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!)
I am not trying to get another of those... (Not Chess Related)
I am not trying to get another of those... (Not Chess Related)
long, "Yes, there is!" and "No, there is not!" discussions going. I merely present this article or Op-Ed as someone called the previous URL for your information.
Too bad the discussion just stopped short when it got interesting.
This above-mentioned article starts with :
This week, the doomsters were embarrassed to learn, once again, that the planet was not in grave peril. Antarctica, their greatest candidate for catastrophe, was not melting at an ever-faster rate, according to a report in Geophysical Research Letters, but at the slowest rate in 30 years. To add to their frustration, they couldn't even lash out at the lead author, Marco Tedesco of the Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Department of City College of New York -- the doomsters had praised his previous reports showing high rates of Antarctic melt.
Here is the abstract of the Tedesco and Monagan 2009 article :
A 30-year minimum Antarctic snowmelt record occurred during austral summer 2008–2009 according to spaceborne microwave observations for 1980–2009. Strong positive phases of both the El-Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Southern Hemisphere Annular Mode (SAM) were recorded during the months leading up to and including the 2008–2009 melt season. The 30-year record confirms that significant negative correlations exist at regional and continental scales between austral summer melting and both the ENSO and SAM indices for October–January. In particular, the strongest negative melting anomalies (such as those in 2008 and 2009) are related to amplified large-scale atmospheric forcing when both the SAM and ENSO are in positive phases. Our results suggest that enhanced snowmelt is likely to occur if recent positive summer SAM trends subside in conjunction with the projected recovery of stratospheric ozone levels, with subsequent impacts on ice sheet mass balance and sea level trends.
I wonder why the agnostics would like to boast about that. In fact, I really wonder what is there to understand about that data. Too bad the author does not take time to educate the reader.
The second paragraph is even more interesting. The miraculous return of the artic ice seems again a victory for the agnostics. Instead of telling us why it is so, the author tells us this very relevant story about a scoundrel who tried to sell carbon credit.
The last part about a documentary of the article is intriguing. Unfortunately, the description only emphasizes the reddening of the faces. More could be found by going there and following the breadcrumbs :
Don't forget to overcheck every source, since this page seems quite heavily edited by agnostics, if not by the authors of the documentary themselves. By the way, there is money to make for agnostics willing to spread the word into the wikisphere and the bloggosphere. Writing is an industry, like everything else.
Energy Probe says it does not receive money from corporation or union. But it receives 80% of its fundings from foundations. Where these foundations get their money is not spelled out.
Last edited by Benoit St-Pierre; Sunday, 11th October, 2009, 05:29 PM.
long, "Yes, there is!" and "No, there is not!" discussions going. I merely present this article or Op-Ed as someone called the previous URL for your information.
Thanks for posting this article. It illustrates once again, the "more hype than fact" agruments made against the climate change "alarmists".:( To quote from the article:
This week, the doomsters were embarrassed to learn, once again, that the planet was not in grave peril. Antarctica, their greatest candidate for catastrophe, was not melting at an ever-faster rate, according to a report in Geophysical Research Letters, but at the slowest rate in 30 years.....
Two years ago with the Arctic ice in rapid retreat, the doomsters, convinced of the coming of an ice-free Arctic, could scarcely contain themselves. Now, with the Arctic ice in rapid return, their anticipation of disaster seems more a cruel hoax of Nature.
The 1st paragraph states that the Antartica ice is still melting, but just at a slower rate.......but then the 2nd paragraph claims it's "in rapid return". ??
Is the 2nd paragraph referring to ice in the Arctic or Antarctic? Paul??
Anyway, throw a ton of salt at this article, I'm not convinced yet. Go Green!
Last edited by Bob Gillanders; Saturday, 10th October, 2009, 10:46 AM.
Thanks for posting this article. It illustrates once again, the "more hype than fact" agruments made against the climate change "alarmists".:( To quote from the article:
This week, the doomsters were embarrassed to learn, once again, that the planet was not in grave peril. Antarctica, their greatest candidate for catastrophe, was not melting at an ever-faster rate, according to a report in Geophysical Research Letters, but at the slowest rate in 30 years.....
Two years ago with the Arctic ice in rapid retreat, the doomsters, convinced of the coming of an ice-free Arctic, could scarcely contain themselves. Now, with the Arctic ice in rapid return, their anticipation of disaster seems more a cruel hoax of Nature.
The 1st paragraph states that the Antartica ice is still melting, but just at a slower rate.......but then the 2nd paragraph claims it's "in rapid return". ??
Is the 2nd paragraph referring to ice in the Arctic or Antarctic? Paul??
Anyway, throw a ton of salt at this article, I'm not convinced yet. Go Green!
salt melts snow what the heck are trying to do, make things worse :)
long, "Yes, there is!" and "No, there is not!" discussions going. I merely present this article or Op-Ed as someone called the previous URL for your information.
Recent satellite photos reveal a vast ice sheet covering the Arctic Ocean. This is a noteworthy development because of concern among some scientists that the Arctic Ice Cap would disappear entirely this year due to predictions of Global Warming.
Reported by the University of Illinois's Arctic Climate Research Center, the study concludes that worldwide sea ice covering is equal to that monitored in 1979, when satellite photos first became available of the Arctic.
Researchers predicted that the thinness of the new Arctic sea ice meant it would melt more quickly. This actually fostered its growth because less snow accumulated on the ice as it grew. In related news, Polar Bear numbers are on the rise.
This good news has been completly dropped by the fact that many new studies coming out this year were done with the data before last winter (1979 to 2007).
So when you see an article that says : "A NEW STUDY SHOWS THAT ICE MELT MORE RAPIDLY THAN WE THOUGHT", verify if this new study was done from data of the 1979 to 2007 (which is correct but hide the recent winter results). Some other studies talks about the 1979 to 2008 period but they do not include the august-december 2008 data.
Why the Arctic ice came back completly in one winter? Some scientists says that the ice was thin and water was then covering it. With the very very cold wind of last winter (the sun is in a quiet phase) this created the formation of ice very rapidly. On a thick ice surface covered with snow, the increase would have been slower.
Carl
Last edited by Carl Bilodeau; Saturday, 10th October, 2009, 02:46 PM.
These are basically three articles cross-referencing each other. Since their only scientific reference was about a study conducted by the Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois, it might have been a good idea to point to their own site. So here it is :
What is interesting is that they maintain on their main page:
Sea ice extent averaged over the Northern Hemisphere has decreased correspondingly over the past 50 years (shown right). The largest change has been observed in the summer months with decreases exceeding 30%. Decreases observed in winter are more modest.
That said, it might be interesting to look around the site just for the fun of it. One can find there many interesting data sets, graphics, animations, etc. Almost as ugly as a Canadian GMI's blog, and almost as entertaining.
By some miracle, the editorial content is near null, even if there are papers; see the links at the right column, under "Recent papers". Here is an interesting hypothesis : in a webpage, the editorial content is inversely proportional to the data it contains. I am sure there are studies on the subject by communication theorists and public relation practicians.
Last edited by Benoit St-Pierre; Saturday, 10th October, 2009, 05:15 PM.
Re: I am not trying to get another of those... (Not Chess Related)
Ken, your source is well know to be biased against the idea of climate change. It is almost guaranteed that any National Post article on climate change will have the view that it is not happening. To get a more balanced viewpoint, you might do better looking at some of the Globe and Mail articles...
I subscribe to what I enjoy most. Except, I get the Saturday G&M for Berry's chess column.
I seem to remember the Globe and Mail being Canada's answer to the Wall Street Journal... did it used to be that, say 13 years ago, and it's been changed since then?
I remember the Toronto Star being the liberal paper in Toronto.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Ken, your source is well know to be biased against the idea of climate change. It is almost guaranteed that any National Post article on climate change will have the view that it is not happening. To get a more balanced viewpoint, you might do better looking at some of the Globe and Mail articles...
Just because he is biased doesn't mean he is not correct.:)
Globe and Mail's Report on Business section was similar to the WSJ, but not even close as to depth of coverage. The Star is liberal and the G&M seems to me to lean left also. The Star seems to me to have anti-USA and Anti-Israel columnists, so I CXL'd my subscription awhile back. I have a hard enough time getting through a single newspaper a day, never mind a couple or three!
Re: National Post is a Conservative Newspaper and...
Compared to the National Post, anything else in Canada would be seen as liberal...
I think that most people would say that the Globe and Mail is more balanced politically than other papers.
I try to avoid the political bias by not subscribing to any paper. I read whatever papers are available at the local coffee shops, usually the Globe and Mail, Ottawa Citizen, and sometimes the National Post.
...
By some miracle, the editorial content is near null, even if there are papers; see the links at the right column, under "Recent papers". Here is an interesting hypothesis : in a webpage, the editorial content is inversely proportional to the data it contains. I am sure there are studies on the subject by communication theorists and public relation practicians.
The Sea Ice Ends Year 2008 at Same Level as 1979. The data is from satellite data. The website is from a very good USA university.
Charts don't speak by themselves: what is your interpretation of them? Can the chart differentiate new ice with old one? Spell out what you are trying to convey!
Taking the words is easier. See :
Recent observed surface air temperature changes over the Arctic region are the largest in the world. Winter (DJF) rates of warming exceed 4 degrees C. over portions of the Arctic land areas (shown left).
That sentence is easy to interpret: it means that air temperature is heating up quite abnormaly. I don't know how that counts into the overall analysis of global warming, but I would venture to think it's not unimportant. It's easy to forget about ice quality and concentrate only on surface; it's more difficult to tweak air temperature.
Here are some other parameters that are studied :
Total cloudiness
Solar radiation
Longwave radiation
Net surface radiation
Cloud net radiative forcing
Surface air temperature
Sea level pressure
Precipitation
Precipitation (Arctic Ocean focus)
Precipitation - Evaporation (P-E)
We should not cherry-pick. Here is their page where is taken the chart, splendidly entitled **Cryosphere Today**:
From what I can gather, I'd say all is far from clear; in the last chart, the summer ice forms a strange pattern, reminding me of our noble national sport ;-) I'd ask our in-house climatologist, then maybe another one: a right-wing friend of mine. Yes, I can have right-wing friends, and he's even more right-wing than one might think.
Without questioning how you base your evaluation of that particular university, I'd say that extrapolating from a serious university data does not make one more serious instantly. In any case, the subject seems tough enough that we should take an op-ed taken from a newspaper with a very clear-cut editorial line with a grain of salt:
The editorial lines of Constitutionally Right is even more appaling. Short News and Daily Tech are just news relays. Everyone could write a story and get them published there.
Last edited by Benoit St-Pierre; Tuesday, 13th October, 2009, 08:11 PM.
Tweet
Paul??
Comment