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.
Just being able to enter the university of Yale and Harward is already something than most people would not be able to accomplish. And he has diplomas of success.
Bush was no Baker Scholar, one of the top honors for a Harvard Business School grad. But he wasn't a bad student either, professors say. Harvard breaks its 800-student MBA classes into sections, and Bush was placed in Section C -- a generic classification with no relation to his grades. It was Porter's first year teaching business policy, and he got Section C. "He was an unpretentious, good middle-of-the-road student," Porter remembers.
The first one is an animation showing the Arctic sheet from 1900 to 2009, and the model projections afterwards. The second one is an explanation from the alarmist, eco-extremist NASA.
Last edited by Benoit St-Pierre; Monday, 21st December, 2009, 10:05 PM.
When you read the report of this guy (18 pages, Darwin would no be impress), he tell us clearly that he used sophisticated detecting ice system to trace a route for the boat.
It would even less impressive for Darwin if he looks at the summary report, in PDF :
Now you should understand why meteo stations are stuck in the ice and snow. The recovery this year is very good. Are we going into a cooling period?
I understand more clearly how twisted your preconceptions have made you. The graph compares polar ice in SEPTEMBER of 1979 to DECEMBER of 2009!! Are you too blind to see that? Gosh, three extra months of freezing temperatures means more ice!! Amazing!!!
The first one is an animation showing the article sheet from 1900 to 2009, and the model projections. The second one is an explanation from the alarmist, eco-extremist NASA.
Benoit,
Watch the video that you supplied. He says that the NASA evaluate the ice concentration since it is very important. He give example from comment of people in the past, but he does not claim that the ice concentration in 2009 did not recover.
This is the trick. See this from their satellite in december 2009. It is a comparison to 1979:
If you call him over the phone and ask him about the current situation he will only be able to say that "THE ICE CONCENTRATION IN 2009 IS FAR MORE IMPORTANT THAN IT WAS IN 1979, 30 YEARS AGO SO THAT THE THICKEST IS FAR MORE IMPORTANT TODAY".
Watch the video you supply once more and will understand how the climate scientists talks.
Carl
Last edited by Carl Bilodeau; Tuesday, 22nd December, 2009, 01:03 AM.
"Our three decades of continuous satellite measurements show a rapid decline of about 11.6 percent per decade," Comiso said. Arctic sea ice has declined about 34 percent since measurements were first made in the late 1970s.
In the video, Tom Wagner told about people living in the Arctic (a bit nearer the melting than a sattelite) for whom the melting is so obvious that they are planning their habitat accordingly. In the video, and on the webpage, it is said that the sheet of ice is thinner than ever before. You seem to imply that both sources are wrong. Furthermore, you bluntly say that Wagner is lying.
Spotting tricks is easy, sometimes.
Last edited by Benoit St-Pierre; Monday, 21st December, 2009, 10:05 PM.
Ocean acidification from CO2 in the air is not bad news for shellfish and corals. The ocean pH is 8.1, which is alkaline, not acidic.
In order to become acidic, it would have to drop below 7.0. Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated by some scientists (and in the future there could be a oceangate) to have dropped from 8.179 to 8.104. It will take another 3500 years for the ocean to become a bit acidic. Lets be serious here.
We can not say that one of the first victims of acidification will be the world’s hard corals. This is alarming. But corals became common in the oceans 500 million years ago when atmospheric CO2 levels were 10 times greater than today. During this ice age periods the CO2 levels 10 times higher than today, and the correlation between CO2 and temperature is 0. How come today a so small difference in ph would make a so dramatic change that we need to change our industrialized society.
In 1954 the world’s largest nuclear weapon at the Bikini Island the equivalent to 30 billion pounds of TNT vaporized three islands, and raised the water temperatures to 55,000 degrees. The corals at Bikini are now incredibly high no matter the acidic level. The corals flourished when the earth’s temperature was 10C higher.
I understand more clearly how twisted your preconceptions have made you. The graph compares polar ice in SEPTEMBER of 1979 to DECEMBER of 2009!! Are you too blind to see that? Gosh, three extra months of freezing temperatures means more ice!! Amazing!!!
Any more amazing scientific revelations Carl?
What a bad trick. You are right my dates did not work. You did a good peer review.
You previous comments seem to say that this was a picture. In fact this is a graph created by computers from satellite data. Each pixel is a 2d graph. The color gives you the ice concentration. On the graph, there is color legend that shows you the value of the pixel colors.
The deniers normally wants to rely only on satellite data since it is more reliable and the data can not be manipulated easily. The satellites started in 1979 and they operate the same way they were operating in the 1979.
Carl
Last edited by Carl Bilodeau; Tuesday, 22nd December, 2009, 12:52 AM.
Well, this is just evidence that you don't understand graphs. A quote from the site itself:
"Sea ice extent averaged over the Northern Hemisphere has decreased correspondingly over the past 50 years (shown right). The largest change has been observed in the summer months with decreases exceeding 30%. Decreases observed in winter are more modest. We maintain this updated archive of sea ice concentrations and extents at the University of Illinois Department of Atmospheric Sciences."
Now as to the graphs, you have deliberately chosen the depths of winter, but the problem is occuring in the summer, not the winter!
Take the graphs from the end of summer, september one of both years, when the summer melting has reached it's peak, and we have http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/...&sd=01&sy=2009, where we see that the total extent this year is much smaller than the extent in 1979.
Carl, you have been caught engaging in the very thing you have accused scientists of, namely rigging the data to favour your case. By your own standards any claim you make about climate change in the future should be entirely ignored.
Well, this is just evidence that you don't understand graphs. A quote from the site itself:
"Sea ice extent averaged over the Northern Hemisphere has decreased correspondingly over the past 50 years (shown right). The largest change has been observed in the summer months with decreases exceeding 30%. Decreases observed in winter are more modest. We maintain this updated archive of sea ice concentrations and extents at the University of Illinois Department of Atmospheric Sciences."
...
The citation you have here refer to an old 2007 graph that I present here: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph....1900-2007.jpg
And this graph stop in 2007. In 2008 the ice did recover to the 1979 level as it has been demonstrated. Even in Copennag the scientists used the 2007 data since the year 2008 is very bad for the warming theory. You took this citation on this page.
Both graphs I have shown, the bad one or the good one, show that the ice did recover to more ice level than 1979. There is no more problem with ice level base on the satellite data.
In the video, Tom Wagner told about people living in the Arctic (a bit nearer the melting than a sattelite) for whom the melting is so obvious that they are planning their habitat accordingly. In the video, and on the webpage, it is said that the sheet of ice is thinner than ever before. You seem to imply that both sources are wrong. Furthermore, you bluntly say that Wagner is lying.
Spotting tricks is easy, sometimes.
If you take the comment from the main organisation involved in the climategate then for sure you will prove the warming since this is the goal of the climategate. He says that the people living in the area are planning their habitat accordingly but these people said this in 2006 and 2007, not in 2008 and 2009 after the ice recovery. In the last thousand years there has been a lot of people to say the same thing, climate is not stable on short term.
Why don't we talk about the data itself and what it says? Why do we go back to the scientists involved in the climategate?
Carl
Last edited by Carl Bilodeau; Monday, 21st December, 2009, 11:58 PM.
2. How many emails have you read from Tom Wagner exactly related to the Climategate?
3. Are you saying that Tom Wagner is lying?
CRU is not NASA. The text you refer says "According to scientists affiliated with the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC)". This is the main organisation involved in the Climategate.
Is Tom Wagner lying? Well, he present the information out of context. He talks about what people (non scientists people living in the north) said two or three years ago and the fear they have, but these people said such things in 2000 or 2006 but not in 2008 or 2009 when the ice did recover. The video is made in 2009 so the listener will think that people in the north are actually worried while in fact they are stuck in the ice up to the neck.
He also says that some people wonder why it is important the ice level. And he explains for them the consequence of a huge melting.... but whitout saying that he is now in 2009 and that the ice did recover and that such a scenario is not the trend among scientist anymore. Why does he never talk about the ice recovery? He doesn't lie when he don't talk about it but is he honest? How come some scientists work to verify the validity of the recovery shown by satellites if he does not talk about it?
I think this is cheap shots. No lies, citations out of context, hide the good news, show example of catastrophics scenarios which are not the current trend. This is bad disinformation.
Tweet
Comment