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.
Carl, the lies you are telling in this message have been refuted numerous times by me and others. Repeating them in the face of this only makes you look silly. Repeat them a hundred times and they will not be any truer than they are now, which is not at all.
It does no good to tell Carl this, because as the saying goes, there are none so blind as those who WILL NOT see.
Carl has associated anyone arguing for global warming with those who throw beer bottles at his precious Hummer. Therefore he will not be convinced come hell or.... HIGH WATER! :D
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Jones is saying that there has been warming in the last 15 years, but that it is not large enough be statistically significant with 95% certainty. This is indeed a high statistical hurdle for such a short period of time.
It is the standard statistical hurdle required to reject the null hypothesis. It is not a particularly short period of time when the statistics are based on tens of thousands of "adjusted" measurements. Sample sizes of 30 can yield statistically significant results without the fudging required by AGW advocate <cough!> "scientists" and in fact many of the "experiments" "proving" AGW have very small sample sizes (ie tree core proxy data experiments).
Here is an extract:
Current Analysis Method
The current analysis uses surface air temperatures measurements from the following data sets: the unadjusted data of the Global Historical Climatology Network (Peterson and Vose, 1997 and 1998), United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) data, and SCAR (Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research) data from Antarctic stations. The basic analysis method is described by Hansen et al. (1999), with several modifications described by Hansen et al. (2001) also included.
Graphs and tables are updated around the 10th of every month using the current GHCN and SCAR files. The new files incorporate reports for the previous month and late reports and corrections for earlier months. NOAA updates the USHCN data at a slower, less regular frequency; we switch to a later version as soon as a new complete year is available.
The GHCN/USHCN/SCAR data are modified in two steps to obtain station data from which our tables, graphs, and maps are constructed. In step 1, if there are multiple records at a given location, these are combined into one record; in step 2, the urban and peri-urban (i.e., other than rural) stations are adjusted so that their long-term trend matches that of the mean of neighboring rural stations. Urban stations without nearby rural stations are dropped.
A global temperature index, as described by Hansen et al. (1996), is obtained by combining the meteorological station measurements with sea surface temperatures based in early years on ship measurements and in recent decades on satellite measurements. Uses of this data should credit the original sources, specifically the British HadISST group (Rayner and others) and the NOAA satellite analysis group (Reynolds, Smith and others). (See references.)
The analysis is limited to the period since 1880 because of poor spatial coverage of stations and decreasing data quality prior to that time. Meteorological station data provide a useful indication of temperature change in the Northern Hemisphere extratropics for a few decades prior to 1880, and there are a small number of station records that extend back to previous centuries. However, we believe that analyses for these earlier years need to be carried out on a station by station basis with an attempt to discern the method and reliability of measurements at each station, a task beyond the scope of our analysis. Global studies of still earlier times depend upon incorporation of proxy measures of temperature change. References to such studies are provided in Hansen et al. (1999).
Why don't they take the satellite data that show no warming since 1979?
Seems you are an expert on satellites. What is the accuracy of the Earth temperature measurements from satellites (i.e., areal, height, and temperature)?
Seems you are an expert on satellites. What is the accuracy of the Earth temperature measurements from satellites (i.e., areal, height, and temperature)?
Do you want the numbers rounded up or rounded down? :)
Seems you are an expert on satellites. What is the accuracy of the Earth temperature measurements from satellites (i.e., areal, height, and temperature)?
Almost of all the ground stations today use the satellite info to calibrate themself since the accuracy is very high. The two Satellite systems see the whole earth except a small region with permanent ice. There is only one sensor on the satellite so the calibration is the same for every region of the earth. The satellite goes up and down a bit during the year so a little automatic adjustment has to be done on the data. But since there is two satellite systems it is easy to calibrate this adjustment.
The ground stations of the past 50 years had all kind of sensors, were adjusted locally and individually, they are not distributed evenly on the earth, there was nearly none on the sea and very little outside populated areas.
So to predict a warming or a cooling with this database is very easy. Either way you have to use hundreads of interpolations for the areas where there is no stations, extrapolate for the stations that are down during the nights, the ones that were down for a month, etc.
In fact such a database is very useful if you want to know the temperature 70 years ago in a region but to make scientist global earth conclusions with this is simply not honest. This is why satellite data is the one to use. This is the main argument of the so-called "deniers": use the satellite info instead of extrapolating databases.
Here is an extract from Gary's article: Crucial data on the American climate, part of the basis for proposed trillion-dollar global warming legislation, is churned out by a 120-year-old weather system that has remained mostly unchanged since Benjamin Harrison was in the White House.
The network measures surface temperature by tallying paper reports sent in by snail mail from volunteers whose data, according to critics, often resembles a hodgepodge of guesswork, mathematical interpolation and simple human error.
"It's rather archaic," said Anthony Watts, a meteorologist who since 2007 has been cataloging problems in the 1,218 weather stations that make up the Historical Climatology Network.
"When the network was put together in 1892, it was mercury thermometers and paper forms. Today it's still much the same," he said.
The network relies on volunteers in the 48 contiguous states to take daily readings of high and low temperatures and precipitation measured by sensors they keep by their homes and offices. They deliver that information to the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), which uses it to track changes in the climate.
Car and plane exhaust warms the air, right? So why are the National Climate Data Center's thermometers so close to them? Here, sensors in 9 of the oddest locations.
RELATED LINKS
U.S. Climate Data Compromised by Sensors' Proximity to Heat Sources, Critics Say
Gore Feels the Heat, Comes In From the Cold
Requirements aren't very strict for volunteers: They need a modicum of training and decent vision in at least one eye to qualify. And they're expected to take measurements seven days a week, 365 days a year.
That's a recipe for trouble, says Watts, who told FoxNews.com that less scrupulous members of the network often fail to collect the data when they go on vacation or are sick. He said one volunteer filled in missing data with local weather reports from the newspapers that stacked up while he was out of town.
Click here to see a well-filled form | Click here to see a form missing data
And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Volunteers take their readings at different times of day, then round the temperatures to the nearest whole number and mark down their measurements on paper forms they mail in monthly to the NCDC headquarters in Ashville, N.C.
"You've got this kind of a ragtag network that's reporting the numbers for our official climate readings," said Watts, who found that 90 percent of the stations violated the government's guidelines for where they may be located.
Watts believes that poor placement of temperature sensors has compromised the system's data. Though they are supposed to be situated in empty clearings, many of the stations are potentially corrupted by their proximity to heat sources, including exhaust pipes, trash-burning barrels, chimneys, barbecue grills, seas of asphalt — and even a grave.
Once the data reaches the NCDC, climate scientists in Ashville digitize the numbers and check to make sure there are no large anomalies. The introduction of electronic weather gauges into the system in the 1980s was a much-needed update, but the new and improved gauges measure temperatures slightly differently and must be corrected to sync up with the overall historic data.
If numbers appear faulty or if more than nine days are missing from a single month's tally, the whole month is thrown out, according to NCDC documents, and the Center uses a computer program to determine average temperatures at dozens of nearby stations to guess what the temperature would have been for the month at the unknown station.
The overall land temperature record produced by the NCDC is used by a number of top climate research centers, including the U.N.'s International Panel on Climate Change, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, headed until recently by Phil Jones, who stepped down in the wake of the Climate-gate scandal.
What it boils down to, Watts says, is that some of the world's top climate scientists have been crunching numbers that were altered by their immediate surroundings, rounded by volunteers, guessed at by the NCDC if there was insufficient data, then further adjusted to correct for "biases," including the uneven times of day when measurements were taken -- all ending up with a number that is 0.6 degrees warmer than the raw data, which Watts believes is itself suspect.
But scientists at the NCDC say the system is an indispensable tool for measuring local temperatures, and that its readings are buttressed by the consensus drawn from the 8,000 surface stations that make up the Cooperative Observer Program, the overall national system of which the 1,218 stations in the Historical Climatology Network are just a part.
"We use the rest of the COOP network to help calibrate," said Jay Lawrimore, chief of the climate monitoring branch at NCDC. "It's used to do quality control."
NCDC climatologists carefully track temperature trends at local levels to ensure that the data submitted by volunteers is reliable, adjusting for the biases caused by the time of day when measurements are taken, for differences between old and new equipment, and to account for flukes that might be caused by poor siting.
The NCDC insists its adjusted numbers are an accurate representation of climatic reality, backed up by worldwide trends in air temperature, water temperature, glacier melt, plant flowering and other indicators of climate change.
"The signal appears to be robust, a reliable temperature signal," said Lawrimore.
But Watts says that even a single step — the rounding of the daily temperature — creates a margin of error about as large as the entire global warming trend scientists are hoping to confirm.
It all could become moot within a decade, as the climate center's outmoded Pony Express is currently being replaced with a screaming bullet train.
Lawrimore told FoxNews.com that about 5 percent of the historical network has already been automated, but a far more important development has been the launching of the digitally run Climate Reference Network (CRN), a system of 114 stations that went fully online in 2008.
The CRN was carefully sited in fields around the country and automatically records daily climate data and transmits it at midnight local time, sending it by satellite and eliminating the snail-mail delay, the rounding of numbers and any elements of human error.
But that doesn't mean the Historical Climate Network is going away, say NCDC scientists, who will continue to rely on its volunteers' readings to gather climate data on the local level.
So don't stable those ponies just yet.
Last edited by Carl Bilodeau; Wednesday, 3rd March, 2010, 10:59 PM.
How come articles like this always show graph from the GISS NASA? Why don't they take the satellite data that show no warming since 1979?
In fact the satellite data is perfectly consistent with the other lines of evidence.
For those who don't already know, "GISS" is the "Goddard Institute for Space Studies" and those who want to know what they are really doing may go to their website at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/.
Reading Carl's message, you will note that it contains only unsupported claims and no actual evidence to support them. I believe that this is because the actual evidence does not support them, but I invite you not merely to accept my opinion but to check out the real evidence at the source.
I wonder how it can be, by the way, that Carl trusts what the scientists report the satellite data to be, but does not trust them when they conclude that the earlier ground based data is sufficient to draw conclusions from. I mean, if these scientists are so dumb as to not agree with Carl about the ground based data, how can he trust them to report the satellite data correctly?
Apparently the scientists are right if they agree with Carl, but the very same scientists are wrong when they report evidence that contradicts his beliefs.
Anyway, I invite you to look at the actual evidence provided by the actual scientists and draw your own conclusions, assuming you haven't already made up your mind and are still interested in the actual evidence.
Last edited by Ed Seedhouse; Thursday, 4th March, 2010, 12:05 AM.
Climate change is alive and well; the most important indicators of this are the exponential rise in CO2 atmospheric concentrations and ocean concentration (leading to increase in ocean acidity).
Interest seems to be waning in this thread. I thought you might be interested in a couple of recent events including one gallup poll.
Well, it agrees with Gary, so it must be right! "Fair and Balanced", yeah. If you believe that I can make you an excellent offer on a slightly used bridge.
Well, it agrees with Gary, so it must be right! "Fair and Balanced", yeah.
Hiya Ed,
I thought you would be pleased. I even included the results of the latest Gallup Poll. The changing public sentiment renews my faith in human nature. Particularly the part where you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
I've been thinking of buying back my investments in B.C. companies. They've gotten cheaper. Anyhow, I moved the dog food money to oil and gas in Alberta. Vero and Galleon Energy. I guess we all know what's happened to Galleon a couple of days ago, but I got it far below current price. Stelmack, in Alberta, gave the industry incentives to come rape his resources for a less costly royalty rate. I doubt there will be any big rush back
The paper company is starting to look better, IF the price drops more. I want to see if the union gives them the concessions they want first and if they reopen a paper line in the mothballed mill. I was reading about a shortage of wood chips. For those reading this about half a tree goes into making lumber. The rest goes into other products including, but not limited to, paper and particle board. Less demand for lumber and there are fewer wood chips.
I'm also waiting for the sugar company to drop more. The biggest input cost for making sugar, as far as I know, is natural gas. I've always considered sugar to be one sweet business. Still, they are in B.C. and Quebec. The two provinces with carbon taxes which makes them less attractive.
Do you like Sugar? A company about that size would burn about 3 million MCF of natural gas a year. (publically disclosed figures). Gas runs between 4.50 and 5.50 for 1 MCF these last few months.
I'm only mentioning this to point out for an environmentalist, he can't have his cake and eat it too.
Possibly next time we'll discuss the renderings of an abbattoir. :)
If I believed the workings of my personal life were as interesting as Gary seems to think his are, I'd tell you all about my recent colonoscopy. But I suspect people would be as bored about that as they are about Gary's economic ramblings, which do, however, suggest that he is having some problems with, er, "retension".
Now, thinking that how one invests one's money is somehow fascinating to other people, that's egotism gone wild. Not, alas, surprising in a bully, of course.
If I believed the workings of my personal life were as interesting as Gary seems to think his are, I'd tell you all about my recent colonoscopy. But I suspect people would be as bored about that as they are about Gary's economic ramblings, which do, however, suggest that he is having some problems with, er, "retension".
Now, thinking that how one invests one's money is somehow fascinating to other people, that's egotism gone wild. Not, alas, surprising in a bully, of course.
I have to admit on a scale of open heart surgery to chemotheraphy for Cancer, your colonoscopy rates pretty high.
Nobody bullies you, Ed. I thought you had the labour movement behind you.
Personally, I think you're more interested in my postings than I am. You have nothing to say about the situation or poll results so you attack the messenger. There's no indication you understand the items.
So tell us something, Ed. Do you feel people have bullied you all your life or is it only people on message boards with whom you disagree?
I love it when you start calling names to defend your position. It's the same as resigning a chess game.
Tweet
Comment