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.
Actually I would suggest reading the climategate emails if you want a really good idea of how the climate scientists operate. I found them illuminating to say the least.
Your statement "the climate scientists" is gross extrapolation. A group does not constitute all nor is their behaviour an indication of the behaviour of all. Part of the illumination you found should be that there is a media war on the subject with falsehoods and exaggerations on both camps. The stats on climate change are serious and convincing enough that initiated guvernmental changes in most countries!! But CEI must fight this media war(lies and all) as climate change points to dramatic changes for those they defend.
Actually of course climate scientists predicted that sea ice near Antarctica would increase in total extent due to climate warming. This is for the same reason that when you put an ice cube in a glass of water it gets cooler, but it's such simple physics that I guess Vlad can't comprehend it.
Anyways..
On the theme of video 8 of the series, (pointed to by Bob Gillanders) we should apply this to our (CFC) rating system and adopt Mr. Glickman's system. http://www.glicko.net/
I have been debating this with the doomsday Malthusian environmentalists on the internet for over 20 years. I first hear of global warming and the greenhouse effect while being indoctrinated by an NDP indoctrination officer aka teacher in a school at the tender age of 7 or 8 when I was in grade 2. Starting with usenet we have discussed climate change, peak oil, running out of oil, collapse of the food supply, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. None of the doomsday predictions have come true. None of the doomsday predictions have come closer to coming true. The world oil reserves have gone up every year despite increasing demand and consumption. Technology has brought more oil sources online and has increased proven reserves in every year. My prediction for the next few years is that a new regime will come into the U.S. and talk of carbon exchanges and climate change will fade away as more and more coal burning power plants will be built in China and India where pollution will be worse than ever but there will be no discernable effect on world mean temperatures.
Last edited by Vlad Drkulec; Thursday, 18th September, 2014, 03:02 PM.
I have been debating this with the doomsday Malthusian environmentalists on the internet for over 20 years.
And in all that time you've managed to defend your complete and utter ignorance of simple and long known physics and chemistry. You are an impenetrable well of ignorance. To call what you do "debate" is to utterly confound the meaning of the word. you don't "debate", you rave.
By the way I have never met a "Malthusian environmentalist", whatever that is. I get my information from actual scientists.
And in all that time you've managed to defend your complete and utter ignorance of simple and long known physics and chemistry. You are an impenetrable well of ignorance. To call what you do "debate" is to utterly confound the meaning of the word. you don't "debate", you rave.
By the way I have never met a "Malthusian environmentalist", whatever that is. I get my information from actual scientists.
Methinks our new moderator may tan your hide, lad. :)
"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
"Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
"If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey
Of course, the website you give contains lots of information, so maybe I did not see what makes you think that global warming predictions fail again. However, I found quite a few texts stating the opposite, such as this one:
"In general, scientists are a pretty mild and inoffensive bunch. But over the last decade, one specific group of scientists has come in for a lot of criticism. So let's dive into the topic of 'the pause in global warming'.
In the USA, the Wall Street Journal wrote, "temperatures have been flat for 15 years - nobody can properly explain it."
Another newspaper from the same stable, the UK Daily Mail wrote "global warming 'pause' may last 20 more years, and Arctic sea ice has already started to recover". Both of these statements are very reassuring, but unfortunately, very very wrong.
With regard to this 'pause', there are two major claims made by those who deny the science of climate change.
The first one is that the climate is actually cooling - not warming. This is incorrect.
The second claim is that after some previous warming, the global climate is now constant, and neither warming nor cooling. In other words, that the climate is in a kind of holding pattern, or haitus. This is also incorrect.
So let's look at the claim that the surface temperatures have not increased since 1998.
But first, why the year 1998? Why not 1997, or 1999?
It turns out that the year 1998 was a very, very hot year. It took until 2005, and then 2010, until we had hotter years. The year 1998 was very hot due to a few factors. The major factor was that 1998 was the most severe example of an El Niño year for over a century.
El Niño?
In the Pacific Ocean, there is a repeating pattern of El Niño events and La Niña events. El Niño years are hotter, and here the Pacific Ocean releases its heat to the atmosphere.
On the other hand, La Niña events are cooler, and here the Pacific Ocean sucks heat from the atmosphere.
You can see how this could affect the global climate, especially when you consider that by itself, the Pacific Ocean is bigger than all the land masses on Earth added together.
Let me get back to 1998. In that severe El Niño year, the Pacific Ocean dumped about 42 zetajoules of energy into the atmosphere. (By the way, "zeta" means "1" followed by 21 zeros, so it's a really big number).
To put that into perspective, each year, the human race generates about half-a-zetajoule of energy in its power stations. The amount of heat energy that the Pacific Ocean released into the atmosphere in 1998 was about 80 times more than the energy generated by the human race in that calendar year of 1998.
So for a while, 1998 topped the charts for the hottest year on record.
We then had record-breaking heat waves in Europe in 2003. In 2010, the hottest year so far, the record-breaking summer heat and fires were responsible for the deaths of 50,000 people in Russia.
This was followed by record-breaking heat waves in the USA in July 2012, and in Australia in January 2013. Globally, in 2014, we had the hottest May and June ever on record, and the equal-warmest April. And let's not forget that 13 of the 14 warmest years on record have happened in the 21st-century.
Let me also point out that the hottest years on record ever, 2005 and 2010, happened during a La Niña-dominated period - when you would expect cooling.
So it's very wrong to claim that surface temperatures are cooling. It's also very wrong to claim that surface temperatures are constant. The climate is still heating up.
What is causing this heating? Various greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide trap the incoming energy from the Sun. The greenhouse gases let the Sun's energy enter the atmosphere, but stop some of it from leaving. The amount of extra heat trapped in the atmosphere by these greenhouse gases is equal to the energy released by some 400,000 Hiroshima atom bombs each day.
The current carbon dioxide levels are about 40% higher than they were in the 19th century. They are also at their highest levels for the last 800,000 years. Indeed, over the last 800,000 years, carbon dioxide levels stayed within the range of 170 - 280 ppm until the Industrial Revolution.
That makes the sudden recent jump to 400 ppm over the last two centuries really quite astonishing. In fact, in the year 2013, the carbon dioxide levels grew at the fastest rate ever measured since reliable global records began.
So why all the talk about the pause in climate warming? It turns out that if you try really hard to mangle the data, and cherry pick very skillfully, you can make a case"
On the top of the world - warming Arctic.
Those who live in Ottawa may attend the conference "Arctic Change" in December with all kind of topics. (it is not free) http://www.arcticnetmeetings.ca/ac2014
Some excerpts from program:
"Snow is a major actor in Arctic climate and ecosystems. Its high albedo strongly influences surface temperature and its thermal insulation properties largely determined permafrost thermal regime and the recycling of nutrients in the top soil. Snow also shelters vegetation and wildlife from harsh winter conditions. With climate change, snow physical properties are changing. For example, warmer conditions may be less favorable to the formation of low-density highly insulating depth hoar layers. On the other hand, shrub growth on tundra, a result of warming, limits snow compaction by wind, which favors depth hoar development. This example illustrates that many conflicting effects, directly or indirectly due to warming, will affect snow physical properties, and these in turn will feedback on climate and ecosystems in ways that are only beginning to be explored. Field, remote sensing and modeling studies addressing aspect of these snow-climate-ecosystems interactions are welcome."
"Permafrost is a widespread feature of Polar Regions that underlies virtually all of the non-glaciated terrestrial Arctic. Rising permafrost temperatures are of growing importance as an indicator of climate change and the impacts of permafrost thaw are of increasing concern in terms of carbon release to the atmosphere and the integrity of both northern ecosystems and infrastructure."
"Warming of the Arctic is rapidly altering the structure of aquatic ecosystems. One of the most significant consequences of this warming is the drastic reduction in the extent and duration of sea ice cover. As the aquatic environment opens up, increased light availability will lead to a parallel increase in total annual primary and secondary production. These changes are expected to enhance production and/or growth for some fish and invertebrate species while a decline is anticipated for other species, with implications for established and emerging fisheries, food security, and economic opportunities. For example, warmer temperatures coupled with the reduction of sea ice cover could favour the invasion of key sub-Arctic pelagic species (e.g., capelin Mallotus villosus, sand lance Ammodytes sp., Atlantic salmon Salmo salar) into the southern range of the Arctic. Those species are likely to compete with Arctic species (e.g., Arctic cod Boreagadus saida, Arctic charr Salvelinus alpinus) and have the potential to alter arctic food webs and nutrient cycling. The northward expansions of commercially important sub-Arctic fish stocks have already been documented, including Barents Sea cod (Gadus morhua), capelin and herring (Clupea harengus) in the Atlantic, as well as Bering Sea pollock (Theragra chalcogramma) and Pacific sand lance in the Pacific. In contrast to those species, the dynamics of established commercial and subsistence Arctic fisheries may be constrained by warming waters and are expected to retreat northward. Even though some areas will likely see abundance of endemic stocks decrease, fisheries resources are generally expected to increase in a warming Arctic."
First I refuse to be labelled a "Malthusian environmentalist". There has been many alarmists of the Malthusian type along with many that wanted to control public opinion for their own ends(regardless of human costs): Peak-oil, fat in your diet, food-supply collapse, cigarettes are ok , etc.
None of these have been solved by debate(political or other type). Too bad that teacher emphasized the headlines instead of the scientific method . We have all had that individual that got us to take a wrong path .But the solutions will be found by application of science only.
First I refuse to be labelled a "Malthusian environmentalist". There has been many alarmists of the Malthusian type along with many that wanted to control public opinion for their own ends(regardless of human costs): Peak-oil, fat in your diet, food-supply collapse, cigarettes are ok , etc.
None of these have been solved by debate(political or other type). Too bad that teacher emphasized the headlines instead of the scientific method . We have all had that individual that got us to take a wrong path .But the solutions will be found by application of science only.
Unfortunately the climategate emails gave us a good inside look at how the science is applied in this case and the view was not pretty.
Yes and they didn't bother asking Jones any hard questions because they claimed he was suicidal after losing all his data. How do you investigate something without grilling the person who is at the centre of it. In the case of Mann the people doing the investigation were the same ones who made millions from his presence at their university.
Tweet
Comment