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.
15. Have fun!
(Thanks to Nigel Hanrahan for writing these up!)
I am not trying to get another of those... (Not Chess Related)
First he discusses the science, alternate theories, then the junk science on both sides, and debunks it. I found his arguments compelling. It put a lot of the debate on chesstalk into perpective for me.
Charts don't speak by themselves: what is your interpretation of them? Can the chart differentiates new ice with old one? Spell out what you are trying to convey!
....
On the chart in 2007 there was a peak low. From this peak low some people predicted for the next years to come a rapid accelaration out of control. Look at the chart, you will understand their prediction. Some predicted the disparition of Polar Bears and others decided not to become pregnant because of the risk our planet was facing....
Some specialists were telling us that to recover to the 1979 level it would take 30 years of increase in the ice level.
Then suddently the next year (2008) the ice level in arctic between august and december recovered and went back to the level of 1979 and people living in the icing area said that there is plenty of polar bears.
Some scientists were very happy with this good surprising news. Some other interpreted it differently: they feel there is a global conspiration of the right wings to not become green. So they do like you are doing here and they laught (you feel that right-wing lie all the time so lets do the same) and give discredit to anything that would suggest the situation is not as bad as it needs to be to scares people all around the world.
Religions use the fears of people about death and eco-extremists sometime do the same with our planet. The problem is that it does not work with everybody. Some like me look at the facts without politics or fears. If it is bad then it is bad. If it not so bad then it is not so bad and we may become greener anyway.
I would suggest the eco-extremists to adopt a new strategy: To inform people about the progression of our hard work. We now have a deep ozone success. And except for cars, we have a decrease in 25% to 50% in all our industrial, commercial, city and personnal wastes because of recycling. Nobody in Canada has lost a friend or a family member because of global warming and the rapide ice recovery result suggest they will not loose any in the future neither.
Carl
Last edited by Carl Bilodeau; Sunday, 11th October, 2009, 10:45 AM.
On the chart in 2007 there was a peak low. From this peak low some people predicted for the next years to come a rapid accelaration out of control. Look at the chart, you will understand their prediction. Some predicted the disparition of Polar Bears and others decided not to become pregnant because of the risk our planet was facing....
Some specialists were telling us that to recover to the 1979 level it would take 30 years of increase in the ice level.
Then suddently the next year (2008) the ice level in arctic between august and december recovered and went back to the level of 1979 and people living in the icing area said that there is plenty of polar bears.
Some scientists were very happy with this good surprising news. Some other interpreted it differently: they feel there is a global conspiration of the right wings to not become green. So they do like you are doing here and they laught (you feel that right-wing lie all the time so lets do the same) and give discredit to anything that would suggest the situation is not as bad as it needs to be to scares people all around the world.
Religions use the fears of people about death and eco-extremists sometime do the same with our planet. The problem is that it does not work with everybody. Some like me look at the facts without politics or fears. If it is bad then it is bad. If it not so bad then it is not so bad and we may become greener anyway.
Carl
As predicted by our hypothesis, the data is decreasing as soon as the editorial is increasing. As usual, we see a shift from observational data to model forecast, as if that was not two different matters. And then we get the mouthful of epithets and fallacies, too common to mention.
The last sentence is very important, for it supposes rightly that becoming green is a choice that does not depend upon the debate on global warming. Environmentalism is the only choice we have, unless we can recycle the terrestrial system and go somewhere else. Becoming green is more than just putting plastic into our recycle bin. Once we understand what entails being green, then there is a real concern about what defends this tooth-and-nail rhetorical system of the conservative machine.
Last edited by Benoit St-Pierre; Sunday, 11th October, 2009, 11:37 AM.
As predicted by our hypothesis, the data is decreasing as soon as the editorial is increasing. As usual, we see a shift from observational data to model forecast, as if that was two different thing. And then we get the mouthful of epithets and fallacies, too many to mention.
The last sentence is very important, for it supposes rightly that becoming green is a choice that does not depend upon the debate on global warming. Environmentalism is the only choice we have, unless we can recycle the terrestrial system and go somewhere else. Becoming green is more than just putting plastic into our recycle bin. Once we understand what entails being green, then there is a real concern about what defends this tooth-and-nail rhetorical system of the conservative machine.
I would suggest the eco-extremists to adopt a new strategy: To inform people about the progression of our hard work. We now have a deep ozone success. And except for cars, we have a decrease in 25% to 50% in all our industrial, commercial, city and personnal wastes because of recycling. Nobody in Canada has lost a friend or a family member because of global warming and the rapid ice recovery result suggest they will not loose any in the future neither.
There are other solutions than saying lies, ask for new taxes, and try to limit the mobility of people and limit our productivity. For an example I would prefer a law to reduce the average weight of cars sold by GM than to have more taxes and more people throwing bottles on my SUV while my 5 kids are on board. Lies, immaturity and extremist was used in religions and so we do with the eco-extremists who simply found a new kind of religion.
When you say "Once we understand...." it remembers me all those priests going in families houses with all kind of "moral" speechs. 50 years ago as a priest you would say in my house in front of my kids : Once we understand that our soul..... the end of the world is coming and god...... you must do this unless.....and if you don't do it we will make sure your family pays.... you will be transformed in salt..... and you will burn for the eternity....
To me your "Once we understand...." in 2009 means that if you come in my house then I will pay more taxes, will limit my mobility, reduce my productivity, will make less kids and will stop most of my sports, my travels, etc. And when there will be good news about the earth you will not tell me since I could start back to produce and develop the world.
Eco-extremists are not confident in human. Just like the priests. Personnaly I realize that the more we develop new technologies and universities, the greener we will become. The more we develop our industries, the more recycling becomes cheap and then profitable. This summer at Radio-Canada a very well known Eco-extremist that wrote many books said his dream would be that we start to use horses in our streets.
I am confident in human development. Not fatalist.
Carl
Last edited by Carl Bilodeau; Sunday, 11th October, 2009, 11:34 AM.
When you say "Once we understand...." it remembers me all those priests going in families houses with all kind of "moral" speechs. 50 years ago as a priest you would say in my house in front of my kids : Once we understand that our soul..... the end of the world is coming and god...... you must do this unless.....and if you don't do it we will make sure your family pays.... you will be transformed in salt..... and you will burn for the eternity....
To me your "Once we understand...." in 2009 means that if you come in my house then I will pay more taxes, will limit my mobility, reduce my productivity, will make less kids and will stop most of my sports, my travels, etc. And when there will be good news about the earth you will not tell me since I could start back to produce and develop the world.
To me "Once we understand what being green entails" means exactly that : once we understand what we say when we are talking about being green. Are we understanding each other when we talk about "being green"?
You seem to forget that ice surface is only a part of the data you've been given. Your sermon comes short of arguments about the data you're being asked to interpret. Here is another interesting hypothesis: when faced with the task to interpret data, the editorialists will shift the topic and start defending their Faith in Humanity and their Ways of Life.
To me "Once we understand what being green entails" means exactly that : once we understand what we say when we are talking about being green. Are we understanding each other when we talk about "being green"?
You seem to forget that ice surface is only a part of the data you've been given. Your sermon comes short of arguments about the data you're being asked to interpret. Here is another interesting hypothesis: when faced with the task to interpret data, the editorialists will shift the topic and start defending their Faith in Humanity and their Ways of Life.
Eveybody know that ice can not form only on surface and that a huge part has to be underwater. If this is what is missing in my interpretation then now you have it.
With a very cold weather like the one we have in the 1979 and 2008, the ice can recover in one year and not 20 years. This tell that we could have interesting data coming in the next few years since the weather of this "Global warming period" seems to be colder (the sun is at a peak low period... ouuppps maybe we should not tell people so that they become greener).
When you say: Are we understanding each other when we talk about "being green"? This remember all these communists in the old days that were saying to the capitalists: Are we understanding each other when we talk about "equality"? History has shown that these people even after they force communism into the lives of millions of people and killed ten of millions that they created a system of inequality even worse.
If we go back to horses and become poorer base on false informations, then the dictators of non democratic country will come to challenge on our coasts within 30 to 50 years. Our society, like any family anyway, has many goals and if we use misinformation to put upfront a specific goal then we could miss all the targets.
In a tournament last year a father told me that water would come short on earth! I replied: Did you look at a picture of earth from space? You see no humans, only water! He was surprised (Normally in Quebec nobody can talks like this). My opinion is that our generation should not read newspapers without thinking by themself (it is no better than what our parents were doing in a church). I explained this guy that we can unsalt water for 10$ per cubic meter (reverse Osmose) and Israel does that. Yes technology can create a way of life no matter what you think. In Israel like in Canada technology brings power, army and water..... it will do the same to bring a greener life on the long run.
After two world-wars maybe the conservative message you should understand from Republicans and the Conservative in Canada is: Reach all the nation goals but always make sure you stay stronger and ahead of others.
Carl
Last edited by Carl Bilodeau; Monday, 12th October, 2009, 06:48 AM.
Eveybody know that ice can not form only on surface and that a huge part has to be underwater. If this is what is missing in my interpretation then now you have it.
It would be interesting if we had your interpretation or the data you're referring to, instead of focusing on what you're preaching, which, albeit noble in its own right, is quite remote from the question at hand. Any interpretation would do, if it can cover the charts we are looking at right now. There are red dots in some of them, but they don't look like communists to me.
You're using for the second time the argument from futurology. The first problem I see with that argument is that it amounts to arguing from ignorance. The second one is that it is quite independent from your testament of faith: an evil, alarmist, eco-fundamentalist, environment-freak could also claim that throwing dust in front of the sun would suffice, for instance. The third problem is triviality : it would be tough to be against that kind of possibility, since almost nothing is impossible in the future. Even the return of the four horsemen of the Apocalypse is possible.
Last edited by Benoit St-Pierre; Sunday, 11th October, 2009, 05:25 PM.
It would be interesting if we had your interpretation or the data you're referring to, instead of focusing on what you're preaching, which, albeit noble in its on right, is quite remote from the question at hand. Any interpretation would do, if it can cover the charts we are looking at right now. There are red dots in some of them, but they don't look like communists to me.
You're using for the second time the argument from futurology. The first problem I see with that argument is that it amounts to arguing from ignorance. The second one is that it is quite independent from your testament of faith: an evil, alarmist, eco-fundamentalist, environment-freak could also claim that throwing dust in front of the sun would suffice, for instance. The third problem is triviality : it would be tough to be against that kind of possibility, since almost nothing is impossible in the future. Even the return of the four horsemen of the Apocalypse is possible.
The red dots are the difference from the 1979 (which is the base year).
Throwing dust in front of the sun is a solution for eco-extremist who feels that one day the situation will be completly out of control. I don't share this view because there is a lot of small technology solutions all around Canada and this is why we can now swim in the St-Laurence River around Montreal.
Compared to the National Post, anything else in Canada would be seen as liberal...
I think that most people would say that the Globe and Mail is more balanced politically than other papers.
I try to avoid the political bias by not subscribing to any paper. I read whatever papers are available at the local coffee shops, usually the Globe and Mail, Ottawa Citizen, and sometimes the National Post.
Out here in the west a former talk show host use to refer to the globe and mail as the 'Toronto Globe and Mail'... he certainly didn't care for it's biased slants.
My favorite story is about the "Ice age in the 70s". My favorite line is :
If you want to find out [how many climatologist really held the ice age hypothesis], it's no use to thumb through Times and Newsweek. Boring as it sounds, you have to look at the scientific litterature.
So here are most of the references in the first two videos, in reversed order :
Out here in the west a former talk show host use to refer to the globe and mail as the 'Toronto Globe and Mail'... he certainly didn't care for it's biased slants.
I thought the Globe and Mail is owned by CTVglobmedia. Torstar owns 20% of CTVglobemedia. I don't think Torstar has any input into the Globe and Mail editorial content. Torstar owns the Toronto Star. CTVglobemedia was Baton Broadcasting. It was certainly conservative and the news appears to me to be slanted in that direction now.
I wonder who will end up owning the National Post. I think it needs wider appeal in the east (read the GTA). They do home delivery and the same guy who delivers my Toronto Star delivers the Post. Sometimes he leaves the wrong paper, although it hasn't happened recently.
Also, Torstar owns almost 20% of Black Press, as far as I know.
I could take the time to put them directly here if someone is interested.
Many thanks !
Title: Why don't they talk about the brand new Cindi satellite results?
On April 16 2008, the USA Air Force launched the CINDI experiments aboard a new experimental satellite called the Communications/ Navigation Outage Forecast System.
Some of your articles collection are from 2001 and 2002. Some of your articles in this collection concludes that the sun has no variation and then has no effect on the global warming. But these articles don't talk about the BLACK SPOTS variation on the sun.
New articles (NOT IN THIS COLLECTION) talks about new satellites and new data (2008). The Sun which seemed stable on some study has in fact a variation in the amont of black spots and this has an impact on the temperature of the earth atmosphere. See a recent scientific article from the University of Texas: http://www.utdallas.edu/news/2008/09/10-003.php
Here is an extract (sept 2008):
********************************************************************** On April 16, the Air Force launched the CINDI experiments aboard a new experimental satellite called the Communications / Navigation Outage Forecast System (C/NOFS). The data returned from CINDI will help predict space weather that affects everyday people.
Scientists and engineers at the William B. Hanson Center for Space Sciences, under the guidance of UT Dallas physics professors Dr. Roderick Heelis and Dr. Greg Earle, built the two instruments that make up CINDI:
The Ion Velocity Meter measures the direction and speed of the ions as well as their density, temperature and chemical composition.
The second instrument, the Neutral Wind Meter measures the speed and direction of the neutral atoms and molecules in the near vacuum of space. During periods of high solar activity, which correspond to high sunspot counts, the upper atmosphere of the Earth warms and expands.
According to Earle, UT Dallas professor and CINDI Co-Investigator , since late 2005 monthly sunspot numbers have been very low, and have not yet begun to rise significantly. CINDI data shows the impact of the past few years of low solar activity on the ionosphere.
“CINDI has encountered an extremely cold atmosphere in conjunction with an uncharacteristically long solar minimum period,” Earle said.
**********************************************************************
The new scientific satellites informations confirms what we feel all year long: IT IS COLDER OUTSIDE during the so-called "Global warming period"!!!
Like I said previously, the eco-extremists don't talk about the good news when there is, and they hide the new data from 2008-2009. I think we can go green even if we know the truth and the good news.
Carl
Last edited by Carl Bilodeau; Monday, 12th October, 2009, 06:52 AM.
Re: I am not trying to get another of those... (Not Chess Related)
Carl,
Okay, lets talk about the new CINDI data.
I suggest you read the article again, slowly this time. You are reaching the conclusion you want, but not the right one. The new data actually supports the global warming argument!
There are many forces at work to shape our climate. Solar activity and high sunspot activity is an important one. "During periods of high solar activity, which correspond to high sunspot counts, the upper atmosphere of the Earth warms and expands". The article states that since late 2005 sunspot numbers have been very low, and "CINDI has encountered an extremely cold atmosphere in conjunction with an uncharacteristically long solar minimum period."
What that means is that from about 2005, low solar activity has had a cooling effect. That may explain the last few winters being a little cooler. When this period of low solar activity ends, the upper atmosphere will again heat up!:( I believe the normal sunspot cycle is only 11 years?
However, what we are trying to grapple with are the climate change effects of human activity.:D
Last edited by Bob Gillanders; Monday, 12th October, 2009, 09:46 AM.
The new scientific satellites informations confirms what we feel all year long: IT IS COLDER OUTSIDE during the so-called "Global warming period"!!!
The documentary presents an history of the climate change debate, first in the scientific litterature, then in the popular one. Being itself a series of ten minutes presentation, it has no time nor the competence to enter into every detail, of course, but it has the obligation to follow some historical developments, hence the old dates like 2002. But quite amazingly, it explains why what you're saying right now does not make sense at all.
The second part tries to show that scientists are used to discuss different hypothesis. The main one, presently, links climate change to human activity. But there are others, for instance cosmic rays. If the Sun sends the Earth more rays, there are fair chances that this would be the main cause of the augmentation of temperature on Earth. Proposing, debating and rejecting multiple hypothesis is essential to the science as we know it.
But now, if we are to believe the data like the one you mention, saying cosmic rays cause the raising of temperature is tough to maintain. In fact, it would be contradictory. In reality, this data refutes that hypothesis. So if we don't want to maintain that human activity creates climate change, we would have another type of hypothesis than ones relying on cosmic rays, as we now know that would not fit our observations.
But in general, according to the law of entropy, you're absolutely right: the universe is getting cooler and cooler. It just might not be happening on the surface of the Earth yet. Well, I'm sure you can find a place on Earth (like in Utah or Monaco) that is way cooler than before, to confirm what you already think you know.
Here is another observation we can make from time to time, here and there: as soon as an author relies on caps lock to win an argument, he's more editorializing than trying to discuss things rationally, and is so utilizing science to his own very noble ends.
Last edited by Benoit St-Pierre; Tuesday, 13th October, 2009, 06:29 PM.
Tweet
Comment