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
Re: For Those Who Enjoy Discussing Climate Change..... Not Chess Related
The IPCC is actually quite a conservative organization; actual climate change is happening at a faster rate then their most extreme models in the areas of Arctic ice melt, snow cover in the northern hemisphere, and sea level rise.
Vlad, we are both online at the moment. Can you answer this question for me now:
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?
Question 1:
IF (a big IF) the models are correct CO2 can act as a greenhouse gas and is responsible for approximately 11% of the greenhouse effect with water vapour responsible for 82.5% of the effect. There are apparently issues with these models with respect to the distribution of atmospheric CO2 and the effects.
Without the greenhouse effect there would be no life on Earth.
Question 2:
That is unclear. There are a large number of variables which are not considered by the models.
Attempts to predict past temperatures (which are certain) with the models being used to predict future temperatures have been unsuccessful suggesting that the models are deeply flawed. Apparently the people constructing the models have a poor understanding of the carbon cycle among other issues.
An increase in temperature will increase the water vapor (the most significant greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere which will also increase the cloud cover which will tend to increase reflection leading to a reduction in temperature leading to less water vapour in the atmosphere.
Vlad, we are both online at the moment. Can you answer this question for me now:
What is the greenhouse effect?
The greenhouse effect refers to the fact that heat can be absorbed and retained in the atmosphere from solar radiation (due to the effects of greenhouse gases like water vapour and perhaps CO2 and methane) much like it is in a green house resulting in significantly increased temperatures relative to the outside of the greenhouse.
I've known that since I was nine years old when I first was taught about the greenhouse effect by my left wing grade five science teacher.
I'm off to bed now. I probably won't be online tomorrow until late because I am playing a game in the local chess league (actually a tournament and not a league at all but that's another story) and I do have some chess to study which is more important to me than so called global warming or the more ambiguous "climate change" moniker which seems to be more popular these days with the alarmists.
Re: For Those Who Enjoy Discussing Climate Change..... Not Chess Related
Thank you for your post responding to my question. I do not know your science background but you lose marks when you say that "perhaps CO2 and methane" are greenhouse gases. When I was doing my M. Sc. in physics I studied molecular spectroscopy and the CO2 laser operating at 10.6 microns in the infrared. Based on theory, for a laser to operate you need to have a strong absorption band at 10.6 microns to make a laser operate there. In fact the CO2 molecule has many such bands in the infrared from vibrational and rotational oscillations, which is why it is such a strong greenhouse gas, along with methane and water. Why the "perhaps".
By the way, global warming is a complete misnomer. Climate change is the correct term since on a regional basis you could have warming or cooling. This has nothing to do with alarmists. If you can stop using terms like religious zealots, high priests, alarmists, and left wing perhaps we could have a more educated, meaningful discussion? I thought that we were discussing science, you seem to bring up religion and political leanings, this does not strengthen your arguments but severely weakens them, it simply is like name calling. Cognitive behaviour therapists would call it labelling and it is basically distorted thinking. It does deflect the issue...
Last edited by Paul Beckwith; Monday, 5th October, 2009, 11:43 AM.
Reason: wording
Re: What I find interesting is that so many people quote experts with......
These questions/answers are useful for two reasons; namely to A: see if we are on the same page on some of the basic science and B: to educate the chess public on some of the definitions and effects of climate science.
Of course water vapour plays a huge role in the overall greenhouse effect, but it is not the parameter that is changing, CO2 is. Without the greenhouse effect the average temperature of the earth based on the radiation absorption/emission balance would be about -19 degrees C, instead of the roughly 15 degrees C that we enjoy now. That's a huge difference, obviously the greenhouse effect is very powerful. Lets say the model is correct and CO2 is responsible for 11% of the effect (please provide a reference for this model). CO2 concentrations have risen from 280 ppm to almost 390 ppm (a rise of 39%) so 39% x 11% = 4.3% which means that the overall greenhouse effect is 4.3% stronger due to the CO2 rise. That seems significant to me, I am not sure why you are discounting it. This would increase the temperature, causing more evaporation as you say and more water vapour in the atmosphere. Water vapour in the atmosphere could be in either 3 places, A) low altitude clouds, i.e. cumulus B) high altitude clouds, i.e. cirrus or C) clear air with no clouds. If it is in B) or C) there is positive feedback, i.e even more warming. If it is in A) then there is negative feedback (in the case you mentioned above). The cloud effect (positive or negative) depends on the type of cloud and altitude. Nobody said this was simple...
Re: For Those Who Enjoy Discussing Climate Change..... Not Chess Related
As I said in an earlier post the IPCC report in 2007 that policy makers in the Copenhagen climate change conference in December will refer to heavily is underestimating the rate of climate change.
For example, July 2009 was the warmest that the oceans have been in around 130 years of record keeping; it was 17 degrees C which is 0.6 degrees C warmer than the 20th century average and it even beat the 1998 temperature by a small margin. Regional changes are even more severe, for example the Mediterranean was 3 degrees C warmer than normal while the Arctic was 5.5 degrees C warmer than normal. The Gulf of Mexico was 32 degrees C (89.6 degrees F, almost too hot to swim). Note that 1998 was the hottest year on record for the atmospheric temperatures, for some unexplained reason this year most of the suns heat went into heating the oceans and not the land. This is very significant since it takes 5x more heat to heat up water than it does to heat up land (i.e. water has much larger heat capacity = 4.1813 J per gram per degree K, versus 1.0035 for dry air and 0.800 for dry soil.). As I mentioned in a previous post, about half of the yearly sea level rise at the moment is due to ocean heating causing thermal expansion of the water.
When you hear people like Lowell Green of AM radio saying that the earth has cooled since 1998, you can call in and tell him that the ocean temperatures are the highest in 130 years!
When you hear people like Lowell Green of AM radio saying that the earth has cooled since 1998, you can call in and tell him that the ocean temperatures are the highest in 130 years!
Well... Maybe that's part of the reason the global warming crowd appears to be losing the battle. If you call in and heckle the guy with the microphone, he gets to cut you off when he wants and pontificate on a very narrow portion of the entire ramble which has been delivered.
Personally, I don't care either way but would never vote for an environmentalist who wanted to raise taxes and put Canada at what I consider an economic disadvantage.
Methane is always an interesting topic. Sewage treatment plants in this area use a lot of natural gas. At least a couple do, or did, manufacture a portion of what they use from the sewage which comes from peoples toilets. I don't think a cu. ft. of that gas would contain as many BTU's as natural gas you buy from a utility. I hope you don't mind me not using metric. One person at one of those treatment plants once told me what they made had a higher BTU count on a Monday. The reason had to do with people drinking more beer on the weekend so their excrement produced a higher grade of gas. I don't know how this would effect the environment but can't imagine it would be positive.
My employer once sent me to one of those plants to repair an internal meter they had. It was set in around 10 inch pipe (as I recall) and I had to pull it out, disassemble and repair it. Having allergies, my eyes watered all the while I was there, from the odor. Anyhow, I repaired it and replaced most of the interior moving parts, other that the rotor.
After I was finished, the supervisor offered me a job working for them. I told him he couldn't afford me. His reply was that no matter how much I was making he would pay me enough extra to make it worth my while.
I told him no matter how much he was gong to pay me it wasn't enough to work in that place. He laughed.
I've always joked that job offer was for however much I wanted and all I could eat.
You probably read about that Greenpeace stuff this past weekend. I don't agree with them but I admire them. You have to be standing on a piece of angle iron 70 feet in the air to really appreciate what they are doing. I can tell you from experience, it looks a whole lot different being up top looking down than it does standing on the ground looking up. I've seen guys go up and be afraid to climb back down.
By the way, global warming is a complete misnomer. Climate change is the correct term since on a regional basis you could have warming or cooling. This has nothing to do with alarmists. If you can stop using terms like religious zealots, high priests, alarmists, and left wing perhaps we could have a more educated, meaningful discussion? I thought that we were discussing science, you seem to bring up religion and political leanings, this does not strengthen your arguments but severely weakens them, it simply is like name calling. Cognitive behaviour therapists would call it labelling and it is basically distorted thinking. It does deflect the issue...
Paul, I think you'll have little success moving this topic into a "more educated, meaningful discussion". This is simply because the science, and the scientists, are telling us in sum that we must completely change our way of life in order to save ourselves and the planet. That is a huge issue for many people, most notably the people that have profited and are still profiting from our Western way of life that ordains us with something called "freedom". As soon as you talk about impinging on freedom(s), you invite being called names that you, speaking only as a scientist, wouldn't have imagined. Of these names, "alarmist" is actually very mild.
You can write that bringing up religion and political leanings weakens someone's arguments, and you can call it distorted thinking, but it will get you nowhere. This is part of the reason why we are where we are. The majority of Americans in particular are simply NOT going to give up their way of life, damn the torpodoes. Many of them will die the death of a thousand cuts, but right to the end, they'll be getting the last drop of gas out of their SUVs. To these people, your science very easily becomes left wing anti-U.S. propaganda. Many others will see you instead as someone who believes man-assisted climate change is God's judgement on the greed and secularism of Western society, from which we must all turn away immediately. And guess what these people will call you? A Religious zealot.
The climate change debate cannot avoid these divisions, and more besides. Personally, I believe we are past the braking point (yes, that's "braking" not "breaking"). IMO, if we started all the mega-projects you've mentioned as last resorts today, it would still be too late. We're not getting there anyway: Americans think bringing the average vehicle mpg up to 35 by the year 2020 is a major accomplishment! They have been too busy awarding university scholarships to football and basketball players to realize it's the engineers and research scientists who should have been getting those scholarships.
The main thing we should do now is prepare for the consequences.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Re: For Those Who Enjoy Discussing Climate Change..... Not Chess Related
I consider my self quite right of center and an christian... to those critics I often tell them that climate change is neither right nor left wing. How we deal with such matters is another thing.
I for one actually support the carbon tax... as a 'right winger' I believe that people of all political persuasions will only change their behavior through incentives. The BC Carbon tax is REVENUE NEUTRAL... The current government has dropped taxes in other areas to make sure of this. People (and companies) can actually lower their tax bill by acting in a responsible way... Those people who feel the need to drive around gas guzzling SUV's as a status symbol, well make them pay... I have no sympathy for them. I noticed that when the gas prices are high, your average person will purchase a vehicle that burns less gas... People are now looking at an electric option as well. Tax cuts for people and companies that use less energy are a great way to change peoples behavior.. The problem with parties like the greens and NDP is that they will enact legislation without any regards to its effects... they will just add to the tax burden, not add the new tax and lower others. Even left wing Keynesian economists admit that taxes slow down an economy.
As for those who use the religious argument... I like to point out to them that in Genesis God gave man the responsibility of taking care of the earth... not to run it into the ground (no pun intended :) )... The problem is that many of these religious people see the environmental movement as a form of Paganism (worshiping mother earth). As soon as you can separate the 'loons' (umm GREENPEACE) from the scientific facts the quicker you can win these people over..
I for one actually support the carbon tax... as a 'right winger' I believe that people of all political persuasions will only change their behavior through incentives. The BC Carbon tax is REVENUE NEUTRAL... The current government has dropped taxes in other areas to make sure of this. People (and companies) can actually lower their tax bill by acting in a responsible way...
Revenue neutral for whom? The B.C. government?
A sugar company employs a lot of people and uses an awesome amount of natural gas. At some point the equipment ages, wages get high and the carbon tax is cutting into profits. It might make more sense to expand one of the other facilities in another province to get away from the Carbon Tax.
I can't see how companies can keep a competitive equilibrium with similar companies, in other provinces, who don't have to pay a Carbon Tax. Not to mention the effect it has on the share price.
I am always wary of charts which look like a hockey stick. They are said to have gone "parabolic". It normally turns out to be a bubble which bursts, returning the trace around the base line.
The secret to successful prediction of doom and gloom is never to put an exact date on it. However, get the money up front. :)
Your information on the hockey stick graph seems to be outdated.
No. The hockey stick graph was based on the so called Mann study which made him very famous and well funded. When he was asked to provide his raw data he hemmed and hawed and declined to provide it until he was forced to after much prodding. His model was found to be flawed. It twisted the data to create a hockey stick no matter what data you fed in. Whether this was due to dishonesty or simple incompetence is for the gentle readers to decide. I am surprised that you missed this development. It was one of many scandals associated with the global warming crowd and a key flagship that sank a long time ago. Here is what someone who is definitely on your side in this debate had to saw about Mann's hockey stick model.
"That discovery hit me like a bombshell, and I suspect it is having the same effect on many others. Suddenly the hockey stick, the poster-child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics. How could it happen? What is going on? Let me digress into a short technical discussion of how this incredible error took place." http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/?a=f
"Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate. I would love to believe that the results of Mann et al. are correct, and that the last few years have been the warmest in a millennium."
"Love to believe? My own words make me shudder. They trigger my scientist's instinct for caution. When a conclusion is attractive, I am tempted to lower my standards, to do shoddy work. But that is not the way to truth. When the conclusions are attractive, we must be extra cautious." http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13423/
If you want to continue flogging this dead horse I have a more detailed critique that I can go over but this line we are analyzing is easily refuted and has been given up for dead by most of the global warming alarmists.
I will be kind and assume that you were simply unaware of this development but I have been down this road before and can show a pattern of similar shoddy science by the alarmists which can only be ascribed to intentional dishonesty or gross incompetence.
Here is Muller's own interpretation of the finding :
Originally posted by Richard A. Muller
How does this bombshell affect what we think about global warming?
It certainly does not negate the threat of a long-term global temperature increase. In fact, McIntyre and McKitrick are careful to point out that it is hard to draw conclusions from these data, even with their corrections. Did medieval global warming take place? Last month the consensus was that it did not; now the correct answer is that nobody really knows. Uncovering errors in the Mann analysis doesn't settle the debate; it just reopens it. We now know less about the history of climate, and its natural fluctuations over century-scale time frames, than we thought we knew.
If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do), then you still should agree that we are much better off having broken the hockey stick. Misinformation can do real harm, because it distorts predictions. Suppose, for example, that future measurements in the years 2005-2015 show a clear and distinct global cooling trend. (It could happen.) If we mistakenly took the hockey stick seriously--that is, if we believed that natural fluctuations in climate are small--then we might conclude (mistakenly) that the cooling could not be just a random fluctuation on top of a long-term warming trend, since according to the hockey stick, such fluctuations are negligible. And that might lead in turn to the mistaken conclusion that global warming predictions are a lot of hooey. If, on the other hand, we reject the hockey stick, and recognize that natural fluctuations can be large, then we will not be misled by a few years of random cooling.
Somehow, Muller himself seems less confident about the fact that this story kills the framework around global warming. If we could discredit any system by the crooks who exploit it, capitalism would sure be a dead horse.
As I said in an earlier post the IPCC report in 2007 that policy makers in the Copenhagen climate change conference in December will refer to heavily is underestimating the rate of climate change.
For example, July 2009 was the warmest that the oceans have been in around 130 years of record keeping; it was 17 degrees C which is 0.6 degrees C warmer than the 20th century average and it even beat the 1998 temperature by a small margin.[/URL]
1) Warmest in 130 years of record keeping.
2) 17 degrees C.
3) 0.6 degrees warmer than the 20th century average.
4) It even beat the 1998 temperature by a small margin.
Are we comparing apples to oranges? Were the measurements 130 years ago in the same places as the most recent measurements? Am I the only one who is underwhelmed by this report?
The hottest month in 130 years is only 0.6 degrees warmer than the 20th century average (for July, I presume). What are the measures of variability? What is the standard deviation? What is the measurement error? I hope the analysis techniques weren't as shoddy as the ones in the Mann study.
If you are going to make mountains out of these little mole hills, this is going to get tedious quickly.
Here is Muller's own interpretation of the finding :
Somehow, Muller himself seems less confident about the fact that this story kills the framework around global warming. If we could discredit any system by the crooks who exploit it, capitalism would sure be a dead horse.
Muller is calling for honesty and good science despite his admitted bias. He wants the truth wherever it may lead. For that, I can admire him.
Tweet
Comment