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.
Gary, as soon as the volcano exploded, you should have been on a flight to Europe to investigate the solar panels firsthand. Just think, you could be posting from the terminal at Heathrow right now! :D
Naw. I decided on the brewery as a consolation.
Actually, the solar company is a big operation. I think their solar operations are in France or Germany and that's only a small part of what they do. Not sure and I'm interested in their other divisions. For the solar they are planning on adding around 900 employees here in Southern Ontario.
The Brewery is a prospect. Penny stock.
Lots of interesting stuff around. I have one that's working on drugs for Alzheimers, frontotermperal dementias and cognitive impairment related to schizophrenia. They have actually had some success with some of their tests and got FDA fast track status for one of their drugs. I'll probably lose on this one like I usually do on those kind but figure it's for a good cause.
I fail to see what his views on evolution have to do with his analysis of climate change.
I didn't realize you were so poor at simple logic...
I looked all over that webpage and must have missed the banner saying "Evolution is a crock too" - can you point to the section where his views on evolution are outlined?
...or had such poor research skills. Took me about two minutes to find this out. Well, when he is bashing Climate Change he will find it "convenient" to "forget" to mention his other unscientific views. Happens to a lot of deniers for some odd reason.
I won't help you with a hint because the source is about the easiest one to find on the web that there is.
I didn't realize you were so poor at simple logic...
...or had such poor research skills. Took me about two minutes to find this out. Well, when he is bashing Climate Change he will find it "convenient" to "forget" to mention his other unscientific views. Happens to a lot of deniers for some odd reason.
I won't help you with a hint because the source is about the easiest one to find on the web that there is.
OK, I'll give you a hint: W.
Sorry Ed. I didn't realize you are as bright as you appear in your picture.
Nevermind.
And who doesn't believe in evolution! Yeah, that's some credible source you got there Ernest!
Tell me, do you also believe that evolution is wrong?
Ed, this is a treacherous road you may want to back away from. First of all, remember that a while ago, you and others were saying that mathematicians and economists and geologists, even those with Ph.D's, aren't qualified to make judgments about climate science, only climate scientists are. Now we are given a climate scientist who disagrees with your views, and you denigrate him because of his views on a completely different science, which by your own logic he's not qualified to make anyways.
Also, (and again, this may have no bearing), what does it mean to not believe in evolution? There are those who do not believe in ANY DEGREE of evolution, such as man evolving from ape, and then there are those who believe man could have evolved and probably did evolve from ape, but who also believe that there is a Creator and that life in the Universe began with Creation of more than just a single-celled organism on a single planet from which every other living thing is ultimately descended.
You can argue against the former group using science, but you can't argue against the latter group using science.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
The 2 million square km East Siberian Ice Shelf (about 50 meters under the ocean) has vast amounts of methane frozen in the permafrost under the sea floor. Up to now, it was thought that this methane would remain frozen, kept cold by seawater.
Not so. Emissions from this one site are equivalent to all the other global sources of methane combined. Since methane is a potent greenhouse gas (25-30 times moreso than carbon dioxide) the release of even a fraction of the total stored would very likely trigger abrupt climate change.
It looks like a decade long solar minimum is not going to happen at the moment. Warming will likely accelerate over the next few years.
Eyjafjallajokull (called E-15 by the US military since nobody can remember the name (E being the first letter followed by 15 other letters)) eruptions to date only sent ash up into the troposphere so the weather will wash it out within a few weeks to a month), to affect the climate over several years the eruption would need to be more powerful and send ash clear up into the stratosphere where it would orbit the planet for several years.
However, the magma chamber of Eyjafjallajokull is connected to that of Katla which is a much larger more dangerous volcano and historically whenever Eyjafjallajokull erupts it is followed by Katla within 8 months to a year.
Maybe Europe should stock up on every propellor driven plane that it can get a hold off; these would be safe to fly in ash that would stop a jet engine.
I fail to see what his views on evolution have to do with his analysis of climate change....
- can you point to the section where his views on evolution are outlined?
Kerry, if you use wikkipedia, you quickly see that he has rejected the theory of evolution in favour of intelligent design.
People are free to believe what they wish, but IMHO, there is a vast body of science in support of evolution, whereas, belief in intelligent design is based more on religious grounds and requires a "leap of faith".
Since Dr. Spencer has rejected the theory of evolution, it is perhaps not surprising that he is not yet swayed by the science of climate change. :)
Nevertheless, maybe his book will make a valuable contribution to the discussion. As soon as Vlad reads it, he can fill us in!:D
It is somewhat ironic that the deniers on this board have accused the other side of being religious yealots!
ps. my apologies to Gary for my use of weasel words like "perhaps" and "maybe". Just trying to be politically correct.
Last edited by Bob Gillanders; Thursday, 22nd April, 2010, 12:40 AM.
Kerry, if you use wikkipedia, you quickly see that he has rejected the theory of evolution in favour of intelligent design.
Which of course is what I hinted at with the "W". Well, my research skills are actually quite limited and I wouldn't claim otherwise. There are plenty of people who I know that have far better research skills, since I worked in a Library for around 30 years. They are known as "Librarians".
However. my research skills, limited as they are, found this out in about ten seconds.
What that says about other people's research skills I will leave for others to characterize.
Your other comments explain the right inferences from this bit of data quite well.
But just to quibble, I believe it's "Wikipedia", i.e. one "k"
And who doesn't believe in evolution! Yeah, that's some credible source you got there Ernest!
Tell me, do you also believe that evolution is wrong?
Ed,
I firmly believe in evolution theory and there nothing wrong(!) with it.
Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. is a meteorological expert with published studies that has not been refuted. He does not hold a doctors degree in theology. Don't start attacking his character.
In December, hundreds of bureaucrats from around the world will once again assemble, this time in Copenhagen, in their attempts to forge a new international agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. And as has been the case with every other UN meeting of its type, the participants simply assume that the urban legend is true. Indeed, these politicians and governmental representatives need it to be true. Their careers and political power now depend upon it.
And the fact that they hold their meetings in all of the best tourist destinations in the world, enjoying the finest exotic foods, suggests that they do not expect to ever have to be personally inconvenienced by whatever restrictions they try to impose on the rest of humanity.
If you present these people with evidence that the global warming crisis might well be a false alarm, you are rewarded with hostility and insults, rather than expressions of relief. The same can be said for most lay believers of the urban legend. I say “most” because I once encountered a true believer who said he hoped my research into the possibility that climate change is mostly natural will eventually be proved correct.
Unfortunately, just as we are irresistibly drawn to disasters – either real ones on the evening news, or ones we pay to watch in movie theaters – the urban legend of a climate crisis will persist, being believed by those whose politics and worldviews depend upon it. Only when they finally realize what a new treaty will cost them in loss of freedoms and standard of living will those who oppose our continuing use of carbon-based energy begin to lose their religion.
... Indeed, these politicians and governmental representatives need it to be true. Their careers and political power now depend upon it......
If you present these people with evidence that the global warming crisis might well be a false alarm, you are rewarded with hostility and insults, rather than expressions of relief.....
Only when they finally realize what a new treaty will cost them in loss of freedoms and standard of living will those who oppose our continuing use of carbon-based energy begin to lose their religion.
Indeed, careers and reputations are at stake on both sides of the debate, hopefully everyone will give priority to the truth, and not their own self interests. :) Boy, that statement is embarassing naive! :o
I would love to be convinced that all this is a false alarm, and greet your evidence with "expressions of relief". :) But the skeptics evidence has been unconvincing to date. Please try harder!
You are correct, we could pay a hefty price in freedoms and standards of living to combat climate change. Depends how we go about it! Oil companies will particularly be hard hit in lost revenues. Are you willing to concede the possibility that protecting oil profits is motivating some in the skeptics camp? Just maybe! :)
However, the magma chamber of Eyjafjallajokull is connected to that of Katla which is a much larger more dangerous volcano and historically whenever Eyjafjallajokull erupts it is followed by Katla within 8 months to a year.
Maybe Europe should stock up on every propellor driven plane that it can get a hold off; these would be safe to fly in ash that would stop a jet engine.
This move back to propellor driven planes would be a good head start to the move back to horse and buggy which will be part of the needed climate change solution?
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Emissions from this one site are equivalent to all the other global sources of methane combined. Since methane is a potent greenhouse gas (25-30 times moreso than carbon dioxide) the release of even a fraction of the total stored would very likely trigger abrupt climate change.
Abrupt? Like, maybe, December 21 2012?
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Of course lots of things are possible if you throw enough money at them but will they work and are they the best "bang for the buck"?
Ocean phytoplankton need both light and nutrients to thrive and they get their nutrients from deep cold ocean water rising to the surface; this happens mostly at coastlines and less so in the open ocean. Your rainforests would absorb much more carbon dioxide than the phytoplankton as long as they were not located at one of the upwelling prolific coastal regions.
How much soil do you propose is to be put on your ocean rafts. How do you keep this raft together to hold up to hurricanes, storms, and rogue waves; and how do you keep the salt water from washing away the soil and contaminating it with salt. Maybe you should have the rainforest on an island instead; or even a continent like South America?
Paul, thanks for answering my question in the affirmative that rainforests would absorb more CO2 than the same area of ocean surface (and even saying that the absorption would be "much more"). This give my idea at least some credibility.
Your questions would have to be answered by engineers. I'm just the idea person. As for South America, good luck with all that. You'll have to kill lots of people to keep the rainforests there much longer.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Tweet
Comment