the "majority" of wild fires are deliberate arson by climate-freaked lefties).
LOL!!!!
Bob, I refer you to post 1373. Please check out https://forum.chesstalk".com/forum/ch...255#post227255. Of course, part of this very real evidence is "gasp" in a video format that you yourself have said you have "psychological problems" with. Yes, it is a really bad look to sit here and pontificate without ever having the courtesy to listen to the other side, only offering lame excuses for this discourteous and highly annoying tendency.
Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Monday, 14th August, 2023, 09:51 PM.
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").
Challenge - Sid Belzberg - Post # 1603 - 23/8/7
Executive Summary by Bob (As Group Secretary) - Organic Farming has been tried and failed. Also, farming has no effect on global negative climate change.
Defence - Bob Armstrong - Post # 1606 - 23/8/7
The definition of sustainable agriculture used does not explicitly say that this involves necessarily only organic farming. The definition leaves open the possibility that Non-Organic farming could be "sustainable". You yourself have argued that used correctly, certain fertilizers have no effect on health or the environment (With which I happen to disagree).
Secondly, the statement does not take any position on whether or not farming DOES have a negative effect on climate. It is clear that this requires an entirely new separate statement, if any version can gain general acceptability.
5. CT'ers Immediate Task
CT'ers of all stripes are now invited to propose amended statements, for the majority to choose between. You can also just post confirmation that you believe the particular statement to be true.
Take a hand at drafting "critical scientific statements"!
6.CT'ers' Local Action: Promotion of the Conversation on Negative Climate Change
You can do something! Promote the discussion on Negative Climate Change!
a. When you like one of this thread's links on an aspect of climate change, spread the news by posting it to your social media accounts and other Websites/Discussion Boards you participate in!
b. You can also re-post the tentative STATEMENTS above.
4. Negative Climate Change: The “Conversation” Project
All sides have been trying to come up with accurate statements on climate change that will gain general acceptance....we are using the "Conversation Format" protocol.
Under "The Conversation Format" protocol we have adopted in this thread, a proposed statement is given the benefit of the doubt that it is "generally accepted" when originally proposed. If not challenged during one week, then the Statement joins the other generally accepted Statements, without any discussion, nor Secretary ruling.
Should a proposed Statement be challenged, with reasons, then the originator of the Statement, and any other CT'ers here, must defend the Statement's truth. As well, the onus is on the Challenger to muster CT'er support for his/her challenge, to confirm that s/he is not the only challenger. The discussion will generally have one week to run from the date of the defence to the first Challenge.
The goal is not “unanimity”, though that would be nice. We only seek a substantial majority for a Statement to be “generally accepted
We have reached now 8 STATEMENTS in various stages of acceptance (See below).
All are a work-in-progress, though for some, there are no outstanding proposed revisions, and so they currently stand unchallenged, or challenges have previously been defeated. So, for this forum, a number of the statements are now “generally accepted” as “fact”.
"Generally-Accepted Statements on Negative Climate Change (Layman's Terms)"
(Following a "Conversation Format" protocol)
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.
Support - Bob Armstrong (Post # 1453 – 23/7/20 - slightly edited) - "Our new Commonly Accepted Statement # 1 does not play one way or another as to whether the rise in temperature is a “problem”. It merely states the fact that Naturalists agree with - their fact is that the average rising temperature is about .5 degrees C every 100 years.....that is "rising" temperature."
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.
Support 1 – Bob Armstrong – Post # 1485 – 23/7/22 [Lightly Edited]
“The post of Sid Belzberg (Post # 1296 – 23/4/29) "supports" 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.”
Support 2 – Bob Armstrong – Post # 1523 – 23/7/27
“The New Warming Climate State/Multi-Century Temperature Periods
Scientists concluded a few years ago that Earth had entered a new climate state not seen in more than 100,000 years. As fellow climate scientist Nick McKay and I recently discussed in a scientific journal article, that conclusion was part of a climate assessment report published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2021.
Earth was already more than 1 degree Celsius (1.8 Fahrenheit) warmer than preindustrial times, and the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere were high enough to assure temperatures would stay elevated for a long time.
“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.
Support 1 - Bob Gillanders (Post # 1468 – 23/7/19)
"Seems crazy and very hard to believe that they [Texas Governor, Greg Abbot,] would have to legislate employers to allow such breaks from a scorching heat work environment, but apparently that is the case. The water breaks since 2010 that Governor Abbott now wants to take away has reduced the death toll on workers significantly."
Support # 2 - Fred Harvey (Post # 1470 - 23/7/19)
"I have lived in the same town for 50 plus years (how dull...not). Amongst other things, I have seen the tomato growing season go from 2.5 months to 4 months. For 35 years we lived without air-conditioning....now not so much. Them's two facts that suggest significant warming."
Support # 3 - Bob Armstrong (Post # 1451 - 23/7/11)
"I, for one, believe we see "problems" for human living all around us every day, the world over, from rising heat levels (Regardless of arguing over why the heat is rising or the rate at which it is rising)."
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.
Support - Sid Belzberg - Post # 1296 (23/4/29)
"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.”
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.]
Challenge: Sid Belzberg - Post # 1296 (23/4/29)
"What is the source of your data and methodology concerning Co2 concentrations PPM in the atmosphere for the last 650,000 years? The data you refer to in statements 1 & 2 shows that rate of temp. Increase is a modest (.5 degrees per century) before and after manmade CO2 emissions.)
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.
Support # 1 - Bob Gillanders (Post # 1415 – 23/7/2)
“Scientists have been warning us about climate change (global warming) for decades. The science is very complicated, but we now have 50 years of data to support the premise that burning fossil fuels is the primary cause. We need to free ourselves from our dependence on fossil fuels. Our options include renewables (solar panels, windmills) and nuclear.”
Views
.....................................................2023 Average.... 2022 Average
Last Week's......Prior Week's........Views/Day..........Views/Day Views/Day........Views/Day.............(32 wks.)___________
Last week's stats continue to be well ahead of the 2023 average so far. There has been a bit less “response” activity, but, unexpectedly, viewership is up significantly!
There remains here, a steady interest in the critical issue of negative climate change. All sides of the issue are free to post material they claim to be in support (Though this thread was started by an Anthropogenicist). CT'ers are getting a good sampling of all that is out there. You decide!
Climate Change Thread “Responses”
There are lots of climate change articles out there, both on negative anthropogenic climate change, and negative natural climate change.
This thread encourages CT'ers on all sides to re-post here, as responses, the climate change posts of interest they see elsewhere. Overall, ChessTalker's have been quite active here in posting “responses” and it seems that chessplayers across Canada are wanting information on climate change, a challenge unlike any our species has ever faced before.
Note:
1. The goal of this thread is not to woodshed an opposing view into submission. Every position is entitled to post as it sees fit, regardless of the kind of, and amount of, postings by other positions. What is wanted is serious consideration of all posts........then you decide.
2. I personally, as the thread originator, am trying to post a new response at least every 2nd day, but admit my busy schedule means I am sometimes falling short on this. So it is great that a number of other CT'ers are posting responses here somewhat regularly.
2. The Anthropogenicist Position
The Pressing Climate Change Issue
The core issue:
Building a sense of URGENCY on this issue in society. We must realize that we cannot kick it down the road any longer!
The public is aware of the climate change issue.......
BUT.....
climate activists must find strategies to “AWAKEN” the public to the “urgency”.
It is expected, though somewhat disheartening, to see other negative issues of the day climb immediately to the top of the public's agenda, with climate change being sometimes substantially downgraded in importance. We will all pay for this.........
The Time Line
Nature's Tipping point is estimated to be, on current trajectory, only 8 years away (Around Jan. 1, 2031). Capping the temperature rise at only 1.5 degrees Celsius (the original international target) before then is now impossible (UN Climate Change Panel's most recent report in March, 2023). Their position is that the problem at this time is mostly due to human activity, not just “natural” warming, and that radical change in our method of living is the only way to avoid this rising, very problematic, temperature. UNCCP noted that current government deadlines were totally insufficient to solve the problem. CO 2 must be capped by 2025 since it is the main contributor to the problem! Methane is another greenhouse gas of concern, with some maintaining it contributes more to the problem than CO2. The extent of involvement in the greenhouse effect of water vapour is somewhat controversial.
Also, it has now become necessary to add in the process of CO 2 “removal”, along with “eliminating” the spewing of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere by human activity.
Our window of opportunity is fast closing.
The Large Picture Solutions
Can we come up with at least one viable suggestion of some impressive, radical thing that might wake up the public, that we could then put out there to other concerned climate activists?
3. The Naturalists' Position
Negative “Natural” Climate Change
This thread has had a number of CT'ers arguing for Natural Climate Change, and arguing that the human economic activity contribution to negative climate change is negligible. We are just in one of Nature's long warming cycles.
We would encourage everyone to consider the materials being presented, and then see whether they in any way change your perspective, if you are an adherent of negative Anthropogenic climate change. Whether you change anything, or not, your assessment of the evidence would be most welcome in this thread.
No, the Canadian governments (Federal and Provincial and local) did not have "sufficient resources".
But this is partly because Canada has had a record number of wildfires this year so far.
And fire officials are saying that increased numbers of wildfires per month will continue through to the end of the wildfire season this year.
This is due to climate change & global warming (Whether Anthropogenic or Natural; and despite the undocumented arguments of Climate Change Naturalists that the "majority" of wild fires are deliberate arson by climate-freaked lefties).
I have a young relative who is an Ontario wild-fire fighter, and has been for a few years. He has not advised me of any deliberate arson case allegations in his area. There are some that it is suspected were accidental related to campers.
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."
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...
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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: