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!)
ClimateGate - A Question for Ed Seedhouse and Paul Beckwith
True, the north ice cap has made a small recovery in the last 2 years. However, that was after a dramatic drop in 2007. The stock market analogy would be to claim victory with a rise of 100 points in the Dow Jones after a drop of 500 points the day before. The problem hasn't been solved. Check out this youtube video for details.
They refer to Meier who is part of the Climategate. False data here.
Carl, you are trying to have your cake and eat it too! This data is from the National Snow and Ice Data Center at The University of Colorado. If I'm not mistaken, it was you who quoted this same data to claim that global warming was a hoax. True, it does show a small recovery in 2008 and 2009, but that the longer trend line does indicate melting. You can't use the data to support your claim, then later call it false data.:p
Do you have any data to dispute the claim that the last 3 years are the lowest in recent times?
Carl, you are trying to have your cake and eat it too! This data is from the National Snow and Ice Data Center at The University of Colorado. If I'm not mistaken, it was you who quoted this same data to claim that global warming was a hoax. True, it does show a small recovery in 2008 and 2009, but that the longer trend line does indicate melting. You can't use the data to support your claim, then later call it false data.:p
Do you have any data to dispute the claim that the last 3 years are the lowest in recent times?
Bob read about the climategate. You will see that those guys find tricks to make global warming happen.
Here is an extract:
The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC)'s troublesome ice graph
The problem is that this graph does not appear to be correct.* [See Editor's note, below] Other data sources show Arctic ice having made a nice recovery this summer. NASA Marshall Space Flight Center data shows 2008 ice nearly identical to 2002, 2005 and 2006. Maps of Arctic ice extent are readily available from several sources, including the University of Illinois, which keeps a daily archive for the last 30 years. A comparison of these maps (derived from NSIDC data) below shows that Arctic ice extent was 30 per cent greater on August 11, 2008 than it was on the August 12, 2007. (2008 is a leap year, so the dates are offset by one.)
Ice at the Arctic: 2007 and 2008 snapshots
To read about the climategate click here. And after that if you want more information, Steve McIntyre blog a canadian is very interesting. In the climategate emails we now understand that so-called "scientists" involved said that they never gave Steve their data for validation and that they would prefer to destroy it instead.
Carl
Last edited by Carl Bilodeau; Thursday, 17th December, 2009, 12:53 AM.
Re: ClimateGate - A Question for Ed Seedhouse and Paul Beckwith
Thanks Carl. It is good news, if true, that those other sources you have quoted do indeed have data showing that the arctic ice cap in 2008 has recovered back to 2002 levels.
I trust you understand that I am not accepting any claims from any organization at face value. I'm sure Vlad, Paul, and Ed would all agree that there is way too much BS out there. I have read a lot on this topic in the last few weeks. The debate here has been interesting. I am fully versed on the whole "climategate" issue.:o
On balance however, I am still convinced that climate change is real, and that it is man made. I find those who are warning us of the dangers of climate change usually present a better argument backed up with logic and science. The deniers, not so much.:( I simply don't buy into the whole "global conspiracy theory".
I guess the debate will continue. And now that Sarah Palin has joined the Deniers team, that should raise the debate to a new level.:D
Thanks Carl. It is good news, if true, that those other sources you have quoted do indeed have data showing that the arctic ice cap in 2008 has recovered back to 2002 levels.
I trust you understand that I am not accepting any claims from any organization at face value. I'm sure Vlad, Paul, and Ed would all agree that there is way too much BS out there. I have read a lot on this topic in the last few weeks. The debate here has been interesting. I am fully versed on the whole "climategate" issue.:o
On balance however, I am still convinced that climate change is real, and that it is man made. I find those who are warning us of the dangers of climate change usually present a better argument backed up with logic and science. The deniers, not so much.:( I simply don't buy into the whole "global conspiracy theory".
I guess the debate will continue. And now that Sarah Palin has joined the Deniers team, that should raise the debate to a new level.:D
Bob,
If you read about the climategate it will help you find what is the real scientific information and what is not. Following some readings Canadians should logically conclude:
1 - There is no global warming at all.
2 - CO2 is not pollution. The nature, the forest and the animals produce 100 billions tons per year while the human production is 3 billions. This is a lot but has no effect on the climate so far. Studies show that CO2 stays in the air probably only 10 years, not a 100 years.
3 - Water vapor is far more important in quantity and has a much more influence on the climate than CO2.
4 - On the climategate we understand that the top level scientists lied and they don't know where the "increase heat" is. They were very disapointed to see the that the climate data was not showing it and made sure to find ways to show a global warming that does not exist.
5 - A study showing that there was a scientist consensus on global warming has been proved to be completly false but was largely used in news media.
6 - Our cars have catalysers so that they produce low pollution and only CO2 which is not pollution.
7 - When you see smog over a city, you have to realize that there is 16 km of atmosphere over the city and that above 150 meters of the city you have fresh air.
8 - Ice level did recover, there is no problem there at all.
So the Canadians should change their priorities on pollution. Instead of reducing our productivity and mobility we should:
1 - Put our work on recycling. The more we develop technologies the more it will be use by other countrys. The real pollutions (not CO2) will be very important in developping countries in the future.
2 - Produce more petrol to help our economy but with less pollution on the grounds.
3 - Instead of giving money to the poor countrys to reduce pollution, we should pay them catalysers (made in Candana to reduce the actual help) for their cars and factorys.
4 - Make sure that we review the scientist studies and that they stop hiding their data for peer-reviewing.
5 - Help find technologies for clean and massive coal production. Our cars for the next 500 years will be running on coal. I mean they will be electric but the electricity will be produce by coal. USA and China has enough coal for more than 500 years even if the population will increase and that we would rely only on coal. As soon the petrol price will raise it will be the solution.
6 - The biggest climate problem actually on earth is the increase in nuclear plants all around the world. The risk increase every year and Tchernobyl, not CO2 has cause the worst problems in the last century.
You refer to Sarah Pallin. She has some very interesting logics and would be a much more better president than Obama. But I understand that USA needed to have a black president to cut the past and this is a very good thing. Globally the Canadians should put Global warming much lower in our top priorities like Sarah says. The biggest menace in the last 100 years have been world wars most of them created by the extremists from the left movements like we had with Nazi, communists, etc.
1 - So we must keep our economy strong in north america. We Canadians, Quebecers and USA are Americans and we will be the solution to the problems in the world like we have been in the last century.
2 - We must isolate and reduce the influence of extreme-left movements and anti-capitalism here on our continent like we have in Cuba, Venezuela, Quebec (voting for Harper is a good way you can do that since it bring Canada to the center). In other continents we must isolate the dictatures like we have in Iran and like we had in Irak and Afghanistan. We must participate in Afganistan, Irak and put our money there, not on global warming.
3 - Have much confidence in North America and in the USA which is our friend. We should be much more skeptical about Europeans that brought extreme-left movements and wars in the last century. They are globally moving from the left to the center in France, Italy, Spain and England, but it will take years to get to the level we have in USA and the global warming phenomena is a sign that the left is still too strong there and that they still can mobilize people on massive false project.
And finally for Quebec:
Move to the center politically in order to raise the economy, the education, and the entreprenorship. When this will be achieved voters will be confident in Quebec future and eventually vote yes for the separation from Canada. With a so big territory, this new country in 200 years will be the largest french country in the world (with 100% recycling hopefully). But for now Quebec must stay in Canada so that Canadians tax payers pay for our Quebec socialism govermental system like the West-Europe had to pay to fix what the Govermental Socialims systems did in East-Europe. Thank you Bob for your perequation taxes in the next 20 years. Personally, I would vote for Sarah Pallin for prime minister in Quebec (only two mandates)... less taxes, more productivity, family values, private school, less government, modern heathl care, less corruption (the bigger the government, the bigger is the corruption), competitions would be back Quebec vocabulary, etc!
Carl
Last edited by Carl Bilodeau; Thursday, 17th December, 2009, 10:50 AM.
And finally for Quebec:
Move to the center politically in order to raise the economy, the education, and the entreprenorship. When this will be achieved voters will be confident in Quebec future and eventually vote yes for the separation from Canada.
HAHA :)
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! :)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!! :):)
You can't even elect a separatist government in that province these days.
You can't even elect a separatist government in that province these days.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! the separatist movement is so much on the left side and so much anti-canada and anti-usa HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! the separatists from the center or the right won't vote for them HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! and guess what, there is more people in the center than 10 years ago HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Studies show??? What did they do, put an RFID tag on a blob of CO2 gas and identify it once it had returned to the ground?
Great to have you back, Carl, you even make Gary Ruben laugh!
Paul, instead they used Atomic Bombs in the air in the 1950-60.
See by yourself the following link (oups... I mean ask your priest next sunday to read it and then to stop ringing his church bells for CO2 propaganda. When your priest will be convince, then you and everybody in the church will also be I suppose.... LOL): http://climateresearchnews.com/2009/...-man-made-co2/
Here is an extract: For principal verification of the adopted PSR model, the data source used was the outcome of the injection of excess 14CO2 into the atmosphere during the A-bomb tests in the 1950s/1960s, which generated an initial increase of approximately 1000% above the normal value and which then declined substantially exponentially with time, with τ = 16 years, in accordance with the (unsteady-state) prediction from and jointly providing validation for the PSR analysis. With the short (5−15 year) RT results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion. The economic and political significance of that conclusion will be self-evident.
I am back yes. I know you believe in reincarnation, but I still have the same body. I am the same "version" I was 3 months ago, hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahah LOL....
P.S.: Gary laughs are appropriate since he is using real data from the past 200 years in Quebec (he did not alter the referendum or elections data results like eco-extremists would have done) and I must admit this makes his predictions credibles on this separation subject. I did not make a prediction... simply a suggestion of prioritys to accelerate the natural evolution process.
Last edited by Carl Bilodeau; Thursday, 17th December, 2009, 03:16 PM.
Thanks Carl. It is good news, if true, that those other sources you have quoted do indeed have data showing that the arctic ice cap in 2008 has recovered back to 2002 levels.
First, three years is not enough to conclude anything about the long term trend. Three years is weather, not climate. So it is neither good news or bad news, but just current news.
Second, while the extent of north polar ice has recovered somewhat in the last three years it is still less than it was 20 years ago, and there is a linear trend downward with time. As you can see from the graph at the url below:
And third, while extent seems to have recovered slightly, it is not the only important factor. What ice remains is thinner and younger than before. Thinner ice melts faster.
The current projection is that the north polar sea will be free of ice during summer months somewhere around 2030, I believe, but there is a good deal of uncertainty. The poles will still be cold, so the ice will reform each winter.
Last edited by Ed Seedhouse; Thursday, 17th December, 2009, 04:09 PM.
Paul, instead they used Atomic Bombs in the air in the 1950-60.
See by yourself the following link (oups... I mean ask your priest next sunday to read it and then to stop ringing his church bells for CO2 propaganda. When your priest will be convince, then you and everybody in the church will also be I suppose.... LOL): http://climateresearchnews.com/2009/...-man-made-co2/
Here is an extract: For principal verification of the adopted PSR model, the data source used was the outcome of the injection of excess 14CO2 into the atmosphere during the A-bomb tests in the 1950s/1960s, which generated an initial increase of approximately 1000% above the normal value and which then declined substantially exponentially with time, with τ = 16 years, in accordance with the (unsteady-state) prediction from and jointly providing validation for the PSR analysis. With the short (5−15 year) RT results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion. The economic and political significance of that conclusion will be self-evident.
This kind of science looks VERY VERY DUBIOUS. I'd have to hear from an expert that this is valid technique before I'd believe it proves anything.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
First, three years is not enough to conclude anything about the long term trend. Three years is weather, not climate. So it is neither good news or bad news, but just current news.
Second, while the extent of north polar ice has recovered somewhat in the last three years it is still less than it was 20 years ago, and there is a linear trend downward with time. As you can see from the graph at the url below:
And third, while extent seems to have recovered slightly, it is not the only important factor. What ice remains is thinner and younger than before. Thinner ice melts faster.
The current projection is that the north polar sea will be free of ice during summer months somewhere around 2030, I believe, but there is a good deal of uncertainty. The poles will still be cold, so the ice will reform each winter.
How can you show a graph from the NSIDC when the climagegate show that they have used false data and have arranged the peer reviewing system? Read the emails and you will understand from those scientists that they know their conclusions are not right but they do that to help the cause of warming. Please see the previous links I gave just a few minutes.
Three years? What do you mean? There has been no warming for the last fifthy years, this is climate. Do you suggest to wait fifty years from "NOW" to make any conclusion on climate changes?
Thinner ice on summer melt more rapidly you are right. But on winter, thinner ice has proved in 2008 to get thicker more rapidly since it has no snow on it and retain the humidity. This is what happened during 2008 winter like I have shown on a previous thread. The ice surprisingly went back to same level has 1979 and with the same thicknest and only one winter. By the way, the climategate emails show that they lied on the ice thicknest of 2008. They even have meteo stations completly stuck in ice and snow that they never thought would be a problem.
Carl
Last edited by Carl Bilodeau; Thursday, 17th December, 2009, 05:49 PM.
Re: ClimateGate - A Question for Ed Seedhouse and Paul Beckwith
Yeah Carl, you're right. The Climate scientists are all lying to us, and raking in billions and billions of dollars from...er, what? Just exactly how are they earning billions from telling us about climate change again?
Meanwhile the people who actually are making billions and billions from business as usual and who have very high stakes in keeping everything the way it is now are spending nothing to convince us that global warming just doesn't exist, and are all telling the pure god given truth. They all have our best interests in mind, not theirs, just like the bankers who have run the economy so well that there hasn't been a recession in decades. They aren't interested in earning millions of dollars, that's why they take such modest salaries.
Oh, wait, the evidence is actually - well I don't think I'll mention it further since you aren't interested in actual evidence.
Tweet
:D
Comment