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.
Is that a serious proposal by somebody? The problem with geoengineering proposals is that although it would be a huge feat to make it happen, once achieved they can easily cause more harm than good. For example, we deploy an array of solar reflectors to cool the earth by a degree on a hot year. How confident are we that it will be just one degree? What will happen to weather patterns? Will there be a consequent cooling that extends to the future? Serious question: Who really knows?
If a global cooling project is successful, what happens if natural events concur which also effect a cooling? Do we get an ice age from the cumulative effect?
We analyzed some possible solutions in an astrophysic course. It didn't seem like any of these was really working.
While there's no doubt among the science community about climate change, there's no consencus on what should be done. Many even believe it is already too late.
"THE next United Nations climate report will ''scare the wits out of everyone'' and should provide the impetus needed for the world to finally sign an agreement to tackle global warming, the former head of the UN negotiations said.
Yvo de Boer, the UN climate chief during the 2009 Copenhagen climate change talks, said his conversations with scientists working on the next report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggested the findings would be shocking."
"THE next United Nations climate report will ''scare the wits out of everyone'' and should provide the impetus needed for the world to finally sign an agreement to tackle global warming, the former head of the UN negotiations said.
Yvo de Boer, the UN climate chief during the 2009 Copenhagen climate change talks, said his conversations with scientists working on the next report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggested the findings would be shocking."
"THE next United Nations climate report will ''scare the wits out of everyone'' and should provide the impetus needed for the world to finally sign an agreement to tackle global warming, the former head of the UN negotiations said.
More than 40% of the U.S. electricity is produced from coal. Are they willing to stop burning coal and lose so much supply?
Will they incorporate the Met Office's findings that there hasn't been any net warming in 16 years?
I haven't really been following all this, but aren't there many qualified people out there who argue that the Met Office's findings are not supported by the facts?
Whatever....I don't know where they have been spending their winters, but where I live, anyone with a memory spanning forty years or more knows very clearly that our winters have been getting much less severe, much less, and we don't need scientific measurements to support this.
It is warming up, particularly in the last few years. What is in great dispute is whether this is nature's grand plan, or whether we are to blame, or both. And whether we have it in our power to do anything meaningful about it.
Sorry if this is too simplistic for those of you with an investment in this, but sometimes you just have to cut through all the words....after all, the Met Office can't even tell me what the weather is going to be like tomorrow?
We analyzed some possible solutions in an astrophysic course. It didn't seem like any of these was really working.
Well, I don't know where your course was or who taught, but your conclusions were definitely wrong. Sulfates are known to significantly cool the earth's surface for sustained periods of time (approx. 2 years). Natural example: Pinatubo eruption of 1991.
A major argument of GW denialists is that the temperature did not increase much in the 1998-2008 period... which correspond precisely to a period over which China produced huge amounts of atmospheric sulfates (from coal plants).
And I remember reading that China did change its regulation on sulfates emissions in the last 2 or 3 years (it was causing local increases in acid raining). So... we'll see what happens with that.
Not saying sulfates are the long-term solution or even a good solution at all. But it would sure keep things steady in the short term. The real downside is that the denialists would just keep saying: 'See! There's no problem that can't be solved by human creativity and adaptability!'
In Toronto this graph and these record daily highs and record daily lows aren't showing highs being reached recently.
Using local daily records as an argument in global warming....
I thought that denialists were now arguing over two fronts.
*1-It may not be our fault (solar radiation etc) and thus we can't do anything, it's pointless, let's continue to pour huge amounts of CO2 in our atmosphere.
*2-Just the old 'No problem, human creativity and market forces will provide a solution in due time'.
But man, if you are denying the very fact that the earth's temperature has increased in the last 100 years, you're far behind in terms of 'denialism trends'. Catch up, please!
Mathieu
*Regarding #1, the consensus is that we are 90% certain that CO2 causes global warming, so you are going all in on a hand with 10% odds of winning. Regarding #2 please, go read a little bit about Easter island and what happens when exponential growth meets limited resources.
Last edited by Mathieu Cloutier; Tuesday, 13th November, 2012, 05:46 PM.
Well, I don't know where your course was or who taught, but your conclusions were definitely wrong. Sulfates are known to significantly cool the earth's surface for sustained periods of time (approx. 2 years). Natural example: Pinatubo eruption of 1991.
A major argument of GW denialists is that the temperature did not increase much in the 1998-2008 period... which correspond precisely to a period over which China produced huge amounts of atmospheric sulfates (from coal plants).
And I remember reading that China did change its regulation on sulfates emissions in the last 2 or 3 years (it was causing local increases in acid raining). So... we'll see what happens with that.
Not saying sulfates are the long-term solution or even a good solution at all. But it would sure keep things steady in the short term. The real downside is that the denialists would just keep saying: 'See! There's no problem that can't be solved by human creativity and adaptability!'
Mathieu
I was talking about the options that involved solar reflectors or deviations of the earth orbit (believe it or not, it was once suggested). Obviously, some chemicals or ions like sulfate can help cooling the planet, but we could hardly imagine a viable solution involving them.
Also, it is important that the problem is not only global warming, but climate change in general, which would certainly not benefit from lots of chemicals being released in the air.
There are tons of scientists here at McGill looking for solutions to climate change and it is the same in many of the other top universities in the world. If there was a solution to climate change, we would all know about it.
Sorry if this is too simplistic for those of you with an investment in this, but sometimes you just have to cut through all the words....after all, the Met Office can't even tell me what the weather is going to be like tomorrow?
Stipulated: that the Met Office are a bunch of incompetent slugs given what was revealed in the massive email leaks of a few years ago but if they are a bunch of incompetent slugs in this matter then they are also likely a bunch of incompetent slugs on all matters and given that they are authors of much of the science being relied upon to prove global warming the gentle reader can do his own math and come to the conclusion that we can ignore everything that they and their allies write on these matters.
If AGW is truly factual then there is nothing that can be done to stop its forward progress given the fact that big "polluters" continue to behave as if it is not a problem. China is adding coal plants at the rate of one every few days. Their output dwarfs Canadas. Even if we made gasoline $10 per liter we would have virtually no effect on the overall carbon trajectory of the planet.
Do you think you would like a world with $10 per liter gas? This price despite the fact that the U.S. is projected to become a net exporter of hydrocarbons in the next 20 years. Peak oil and other doomsday scenarios appear to be falling by the wayside.
Last edited by Vlad Drkulec; Tuesday, 13th November, 2012, 06:35 PM.
I know. It can be inconvenient. However, Dan was using where he spends the winters. Where I spend the winters it's not the same and possibly when he tells us where he spends the winters we could find the same trend.
Do you doubt the figures?
It's not inconvenient, Gary. We're talking overall trends here, and you can't use daily record high or lows, which completely dwarf the trends we are talking about, to make your argument. So even if you knew where we have wintered for years, you would still use those flawed figures.
I started searching for some supporting data.....boy these weather people really know how to B.S. everyone with figures which don't tell you anything....and I was hoping to come up with some historical info on, for instance, heating degree days in the winter months, but I've drawn a blank so far. At least those numbers would smear out all the short and mid-term anomalies of "records".
And if you want to call it climate change, be my guest. A rose by any other name!
My point was that personal experience over many years indicates it is getting less severe, er, warming each winter, and our relatives in Oakville agree with this.
Obviously, some chemicals or ions like sulfate can help cooling the planet, but we could hardly imagine a viable solution involving them.
Experts made the calculations and you wouldn't need that much stuff to do the trick. One large volcano eruption alone (Pinatubo 1991) was enough to reduce the earth's temperature by 0.5C for about 2 years.
By the way, I'm not defending geoengineering. I'm just saying that geoengineering is possible and quite simple (as nature shows us).
The best solution is of course to reduce CO2 emissions, but who knows if and how mankind will deal with this problem.
I know. It can be inconvenient. However, Dan was using where he spends the winters. Where I spend the winters it's not the same and possibly when he tells us where he spends the winters we could find the same trend.
Do you doubt the figures?
Well, both measurements are not correct, but at least, Dan was not making statements that go beyond what his 'measurement' shows. Let's look at both ways, starting with Dan's.
Dan says that winters in the last few years where he lives are much warmer. That may just be a local trend, or it may be linked to a larger, global trend. How do we know? By sampling and compiling enough of these local trends. Dan is just giving us his small contribution to the big picture and I didn't see how he was making unreasonable claims about GW.
Now with you.
Using local daily high/low temperature records and then trying to link this to a global trend is completely moronic (sorry to be harsh, not saying you are a moron, but your claim is). What you are doing is the following:
1-You sample the daily high/low temperature for over 150 years
2-This daily record has a standard deviation of several degrees. Say, June 12 of a given year, the highest recorded temperature at mid-day could be 15C or 25C and everything is still perfectly normal and expected. That's weather (w-e-a-t-h-e-r).
3-Now comes the 'problematic' part: you claim that because the extreme samples are from way back in the past, there's no warming trend. That's completely false and misleading. You have a normal distribution with a large standard deviation, of course you won't see a +0.8C trend with that.
I have to give you some merit, though, your variation of using weather to try and disprove global warming is slightly more sophisticated than average. I guess that you even fell for your own fallacy and you will continue to defend it no matter what.
Tweet
Comment