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.
2/28/2010 10:52:04 PM
January global temperatures hit the 4th highest on record. Ocean temperatures was 2nd highest (behind 1998).
There is no sun-worship correlation to the warming - the new perp in town is AGW-driven pollution.
There never was a 'cooling trend'. That's the realm of grade-school math flunkies.
No, tsunamis, earthquakes, and volcanoes for that matter, aren't AGW. But climate change and extreme weather-pattern anomalies have a growing AGW fingerprint. Only those with the IQ of a light-switch try to make it a 'is/is not' discussion.
Some comments here read like their brain was set to stunned - go do one night's homework on 'The Greenhouse Effect' and some of the noise might die down.
Oh yea, is it our pollution - yep, now tracking at 90 million tons a day. To the bone-lazy post above that wanted spoon-fed information on the increasing carbon ratio of C12 isotopes that tags the pollution source:- http://tinyurl.com/ynmsuw
Invest your own 120 seconds to get the answer next time, okay?
The big driver for the violent weather patterns in the North Atlantic (both sides), isn't El Nino - it's the energy-packed state of the North Atlantic basin; it's the disruption of the Polar Arctic Vortex. And these violant anomalies are increasing - as forecast.
Actually it is currently a good deal lower than one in 2000. But a simple calculation based on the laws of physics will show that Carl is as usual, quite wrong about it's significance in warming. Oh that, and they have done actual experiments to determine how much CO2 causes how much warming and the results disagree with Carl. What experiments has Carl done?
Those interested in the actual facts of the matter will find them over at the Skeptical Science website.
Well according to Wikepedia the dose of botulism toxin that will kill half of those who consume it is "0.005–0.05 µg/kg". Now a microgram is a millionth of a gram, and a kilogram is 1000 grams, so this dosage is at a level of less than one part in a billion!
Perhaps Carl would like to consume, say, a hundred gram can of beans with one part per two thousand of botulism toxin in it? After all by his own reasoning it couldn't possibly harm him!
There is about 2.8% of water in the air and 0,05% of CO2 (which is not a pollution but a natural) and from this 0,05 only 3% comes from human activities. So the trick in your shemas is that they don't show the real amount of CO2. Anybody like you seeing such a graph will think that the CO2 thickness has the real proportion on the schema but this is false. It is only 0,05% of the air that is composed of CO2. In the air the quantity of human produced CO2 in the air takes 0,0015% (3% of 0,05%) and this CO2 will be absorbed by the plants, the humans, our cows, etc.
M. Jones revealed that there has been no warming in the last 15 years. Anybody looking at the satellite data can say the same thing. The better way to have a Global Warming is not by producing more CO2. The better way is to falsified the Ground Meteo Stations and get rid of the Satellites datas.
There has been no warming in the last 15 years. The warming was only an illusion created by the new religion of eco-extremism.
M. Jones revealed that there has been no warming in the last 15 years. Anybody looking at the satellite data can say the same thing. The better way to have a Global Warming is not by producing more CO2. The better way is to falsified the Ground Meteo Stations and get rid of the Satellites datas.
There has been no warming in the last 15 years. The warming was only an illusion created by the new religion of eco-extremism.
Carl
Carl, you claim to be scientifically literate, but you consistently misrepresent the facts. I have read these reports from Fox news etc. and they contradict your statements above.
Jones is saying that there has been warming in the last 15 years, but that it is not large enough be statistically significant with 95% certainty. This is indeed a high statistical hurdle for such a short period of time.
The more I read, the more I am convinced it is the skeptics that are being fooled by the spin doctors.
If Carl doesn't believe that CO2 is a pollutant, then I invite him to breath some air with only 10% of CO2 added for, say, half an hour. But he should, for his own safety, do some actual research first.
And who says pollution can't be "natural"? What cows produce from their rear ends is perfectly natural, so if Carl should eat a plate of it, it can't possibly harm harm him, right? It's natural!
Of course anyone who has walked across a field where cows have recently pastured might form a different opinion!
If Carl doesn't believe that CO2 is a pollutant, then I invite him to breath some air with only 10% of CO2 added for, say, half an hour. But he should, for his own safety, do some actual research first.
And who says pollution can't be "natural"? What cows produce from their rear ends is perfectly natural, so if Carl should eat a plate of it, it can't possibly harm harm him, right? It's natural!
Of course anyone who has walked across a field where cows have recently pastured might form a different opinion!
I think for Carl, if it comes out the exhaust pipe of a Hummer, then it's natural.
Don't worry, he'll be reincarnated as a cow to achieve his karma :D
(just a joke, I do believe in reincarnation, but not humans being reincarnated as anything other than human. So in Carl's case, his next incarnation would likely be an organic dairy farmer whose farm will be lost to flooding due to... AGW!)
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Carl, you claim to be scientifically literate, but you consistently misrepresent the facts. I have read these reports from Fox news etc. and they contradict your statements above.
Jones is saying that there has been warming in the last 15 years, but that it is not large enough be statistically significant with 95% certainty. This is indeed a high statistical hurdle for such a short period of time.
The more I read, the more I am convinced it is the skeptics that are being fooled by the spin doctors.
No Bob. There is no warming for the last 15 years base on the data and this is what he says.
The trick here is that you have to understand that they normally refer to the 2007 peak to talk about a warming but this is not statistically significant since 2008 and 2009 and 2010 did return to normal temperature and the ice recover.
He could have told you that some scientists talks about a cooling in the last 30 years period but there is not statistically significant with 95% certainty neither that way.
So 33% of the people can say that "they feel" it is going up, 33% say that "they feel" it is stable and 33% can say "they feel" it is going down.
It is like the expansion of the universe, when there was no data showing clearly an acceleration or a decelaration people had to express their feelings base on the differents "theories".
M. Jones is in the "school of thinking" that there is a warming and we know that since in the past he manipulated the ground stations data and hided the data for so many years. Now that the scandal made him loose his job, he must take the Satellite data ONY and this is why he recognized that there is no global warming. There is no global warming but he express "his opinion" on a warming trends to come.
He has the right and he must express his opinion and this is only an "opinion" since the data does not show a global warming. This is normal and this is the way any good scientist should act. If everybody was 100% on one side this would become a religion if there is no data evidence.
You don't "have to" change your mind and M. Jones neither. This is not a religion, this is science.
What scientists should not do is showing false data, false study, fake peer reviews, hide data and mute the deniers from expressing their opinions.
Carl
Last edited by Carl Bilodeau; Tuesday, 2nd March, 2010, 02:21 PM.
If Carl doesn't believe that CO2 is a pollutant, then I invite him to breath some air with only 10% of CO2 added for, say, half an hour. But he should, for his own safety, do some actual research first.
And who says pollution can't be "natural"? What cows produce from their rear ends is perfectly natural, so if Carl should eat a plate of it, it can't possibly harm harm him, right? It's natural!
Of course anyone who has walked across a field where cows have recently pastured might form a different opinion!
It is not a pollutant here in Canada since:
- no humans,
- no animals,
- no plants,
- and no fish
will die from it for the next century and you know nobody that did either in the past.
Even more there is no decrease of the ice level base on the 2010 satellite data and no increase in the earth temperature base on the satellites data.
The exchange of heat between the hot earth and the seas is so important that the stable air temperature or the CO2 level has no influence what so ever on todays temperatures of the water. Be serious, think about it just for a moment.
CO2 is a pollutant in a city like Mexico when the concentration is too high during a day. This is a bad city management to let smog create like this when the wind can not wipe the air fast enough over the city. Water would be a pollutant in Venise when it is too high but only in Venice when it happens. When there is no flood in Montreal, water is not a pollutant and when there is no smog, CO2 is not a pollutant. So the smog in Mexico does not make CO2 to be a pollutant in my city nor yours.
Carl
Last edited by Carl Bilodeau; Tuesday, 2nd March, 2010, 02:08 PM.
No Bob. There is no warming for the last 15 years base on the data and this is what he says......
What scientists should not do is showing false data, false study, fake peer reviews, hide data and mute the deniers from expressing their opinions.
Carl
No Carl. Jones does say that there is warming over the last 15 years, but just not enough to establish a warming trend statistically. But still warmer temperatures. If you are not going to make any attempt to check your sources, then......I'm wasting my time.
As my previous links have demonstated, now that some further investigations have been conducted, we see that the wild claims of "false data, false study, fake peer reviews, hidden data, and censorship of deniers" are without basis. It is the deniers that are being deceptive and false.
Carl, CO2 is very toxic, many people have died from carbon dioxide poisoning.
That's why they have carbon dioxide sensors in many buildings. duh..
To quote Wikipedia:
Carbon dioxide content in fresh air (averaged between sea-level and 10 hPa level, i.e. about 30 km altitude) varies between 0.036% (360 ppm) and 0.039% (390 ppm), depending on the location.
Prolonged exposure to moderate concentrations can cause acidosis and adverse effects on calcium phosphorus metabolism resulting in increased calcium deposits in soft tissue. Carbon dioxide is toxic to the heart and causes diminished contractile force.
Toxicity and its effects increase with the concentration of CO2, here given in volume percent of CO2 in the air:
'1% can cause drowsiness with prolonged exposure.
At 2% it is mildly narcotic and causes increased blood pressure and pulse rate, and causes reduced hearing.
At about 5% it causes stimulation of the respiratory centre, dizziness, confusion and difficulty in breathing accompanied by headache and shortness of breath. In addition at this concentration panic attacks may occur.
At about 8% it causes headache, sweating, dim vision, tremor and loss of consciousness after exposure for between five and ten minutes.
Your solution of "just spread it out over the countryside" seems somewhat cavalier.
Carl, CO2 is very toxic, many people have died from carbon dioxide poisoning.
That's why they have carbon dioxide sensors in many buildings. duh..
To quote Wikipedia:
Carbon dioxide content in fresh air (averaged between sea-level and 10 hPa level, i.e. about 30 km altitude) varies between 0.036% (360 ppm) and 0.039% (390 ppm), depending on the location.
Prolonged exposure to moderate concentrations can cause acidosis and adverse effects on calcium phosphorus metabolism resulting in increased calcium deposits in soft tissue. Carbon dioxide is toxic to the heart and causes diminished contractile force.
Toxicity and its effects increase with the concentration of CO2, here given in volume percent of CO2 in the air:
'1% can cause drowsiness with prolonged exposure.
At 2% it is mildly narcotic and causes increased blood pressure and pulse rate, and causes reduced hearing.
At about 5% it causes stimulation of the respiratory centre, dizziness, confusion and difficulty in breathing accompanied by headache and shortness of breath. In addition at this concentration panic attacks may occur.
At about 8% it causes headache, sweating, dim vision, tremor and loss of consciousness after exposure for between five and ten minutes.
Your solution of "just spread it out over the countryside" seems somewhat cavalier.
Water also can kill you if I the water level in the house during a flood goes up to the roof. You are talking of local toxic levels which would apply the same to water, oxygene, sand, etc. Local toxic level does not mean global toxic level.
I do believe in reincarnation, but not humans being reincarnated as anything other than human.
...
When the brain is dead there is nothing but dead meat in your head. How can you beleive in reincarnation?
I am only living meat with a brain like any other animal. The brain is bigger this is the only difference. Some animals have bigger tongues, some have bigger teeth than we have and we have bigger brain. Change some informations in your Cat DNA and he will be as intelligent as you are. Would he then be able to reincarnate? No. Would he believe in reincarnation? Humm, base on your comments I have to say : Yes probably.
You may believe that people can jump because we can proove it and we have data showing it. But reincarnation or religion false beleifs can logically only be explained by the scare of death for the species with a brain over 1500 cubic centimeters.
Carl
Last edited by Carl Bilodeau; Tuesday, 2nd March, 2010, 03:33 PM.
Water also can kill you if I the water level in the house during a flood goes up to the roof. You are talking of local toxic levels which would apply the same to water, oxygene, sand, etc. Local toxic level does not mean global toxic level.
Carl
LOL.:):)
Carl, your debating skills are unparalleled. I never even saw the "water is toxic too" argument coming. Congrats.
hmmmm.....wait just one minute,......on 2nd thought,
True, I would drown in a room of 100% water,
but......my health would begin to suffer in a room of just 2% carbon dioxide.
So, I'll just throw out a theory here:
Toxicity of carbon dioxide > Toxicity of water :D
Now it's just a theory, and I haven't done any research, nor collected any data (fudged or real), nor has it been peer reviewed, and I'm not claiming 100% consensus amongst scientists, but maybe it's true anyways! ;)
Guess we need a new show, "Law and Order - SUV" to replace "Law and Order - SVU".
Their first episode could have someone in the Montreal area who drives a Hummer arrested and charged with crimes against humanity. It will turn out the person is an anti-eco-extremism zealot who claims he knows more than everyone else because he took a correspondence course in Operations Research.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Carl, the lies you are telling in this message have been refuted numerous times by me and others. Repeating them in the face of this only makes you look silly. Repeat them a hundred times and they will not be any truer than they are now, which is not at all.
Tweet
Comment