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.
What I find interesting is the fact that for decades most of the world's leading politicians called global warming a hoax, a fraud, nothing but fear-mongering, a lie, a socialist plot and so forth, and then in the twinkling of an eye these same people saw the light and now they want to carbon tax our backsides off.
Well, one side is presenting the results obtained by actual climate scientists with actual doctorates who publish in actual peer reviewed journals and a few of whom have earned Nobel prizes.
The other is proclaiming beliefs from people who stand to make a big profit if no action is taken, and often take money from those same people.
I know which side I think is more likely to be correct
Who will make massive profits from taking the actions you are proposing, what about Gore's massive increase in personal wealth from promoting this "greening?" The same Gore who won't even defend his "documentary(?)/propaganda(?)" when questions arise.
I still think that both sides are using the same types of arguments. Honestly, I doubt we will know the "real" truth about this for a long time yet. I doubt any of us will even be alive when the answer is finally known, alas! It would be interesting. Yes! Yes! I know. You already believe you do know the answer. I, however, cannot decide!
[QUOTE=Ed Seedhouse;16882]
a few of whom have earned Nobel prizes.
Barack Obama is about to receive his Nobel Prize, for Peace, while he pumps 35,000 more soldiers into Afghanistan, and states publically that a person tortured 183 times in Guantanamo will be executed for confessing to being the mastermind of 911, despite the fact that the reason for the invasion of Afghanistan in the first place was to apprehend the original alleged mastermind, Osama bin Laden, whom we must now assume to be innocent, given Obama's words, meaning that the Americans now implicity admit that there was no justification for their invasion of Afghanistan.
In other words, I have no faith in the recipients of Nobel Prizes.
Last edited by Brad Thomson; Saturday, 28th November, 2009, 10:15 AM.
Who will make massive profits from taking the actions you are proposing, what about Gore's massive increase in personal wealth from promoting this "greening?"
Gore gets paid for talking to people, just like George Bush. Each is one guy.
The business interests that gain huge profits from generating atmospheric carbon, and who want the right to keep doing it, make amounts that dwarf what any one individual will make from sounding the alarm.
But then I did not ask anyone to believe Gore, who is not a climate scientist, so you are merely raising a red herring.
You already believe you do know the answer
I believe no such thing, I simply choose to be pursuaded by the actual evidence provided by those with actual qualifications, and am perfectly willing to change my mind if the evidence changes. It hasn't.
You, on the other hand, are merely making claims without evidence and using ad-hominum attacks to discredit me.
I, however, cannot decide!
That's because, as evidenced above, you are not rational, at least in this area. I hope your chess thinking is better.
I think the problem is that most deniers of climate change don't respond to the substantive arguments made by the scientific community. The general arguments for climate change are based on two premises:
1. Increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere cause rising global temperatures.
2. The CO2 level in the atmosphere is increasing due to human activity.
I've never heard of any climate change deniers who have provided counter-arguments to these premises. Instead they mostly give irrelevant arguments like claiming that the climate isn't really getting warmer, or saying that the climate was warmer in the past than it is now, or that in the past CO2 concentration was driven by rising temperatures and not vice versa. None of these arguments, even if true, would be a counter-argument to the premises given above.
Until climate change deniers actually provide evidence that contradicts those premises, then I don't think their views should be given any weight.
2. The CO2 level in the atmosphere is increasing due to human activity.
I personally think that it is quite likely that both your point one and two are correct. I wonder how anyone could prove or disprove point two?
I was watching a show last week where they were interviewing one of the co-authors of Superfreakonomics. The guy made the interesting proposal that if mankind ate kangaroo burgers instead of cow burgers then the amount of methane in the atmosphere would decline greatly (since kangaroo flatulence doesn't contain methane), which would slow the global warming trend. I am looking forward to reading the book to learn more, and even more looking forward to some delicious 'roo burgers!
"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.
We are like a boy who has just turned 16. On our birthday (
the Industrial Revolution), we got a car. At first the
road was uphill, but so wide that it didn't matter much
what we did with the steering wheel--which now has
6,800,000,000+ (that's 6.33 gibipeeps) pairs of hands on it.
Some hands have a better grip on the wheel, but all hands
share in the fate of the car.
Recently, or perhaps in the near future, we have arrived at
the crest of a hill and at the same time the road has
narrowed (just like what happens on a hilly road in
mountainous BC). Trouble is, up until recently, we never
needed to know how to turn the car or to use the breaks.
It's showdown time for our driving lessons.
In individual life, a few 16-year-olds do themselves in,
learning how to drive. Our chances in this industrial race
are less good, because each pair of hands is connected to a
pair of eyes that surveys a different chunk of the scene
and sees the whole differently. You might say we're driving
blind.
Tune in next decade for the continuation (not, I hope,
the conclusion) of this real-life drama.
In the atmosphere, carbon dioxide is inert (not chemically active). However when it rains the water combines with the carbon dioxide producing carbonic acid which ends up in the ocean, changing the chemistry. As a result, ocean acidity has increased, with the pH dropping from 8.2 (open ocean normal pH over millions of years) to 8.05. This drop of 0.15 is an acidity increase of 10exp(0.15) = 1.41, i.e. an increase in acidity of 41%.
This drop is expected based on calculations of how much carbon dioxide is in human emissions and how much is expected to end up in the ocean. Marine creatures (like all life) are very sensitive to pH, if it is too low than calcifiers (anything with a shell, bone, or skeleton) is affected, i.e. corals dissolve.
To put this in context, human blood has a pH range of 7.35 - 7.45, outside this range the person gets sick and eventually dies, unless the pH returns into the normal range.
Why is the ocean so important? Roughly 50% of the oxygen in the atmosphere is produced in the surface layer of the oceans by plankton. If all life disappeared from the land, the ocean life would still thrive. If all life disappeared from the ocean, its game over for land based life.
Ocean acidification is probably one of the most serious of all climate related issues. Forget geoengineering schemes like seeding the atmosphere with sulfur or mirrors in space to reduce light intensity, neither of these would reduce ocean acidification. The only way to reduce that is to reduce carbon dioxide going into the air, or somehow extract the extra going in.
Tweet
Comment