For Those Who Enjoy Discussing Climate Change..... Not Chess Related

[Paul Beckwith]

Re: For Those Who Enjoy Discussing Climate Change..... Not Chess Related

CO2 is both a cause of climate change and a result, the two are intimately connected. Fundamental spectroscopy of the CO2 molecule shows that for infrared radiation (heat) there is strong absorption of energy (this energy goes into excitation of the rotational, vibrational, and stretching of the molecular bonds in the molecule), thus the greenhouse effect for this molecule and the cause of climate change. Also, the concentration of this molecule in the atmosphere is dynamically changing as multiple processes either produce it or take it up, i.e. all flora (vegetation) absorbs it to grow and all fauna (animals) emit it through respiration. Rainwater falling absorbs CO2 and it reacts chemically with rocks over long periods of time and becomes part of their composition, while volcanism releases lots of carbon in the form of CO2 to recharge the atmosphere with it. When climate change occurs for whatever reason and there is warming then CO2 is released from various sources. For example the oceans absorb a lot of it, but as they warm they absorb less, so more is in the atmosphere. Biological decomposition in the presence of oxygen (aerobic decomposition: in soils for example, or other surface layers of earth exposed to oxygen, i.e. decaying vegetation on forest floors) produces CO2 while biological decomposition in the absence of oxygen (anerobic decomposition: in swamps or frozen now in tundra or permafrost or locked in clathrates) produces CH4.

Thus, warming releases more CO2 and CH4 in an inticately connected positive feedback loop.

[Benoit St-Pierre]

Is Greenpeace Socialist?

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....

And I thought they were a bunch of anarchists... The problem with the concept of environmentalism is that it is very tough to be against it. One can forget about nature for a little while only. Even if we don't know if the climate change is causaly related to man, we have to make sure everything's ok. (Needing to act faced with uncertainty: that reminds me of a topic... ;-)

We need to take action even if we don't know zilch about causes, if only because the more we know about climate change, the less talks of causality make sense. In fact, the maturity of a scientific field can be measured by its distance from the concept of causality as we know it. Here is a place where philosophers (of science) usually contribute. Here is also a place where philosophers express the same reserve regarding the scientists' outlook on their practice, actually. Not that it bothers much: as long as we keep away from their departments, we usually don't hear much of these restless rascals anyway.

[Vlad Drkulec]

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?

Are you immortal? At the worst case scenarios being thrown around by the alarmists you probably wouldn't get those conditions before the year 2900 or so.

Vladimir Drkulec

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: For Those Who Enjoy Discussing Climate Change..... Not Chess Related

I'm really surprised he hasn't chimed in here, but if and when he does, you will likely be his primary target.

Sorry, I've been too busy playing chess. Barring illness it looks like I will be playing in tournaments on the next five weekends in a row, not to mention the local chess league tournament.

I am a man-made climate change agnostic. I realize that will offend the climate change religious zealots. Oh, well. You will have to learn to live with it.

I'm still trying to figure out how I get into time pressure after being ahead 10 or fifteen minutes on the clock when my opponent was under 5 minutes in a sudden death time control. The game ended in a draw when we both flagged.

This poor handling of time is a far more pressing problem for me than the latest environmental disaster scenarios which have no real relevance to my life. As long as the Conservatives are in charge we are safe from the government shipping billions of dollars to Russia which they can use to build nukes to target us (as the Fiberals intended to do with that Kyoto accord). I will have a bit of time to debate this issue again in about six weeks or so assuming I don't find another tournament to play in.

Man-made Carbon emissions will go up for the next hundred years or so as China and India industrialize and Russia recovers from the funk that they have been in since the end of communism. No one is going to be willing to shut down their economy to appease the high priests of global warming who look suspiciously similar to the high priests of global cooling from a few decades earlier.

Vladimir Drkulec

[Vlad Dobrich]

Re: For Those Who Enjoy Discussing Climate Change..... Not Chess Related

I have discussed a possible remedy to global warming with a couple of friends - a physicist and a chemical engineer. What I suggested was that, as an experiment, a quantity of coal dust be launched into a helio-sychronous (nice word) orbit into the Lagrange point directly between earth and sun, some 1 million miles from earth. This is a point where the suns and earths gravities cancel and an object will stay permanently positioned. It was where Al Gore suggested placing a satellite camera pointing at earth with a continuing image of our planet shown in real time to anyone accessing the appropriate web site. Like seeing ourselves in a mirror!
Anyway, the idea is to launch a payload of coal dust into that point to reduce the suns radiated energy on our planet. The initial amount would be such as to simply gauge the effect. If x tons reduces the solar energy by 1% than 3x tons might be needed to achieve the desired effect. Granted, this would be an extreme remedy. Far better that we should limit our human impact on our environment. However, if things get out of hand, we could institute such emergency measures as are deemed necessary.
By the way, my science friends suggest that coal dust would not be the ideal compound rather better would be I think they said silicon sulphates(?) Whatever they are.
If you think this is a hare-brained idea, you're probably right!
Just a thought.

[Ken MacDonald]

What I find interesting is that so many people quote experts with......

diametrically opposed opinions/facts/studies and everyone is ABSOLUTELY certain they are correct, even those posting here!

Another interesting article from the National Post.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...uncovered.aspx

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: What I find interesting is that so many people quote experts with......

diametrically opposed opinions/facts/studies and everyone is ABSOLUTELY certain they are correct, even those posting here!

Another interesting article from the National Post.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...uncovered.aspx

This comes as no surprise to me. The hockey stick graphic was discredited a long time ago. Willful misrepresentations or sheer incompetence underlie much of the "science" behind global warming hysteria. The hypocrisy of Al Gore jetting around on his private jet and puttering around in his well lit mansion while trying to guilt people into lowering their own carbon footprints would be amusing if the stakes weren't so high. Al Gore stands to make a lot of money if he can convince enough people to buy in to his nonsense.

The Chicken Little side of this debate has very little to do with the facts.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...0-274616DB87E6

A few quotes from the above link:

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata. # #

In addition, the report will feature new peer-reviewed scientific studies and analyses refuting man-made warming fears and a heavy dose of inconvenient climate developments. (See Below: Study: Half of warming due to Sun! –Sea Levels Fail to Rise? - Warming Fears in 'Dustbin of History')

HTH.

Vladimir Drkulec

[Benoit St-Pierre]

Science at Its Best

diametrically opposed opinions/facts/studies and everyone is ABSOLUTELY certain they are correct, even those posting here!

Another interesting article from the National Post.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...uncovered.aspx

An interesting comment to that last op-ed (let us repeat, op-ed) :

How surprising to find self-serving denialist hand-waving at the National Post!

The author McKitrick and the subject McIntyre have a long history of mutual back-slapping, conspiracy theories, carefully arranged "misunderstanding" of actual science and arbitrary exclusion of unhelpful data.

For an deconstruction of McIntyre's analysis and McKitrick's Da Vinci Code-style claims, read something from actual working climate scientists: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...09/hey-ya-mal/

I wonder how many opiniated chesstalker here can claim to understand all the nuances surrounding this debate. Not me, in any case. My gut feeling is that we're (almost Bayesian) machines built to confirm our Biyiasis.

[Paul Beckwith]

Re: For Those Who Enjoy Discussing Climate Change..... Not Chess Related

This post is highly amusing. It is implying that climate change is a religion and that you are on the high ground as an agnostic and that those who think climate change is happening are religious zealots or high priests. Just hilarious...

You are not offending anyone since people are all free to believe in what they want to believe in. Most people prefer to look at the topic in a more rational way, instead of treating the issue in terms of being a believer or a non-believer, or as black or white.

[Paul Beckwith]

Re: For Those Who Enjoy Discussing Climate Change..... Not Chess Related

This idea of inserting coal dust into the Lagrange point is not so hare-brained after all! It makes much more sense than the other Vlad associating climate change with religion...

People are looking at many geo-engineering ideas similar to this, including inserting tiltable mirrors at the Lagrange point to controllably alter the amount of sunlight impinging on the earth. These are considered methods of last resort. Another idea is to inject sulphates high in the stratosphere to block out some of the sunlight. This happens naturally after large volcanic eruptions occur, and the earth has noticeably cooled somewhat for several years after such eruptions occur. This has also led to the idea of nuclear winter. The effect of aerosols (small particles) in the atmosphere is to block some of the sunlight and thereby cause cooling. Other ideas in geo-engineering include seeding the oceans with iron to promote plankton growth, creating artificial trees, creating a fleet of ships in the northern oceans that vaporize sea water to inject huge amounts of water vapor into the atmosphere, etc....

[Bob Gillanders]

Re: For Those Who Enjoy Discussing Climate Change..... Not Chess Related

Everyone agrees the science involved in very complex. Finding a few skeptics and debates over good/bad sample size doesn't convince me. The overwhelming evidence still tells us we have a major problem to deal with. Soon there will be another conference, this time in Copenhagen. Their website is http://en.cop15.dk/news

Also, IPCC = Intergovernmental panel on climate change. Their website is http://www.ipcc.ch/index.htm

Lots of good reading.

I hope the skeptics are right, but I doubt it. Too many are quick to dismiss a problem when somebody tells them "don't worry, everything is okay." It's called denial.

[Paul Beckwith]

Re: What I find interesting is that so many people quote experts with......

I also find it fascinating that everyone is ABSOLUTELY certain that they are correct. I would highly recommend a book published in 2008 that deals with this psychology called "Risk: The science and politics of fear" by Dan Gardner, a columnist for the Ottawa Citizen.

One of the points in the book deals with confirmation bias. Lets say that you think climate change is happening. Any article on the web to that effect interests you, so you read it and have a stronger viewpoint. You then attend a talk on climate change and that further reinforces your view. On the other hand, you have someone who does not think it is happening. They go on the web and read stuff with that slant. After a while, these two people are on opposite ends of the spectrum.

What happens when these two debate? They both ignore and discount what the other says, citing the information they have read as proof that they are correct. They may even call the other parties names like religious zealots!

How do we get around this? By addressing the specific issues that the other person presents, and having an open mind and be willing to learn and willing to admit when you are wrong.

For example, I would like to ask Vlad the following:
1) Is CO2 a greenhouse gas?
2) If it is, and we increase its concentration does that increase the greenhouse effect?

[Paul Beckwith]

Re: What I find interesting is that so many people quote experts with......

Duplicate...

[Paul Beckwith]

Re: What I find interesting is that so many people quote experts with......

Vlad, please have a look at the information in Benoit's link to the RealClimate website. Your information on the hockey stick graph seems to be outdated. This graph showing temperature rise has been found in tree ring date, glacial retreat, borehole reconstructions, ice cores, and direct instrumental records and reported in papers that have all been peer reviewed.

Regarding the quotes that you cut and pasted, anyone can go out on the web and find quotes to justify their beliefs. I have read a lot of the U. S. Senate Committee report and seen these quotes before so they are no surprise to me. What makes you think that they hold more weight than the IPCC reports, that were generated by even more scientists than you quote?

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: For Those Who Enjoy Discussing Climate Change..... Not Chess Related

Everyone agrees the science involved in very complex. Finding a few skeptics and debates over good/bad sample size doesn't convince me. The overwhelming evidence still tells us we have a major problem to deal with. Soon there will be another conference, this time in Copenhagen. Their website is http://en.cop15.dk/news

Also, IPCC = Intergovernmental panel on climate change. Their website is http://www.ipcc.ch/index.htm

Lots of good reading.

I hope the skeptics are right, but I doubt it. Too many are quick to dismiss a problem when somebody tells them "don't worry, everything is okay." It's called denial.

The IPCC are the agency at the heart of the problem with a long history of to be charitable misleading statements and trying to silence dissent. If the scientific consensus (a flat out lie) is so certain why is it so important to stifle opposing points of view.

For example Dr. Klause-Martin Schulte assessed the current climate change literature by reviewing 528 papers addressing climate change (not just obscurely referencing the phrase, as with Oreskes) published from 2004 to February 2007 he found that 38 or 7% explicitly support the so called consensus while 32 or 6% reject the consensus outright, 48% are neutral neither accepting nor rejecting the consensus. Red Hot Lies
"Environmental Reality," Investor's Business Daily, Sept 7, 2007.

"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." Stephen Schneider then global cooling activist, now global warming activist as documented in "Red Hot Lies" by Christopher C. Horner.

"the task of climate change agencies is not to persuade by rational argument but in effect to develop and nurture a new 'common sense'... to work in a more shrewd and contemporary way, using subtle teqniques of engamgement... The 'facts' need to be treated as being so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken." Gill Ereaut and Nat Segnit, "Warm Words:How are we telling the climate story and can we tell it better?" Institute for Public Policy Research, August 3, 2006, http://www.ippr.org.uk/publicationsa...ion.asp?id=485 as documented in "Red Hot Lies".

This reminds me of the time that I got into a flame war with a troll who left his flame war playbook exposed on the internet and then tried to follow that playbook while I quoted from it and showed exactly what he was doing. These people have exposed their playbook and it is exactly the nonsensical arguments that I hear every time about the so called consensus.

The favourite bogeyman of carbon dioxide is way down the list as a greenhouse gas. It does not cause warming it is an after-effect of warming. Water vapour has it beat by a very wide margin.

According to Bjorn Lomborg in "Cool It" the IPPR wrote "alarmism might even become secretly thrilling - effectively a kind of climate porn."

If you do some reading on this topic, you will start to get angry about the level of manipulation of the truth that is taking place on behalf of the left wing loonies who are running with this nonsensical man made climate change idea.

Vladimir Drkulec