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.
"Each January, business and political leaders descend upon the Swiss ski town of Davos to warn against urgent threats to the global order. Each year, they identify climate change as a one of the top risks that the world faces.
And then, for a few days, they make pledges, speeches and impassioned calls to take rapid action and save the planet.
But does it do any good?
I’ve been coming to the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum for a decade now.
I’ve heard presidents pledges to “keep 1.5 alive,” a reference to the dangerous global warming threshold. I’ve heard institutional investors say they will pursue net zero goals. And I’ve heard Marc Benioff, the billionaire and chief executive officer of Salesforce, promise to plant a trillion trees.
All the while, emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, which are the main cause of global warming, have continued their inexorable rise. Last year was the hottest in recorded history, the first year in which global temperatures averaged more than 1.5 degrees Celsius warmer than preindustrial times.
And now, many of the corporations that made big climate pledges are walking back their commitments."
The New York Times - Climate Forward Newsletter - 25/1/23
Ivan Semeniuk is science reporter for The Globe. For this week’s deeper dive, he talks about a report that says 2024 was the hottest year ever measured.
In 2019, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a special report on the effects of global warming at 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels.
Many climate scientists saw the document as an important addition to the regular series of assessments on global climate that the IPCC puts out every five to seven years.
The Paris Climate Agreement – the international treaty that most countries are trying to adhere to in an effort to slow the rise in global warming – calls on countries to stay “well below” a warming of 2 degrees in the planet’s average global temperature and also pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees.
It’s fair to say that the wording around the two separate numbers is confusing. How much is “well below” 2 degrees, and why does 1.5 degrees matter if the target is already under 2 degrees?
The answer illustrates the tensions between what policy-makers say is possible and what scientists say is needed to prevent some of the more extreme effects of climate change. Back in 2019, when the climate had already warmed by more than 1 degree, the idea of keeping to 1.5 was looking like a very tall order. Since then, it has only grown more challenging."
2024 was another record breaking year in climate change. What else is new. :)
Sid points out the Tonga volcano eruption from 2022 likely impacts 2023 and 2024 spikes, but by how much? I don't know.
You must admit the 2023 2024 temperature spike is significant, but what would it be without Tonga 2022?
I wondered if Simon Clark would know, or at least speculate. Here is his wrap up for 2024 with some predictions for 2025.
Global Rising Temperatures (The Fact, regardless of the Cause)
"Last year’s [ 2024] global average temperature surpassed the long-term warming limit of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) since the late 1800s that was called for by the 2015 Paris climate pact. It eclipsed 2023’s temperature in the European database by an eighth of a degree Celsius (more than a fifth of a degree Fahrenheit). Until the last couple of super-hot years, global temperature records were exceeded only by hundredths of a degree, scientists said.
The "Met Office" fails to mention the cause of the unprecedented 2023/24 temperature peaks, which were most likely caused by the unprecedented Hunga Tonga volcano's stratospheric water-vapor -- and not man-made CO2.
Touting 2024 as the warmest ever recorded, without mentioning the reason, can be very misleading in today's climate alarmist world. It should qualified by mentioning that the Hunga Tonga volcano caused the 2024 warming spike - the most significant eruption in modern history.
Global Rising Temperatures (The Fact, regardless of the Cause)
"Last year’s [ 2024] global average temperature surpassed the long-term warming limit of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) since the late 1800s that was called for by the 2015 Paris climate pact. It eclipsed 2023’s temperature in the European database by an eighth of a degree Celsius (more than a fifth of a degree Fahrenheit). Until the last couple of super-hot years, global temperature records were exceeded only by hundredths of a degree, scientists said.
Climate change skeptics have long advocated they would instead focus on clean water and clean air.
But it would seem from this latest pronouncement from Orange Donald that enough cash can sidestep any and all environmental protections.
This would be consistent with his promises to cut regulations, abolish the EPA, and "Drill Baby Drill".
But it violates his promises to MAGA base to protect clean water and air.
I guess we'll see in 2025 which promises he will honour. Promises made to his billionaire friends or the MAGA base?
Scientific Consensus on Anthropogenic Negative Climate Change
Nelson Guedes Post on his Fb Acct.- 24/11/27
Bob A (Anthropogenicist)
I researched the source of information from this post and found it is based on this article https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...48-9326/ac2774 that rehashes
a long-ago debunked and fraudulent paper on "consensus" by the same authors/SCAMMERS, including the lead author John Cook.
They misattributed thousands of papers in 2013 to scientific papers concurring with the concept of human-caused climate change, but when independent authors tried to reproduce this work, they found that this was a sham, and it is remarkable that they say they used the same methodology in the above article.I covered this in detail some time ago in the below post; It's a pity that apparently you don't have the attention span to read posts other than your own.
The next time your scientifically illiterate colleague on Facebook https://www.nelsonguedes.com/ wants to quote "statistics", he should learn how to
do scientific due diligence.
https://forum.chesstalk.com/forum/ch...427#post231427
The long and hard road to scientific truth cannot be followed by the trivial expedient of a mere head-count among those who make their livings from government funding. Therefore, the mere fact that climate activists find themselves so often appealing to an imagined and (as we shall see) imaginary “consensus” is a red flag. They are far less sure of the supposed scientific truths to which they cling than they would like us to believe. “Consensus,” here, is a crutch for lame science.
What, then, is the origin of the “97% consensus” notion? Is it backed up with research and data?
The earliest attempt to document a “consensus” on climate change was a 2004 paper cited by Al Gore in his allegedly non-fiction book, An Inconvenient Truth. (Gore attended natural science class at Harvard, but got a D grade for it.) The author of the cited paper, Naomi Oreskes, asserted that 75% of nearly 1,000 papers she had reviewed on the question of climate change agreed with the “consensus” proposition favored by the IPCC: “Most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.” None, she maintained, dissented from this line of reasoning.
The Oreskes paper came to the attention of Klaus-Martin Schulte, an eminent London surgeon, who had become concerned with the adverse health effects of his patients from their belief in apocalyptic global warming.
Professor Schulte decided to update Oreskes’ work. However, he found that only 45% of several hundred papers endorsed the “consensus” position. He concluded: “There appears to be little basis in the peer-reviewed scientific literature for the degree of alarm on the issue of climate change which is being expressed in the media and by politicians, now carried over into the medical world and experienced by patients.”
The primary paper that is often trotted out in support of the notion of “97% consensus” was written by John Cook and his merry band of climate extremists. Published in 2013, it is the most widely referenced work on the subject of climate consensus and has been downloaded more than 1.3 million times.
Cook runs a climate website that is a smorgasbord of climate fear rhetoric, specializing in attacks—often personal and spiteful in tone—on all who have proven effective in leading others to stray from the dogma of impending climate doom.
The project was self-described as “a ‘citizen science’ project by volunteers contributing to the website.” The team consisted of 12 climate activists who did not leave their climate prejudices at home. These volunteers, many of whom had no training in the sciences, said they had “reviewed” abstracts from 11,944 peer-reviewed papers related to climate change or global warming, published over the 21 years 1991 – 2011, to assess the extent to which they supported the “consensus view” on climate change. As Cook’s paper said,
“We analysed a large sample of the scientific literature on global CC [climate change], published over a 21-year period, in order to determine the level of scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW).”
The paper concluded,
“Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW [anthropogenic global warming], 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. … Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”
The paper asserted—falsely, as it turned out—that 97% of the papers the reviewers examined had explicitly endorsed the opinion that humans are causing the majority of the warming of the last 150 years.
When one looks at the data, one finds that 7,930 of the papers took no position at all on the subject and were arbitrarily excluded from the count on this ground. If we simply add back all of the papers reviewed, the 97% claimed by Cook and his co-authors falls to 32.6%.
A closer look at the paper reveals that the so-called “97%” included three categories of endorsement of human-caused climate change (Figure 1). Only the first category amounted to an explicit statement that humans are the primary cause of recent warming. The second and third categories would include most skeptics of catastrophic anthropogenic warming, including the scientists of the CO2 Coalition, who accept that increasing CO2 is probably causing some, probably modest, amount of warming; an amount that is likely rendered insignificant by natural causes of warmer weather. Only by casting a wide net could Cook conclude that there is any type of “consensus.”
Figure 1 – Categories of endorsement – Cook 2013
Agnotology is defined as “the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead.” This is how David Legates and his co-authors (2015) describe the Cook paper and similar attempts falsely to promote the notion of broad scientific consensus surrounding the subject of a looming, man-made, climate apocalypse.
They reviewed the actual papers used by Cook and found that only 0.3% of the 11,944 abstracts and 1.6% of the smaller sample that excluded those papers expressing no opinion endorsed man-made global warming as they defined it. Remarkably, they found that Cook and his assistants had themselves marked only 64 papers—or 0.5% of the 11,944 they said they had reviewed—as explicitly stating that recent warming was mostly man-made (Figure 2). Yet they stated, both in the paper itself and subsequently, that they had found a “97% consensus” explicitly stating that recent warming was mostly man-made.
Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Friday, 29th November, 2024, 09:29 AM.
Weather Extremes & Negative Climate Change (Whatever the cause, it IS happening)
I. Americas - New York City, State of New York, USA
"NYC issues first drought warning in 22 years, pauses aqueduct repairs to bring in more water.
New York City on Monday issued its first drought warning in 22 years after months of little rain -- and will restart the flow of drinking water from an out-of-service aqueduct as supplies run low.
Dry conditions across the Northeast have been blamed for hundreds of brush fires. They had already prompted New York City and state officials to implement water-conservation protocols when Mayor Eric Adams upgraded the drought warning and temporarily halted a $2 billion aqueduct repair project that had stopped drinking water from flowing from some reservoirs in the Catskill region."
"Residents of the Northeast United States are not accustomed to worrying about drought. Indeed, the Gulf Stream reliably dumps moisture on the region — except when it doesn’t.
Lately the Northeast, along with large swaths of the rest of the country, has been afflicted by unusually dry conditions; parts of some states, including Massachusetts, New York and Connecticut, have even reached “severe drought” status. And when long stretches of dry weather combine with heat and wind, you also have to worry about wildfires.
In a guest essay published on Monday, the author and journalist John Vaillant, who grew up in Massachusetts, describes the baffling transformation of the region this fall into a place battling hundreds of wildfires, some of them thousands of acres in size, with no end in sight. While brush fires in the fall are common in the region, what’s different this year is that there are far more than usual, and bigger ones than usual, and some are proving unusually difficult to fight."
Bob A (Anthropogenicist - contributed to by human activity)
As per Google's "perplexity" sevrice, you are not reporting anything close to record levels or anything particularly remarkable, Of course you were stupid eonough to believe legacy Main Stream Media as they reported fraudulent polls for months and still do. Legacy Main stream Media lies WHAT A RADICAL IDEA!
In the United States what year was the hottest day in California history recorded since thermometer temperatures were used?
The hottest temperature ever recorded in California since reliable thermometer measurements began was 134°F (56.7°C), which occurred on July 10, 1913 at Furnace Creek in Death Valley 5 6
. This temperature also stands as the world record for the highest reliably measured air temperature on Earth.Some key points about this record:
It was recorded at Greenland Ranch (now called Furnace Creek) in Death Valley, California
.
The date was July 10, 1913
.
This 134°F (56.7°C) reading is recognized by the World Meteorological Organization as the hottest temperature ever recorded on Earth
Death Valley consistently experiences extremely high temperatures, holding many heat records
While there have been other very hot days recorded in California since then, none have surpassed this 1913 record. For example:
On July 9, 2021, Death Valley reached 130°F (54.4°C), which was one of the highest reliably recorded temperatures in recent years 3
.
The highest temperature recorded in Los Angeles was 113°F (45°C) on September 27, 2010 7
.
So in summary, 1913 remains the year when California (and the world) experienced its hottest reliably measured temperature of 134°F, a record that has stood for over a century.
What Year was the largest wildifire in USA and in what state?
Based on the search results provided, the largest wildfire in U.S. history occurred in 1910, known as the Great Fire of 1910. This fire burned approximately 3 million acres across Idaho and Montana 2 4
.Key points about the Great Fire of 1910:
It is also known as the "Big Burn" or "Big Blowup."
The fire affected areas in western Montana and northern Idaho.
It burned around 3 million acres (approximately 1.2 million hectares) of land.
The fire occurred over just two days, from August 20-21, 1910
.
It's worth noting that wildfire size estimates from historical events can be less precise than modern measurements. However, based on the available information, the Great Fire of 1910 remains recognized as the largest single wildfire event in U.S. history.
What Year in the USA was the most destructive Tornado?
Sources
Deadliest Tornadoes in History - America's Worst vs World's Wors
Answer
Based on the information provided in the search results, the most destructive tornado in US history occurred on March 18, 1925. This tornado is known as the Tri-State Tornado, and it holds several records:
Deadliest single tornado in US history: It claimed 695 lives (though some sources report 689)
.
Longest path length: The tornado traveled 219 miles (352 km) across Missouri, Illinois, and Indiana
Longest duration: It lasted about 3.5 hours
.
Fastest forward speed: It moved at an average speed of 62 mph, with peak speeds reaching 73 mph
.
Estimated wind speeds: Possibly in excess of 300 mph
.
Destruction: The tornado destroyed approximately 15,000 homes and devastated numerous towns along its path
This F5 tornado (on the Fujita Scale) remains unparalleled in US history in terms of its destructive power, path length, and fatalities. It caused widespread devastation across three states and left an indelible mark on American weather history
What year was the most destructive flood in US history?
Answer
Based on the information provided in the search results, the most destructive flood in US history in terms of overall impact and damage was the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927. Here are the key points about this flood:
It was the most destructive river flood in the history of the United States
The flood inundated 27,000 square miles (70,000 km²) of land, with depths up to 30 feet in some areas
.
It lasted for several months in early 1927
.
The estimated cost of damage ranged from $246 million to $1 billion at the time, which would be equivalent to $4.2–$17.3 billion in 2023 dollars
About 500 people died, and over 630,000 people were directly affected
It displaced more than 200,000 African Americans from their homes along the Lower Mississippi River
.
The flood broke levees along the river in at least 145 places
.
It left more than 700,000 people homeless
While there have been other significant floods in US history, such as the Great Flood of 1993
, the 1927 Mississippi Flood stands out as the most destructive in terms of its overall impact, area affected, and long-term consequence
Baaed on thermometer based data what year was the coldest day in US history?
Sources
Answer
Based on the search results provided, the coldest temperature ever recorded in the United States using thermometer-based data was -80 degrees Fahrenheit (-62.2°C) on January 23, 1971, at Prospect Creek, Alaska
.For the contiguous United States (excluding Alaska), the coldest temperature ever recorded was -70 degrees Fahrenheit (-56.7°C) on January 20, 1954, at Rogers Pass, Montana
What year was the singe most devasting drought in United States history and in New York State
Answer
Based on the information provided in the search results, there isn't a single clear-cut answer for the most devastating drought year in United States history or New York State specifically. However, we can identify some significant drought events:For the United States overall:
The Dust Bowl of the 1930s, particularly 1930-1936, is often considered one of the worst environmental disasters in U.S. history, affecting large areas of the central United States
.
The medieval megadroughts from around 800 to 1400 AD were extremely severe and long-lasting, particularly in the American Southwest
The drought of 1988 affected 36% of the United States and caused an estimated $39 billion in damages.
Czech Climate Conference Rejects Emergency
In November 2024, the Czech division of the international Climate Intelligence Group (Clintel) organized a two-day climate conference in Prague, which resulted in a declaration stating that there is no climate emergency. The conference, attended by prominent scientists and researchers, concluded that:
1. The modest increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration since the Little Ice Age has been net-beneficial to humanity, and foreseeable future increases will likely also prove beneficial.
2. The rate and amplitude of global warming have been and will continue to be appreciably less than climate scientists have long predicted.
3. The Sun, and not greenhouse gases, has contributed and will continue to contribute the overwhelming majority of global temperature.
4. Geological evidence compellingly suggests that the rate and amplitude of global warming during the industrial era are neither unprecedented nor unusual.
The conference also criticized the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for its methodology and conclusions, stating that it:
1. Fails to comply with its own error-reporting protocol.
2. Draws conclusions that are dishonest.
3. Should be forthwith dismantled.”
“Additionally, the conference emphasized that even if all nations were to move directly to net-zero emissions by 2050, the world would only be about 0.1°C cooler than with no emissions reduction. The estimated global cost of achieving net-zero emissions would be approximately $2 quadrillion, equivalent to 20 years’ global annual GDP.
This declaration reflects the views of Clintel, a group founded by emeritus professor of geophysics Guus Berkhout and science journalist Marcel Crok, which aims to generate knowledge and understanding of climate change and its effects on policy. The organization has published the World Climate Declaration, signed by over 1950 scientists and experts worldwide, stating that “there is no climate emergency”.
So, according to this group, the trillions of taxpayers’ money spent for higher energy bills from renewables is based on lies. All those materials and rare earth metals and minerals – wasted and instead of t-shirt, all our electricity bills are four times what they should be!
The spending of three trillion bucks a year for 25 years will not result in any significant change in global average tempartures!!!
Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Tuesday, 26th November, 2024, 08:24 PM.
Weather Extremes & Negative Climate Change (Whatever the cause, it IS happening)
I. Americas - New York City, State of New York, USA
"NYC issues first drought warning in 22 years, pauses aqueduct repairs to bring in more water.
New York City on Monday issued its first drought warning in 22 years after months of little rain -- and will restart the flow of drinking water from an out-of-service aqueduct as supplies run low.
Dry conditions across the Northeast have been blamed for hundreds of brush fires. They had already prompted New York City and state officials to implement water-conservation protocols when Mayor Eric Adams upgraded the drought warning and temporarily halted a $2 billion aqueduct repair project that had stopped drinking water from flowing from some reservoirs in the Catskill region."
"Residents of the Northeast United States are not accustomed to worrying about drought. Indeed, the Gulf Stream reliably dumps moisture on the region — except when it doesn’t.
Lately the Northeast, along with large swaths of the rest of the country, has been afflicted by unusually dry conditions; parts of some states, including Massachusetts, New York and Connecticut, have even reached “severe drought” status. And when long stretches of dry weather combine with heat and wind, you also have to worry about wildfires.
In a guest essay published on Monday, the author and journalist John Vaillant, who grew up in Massachusetts, describes the baffling transformation of the region this fall into a place battling hundreds of wildfires, some of them thousands of acres in size, with no end in sight. While brush fires in the fall are common in the region, what’s different this year is that there are far more than usual, and bigger ones than usual, and some are proving unusually difficult to fight."
Chris Wright is eminently qualified with a BSc in Engineering from MIT and a Masters Degree in Electrical Engineering from Berkley. His position "of no climate emergency" is supported by massive empirical data .......
and the opposite camp is supported by massive empirical data as well.
If the climate emergency is real, Trump will no doubt speed up the process. We'll see.
Leave a comment: