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.
But 1936 was a dry heat, and with global warming we have more moisture now, so we need to be concerned with human tolerance to heat and humidity.
-Bob Gillanders.
On the positive side, we are now not experiencing the 'Dust Bowl'!
And also because of our moist conditions, the forest-fire arsonists (both the active and the passive) are less 'successful' than they would have otherwise been.
So relax, Bob G...
Absolutely correct; the 1936 summer heatwave is generally considered the most severe heatwave in U.S. history. It is often referred to as the "Dust Bowl" heatwave because it occurred during the Great Plains Dust Bowl era, exacerbating the drought and dust storms in the region.
The 2012 summer heatwave was also significant, however, while it was a severe event, it has not reached the same level of historical significance or severity as the 1936 heatwave.
Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Sunday, 30th July, 2023, 01:43 PM.
Absolutely correct; the 1936 summer heatwave is generally considered the most severe heatwave in U.S. history. It is often referred to as the "Dust Bowl" heatwave because it occurred during the Great Plains Dust Bowl era, exacerbating the drought and dust storms in the region.
The 2012 summer heatwave was also significant, however, while it was a severe event, it has not reached the same level of historical significance or severity as the 1936 heatwave.
Bob A, when your very busy life allows, it would be worth reading the above article before you waste your very precious time on climate change anxiety statements.
Last edited by Dilip Panjwani; Sunday, 30th July, 2023, 03:15 PM.
“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.”
If unchallenged for one week, our protocol is that the Statement is “generally accepted”.
Bob A (As Group Secretary – trying to capture the essence of much conversation earlier re Statement # 2).
Slight revision proposed by Group Secretary - incorrect wording and punctuation:
Old: From 1650 (200 years before the Industrial Revolution [Started: 1850]; 1650 is earliest global temperature recording), the Earth's mean temperature has been rising naturally (Earth has been in a natural warming cycle; it has gone through various cooling and warming cycles before this current warming one). There is surface temperature data for the period 1650 to 1850, and beyond, from the records of the UK Meteorological Observatory. Some propose that they are sufficient to use to analyze our increasing temperature problem.
Support - Sid Belzberg - Post # 1296 (23/4/29)
"Bob, concerning statement [4 – formerly 3] - Given that heart of the early Industrial Revolution started in the UK, where manmade CO2 emissions were significant, it is an excellent platform to analyze the data.”
New: 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.”
According to our protocol, if this is not challenged within one week, then it is considered "generally accepted".
Bob A (As Group Secretary)
Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Tuesday, 1st August, 2023, 12:31 AM.
Bob A, when your very busy life allows, it would be worth reading the above article before you waste your very precious time on climate change anxiety statements.
Really? Are you sure? I am likely misunderstanding what you are saying.
You are saying the Heat Index in USA was 4 times higher in the 1930's.
So, if say the USA heat index for 2023 is say 80 degrees F, then it was 320 degrees F back in the 1930's.
You can't actually be saying that. Please explain.
Really? Are you sure? I am likely misunderstanding what you are saying.
You are saying the Heat Index in USA was 4 times higher in the 1930's.
So, if say the USA heat index for 2023 is say 80 degrees F, then it was 320 degrees F back in the 1930's.
You can't actually be saying that. Please explain.
If you look at the Heat wave index graph in the link in my post, it was >1.2 at its peak in the 1930s, and around 0.2 otherwise. The average annual temp. and average annual heat index is very much lower than 80 F, I think.
Listen to Post Posted by EU Times on Jun 4th, 2023 //
The global climate cult is getting ready to kick its war on food into overdrive with 13 nations – many of them major cattle and food-producing states led by the United States, Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Spain – signing onto a commitment to place farmers under new restrictions intended to reduce emissions of methane gas.
The Global Methane Hub announced in a May 17 press release that agriculture and environmental ministers and ambassadors from 13 countries, including the United States, have signed a commitment that pledges to reduce methane emissions in agriculture. The U.S. was represented by Biden’s climate czar, John Kerry.
What does this mean and why should you care? We’ll break it down.
According to the press release issued by these nations and posted at Global Methane Hub:
“Last month (in April 2023), the Global Methane Hub collaborated with the Ministries of Agriculture of Chile and Spain to convene the first-ever global ministerial on agricultural practices to reduce methane emissions. The ministerial brought together high-ranking government members to share global perspectives on methane reduction and low-emission food systems. The gathering led to a statement in which the nations committed to support efforts to improve the quality and quantity of, and access to, finance for climate change adaptation and mitigation measures in the agriculture and food sectors and to collaborate on efforts aimed at lowering methane emissions in agriculture and food systems.”
Conference participants included the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Climate & Clean Air Coalition, Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture, the World Bank, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, and the Inter-American Development Bank.
The World Bank, another creation of the post-World War II, U.S.-led liberal rules-based order, has been talking a lot lately, along with the U.N., about a coming famine. The World Bank issued a white paper just last week, on May 22, titled Food Security Update: World Bank Response to Rising Food Insecurity.
The director of the United Nations World Food Program has also been putting out, starting in September of last year, dire warnings about a coming global famine.
So it’s curious to me that, at the very time the globalists are warning about food shortages and famine, their mouthpieces at the World Bank, the U.N., and within the administrations of the U.S. and its allies (notice China and Russia are nowhere to be found in these preposterous anti-food policies), are talking about converting over to a new and unproven form of “sustainable” farming that’s focused more on reducing methane than it is on producing the highest yields of food.
Modern food production is bad, they tell us, because it produces methane which supposedly harms the environment.
“Food systems are responsible for 60% of methane emissions,” said Marcelo Mena, CEO of Global Methane Hub. “We congratulate countries willing to take the lead in food systems methane mitigation and confirm our commitment to support this type of initiative with programs that explore promising methane mitigation technologies and the underpinning research of methane mitigation mechanisms to create new technologies.”
John Kerry is also very excited about taking valuable, productive farmland offline, reducing the size of cattle herds, and turning our food-production systems over to technocrats and globalists offering vague promises of “new technologies.”
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. is busy trying to mitigate methane emissions not just in America but worldwide, stating on its website: “The United States provides key leadership, funding and technical expertise for international methane emission reduction efforts, resulting in more than 1,140 methane mitigation projects through GMI as of 2021.”
In just one example, the Biden administration plans to spend $1.5 million in taxpayer funds on a program aimed at “empowering” female climate change activists in the “patriarchal” society of northern Kenya, documents reviewed by the Washington Free Beacon show.
John Kerry said in a statement, “Mitigating methane is the fastest way to reduce warming in the short term. Food and agriculture can contribute to a low-methane future by improving farmer productivity and resilience. We welcome agriculture ministers participating in the implementation of the Global Methane Pledge.”
The May 17 press release further states that, “The focus of the conference was the deployment of science-based practices, innovation, and technologies in line with sustainable food production…”
The nations signing onto this pledge to transform their farm policies are the United States, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Chile, Czech Republic, Ecuador, Germany, Panama, Peru and Spain.
The government of Spain will organize a second conference in 2024 to monitor and advance implementation efforts related to the statement and encourage more countries to join, according to the May 14 press release.
In order to save the planet from emissions that come from cow farts, they claim it’s necessary to force farmers to change the way they farm, converting their land and livestock to more “innovative” methods and “science-based practices.” These methods will need to be implemented not just on farms but throughout the “food systems.”
They never come out and say what these “innovative” changes are, only that they will be based on “new technologies” and “science-based.”
We can presume from this language that among the practices being considered are replacing a major portion of the beef and dairy cattle, pork and chicken stocks that populations rely on for protein with insect larvae, meal worms, crickets, etc. The U.N., World Economic Forum and other NGOs have been promoting meatless diets and the consumption of insect protein for years, and billionaires have invested in massive insect factories being built in the state of llinois, in Canada and in the Netherlands, where meal worms, crickets and other bugs will be processed as additives to be inserted into the food supply, often without clear labels that will inform people of exactly what they are eating. Bill Gates is also partnering with other billionaires to invest in the production of lab-grown meat, a process that involves using cancer cells from cows, chickens and pigs to quickly grow artificial meat.
Farmers will be increasingly forced off their land, as is already happening in the Netherlands, which is the world’s second leading net exporter of food after the United States.
All this will add up to a coming famine the likes of which has never been witnessed by the current generation of people on earth. It’s all by design. Globalists like Dennis Meadows, the author of the 1972 Club of Rome-endorsed book The Limits to Growth, informed us of the globalists’ plans to drastically depopulate the earth. His comments in the video below were made I believe in 2017.
“We can have 1 Billion people with freedom, or 9 Billion slaves. We’re at over 7 Billion right now, so we need to bring that down to 1 Billion.
I hope that culling can be peaceful and slow and equal between rich and poor.” -Dennis Meadows (author of Limits to Growth) Club of Rome pic.twitter.com/YEwV2ADF7L
— Global Freedom Movement (@GlobalFreedomM) April 18, 2022
Heat Waves are local, and have nothing to do with the mean temperature of the Earth's air/atmosphere. This is an average temperature, balancing all the various uniquenesses of various Earth geographic locations that affect heat variation.
Heat Waves are local, and have nothing to do with the mean temperature of the Earth's air/atmosphere. This is an average temperature, balancing all the various uniquenesses of various Earth geographic locations that affect heat variation.
Bob A (Anthropogenicist)
So please don't get anxious about a few heat waves occurring in 2023... despite MSM making a big, big fuss about it...
Dilip - Post 1554 (23/8/1) - "So [Bob] please don't get anxious about a few heat waves occurring in 2023... despite MSM making a big, big fuss about it..."
Response - The "Big, Big Fuss" is about Sid's contention that every century, the Earth's air/atmosphere temperature climbs by .5 degrees Centigrade. Even if I am not sure about this stat, I'm accepting it 'til I can contest it. We can likely expect, barring the current multi-century rising heat cycle suddenly reversing for some unknown reason, that it is going to get hotter in future.
Statement # 2 re Negative Climate Change:
Earth's mean temperature is now rising, has been for some time, and will likely continue to rise for some time in the future.
Finally, though I have had no time to do the heavy lifting research on temperature recording (Methods and Locations), nor, material contrary to the .5 degrees C average rise theory (Since 1650 [For 4 consecutive centuries], if I understand the Naturalists' position correctly - correct me if I'm wrong), I do fear that the recent rate of rise in air-atmosphere temperature is increasing (Despite having to accept Sid's "facts" for the moment).
Should my fear be found to be well-founded in future, then it is a "Bib,Bib,Big Fuss"!
Bob A (Anthropogenicist)
Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Tuesday, 1st August, 2023, 08:21 AM.
If you look at the Heat wave index graph in the link in my post, it was >1.2 at its peak in the 1930s, and around 0.2 otherwise. The average annual temp. and average annual heat index is very much lower than 80 F, I think.
Thanks for the explanation. Scaling of the y axis can certainly affect the readers impression, leading to either distortion or focusing on the key point. I am guessing 1.2 vs 0.2 means a difference of 1 degree between the peak in the 1930's and other years. I did click on your link, but I was blocked by requests to disable my ad blocker. I wasn't willing to do that.
The sign of a good scaled graph is the inclusion of the actual data points. Did you not see actual heat wave reading on the graph? Maybe Bob A can tell us.
So please don't get anxious about a few heat waves occurring in 2023... despite MSM making a big, big fuss about it...
Dilip, you are fundamentally misunderstanding the source of our climate anxiety.
We know climate change is real and mostly caused by human activity. Of course, I am speaking primarily about the past few decades.
The evidence is overwhelming, despite an enthusiastic minority who tell us otherwise.
Our climate anxiety is caused by the lack of an adequate response.
MSM making a big big fuss about it actually helps alleviate my symptoms. More and better coverage please.
Thanks for the explanation. Scaling of the y axis can certainly affect the readers impression, leading to either distortion or focusing on the key point. I am guessing 1.2 vs 0.2 means a difference of 1 degree between the peak in the 1930's and other years. I did click on your link, but I was blocked by requests to disable my ad blocker. I wasn't willing to do that.
The sign of a good scaled graph is the inclusion of the actual data points.
Bob G
Thanks for pointing that out, Bob G. What a data-fudged world we have... it is not new, though, theologians have been bluffing us for millennia...
Last edited by Dilip Panjwani; Tuesday, 1st August, 2023, 08:44 AM.
Dilip, you are fundamentally misunderstanding the source of our climate anxiety.
We know climate change is real and mostly caused by human activity. Of course, I am speaking primarily about the past few decades.
The evidence is overwhelming, despite an enthusiastic minority who tell us otherwise.
Our climate anxiety is caused by the lack of an adequate response.
MSM making a big big fuss about it actually helps alleviate my symptoms. More and better coverage please.
You are missing the point, Bob G:
Even if climate change is real, it is not worth being anxious about it, and MSM making a big, often fudged, fuss about it is getting boring...
Thanks for the explanation. Scaling of the y axis can certainly affect the readers impression, leading to either distortion or focusing on the key point. I am guessing 1.2 vs 0.2 means a difference of 1 degree between the peak in the 1930's and other years. I did click on your link, but I was blocked by requests to disable my ad blocker. I wasn't willing to do that.
The sign of a good scaled graph is the inclusion of the actual data points. Did you not see actual heat wave reading on the graph? Maybe Bob A can tell us.
A Wilson Center event featuring Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo was cut short when a group of climate change protesters barged in and interrupted Raimondo, video shows.
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Listen to this article
0:00 / 4:57
1X BeyondWords
Every summer, heat waves inevitably hit the U.S. and other parts of the world, causing climate alarmists and left-leaning media outlets to demand dramatic, disastrous changes to the global energy system. Unfortunately, this summer is no different.
On Tuesday, U.S. media outlets published a wave of stories about supposedly "historic" heat waves in Europe and North America. For example, The Washington Post published an article titled "Heat waves in U.S., Europe ‘virtually impossible’ without climate change, study finds."
Although certain parts of the U.S. have undoubtedly experienced strong heat waves this summer, there’s no reason to believe these weather events are evidence that the world is hurtling toward a climate change catastrophe. In fact, the best available evidence suggests that heat waves recorded a century ago were more problematic than anything we’re seeing today.
Climate change protesters are seen marching and chanting as they carry placards in Melbourne, Australia, on Nov. 6, 2021. Protests across Australia were organized as part of a global day of action demanding world leaders act decisively on climate to prevent catastrophic global warming. (Asanka Ratnayake/Getty Images)
Government researchers have been tracking heat waves for more than 100 years. According to data from the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, which is made available by the Environmental Protection Agency, the annual heat wave index for the contiguous 48 states was substantially higher in the 1930s than at any point in recent years. In some years in the 1930s, it was four times greater or even more.
Additionally, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has a large database of daily temperatures that goes back to 1948. NOAA used 1,066 weather stations located across the U.S. to collect this data.
According to NOAA, huge swaths of the U.S. have experienced a significant decrease in abnormally hot days recorded since 1948, especially in the Midwest and northern and eastern Texas.
Although it’s true that some parts of the U.S. have seen the number of hotter-than-usual days increase over the past 70 years — including in California and the New York metropolitan area, both of which happen to be areas where a large number of media outlets are located — most weather stations have shown no meaningful changes or even declines.
U.S. Annual Heat Wave Index, 1895–2021 (EPA)
Meteorologist Anthony Watts, who works with me as a senior fellow at The Heartland Institute, analyzed NOAA’s data in detail and found that 81% of the weather stations used in NOAA’s database reported that since 1948 there has been "either a decrease or no change in the number of unusually hot days."
If the available data so clearly reveal that there is no heat-wave crisis, why are media outlets suggesting the opposite is true? The answer is sloppy, irresponsible media reporting, combined with cherry-picked data.
Anyone who wants to show a long-term warming or cooling trend can do so by selectively choosing starting and ending points in datasets that will provide the answer you’re looking for.
For instance, if you start your examination of historic temperatures with figures collected in the 1970s, when temperatures were unusually low compared to the rest of the century, then current temperatures look abnormally high.
Video
If you start around 2010, then temperatures over the past decade appear to have dipped below "normal" and are only now recovering.
When many media outlets and left-wing politicians talk about climate change data, they almost always selectively choose a range that offers an incomplete picture of the larger available dataset. This makes it appear as though today’s temperatures are "historic" when they are actually well within normal historical predictions.
Another problem is that media outlets have been using temperature forecasts in their news reports as if those figures were actual temperature data. A forecast is, by definition, a guess, and some alarmist analysts have recently made a bad habit of incorrectly predicting insanely high temperatures that never come to fruition.
For example, the Telegraph, one of the largest papers in the U.K., published an article on July 18 in which the author claimed, "The European Space Agency said thermometers could tip 48C in Sardinia and Sicily, while the temperatures in Rome and Madrid could both reach the mid to high-40Cs. In drought-stricken Spain, temperatures were set to reach highs of 44C in Catalonia.
"If the available data so clearly reveal that there is no heat-wave crisis, why are media outlets suggesting the opposite is true? The answer is sloppy, irresponsible media reporting, combined with cherry-picked data.
None of these predictions came true. In fact, some of them were off by several degrees or more.
Heat waves happen every year, but this isn’t evidence that Americans are facing a global warming crisis. When heat-wave data are put into their proper historical context, it’s clear that everything humans are experiencing today has been witnessed in the past.
The ugly truth behind climate alarmism is that much of it is driven by a radical ideological agenda that is seeking to transform the global economy and American society, not by science. The best way to fight back against it is to use cold, hard facts. And those facts plainly show that there is no reason to panic about our ever-changing climate.
Tweet
Video
Comment