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.
15. Have fun!
(Thanks to Nigel Hanrahan for writing these up!)
For Those Who Enjoy Discussing Climate Change..... Not Chess Related
As an atmospheric scientist myself, I find it perplexing when philosophers make pronouncements about science. As a species, humans have the ability to induce changes of massive proportion on our world. How we deal with those changes is maybe the realm of politicians, economists, philosophers etc. and not the place of scientist. To claim a conspiracy by atmospheric scientist (fluid dynamicists, chemists, climatologists, etc.) is to really misunderstand how science operates.
The scientists studying anthropogenic climate change don't have any ax to grind. To call climate change a hoax is absurd.
I would listen to a well reasoned argument from you... with the presentation of scientific data to support your analysis... My comments above come from people who scream and yell outside economic summits because they hate 'globalization' and capitalism and use environmentalism as a way to bring in their socialist ideology.... all while using pressure tactics to get me to donate...
If you think all alarmists are nuts, go to the nearest beach, dig a hole in the sand and put your head in it. Get a friend to fill in the space with sand. If you start running out of breath, do not panic flailing your arms and legs about or people will think you're an alarmist. Simply hold still and the situation will resolve itself.
"Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you!"
Who said that?
I didn't say that I didn't believe in climate change, what I said is that many so called 'environmentalists' do NOT base their arguments on science but on a chicken little 'the sky is falling' to scare the gullible into giving them money... Kinda like the TV evangelists promising health and prosperity to those that donate money to them!
I will listen to any well reasoned argument by a credible source. And there are many scientists who have done just that... just pick up an issue of Scientific American or any other journal for a realistic base on climate change, not on a bunch of crackpots who tie themselves to trees and then use pressure tactics to coerce money out of you.
Re: For Those Who Enjoy Discussing Climate Change..... Not Chess Related
The climate system of this planet is obviously a highly complex system comprising of numerous interactions between atmosphere, oceans, and continents with a multitude of feedback effects. It will never be possible to completely understand it, and it has always been changing.
That being said, what we do know as a fact is that CO2 levels are rising exponentially, from a baseline level of 280 parts per million to a present level of about 390 ppm. We also know that human emissions from burning fossil fuels, etc. are at a level sufficient to account for this rise in CO2 concentration. We also know the spectroscopy characteristics of this molecule and it absorbs energy in the infrared, i.e. it allows visible light from the sun to pass though it, this light heats the planet and the heat (infrared radiation) is then absorbed by the CO2 instead of radiated back into space. This mechanism known as the greenhouse effect has been known for over 100 years. There is no C02 saturation effect, the warming is related to the concentration in a logarithmic fashion, and the warming has been about 0.8 degrees C over the last 100 years, with about half that amount occuring in the last 30 years.
Re: For Those Who Enjoy Discussing Climate Change..... Not Chess Related
Response to "Cassandra" article:
The earth has not cooled over the last 11 years since 1998, that is simply incorrect.
The year 1998 was the warmest year in modern times. Contributing strongly to this warmth was a massively powerful El Nino condition. By definition, all other years are cooler than the warmest year. One needs to pull up a graph of global average temperature over time for the last 100 years to see the actual warming trend. The decade since 1998 has had most years being well over the normal global temperature, the temperature just can't be higher than warmest by definition.
Also, be careful with the definitions. Above, we are talking about the average. It is also useful to look at the temperature distribution around the planet. Some regions, like the Arctic have warmed at 3-4 times the average, others like the Antarctic seem to be below the average, but it is very rare to have any one region cooling.
For the Arctic, the warming has accelerated over the last decade. In fact 2007 was the warmest year ever in the Arctic based on the amount of ice melt. Ice coverage reached the minimum area in recorded history that year. Not only that, but the ice thickness has declined enormously with the bulk of the ice being first year ice (formed over only 1 winter, typically 1 meter thick) as opposed to the more usual case of being multi-year ice (formed over many winters, typically 3-4 meters thick and much harder ice due to lower salt content (salt has leached out after several years).
This melting is coming not just from the atmosphere above, but also from the ocean below. Average global ocean temperatures this year are extremely high, accelerating the melting. Not only is the ocean warming, but it is becoming acidic as well. The average ocean pH has dropped by 0.1 to 0.15 over the last decade or so. About half the planets CO2 emissions are absorbed in the oceans. Since the pH scale is logarithmic, this drop to a more acidic state is very significant.
Re: For Those Who Enjoy Discussing Climate Change..... Not Chess Related
Todays climate change in context of earth history:
Climate has always been changing on our planet over its lifetime of 4.56 billion years.
Evidence indicates that in the past we have had hothouse conditions where there is no ice at the poles, and average temperatures in the Arctic have been 24 degrees C and global ocean levels have been 70 - 80 meters higher than present day.
In addition we have had frozen earth conditions in which the entire planet was glaciated.
In fact, it is believed that the planet oscillated between these conditions more than once.
Luckily for our species, the climate has been relatively stable since the end of the last ice age allowing our civilizations to advance and prosper to present day.
The concern now is that we are changing our planet so quickly that we cross a threshold whereby natural emissions dwarf our human emissions and we rocket to a new climatic state. In other words, we perturb the system beyond a point of stability and massive feedback effects kick in. These positive feedbacks (whereby a small change is amplified in the system leading to much larger changes) could include such things as melting permafrost and tundra, increasing ocean temperatures leading to stratification and release of CO2 instead of absorption of it, reduction of albedo, rain forest conversion to savannah, release of methane bound up in frozen clathrates on the ocean floor due to ocean warming, to name a few.
Consider what is happening in the Arctic today. When the Arctic is covered in ice and snow it reflects roughly 90% of incoming light from the sun (ice and snow has a high albedo or reflectance, i.e. makes a great mirror). Only about 10% of the incoming solar radiation is absorbed to contribute to heating. That is why the poles are so cold, they also get the suns rays at a very oblique angle due to the earths geometry, which is why they started so cold. This ice in the Arctic is undergoing more and more melt each year (just google NSIDC National Snow and Ice Data Center to look at how much was there yesterday).
Now consider what happens as the area of ice is replaced by open ocean. Open ocean is dark, and it reflects only about 10% of incoming light (has low albedo). Thus it absorbs 90% of the energy, and thus heats up significantly and leads to further melting of remaining ice.
Other basic physics and thermodyamics comes into play. The latent heat of fusion of ice is huge. What this means is that most of the energy absorbed in the Arctic is presently used to melt ice, and not to increase the temperature. When there is no ice left, the temperature will increase enormously over a short time scale.
Re: For Those Who Enjoy Discussing Climate Change..... Not Chess Related
I have a question:
I am hoping to semi-retire in roughly ten years. If I buy some land in Northern Ontario now, what are the chances that I can have good weather (i.e. temperatures above zero year-round) by the time I am ready to live there?
"Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.
Re: For Those Who Enjoy Discussing Climate Change..... Not Chess Related
Paul, most of this is political. Without the politicians and specific policies things won't change.
So what do we have?
Probably the current government doesn't have a great record on the environment. Their Western power base, specifically Alberta, has the tar sands, natural gas and oil, as well as coal. Lots of coal. I invest in one company which has lots of thermal coal in Alberta and won't be voting for political parties which would tax it. Last I heard, something like 80% of Alberta's electricity is generated from coal. Two kinds of coal Alberta has are Thermal coal used for electricity and Metalurgical coal used in the production of such things as steel.
Today I was reading a poll in the Toronto Star. The Conservative support is now 37 and the Liberals have dropped to 27%. The Greens have 6% but that's only votes that would go toward the Liberals or NDP instead of being diluted to a party which has no chance of having an impact where it counts.
Anyhow, let's look at the Cons and Libs. Why the increase in support for the Cons? I think it's because Ignatieff is doing more talking and all I hear is higher taxes and environmental issues which will likely hurt investment and cost people more money.
B.C. has a high taxation regime for major industry and a Carbon tax and companies carry a jurisdiction discount as far as I can see. Like operating in Venzuala, Cuba and nations whose names end in "stan".
The Americans seem to be more investment friendly and less worried about environmental issues, with the exception of California. Environmental protection is more than saying all the right things in public while putting forth opposite policies.
For the sake of argument, let's say your right (although my view differs). Which political party which has any chance of winning in Canada will put forward the policies to make a difference? Internationally, which industrial nations do you suppose will become more environmentally friendly, and I include China in the industrial nations.
Re: For Those Who Enjoy Discussing Climate Change..... Not Chess Related
Great idea Tom. Just make sure that the land you buy is well above sea level. I suppose that in your semi-retirement you will teach chess online...
I think that the main point is that the landscape up North is changing more than any other location on the planet. While the average global temperature has risen 0.8 degrees Celcius over the last 100 years or so the average Arctic temperature has risen over 3 - 4 degrees Celcius over this time period, resulting in massive melting. Of course melting sea ice does not raise the sea level. Sea level rise has increased from roughly 2 mm per year to 3 mm per year over the last decade or so. Roughly half this rise is due to oceans expanding in volume due to temperature increase; the other half is due to water runoff from glaciers and ice that is on land (i.e. Greenland and Antarctic ice).
How quickly will the oceans rise in the future, that is the money question? Lets put it this way, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report in 2007 forecast of sea level rise by 2100 is based on research up to mid-2006. Since then we have better learned how ice melts, for example in Antarctic the melt water runs to the very bottom of the glaciers and lubricates them so that they can move more quickly; so this estimate will rise every few years. In fact within 3 months of the IPCC report coming out, new data made it obsolete.
Consider estimates of complete Arctic ice melting, with the minimum being no ice after summer melt (completely open ocean). About rough 10 years ago it was thought that this could occur by 2100, about 5 years ago this date was updated to 2070, and then to 2050 about 3 years ago. Based on this time series, I estimated 2015 in a letter to the Editor of the Ottawa Citizen published a few years ago. Today, there are some published estimates close to this timeframe.
Re: For Those Who Enjoy Discussing Climate Change..... Not Chess Related
Of course the issue of climate change is completely politicized. In order to effect meaningful societal change to deal with the issue we need to basically retool our entire energy structure, which is the fundamental backbone of any advanced society. Barring reducing global emissions, the only other options might be to somehow remove CO2 from the atmosphere, or reduce the level of sunlight on the earth, i.e. massive geo-engineering with sunshades in space, iron in the ocean, sulfur in the stratosphere, water vapour generators in the northern hemisphere, plugs in cows butts, etc...
In most issues that the public worries about, the scientist do a study and identify a problem, the public debates the issues, and some members of the public that are the loudest go ballistic and say the sky is falling.
Not in the case of climate change, in this case it is the scientists doing the studies that are going ballistic (i.e. when a scientist goes ballistic they write a book on the topic; case of point paleobiologist Peter Ward in writing "Under a Green Sky" or Lovelock's books).
Part of the problem for scientists in getting information out to the public is that they are very reserved and cautious; they are generally poor marketers and communicators to those outside their profession, especially the general public. In fairness though, they have been no competition to the massive power of Big Oil for example, who have funded suppression of any policy on climate change that would hurt their bottom line.
In the last few years the level of changes on the planet due to climate change became in-your-face and could not easily be ignored. Thus, Big Oil and all the other interests started and about face and talked about being greener than the other guy since they could see money in doing this. Next step in the natural progression is to actually do something. Of course, after a cooler rainy summer you get the Lowell Green's of the world talking about global cooling. Time will decide who is right.
In terms of Canada, clearly we will just follow the Americans. Conservatives under Harper will do as little as possible; meanwhile the Liberals under Stephane Dion's poorly timed Green Shift plan (as oil prices were skyrocketing) got kicked in the nuts and as a result Ignatieff will tread very cautiously on climate change plans until getting into power (if they do). Obama does seem to get it but the big test for his seriousness on the issue (with health care and economy huge issues for him) will be the Copenhagen meeting in early December.
In terms of other countries, European countries are leaders in emission reduction policies; they always have been with much higher energy costs but the inflection point with them seemed to be 2003 heat waves. Katrina seemed to waken up the Yanks somewhat. Nothing has jolted Canada to the same extent, although no snow in any major Canadian City for Christmas in 2007 got a lot of people of their butts on the issue. Since then, we have collectively gotten back on the sofa.
Re: For Those Who Enjoy Discussing Climate Change..... Not Chess Related
Thanks for all that great information Paul. Within our circle of friends, we have had numerous lively debates on this issue. Trust me, Paul is very knowledgable on this topic. He debates the issue very well against some very tough naysayers.
If you really care about the environment, trying to choose between the Conservatives or Liberals is a waste of time, just vote Green party! It is the only way to send the message out loud and clear. Every month when the Conservatives ask for money, I say NO, I am voting Green! :D
The concern now is that we are changing our planet so quickly that we cross a threshold whereby natural emissions dwarf our human emissions and we rocket to a new climatic state.
Paul, you are posting some good stuff here, but be warned: you are inviting attack by Vlad Drkulec, as in this series of exchanges he had with Ed Seedhouse back in August:
Vlad made clear that he and many others like him, including some scientists who have bolted from the ranks, think man-made or man-assisted global warming is all a socialist plot. Vlad seems to have been following the topic for many years and attacking anyone who doesn't agree with this position. You have posted a lot of scientific evidence here, and he believes the scientists who haven't bolted from the ranks are all left wing zealots out to divert as much money into greening the planet as possible.
I'm really surprised he hasn't chimed in here, but if and when he does, you will likely be his primary target.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Re: For Those Who Enjoy Discussing Climate Change..... Not Chess Related
Bob,
In a perfect world climate change would not be political. For a Canadian policy take all the climate scientists and policy wonks in Canada and lock them in a room and knock their heads together until they can hash out some policy to move the country forward. Then have each political party agree to use the policies that have emerged from this room. The issue is a long term one that needs to have policies that withstand a change of government every year or so. No more politics, just science based action...
Paul,
Thanks for the heads up. I welcome any and all discussion on the topic as long as people stick to the issues, and respond to questions that are asked instead of deflecting the issues, i.e. have a meaningful discourse
Re: For Those Who Enjoy Discussing Climate Change..... Not Chess Related
Another view on groups like Greenpeace is that they make their livings trying to raise peoples awareness on environmental issues. At least with these groups, they are in the public eye and people generally know what they are up to.
What do you think about the other side that generally work out of the public eye, behind the scenes. I am referring to groups like the American Petroleum Institute and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that lobby the government against environmental policies and regulations. The American Petroleum Institute has four hundred corporate members, seven hundred committees and task forces and has a board composed of CEOs of every major oil company with a yearly budget greater than $112 million. The U. S. Chamber of Commerce with a $150 million yearly budget which is dominated by oil interests lobbied and kills things like the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act and climate change bills.
Not only are the budgets of these groups an order of magnitude larger than that of the NGOs, most of the organization working on behalf of consumers, the environment, public health, alternative energy, antitrust enforcement and human rights are banned from political campaigns and basically banned from lobbying. Thus, they work in the public domain but have nowhere near the clout that the lobbyists do.
Re: For Those Who Enjoy Discussing Climate Change..... Not Chess Related
The professional persuaders on the side of the status quo include the oil companies; in fact they are effectively as powerful or more powerful than governments. Along the life cycle of oil from drilling to processing to burning to emissions there is obviously issues with pollution, environmental harm, health effects and worker safety. As a result, Big Oil gets sued a lot. Their biggest defense if financial depth, they can outspend challengers and extend cases for decades to wear out opponents. Also their legal teams are unmatched, for example Chevron alone has an annual legal budget of $100 million and a team of 300 in-house lawyers. In addition, they farm out litigation to over 450 international law firms globally.
How does the average person compete against this? Some of them scream and protest outside an economic summit if they are so inclined, at least they do not feel so helpless.
We do have freedom of speech after all...
Re: For Those Who Enjoy Discussing Climate Change..... Not Chess Related
Milankovic Cycles are long term cycles (10,000 years, 30,000 years, and 100,000 years) in which the eccentricity of the earths orbit (e=1 is a circle, e>1 is oval or elliptical) changes, the tilt of the earth relative to its orbital plane changes, and the wobble changes resulting in variations of solar energy. These variations cause cycling between ice ages and interglacial warming, as measured by proxies such as ice core or sedimentation data. Within these cycles, we are in a cooling period but it seems that the anthropogenic warming is presently overwhelming this (and is of course on much shorter timescales).
There is not data supporting CO2 saturation in the atmosphere; CO2 concentration is increasing each year about 2.5 ppm and there have been periods in earths past where it was much higher. As I mentioned in a previous post the temperature rise is roughly logarithmic with respect to CO2 rise.
Clathrates are basically slushy ice matrices containing bound methane that exist at the high pressures and low temperatures on the ocean floor around the world. The concern is that as the oceans warm the methane is released rapidly, and since methane has a greenhouse effect 21x that of CO2 this would be a huge problem.
Tweet
Comment