Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 54

Thread: World clock

  1. #26
    I am in Jail

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Last Online
    20-08-2020 @ 08:24 AM
    Posts
    993


    Proof, Gerontion.

    Instead of banging on just show me the proof. Then we can put this to bed, one way or another. Your posts are very comprehensive & I commend you for that, but they jump from one place to another & define no clear answer on the question I have asked. We produce no more greenhouse gases than farting cows & saying that the world is going to end unless we do something differently is nonsense.

    I'll try again.

    Show me the proof, please?

  2. #27
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    02-07-2023 @ 09:12 PM
    Posts
    154
    Ok but what would constitute proof? My points 1 - 3 give a very brief explanation. Namely, (2) CO2 has a greenhouse effect (1) CO2 concentrations have risen so we would expect global temperatures to rise, which is indeed shown in (3). Isn't this sufficient?

    And by the way, I've been good enough to supply references, formula, facts and figures. Perhaps you could justify claims such as "we produce no more greenhouse gases than farting cows & saying that the world is going to end unless we do something differently is nonsense". Thanks.

  3. #28
    I am in Jail

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Last Online
    20-08-2020 @ 08:24 AM
    Posts
    993
    They are valid points, I agree, but it does not constitute actual proof of the original argument. The earth has been around something like one million times longer than man & it is not man who dictates how hot or cold the earth is/should/was/will become.

    Show that man-made global warming is contributing to the end of the world & I will be the first to change my ways. The earth's temperature has been changing between hot & cold since time immortal. Nothing, whatsoever, suggests it is our job to tell mother nature how to run her planet.

  4. #29
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    02-07-2023 @ 09:12 PM
    Posts
    154
    Quote Originally Posted by shehiredahitman
    The earth has been around something like one million times longer than man & it is not man who dictates how hot or cold the earth is/should/was/will become.
    I'm not suggesting the anthropogenic climate change is an explanation for every episode of warming the earth has experienced. Clearly, as a matter of definition, anthropogenic climate change cannot explain events which predate the evolution of mankind so I'm afraid that your response is utterly irrelevant. Or to rephrase that, an effect can have multiple causes. I’m repeating myself here but given what we know about changes in concentrations of greenhouse gases and what we know about their effect of temperature, the best explanation of the warming that we have experienced is that it is caused by greenhouse gases; computer models can only explain this change in temperature by including these forcing effects.

    Quote Originally Posted by shehiredahitman
    Show that man-made global warming is contributing to the end of the world & I will be the first to change my ways.
    IPCC forecast show that by 2100, global temperatures will increase by between 1.1 and 6.4 degrees centigrade. The uncertainty is caused largely because forecasts of economic/technological activity in 50 year’s time is a little tricky. However, recent increases in the rates of emissions mean that we are well on target for the higher end of this forecast. What does this mean? No one is too sure at the top end of the forecasts as it’s such unknown territory but everyone agrees that it’s somewhere between apocalyptic and game-over. Some effects will include,

    1. More extreme weather events with increased precipitation but with this happening more violently.
    2. Disruption to long established weather patterns. This will affect billions of people, leaving them without access to sufficient water.
    3. Melting glaciers will first cause floods but then contribute to water stress.
    4. At low temperature increases, some crop yields may rise but even the low end forecasts will almost certainly result in lower crop yields. Higher night-time temperatures will reduce rice yields, resulting in considerable ‘problems’ for Asia.
    5. A huge number of species will go extinct with incalculable consequences.
    6. Atmospheric CO2 dissolves in water, increasing its acidity. This prevents the formation of shell structure which in turn restricts the growth of microscopic sea life, one of the foundations of the world’s food chain.
    7. Rising sea levels will flood coastal areas, which tend to be the most heavily populated areas of countries.
    8. All of this will lead to massive migration away from areas that are more severely affected.
    9. Most diseases thrive in warmer weather.

    Billions will be affected.

    This is before we start to look at the positive feedbacks. Some studies show that the Amazon is very sensitive to minor increases in temperature. Increases at the higher end of the IPCC forecasts could cause it to dry out and turn to desert. The resulting increase in atmospheric CO2 would be astronomic. Worse is the potential for warming oceans to release methyl hydrates and trigger unstoppable warming. If this happens, it’s the cockroaches' turn at the helm.

    Quote Originally Posted by shehiredahitman
    The earth's temperature has been changing between hot & cold since time immortal.
    I think my earlier response addresses this sufficiently.

    Quote Originally Posted by shehiredahitman
    Nothing, whatsoever, suggests it is our job to tell mother nature how to run her planet.
    All breakages must be paid for.
    Last edited by Gerontion; 29-08-2007 at 08:17 PM.

  5. #30
    I am in Jail

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Last Online
    20-08-2020 @ 08:24 AM
    Posts
    993


    Repeating yourself & banding about doomsday scenarios isn't going to convince anybody.

    Your posts contain nothing but speculation.

    I have asked for proof - you have not provided it. Again. Saying there is a high possibility of something happening is not proof. It may be likely, but it is not a certainty.

    I am not ignorant. If there was a genuine concern for what is supposed to be going down I would go with the flow & we wouldn't be having this conversation. The fact is, there are smarter men than me who have yet to be convinced there is anything to worry about & until they also say there is a genuine problem then you do not have a real case. Scaremonger all you like, apocolypse indeed, until you - or anyone - prove it, it is all speculation, nothing else.

  6. #31
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    02-07-2023 @ 09:12 PM
    Posts
    154
    I'll ask you again: What would constitute proof?

    (And if you expect certainty in this, there is none. But that is no reason to do nothing.)

  7. #32
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    02-07-2023 @ 09:12 PM
    Posts
    154
    My post is drawn from the recent IPCC report. I strongly suspect that you have no idea who or what that is but trust me, I didn't make up these predictions; these guys know what they are talking about.

    And far from trying to scare you with 'doomsday scenarios' my post was a direct reponse to your request that I "show that man-made global warming is contributing to the end of the world." You seem to have profound difficulty following the thread of a discussion but don't worry. For your benefit, I shall use clearer signposts in future.

    So - what would a proof look like?

    And - why don't you have a stab at explaining what has caused the increase in world temperature (which you agree has occurred)?

    And - could you show how the well-established principle of CO2 warming has been surpressed, given concentrations have increased by 30%?
    Last edited by Gerontion; 29-08-2007 at 08:37 PM.

  8. #33
    I am in Jail

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Last Online
    20-08-2020 @ 08:24 AM
    Posts
    993
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerontion View Post
    My post is drawn from the recent IPCC report; these guys know what they are talking about.
    These guys have said they are 90% sure of something. Again, this is not proof. By default they admit to a 10% chance they are wrong. You have finally admitted you cannot provide me with the proof I asked you for over two hours ago & are now asking me - in a way - to provide it for you.

    We have reached a dead end.

    I appreciate the time you have taken to post the information you have & it is a subject that is obviously close to your heart. Good luck with convincing anybody else you may encounter who doubts this whole business but I'm afraid I still stand where I did at the beginning.

    Just to show willing, suggest to me a couple of things I can do to help your 'cause' & provided they are not OTT I will do my best to comply.

  9. #34
    I am in Jail

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Last Online
    20-08-2020 @ 08:24 AM
    Posts
    993
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerontion View Post
    And - why don't you have a stab at explaining what has caused the increase in world temperature (which you agree has occurred)
    Just a shot in the dark - could it be the same thing that has caused the earth's temperature to increase hundreds of thousands of times before throughout the planet's history?

    Don't answer that. Please.

  10. #35
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    02-07-2023 @ 09:12 PM
    Posts
    154
    Jesus wept. I'm not asking you to provide me with proof. I'm asking you what would convince you. What type of statement would make you go, "Yes, you're right. I see it now."? Most (all?) of science relies on having the best explanation amongst competing theories. There is no 'certainty' (in the sense which you use it) that evolution is true and that intelligent design is false but you would, I hope, accept that evolution is an established fact. Any truth which is not true by definition can be proved wrong; this is the problem of induction but all of science depends on inductive reasoning so if this is a dead end it is so because you have set the burden of proof at a point which no experiential science can reach. In other words - if you want to discard science, that's your call but it hardly makes for an impressive position and it leaves me wondering how you can justify supporting any beliefs you have about the world which are not immediately available on the basis of first person knowledge.

    Anyway, a couple of things which you can do:

    1. Replace incandescent light bulbs with compact fluorescents.
    2. Don’t leave electrical appliances on stand-by.
    3. Walk or share lifts.
    4. Buy locally produced food.
    5. Turn your heating down a few degrees or turn your A/C up a few degrees.
    6. Insulate.
    7. Look at generating your own, renewable power. If you’re in Thailand, you can (in theory) sell power you generate back to the grid.
    8. Cut down on your flights.
    9. Eat less meat.
    10 Reduce, reuse, recycle.

    Of course, the problem with doing things that aren’t ‘OTT’ is that there’s fuck-all point doing them. To stabilize CO2 emissions at a level which does not pose a danger requires such deep cuts that this kind of tokenism is utterly pointless.

    Just a shot in the dark - could it be the same thing that has caused the earth's temperature to increase hundreds of thousands of times before throughout the planet's history?
    No. But I'm sure that the fact that there is no scientific support for this won't put you (or the rest of the Daily Mail reading classes) off.
    Last edited by Gerontion; 29-08-2007 at 09:45 PM.

  11. #36
    I am in Jail

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Last Online
    20-08-2020 @ 08:24 AM
    Posts
    993
    :borladuck:

    Lumping me in with Daily Mail readers is almost a compliment to me. Insults are not what I thought this was supposed to be about. I have been nothing but pleasant to you, Gerontion, but now you are resorting to name calling there isn't much point continuing this conversation.

    Somebody said you were a troll but I gave you the benefit of the doubt.


  12. #37
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    02-07-2023 @ 09:12 PM
    Posts
    154
    A troll? Don't be pathetic. I have provided you with coherent arguments based on solid, uncontroversial facts and for which I have cited highly respectable sources. In reply you have completely failed to provide any intelligent response.

    Here's your chance. Deal the whole conspiracy that knock out blow you must have. Or failing that, just come up with something.

  13. #38
    I am in Jail

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Last Online
    20-08-2020 @ 08:24 AM
    Posts
    993


    How's that?

  14. #39
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    02-07-2023 @ 09:12 PM
    Posts
    154
    Very impressive. Any objections to me taking that as an admission that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about and that you have nothing intelligent to contribute? No? Lovely.

  15. #40
    Whopping Member
    benbaaa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    06-06-2017 @ 03:52 PM
    Location
    In the comfy chair
    Posts
    5,549
    Quote Originally Posted by Spin
    CMN's post count should be included
    Here we go. Watch carefully.

    CMN's interesting posts since you last viewed this thread: 0

  16. #41
    Whopping Member
    benbaaa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    06-06-2017 @ 03:52 PM
    Location
    In the comfy chair
    Posts
    5,549
    Sorry Gerontion, didn't mean to interrupt your thread. Carry on please. It'll give SHAHM something to mull over while he's relaxing at Her Majesty's Pleasure.

  17. #42
    I am in Jail
    Mr Earl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Last Online
    23-08-2021 @ 06:47 PM
    Location
    In the Jungle of Love
    Posts
    14,771
    The formation of the ozone hole over Antarctica is a consequence of the special atmospheric conditions which occur there, in particularly the very low stratospheric temperatures (below -80°C), the isolated wind patterns and the presence of continuous sunlight after the September equinox. Every summer (December to January) the hole repairs itself when stratospheric temperatures rise and the air above Antarctica mixes with the rest of the world's atmosphere. This cycle of ozone hole formation and reparation is repeated every year. The ozone hole over Antarctica has been forming every year since the early 1970s. In recent years the hole has become both larger and deeper, in the sense that more and more ozone is being destroyed.

    Every March to April during the Northern Hemisphere springtime similar, but less pronounced ozone hole forms above the Arctic. The natural circulation of wind - the polar vortex - which isolates Antarctica from the rest of the world during the Southern Hemisphere winter and early spring, contributing to the ozone loss there, is much less developed in the Northern Hemisphere above the Arctic. In addition, stratospheric temperatures there are not as low as in the Antarctic, and consequently the loss of ozone is not as severe. However, the formation of even a moderate ozone hole above the Arctic region can give cause for considerable concern due to the greater populations in the higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere.
    Gerontino you conveniently omit how fluctuations in the ozone layer are observed natural phenomena. To positively conclude human activity is to blame with only data gathered since the '70s is disingenuous.

  18. #43
    I am in Jail
    Mr Earl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Last Online
    23-08-2021 @ 06:47 PM
    Location
    In the Jungle of Love
    Posts
    14,771
    Quote Originally Posted by AntRobertson View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Earl
    The earth is in a warming cycle. The actual levels and causes are still undetermined. Geological science reveals similar CO2 cycles long before humans inhabited the planet. The alarmist computer modeling used in Al Gores' movies was inaccurate and designed to scare simple minded boneheads.
    I don't suppose you can support any of this with objective evidence could you?
    I took a couple of university courses in geology. Rocks reveal conclusive evidence of past climate changes. Climates cycles are measured in centuries not just a few decades.
    The current alarmist science plays well to the ignorant.

  19. #44
    Thailand Expat AntRobertson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    41,562
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Earl
    I took a couple of university courses in geology
    Interesting. The vast preponderence and weight of current scientific study and thought Vs. Earl and a couple of geology courses. This ought to be good... though you missed the part where I said "objective".

    Rocks reveal conclusive evidence of past climate changes. Climates cycles are measured in centuries not just a few decades
    Absolutely, none of which is in doubt or being disputed. However it is those very same measurements of past climate changes which are causing the concern - because what we are experiencing now is, quite literally, off the charts and there is no climate cycle in recordable history that compares.
    Last edited by AntRobertson; 30-08-2007 at 10:09 AM.

  20. #45
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    02-07-2023 @ 09:12 PM
    Posts
    154
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Earl View Post
    Gerontino you conveniently omit how fluctuations in the ozone layer are observed natural phenomena. To positively conclude human activity is to blame with only data gathered since the '70s is disingenuous.
    If you had quoted the entire page at Ozone Hole, we would all have read how,

    Although natural phenomena can cause temporary ozone losses, chlorine and bromine released from man-made synthetic compounds such as CFCs are now accepted as the main cause of this depletion.
    When (man-made) CFCs migrate to the stratosphere they break down due to the action of UV light, releasing chlorine which reacts with the ozone. The reason data only goes back to the a few decades is that mass-production of CFCs only took off in the 1960s. It would, would it not, be hard to gather data on a process which was not happening? And what happened to NASA debunking all this? Eh?

    As regards your course in geology, if you were to go any respectable university now, you would find anthropogenic climate change taught as a standard part of many courses. You don't seem to have read what I have posted so let me take the liberty of quoting myself:

    "I'm not suggesting the anthropogenic climate change is an explanation for every episode of warming the earth has experienced. Clearly, as a matter of definition, anthropogenic climate change cannot explain events which predate the evolution of mankind so I'm afraid that your response is utterly irrelevant. Or to rephrase that, an effect can have multiple causes. I’m repeating myself here but given what we know about changes in concentrations of greenhouse gases and what we know about their effect on temperature, the best explanation of the warming that we have experienced is that it is caused by greenhouse gases; computer models can only explain this change in temperature by including these forcing effects."

    But if you can find me some convincing rebuttals of all this, post away; I'd love to read them.

  21. #46
    Thailand Expat AntRobertson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    41,562
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerontion
    But if you can find me some convincing rebuttals of all this, post away; I'd love to read them.
    'I took a couple of geology courses at university'?

  22. #47
    I am in Jail
    Mr Earl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Last Online
    23-08-2021 @ 06:47 PM
    Location
    In the Jungle of Love
    Posts
    14,771
    ^good for you! then you know the geological evidence of climate cycles to be compelling.
    Unlike the "generally accepted" subjective and emotional views of politically/finacially motivated science rammed down everyones throat via MSM!

  23. #48
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    02-07-2023 @ 09:12 PM
    Posts
    154
    What is it about conservatives that makes them universally so thick?

    if you can find me some convincing rebuttals of all this, post away; I'd love to read them.
    As the Americans so charmingly put it, either shit or get off the pot.

  24. #49
    Suspended from News & Speakers Corner
    kerux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Online
    16-09-2007 @ 07:25 AM
    Location
    Padded Cell Next to Zundel
    Posts
    1,493
    This site tells me I've been alive about 20,000 days, 479760 hours and 28785600 minutes.

    Online age calculator, calculate your birthday

  25. #50
    Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    23-09-2007 @ 11:56 AM
    Location
    Bangna , heading for Cambo
    Posts
    332
    It is possible that the activities of the human population are having an effect on the climate , in fact it is even likely considering the population and the level of industrial activity. However trying to slow , stop or even (pause to laugh) reverse that effect by using low energy lightbulbs and hybrid cars is like trying to stop a gazillion ton oil tanker with a canoe paddle. If the "environmentalists" seriously believed what they professed they would realise this and say so but of course that would get as much attention as the "end is nigh" nutjob and it is not in their nature to want to be ignored. Three possibilities : 1-It gets a bit warmer and people in Alaska and Spitzbergen can cut down on heating oil. 2-It gets really serious and the planet is fucked (to use a technical expression). 3-Good old mother nature steps in with a nice little pandemic which decimates the human population and the few million that are left have to learn to catch and kill what they eat. I'm having an each way bet on the third horse meself.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •