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.
But what I understood was that CO2 as it increased in proportion in the upper atmosphere became a problem in that it did not let the heat from the earth surface, being reflected back up, get through the multi-gas greenhouse canopy into space......the heat waves got reflected back down towards the surface of the Earth. Thus the Earth's Surface/The air/ The lower atmosphere, all incrementally kept creeping up in temperature.
You seem to indicate that the CO2 absorption of heat is not a problem........that once the CO2 has reached its heat maximum for the density, it doesn't absorb any more heat.
Well, I don't have any problem with that, if that is what is happening. But when more heat from the Earth's surface hits this maximum heated CO2, what happens?
You seem to say: When the CO2 is heated to its maximum for its density, then the additional assault of heat waves just passes right through the CO2 into space? Am I correctly understanding?
My understanding is that the temperature of the CO2 has nothing to do with the inability of heat waves to get through it. The heat waves in any event get reflected back down to the surface of the Earth.
It seems I need a bit more information.........I haven't quite got the mechanics of it sorted out right........I will do a bit more research on "Heat Waves and CO2 & the Non-Porous Canopy". And further help you can give would be appreciated.
~ Bob A (T-S/P)
Hi Bob,
Your thoughts on this interview with Dr John Christy, (Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville)
would be appreciated.
"The world is getting warmer, winters included. The United States, however, has experienced severe winter storms in recent years, and experts are taking a closer look at the link between these extreme cold events and climate change.
While the link between global warming and heat waves is very direct, the behaviour of winter storms is governed by complex atmospheric dynamics that are more difficult to study."
"The world is getting warmer, winters included. The United States, however, has experienced severe winter storms in recent years, and experts are taking a closer look at the link between these extreme cold events and climate change.
While the link between global warming and heat waves is very direct, the behaviour of winter storms is governed by complex atmospheric dynamics that are more difficult to study."
It seems to me that using "deep atmosphere (8,000 km)" average temperatures, the temperature being used in calculations will be lower than the surface temperatures, done by traditional testing methods. So it is understandable that predictions from this data could be 50% less than the projections by climate modelling.
I'm sorry but I am currently sick (Not COVID-19), and so I am having to watch the video interview in segments.
https://dailysceptic.org/2022/08/18/...ate-emergency/ The problem with climate modeling is that surface temp is not based on accurate data, as pointed out in the video, weather stations relocate, etc. They already adjust for temp differentials in the atmosphere and land, which is relatively straightforward to do. The great thing is it is based on actual data and not theoretical modeling data.
I find it hard to believe that the surface temperature recording is so off (Not that individual cases cannot be pointed out).
If this is so, then why has Dr Christy, and those of like mind, not converted the mainstream scientists with this argument? They continue to use surface temperature which seems, even if a bit off, much better to use than an average temperature of air/atmosphere 8,000 ft. high. We live on the surface, no?
Bob A (T-S/P)
Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Sunday, 1st January, 2023, 03:38 AM.
1,200 scientists and professional take a position against negative "anthropogenic" climate change. What is the significance of this "huge" number.
"The number of [accredited] scientists [world-wide] grew by 13.7% to 8.8 million. Since the start of 2020, the COVID-19 crisis further boosted this trend."
"The vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change.Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world. A list of these organizations is provided here."
So we must be clear here in this thread, that those holding for negative "natural" climate change are a small minority.
Now this does not mean they are wrong..........but it is clear that their attempts to "educate" mainstream climatologists of their position is failing.
Even here on ChessTalk, though the "naturalists" have presented much evidence allegedly supporting their position, relatively few CT'ers have become a new and active part of the presenters here of this position.
~ Bob A (T-S/P)
P.S. If someone can help: What is the number of accredited climatologists world-wide. I researched but could only find what I have posted.
Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Sunday, 1st January, 2023, 03:55 AM.
1,200 scientists and professional take a position against negative "anthropogenic" climate change. What is the significance of this "huge" number.
"The number of [accredited] scientists [world-wide] grew by 13.7% to 8.8 million. Since the start of 2020, the COVID-19 crisis further boosted this trend."
"The vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change.Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world. A list of these organizations is provided here."
So we must be clear here in this thread, that those holding for negative "natural" climate change are a small minority.
Now this does not mean they are wrong..........but it is clear that their attempts to "educate" mainstream climatologists of their position is failing.
Even here on ChessTalk, though the "naturalists" have presented much evidence allegedly supporting their position, relatively few CT'ers have become a new and active part of the presenters here of this position.
~ Bob A (T-S/P)
P.S. If someone can help: What is the number of accredited climatologists world-wide. I researched but could only find what I have posted.
The vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change.Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world. A list of these organizations is provided here." .
You have likely heard that 97% of scientists agree on human-driven climate change. You may also have heard that those who don’t buy into the climate-apocalypse mantra are science-deniers. The truth is that a whole lot more than 3% of scientists are skeptical of the party line on climate. A whole lot more.
The many scientists, engineers and energy experts that comprise the CO2 Coalition are often asked something along the lines of: “So you believe in climate change, then?” Our answer? “Yes, of course we do: it has been happening for hundreds of millions of years.” It is important to ask the right questions. The question is not, “Is climate change happening?” The real question of serious importance is, “Is climate change now driven primarily by human actions? That question should be followed up by “is our changing climate beneficial or harmful to ecosystems and humanity?”
There are some scientific truths that are quantifiable and easily proven, and with which, I am confident, at least 97% of scientists agree. Here are two:
Carbon dioxide concentration has been increasing in recent years.
Temperatures, as measured by thermometers and satellites, have been generally increasing in fits and starts for more than 150 years.
What is impossible to quantify is the actual percentage of warming that is attributable to increased anthropogenic (human-caused) CO2. There is no scientific evidence or method that can determine how much of the warming we’ve had since 1900 that was directly caused by us.
We know that temperature has varied greatly over the millennia. We also know that for virtually all of that time, global warming and cooling were driven entirely by natural forces, which did not cease to operate at the beginning of the 20th century.
The claim that most modern warming is attributable to human activities is scientifically insupportable. The truth is that we do not know. We need to be able to separate what we do know from that which is only conjecture.
What is the basis for the “97% consensus” notion? Is it true?
Hint: You can’t spell consensus without “con.”
If, indeed, 97% of all scientists truly believed that human activities were causing the moderate warming that we have seen in the last 150 years, it would be reasonable for one to consider this when determining what to believe. One would be wrong, however.
Science, unlike religion, is not a belief system. Scientists, just like anyone else, will say that they believe things (whether they believe them or not) for social convenience, political expediency or financial profit. For this and other good reasons, science is not founded upon the beliefs of scientists. It is a disciplined method of inquiry, by which scientists apply pre-existing theory to observation and measurement, so as to develop or to reject a theory, so that they can unravel as clearly and as certainly as possible the distinction between what the Greek philosopher Anaximander called “that which is and that which is not.”
Portrait of Ibn Al Haytham. Credit: Prof. Zargar Zahoor
Abu Ali ibn al-Haytham, the natural philosopher of 11th-century Iraq who founded the scientific method in the East, once wrote:
“The seeker after truth [his beautiful description of the scientist] does not place his faith in any mere consensus, however venerable or widespread. Instead, he subjects what he has learned of it to inquiry, inspection and investigation. The road to the truth is long and hard, but that is the road we must follow.”
The long and hard road to scientific truth cannot be followed by the trivial expedient of a mere head-count among those who make their livings from government funding. Therefore, the mere fact that climate activists find themselves so often appealing to an imagined and (as we shall see) imaginary “consensus” is a red flag. They are far less sure of the supposed scientific truths to which they cling than they would like us to believe. “Consensus,” here, is a crutch for lame science.
What, then, is the origin of the “97% consensus” notion? Is it backed up with research and data?
The earliest attempt to document a “consensus” on climate change was a 2004 paper cited by Al Gore in his allegedly non-fiction book, An Inconvenient Truth. (Gore attended natural science class at Harvard, but got a D grade for it.) The author of the cited paper, Naomi Oreskes, asserted that 75% of nearly 1,000 papers she had reviewed on the question of climate change agreed with the “consensus” proposition favored by the IPCC: “Most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.” None, she maintained, dissented from this line of reasoning.
The Oreskes paper came to the attention of Klaus-Martin Schulte, an eminent London surgeon, who had become concerned with the adverse health effects of his patients from their belief in apocalyptic global warming.
Professor Schulte decided to update Oreskes’ work. However, he found that only 45% of several hundred papers endorsed the “consensus” position. He concluded: “There appears to be little basis in the peer-reviewed scientific literature for the degree of alarm on the issue of climate change which is being expressed in the media and by politicians, now carried over into the medical world and experienced by patients.”
Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Sunday, 1st January, 2023, 09:55 AM.
"THE climate change cult is insidious in every government department or institution it infiltrates. However, it is at its most dangerous when those people it infects are members of the medical community. When their apocalyptic hysteria starts affecting their decisions regarding patient care, urgent action is needed.
A disturbing document was recently published in the Lancet, entitled The Report of the Lancet Commission on the Value of Death: bringing death back into life. It was written by numerous medical professionals in the palliative care sector. It is nothing less than a propaganda piece promoting the idea that people who are suffering from possible life-shortening illness should not be given any potential life-saving treatments but, to help reduce our carbon footprint, should be allowed to die and actively encouraged to do so.
The authors make their feelings clear when they say: ‘The commission believes it is healthy to die . . . We are embodied creatures who are ultimately no more important than lizards or potatoes.’
It soon becomes obvious that their Net Zero zeal is driving this agenda when they state: ‘Treatment at the end of life will be an important contribution to the carbon footprint of health care . . . Everything, and especially death, must be thought of in the context of the climate crisis . . . In the report we explore the many values of death.’
The article is replete with climate change apocalyptic rhetoric, saying humanity is near extinction, one of the reasons being overpopulation, so we had better change our ways and stop tryi"
It is an opinion that I do hope gains little more traction than it already has.
I should be up to the patient whether "no excessive measures" or treatment until it is clear death is totally inevitable, should that be their wish. There have been recoveries of those categorized for palliative care.......it should be up to the patient whether to try to defy the odds. It should not be a matter of health economics, carbon footprint, or planetary de-population.
I expect this is going to a discussed "attached" issue.
Despite still being in holidays, participation almost doubled over last week's stats. There being more responses is responsible.
Climate Change Thread “Responses”
There are lots of climate change articles out there, both on negative anthropogenic climate change, and negative natural climate change.
This thread encourages CT'ers on all sides to re-post here, as responses, the climate change posts of interest they see elsewhere. Overall, ChessTalker's have been quite active here in posting “responses” and it seems that chessplayers across Canada re wanting information on climate change, a challenge unlike any our species has ever faced before.
Note: I personally, as the thread originator, am trying to post a new response at least every 2nd day, but admit my busy schedule means I am sometimes falling short on this. So it is great that a number of other CT'ers are posting responses here somewhat regularly.
The Pressing Climate Change Issue
The core issue:
Building a sense of URGENCY on this issue in society. We must realize that we cannot kick it down the road any longer!
The public is aware of the climate change issue.......
BUT.....
climate activists must find strategies to “AWAKEN” the public to the “urgency”.
It is expected, though somewhat disheartening, to see other negative issues of the day climb immediately to the top of the public's agenda, with climate change being sometimes substantially downgraded in importance. We will all pay for this.........
The Time Line
Nature's Tipping point is estimated to be, on current trajectory, only 9 years away (Around Jan. 1, 2031). Capping the temperature rise at only 1.5 degrees Celsius (the original international target) is now impossible (UN Climate Change Panel's most recent report). Their position is that the problem at this time is mostly due to human activity, and that radical change in our method of living is the only way to avoid this rising, very problematic, temperature. UNCCP noted that current government deadlines were totally insufficient to solve the problem. CO 2 must be capped by 2025! Also, it has now become necessary to add in the process of CO 2 “removal”, along with “eliminating” the spewing of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere by human activity. And it has now become clear that the more deadly greenhouse gas is Methane, and countries' last year agreement on its reduction are on the table this year again!
Our window of opportunity is fast closing.
The Large Picture Solutions
Can we come up with at least one viable suggestion of some impressive, radical thing that might wake up the public, that we could then put out there to other concerned climate activists?
Negative “Natural” Climate Change
This thread has had a number of CT'ers arguing for Natural Climate Change, and arguing that the human economic activity contribution to negative climate change is negligible. We are just in one of Nature's long warming cycles.
We would encourage everyone to consider the materials being presented, and then see whether they in any way change your perspective, if you are an adherent of negative Anthropogenic climate change. Whether you change anything, or not, your assessment of the evidence would be most welcome in this thread.
CT'ers' Local Actions on Climate Change
You can do something! When you like one of this thread's links on an aspect of climate change, spread the news by posting it to your social media accounts and other Websites/Discussion Boards you participate in!
"The richest people on Earth, including Canadian billionaires like Chip Wilson (CEO of lululemon), Daryl Katz (pharmacies), or Galen Weston Jr. (Loblaws) – are putting their interests and the interests of their shareholders ahead of workers, communities, and the planet.
“Sharing” the wealth of billionaires, profiteering corporations, and the 1 per cent is a solution, not only to the climate crisis, but also to addressing the income inequality and lack of supports for people and communities unable to make ends meet in this challenging economic situation."
Tweet
- good one Sid!
Comment