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.
I know we agree to disagree, but I'll just state my position again:
1. Capitalism has brought progress, at the cost of great exploitation of the peasant/worker, and is UNSUSTAINABLE in the long run.
2. USSR-style Communism has brought material progress (China) but at the expense of the rights and privacy of the worker.
3. Democratic Marxism is new and never been tried.......the closest historical equivalent in Chile under the Unity Government of President Salvadore Allende (1970-3) - ended by a military coup instigated by USA.
4. IF world temperature rise is driven by both human activity AND natural process, yes we should do our best to minimize the amount of the increase we are contributing.
5. Yes, if there is no reducing the rate of speed of heat increase near the surface of the Earth, mankind will need all their ingenuity to "adapt" to the increasingly hostile natural environment........and I fear that mankind will, like the dinosaurs, be unable to adapt and will go extinct.
~ Bob A (T-S/P)
Point by point:
1. It is the quality of life of all, perhaps most for the lower middle class, that has improved in free-market economies. I agree that capitalism is certainly unsustainable, and libertarianism is very much the answer.
2. USSR did not progress, it failed. China progressed only after it adopted private-business friendly policies.
3. Democratic Marxism: Legally sanctioned stealing/suppressing of the ones capable of achieving greatness to hand over freebies to those who are not inclined to improve/adapt.
4, I agree with your capitalizing the IF, and your words 'do our best'... not do our worst, foolish stuff like destroying our agriculture, like what happenned in Sri Lanka in its anti-fertilizer drive...and what is happenning in Europe and to some extent in Biden's USA...
5. Mankind is more ingenious than dinosaurs, and so your pessimism is perhaps over-stated...
Last edited by Dilip Panjwani; Saturday, 13th August, 2022, 10:12 AM.
This trapped heat leads to melting ice caps and rising ocean levels, which cause flooding.
Those melting ice caps and rising ocean levels create cause more than flooding, but I'll stop here for now.
That is an excellent idea to "stop here".
The polar Ice cap is increasing in size, not decreasing. Even Greenland is not melting at any greater rate it has in the last 80 Years and, in fact, in the last decade, has slowed significantly.
So the good news is that your doom and gloom predictions are nonsense. The bad news is that govts around the world plan to starve us in the name of depopulation and climate change.
Apparently, the death shots have not murdered enough people including an estimated 237,000 deaths from deathshots vs (21000 "COVID deaths") in Canada alone! Statistics Canada refuses to publish 2021 excess death statistics so we have to extrapolate from other countries that do publish this data. https://hervk102.substack.com/p/raw-...ngland-january
Please watch this newly released documentary about the Boer farmer's rebellion taking place in the Netherlands that is at the verge of civil war as the Govt destroys agriculture and farmers' livelihoods in the name of climate fear porn. As a farmer you should be most concerned as the same policy is now happening in Canada.
Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Saturday, 13th August, 2022, 11:16 AM.
The polar Ice cap is increasing in size, not decreasing. Even Greenland is not melting at any greater rate it has in the last 80 Years and, in fact, in the last decade, has slowed significantly.
Ice mass changes is the data measurements of the ice edge and calving rates, in addition to the surface mass variations.
Each year the Danish Polar Portal reports the sum of both of these factors. This determines whether Greenland ice is growing or shrinking,
The following chart plots the total mass balance changes since 1985:
Greenland ice mass change bottomed out in 2012, and has been seeing less and less loss for 15 years. Each year mass loss has been declining.
Currently Greenland mass balance change is at levels seen in 2000. The days of rapid mass loss are behind us, at least for now. The year 2021 came in at -100 gigatonnes. In 2017 and 2018 mass was actually added.
False media narrative
When it comes to Greenland ice mass, “The usual media narrative of an alleged increasingly rapid ice melt in Greenland is thus not correct.”
Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Sunday, 14th August, 2022, 09:33 AM.
Not necessarily. Actually I tried to change it to this one, but some technical problems,
so let's try again. I see not all of your post got presented as well.??
Not necessarily. Actually I tried to change it to this one, but some technical problems,
so let's try again. I see not all of your post got presented as well.??
Again, you are relying on o a false media narrative. I edited my post above and showed the actual data from the Danish Cooperation for Environment in the Arctic) under the Danish Ministry for Energy, Utilities and Climate http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/
The data is not congruent with the false media narrative of an alleged increasingly rapid ice melt in Greenland. Check my post above https://forum.chesstalk.com/forum/ch...200#post221200
Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Sunday, 14th August, 2022, 10:08 AM.
Again, you are relying on o a false media narrative. I edited my post above and showed the actual data from the Danish Cooperation for Environment in the Arctic) under the Danish Ministry for Energy, Utilities and Climate http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/
The data is not congruent with the false media narrative of an alleged increasingly rapid ice melt in Greenland. Check my post above https://forum.chesstalk.com/forum/ch...200#post221200
Oh, thats better, before all I could see was this giant picture of a monkey mocking CNN.
I see your chart, which appears to show the trend line reversing direction around 2014. Okay.
But I looked around your site a little and found this passage:
The Greenland Ice Sheet is the second largest mass of freshwater ice on the planet. Only the ice sheet in Antarctica is bigger. In recent decades the ice sheet has begun to shrink, meaning that the ice sheet loses more mass in the form of melt water or icebergs than it receives from precipitation. This process of mass loss started around 1990 and has accelerated since the year 2000. The mass loss in recent years is approximately four times greater than it was before 2000. This has already had consequences in the Arctic and beyond.
This passage would appear to contradict your chart. Oh, maybe not.
I see 2 years, 2017 - 2018, with no melting. Okay, but melting again in 2019, 2020, 2021.
Am I reading that chart correctly?
2017, 2018 are possibly statistical outliers?
Last edited by Bob Gillanders; Sunday, 14th August, 2022, 10:56 AM.
Oh, thats better, before all I could see was this giant picture of a monkey mocking CNN.
I see your chart, which appears to show the trend line reversing direction around 2014. Okay.
But I looked around your site a little and found this passage:
The Greenland Ice Sheet is the second largest mass of freshwater ice on the planet. Only the ice sheet in Antarctica is bigger. In recent decades the ice sheet has begun to shrink, meaning that the ice sheet loses more mass in the form of melt water or icebergs than it receives from precipitation. This process of mass loss started around 1990 and has accelerated since the year 2000. The mass loss in recent years is approximately four times greater than it was before 2000. This has already had consequences in the Arctic and beyond.
This passage would appear to contradict your chart. Oh, maybe not.
I see 2 years, 2017 - 2018, with no melting. Okay, but melting again in 2019, 2020, 2021.
Am I reading that chart correctly?
2017, 2018 are possibly statistical outliers?
For the past ten years, the trend has been a slowing rate of shrinkage, even to the point of gains in 2017-2018. It is too early to tell if 2017-2018 are statistical outliers.
This abstract concerning Antarctic Sea Ice expansion despite rising CO2 levels and global warming also contradicts the media narrative.
By H. A. Singh, L. M. Polvani and P. J. Rasch
Abstract A number of physically‐based hypotheses have been proposed to explain the surprising expansion of Antarctic sea ice area (SIA) over the satellite era (1979 to 2015). Here, we use a fully‐coupled state‐of‐the‐art global climate model to show that internal variability alone can produce such multidecadal periods of Antarctic SIA expansion even as atmospheric CO2 increases at observed rates and the planet warms. When our model is started from a relatively warm Southern Ocean state, Antarctic SIA sometimes (in one of three ensemble members) expands over multidecadal time scales at a rate comparable to that over the satellite era. SIA expansion occurs concurrently with rising atmospheric CO2 and warming global surface temperatures, and SIA trends by region and sector resemble those over the satellite era. Our results suggest that internal variability over long time scales in the Southern Ocean region may suffice to explain Antarctic SIA expansion over the satellite era.
Start with googling "lithium mining" "child labor".
Wow! Sad!!
Add to that that the world's leading climate crusher ... China ... which produces 30% of global emissions also is the leading manufacturer of solar panels.
Add to that that the world's leading climate crusher ... China ... which produces 30% of global emissions also is the leading manufacturer of solar panels.
Top 15 Countries with the Highest CO2 Emissions per Capita (t) - EU JRC 2020
By this measure, the U.S. has the thirteenth-highest per capita emissions at 13.68 tons, while Russia is 20th (11.64), Japan is 26th (8.39), China is 28th (8.20), and India is 110th with a mere 1.74 tons per capita.
Of course, the issue is absolute no. of tons of emissions per country per minute.......very small countries, even though they have a high per capita emission, are not really the problem.
We must shut down emissions from the countries spitting the most no. of tons per minute into the air, and eventually the atmosphere.
Of course, IF the argument is true (And I don't think it is), that anthropogenic contribution to greenhouse gases is negligible in comparison with the contribution of greenhouse gasses by a "natural process" that is occurring now, then it is arguable that we, as mankind, ought not to do anything drastic to lower our current quality of life, except to start being creative as to how we are going to live in an environment that is increasingly more and more hostile to mankind, hoping not to become extinct.
This abstract concerning Antarctic Sea Ice expansion despite rising CO2 levels and global warming also contradicts the media narrative.
By H. A. Singh, L. M. Polvani and P. J. Rasch
Abstract
[B]A number of physically‐based hypotheses have been proposed to explain the surprising expansion of Antarctic sea ice area (SIA) over the satellite era (1979 to 2015). Here, we use a fully‐coupled state‐of‐the‐art global climate model to show that internal variability alone can produce such multidecadal periods of Antarctic SIA expansion even as atmospheric CO2 increases at observed rates and the planet warms. When our model is started from a relatively warm Southern Ocean state, Antarctic SIA sometimes (in one of three ensemble members) expands over multidecadal time scales at a rate comparable to that over the satellite era. SIA expansion occurs concurrently with rising atmospheric CO2 and warming global surface temperatures, and SIA trends by region and sector resemble those over the satellite era. Our results suggest that internal variability over long time scales in the Southern Ocean region may suffice to explain Antarctic SIA expansion over the satellite era.
In the arctic, the sea ice covering will expand temporarily, but over time the ice is getting thinner, thus the volume of ice is declining. I wonder if something similar is happening in the Antarctic. It isn't clear to me, and I have read the abstract above several times, precisely what it is saying. "Our results suggest that internal variability over long time scales in the Southern Ocean region may suffice to explain Antarctic SIA expansion over the satellite era." This statement suggests to me their study is not really conclusive.
Everyone else reports melting in Antarctica, as the science predicts. The message in the following video is much more compelling.
By this measure, the U.S. has the thirteenth-highest per capita emissions at 13.68 tons, while Russia is 20th (11.64), Japan is 26th (8.39), China is 28th (8.20), and India is 110th with a mere 1.74 tons per capita.
Thanks Dilip I was well aware of that metric.
Canada is a nation of urban and suburban consumers with only about 18% of our population as rural.
China has about 40% rural population.
Comparing per capita CO2 emissions is a moot point at best. At worst ... a very damaging point. It places an unfair burden on developed nations such as Canada, not to mention Luxembourg, ha! They don't even have a large rural population to speak of something around 8%.
So how (and why) does China contribute 30% of global emissions???
Low tech ... if any tech at all ... restrictions on coal burning perhaps??? China pollutes like crazy an insane and unbearable amount of greenhouse gas emissions. If you want to warm up the planet in hurry ... buy or have your stuff produced in China.
Canada is a nation of urban and suburban consumers with only about 18% of our population as rural.
China has about 40% rural population.
Comparing per capita CO2 emissions is a moot point at best. At worst ... a very damaging point. It places an unfair burden on developed nations such as Canada, not to mention Luxembourg, ha! They don't even have a large rural population to speak of something around 8%.
So how (and why) does China contribute 30% of global emissions???
Low tech ... if any tech at all ... restrictions on coal burning perhaps??? China pollutes like crazy an insane and unbearable amount of greenhouse gas emissions. If you want to warm up the planet in hurry ... buy or have your stuff produced in China.
Having cited all that ... China doesn't need to be reigned in. Instead, bring manufacturing back home here to where we have strict manufacturing and transport regulations.
Tweet
Comment