World clock

**Rigger** · 28-08-2007, 06:57 PM

A mate just e mailed this link to me pretty interesting stuff I dont know how true it is so I will put it in here for you people to pull to bits

http://www.poodwaddle.com/worldclock.swf

**shehiredahitman** · 28-08-2007, 07:02 PM

Interesting. I suppose if they have the correct data from the past it should be pretty accurate.

**NathairCeann** · 28-08-2007, 07:46 PM

I'd think I'd vote for this being the latest effort from the people who brought you loadabollox.com.

**Gerontion** · 28-08-2007, 08:01 PM

It's very good, isn't it, and it seems to coincide with the figures which I know. It's really horrible when you click the 'now' button and see just how fast the figures climb - we truly are fucked.

**Mr Earl** · 28-08-2007, 08:25 PM

I'm still wondering about the coming ice age that was predicted 30 years ago.
Also I think they said we'd be out of oil about now too. Humm! So much for those computer models!

**Gerontion** · 28-08-2007, 08:34 PM

It's not a computer model, in the 1970s in the scientific press there was no prediction of an ice age and no-one thought oil would have run out by now. But other than that, an excellent post! Keep up the good work.

**AntRobertson** · 28-08-2007, 08:47 PM

^
You'll have to excuse Earl. He's what we call "special", a bit touched in the head if you will.

**Mr Earl** · 28-08-2007, 11:38 PM

And what about the hole in the ozone Al Gore crusade from a the early '90s?

Nasa debunked the myth but Al Gore never recanted his bullshit.

**Mr Earl** · 28-08-2007, 11:44 PM

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

^
You'll have to excuse Earl. He's what we call "special", a bit touched in the head if you will.

Ant in the future if you don't have anything to contribute to the topic confine posts like this to MKP where it belongs.

**shehiredahitman** · 28-08-2007, 11:49 PM

Originally Posted by Gerontion

It's not a computer model, in the 1970s in the scientific press there was no prediction of an ice age and no-one thought oil would have run out by now. But other than that, an excellent post! Keep up the good work.

Schneider said an ice age was a possible future scenario, but he did not predict it, you're right. Just a bit of scaremongering, much the same as these monkeys who tell us today the world is going to get to hot unless we pay higher taxes on air travel & generally stump up some dough.

I think what Mr E was refering to was the implied threat of future weather conditions. It's all bollocks.

**Gerontion** · 29-08-2007, 01:29 AM

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

And what about the hole in the ozone Al Gore crusade from a the early '90s?

Nasa debunked the myth but Al Gore never recanted his bullshit.

What? NASA debunked nothing. The ozone hole is still there. Try not to make too much of a dick of yourself.

Originally Posted by shehiredahitman

Just a bit of scaremongering, much the same as these monkeys who tell us today the world is going to get to hot unless we pay higher taxes on air travel & generally stump up some dough.

Oh gawd...the world is going to get hotter if we keep removing carbon from the ground and putting it in the atmosphere. This is a universally accepted fact. In fact, because of the time lags in the system and the rapid increases in concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases, the world is going to get hotter - for a while - whatever we do.

**Spin** · 29-08-2007, 03:33 AM

CMN's post count should be included

**shehiredahitman** · 29-08-2007, 04:12 AM

Originally Posted by Gerontion

Oh gawd...the world is going to get hotter if we keep removing carbon from the ground and putting it in the atmosphere. This is a universally accepted fact

By who?

The earth would get hotter if the human race wasn't even on it. Just like Mars. Here's the kicker - it will cool again, too, at some point in the future. I'm sure you're aware that most of the ground we walk on today was under ice at some point or another. Was that carbon-related, too?

Global warming is a myth. A cash-cow everybody's been told to stick their hands in their pockets for & I'm not falling for it.

**Mr Earl** · 29-08-2007, 08:51 AM

Originally Posted by Gerontion

What? NASA debunked nothing. The ozone hole is still there. Try not to make too much of a dick of yourself.

Only to those who buy into the MSM "alarmist science"

Originally Posted by shehiredahitman

Just a bit of scaremongering, much the same as these monkeys who tell us today the world is going to get to hot unless we pay higher taxes on air travel & generally stump up some dough.

Oh gawd...the world is going to get hotter if we keep removing carbon from the ground and putting it in the atmosphere. This is a universally accepted fact. In fact, because of the time lags in the system and the rapid increases in concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases, the world is going to get hotter - for a while - whatever we do.

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.

**Lily** · 29-08-2007, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

Ant in the future if you don't have anything to contribute to the topic confine posts like this to MKP where it belongs.

Jesus...................another wannabe mod.

**Gerontion** · 29-08-2007, 03:34 PM

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

Only to those who buy into the MSM "alarmist science"

Below is an image of the ozone hole which I have taken directly from the NASA website. Is this the one that they've debunked? Or do you know something which NASA don't? Please, feel free to contribute.

By who?

"There is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001). This warming has already led to changes in the Earth's climate."

Joint statement issued in 2005 and signed by representatives of the national scientific academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, United Kingdom and the United States of America.

“The observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. This is an advance since the TAR’s conclusion that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”. Discernible human influences now extend to other aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns”

Latest IPCC report (2007)

Really, I could post 1,000s of pages, 1,000,000s of pages of this stuff. In response, you will of course find some old quotations from one of those Exxon whores (Lindzen, no doubt) in some capitalist rag (Wall Street Journal is always a good starting point for corporate PR) but what are these crumbs against the Everest of evidence in favour of ACC?

The earth would get hotter if the human race wasn't even on it.

The only way to model the recent increases in global temperature is through the warming effect of greenhouse gases.

Just like Mars.

Absolute bollocks. For a thorough and comprehensive rebuttal of this favourite of the pyjama-brigade read http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/global-warming-on-mars/ Unlike creationist bloggers and Exxon PRs, these guys know what they're talking about.

Here's the kicker - it will cool again, too, at some point in the future. I'm sure you're aware that most of the ground we walk on today was under ice at some point or another. Was that carbon-related, too.

This is a ridiculous argument. If you choose to deny the reality of climate change, I can't stop you but even big oil and - heaven help us - that cretin Bush have slowly started to change their tune on this. Just as many steadfastly refuse to accept evolution and insist that the Grand Canyon was caused by the hull of Noah's boat (or some such nonsense), millions (especially the rich, who have most to lose) will keep their collective heads in the sand about climate change.

A cash-cow everybody's been told to stick their hands in their pockets

A few crappy research grants? Possibly some green taxes? And against this we have the profits of industrial capitalism. Right. Where is the money in this argument? This is just fucking absurd.

**AntRobertson** · 29-08-2007, 03:42 PM

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?

**shehiredahitman** · 29-08-2007, 03:56 PM

Gerontion, that is a great post & I would like to break it down indivudually & answer each point but I can't seperate the quotes. My cut & paste doesn't work (unlike yours, obviously) the way I'd like it to.

However, through all the smoke & mirrors where is your actual evidence?

Every one of your quotes is littered with 'it is likely' & 'it is very likely' & no real facts. You mention the Grand Canyon - the fact this thing existed & vanished before any of us ever got to see the water running through it is proof in itself that this planet has been undergoing dramatic climate change forever without any interference from us. The continents have shifted over halfway around the globe without a helping hand from us, also.

Climate change is happening. I do not dispute this. The reason it is happening is unknown. For every scientist who claims it is our fault I can wheel out one who says it isn't.

As for where the money is - try increased airline taxes, taxes on rubbish disposed of & a whole host of scams designed to lift the money from our wallets without actually doing anything to prevent this so-called global warming.

Climate change is not a man-made evil. It is a geological occurance that we have little - or no - control over whatsover.

**Gerontion** · 29-08-2007, 04:27 PM

Oh Lordy.

'it is likely', 'it is very likely', etc. have – within the context of the IPCC reports and associated literature – very particular meanings relating to probability. ‘It is likely’ means that there is a greater than 67% probability. ‘It is very likely’ means that the probability is greater than 90%. And remember that because the IPCC reports must be approved by all contributing nations, their reports represent the most conservative position. Most contributors hold much stronger views than those which appear in the reports.

where is your actual evidence?

The greenhouse effect has been known since the 19th century; if CO2 did not cause warming, life as we know it would not be possible on the earth. Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have increased from pre-industrial levels of 280ppm to around 380ppm at the moment. When one includes the much more considerable per unit forcing of methane, CFCs, HCFCs, etc the effective level of atmospheric CO2 is well over 400ppm. As you concede, there is no doubt that the world is warming. Given what is known about greenhouse gases, we have every reason to think that the recorded increases in global temperature are due to the recorded increase in atmospheric CO2 and other gases.

For every scientist who claims it is our fault I can wheel out one who says it isn't.

No, you can’t. I’ve no doubt that you can wheel out a few but for every one of them, I could produce an entire faculty who will say that climate change is real, it’s caused by man and unchecked will be a disaster for the entire biosphere. A famous study of 928 peer-reviewed research papers on the subject published between 1993 and 2003 showed that none contested the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Look at the signatories of the joint statement I posted. Look at the composition of the IPCC. Look at the work of every university department and research institute working on this. Of course, a few fronts for Exxon PR (the appalling Cato institute for one) continue to pretend that the issue is up for grabs but it’s not.

As for where the money is - try increased airline taxes, taxes on rubbish disposed of & a whole host of scams designed to lift the money from our wallets without actually doing anything to prevent this so-called global warming.

I would agree that many of the solutions proposed to climate change are destined to fail but this hardly disproves the theory, does it. And as I said, when one sets a few taxes against the entire output of the industrial economy, the assertion that climate change is some kind of conspiracy to get ‘our’ money makes no sense at all. The money which originates in fossil fuel will always dwarf by vast orders of magnitude any conceivable green taxes; if anyone is making shit up, it’s those who benefit from business as usual.

One last thing: Climate change deniers make a curious and unsupportable leap of logic but it is important to realise that not knowing everything is not the same as knowing nothing. Deniers almost always forget this.

**shehiredahitman** · 29-08-2007, 04:47 PM

Originally Posted by Gerontion

greater than 67% probability

This is your evidence - probabilities?

No, you can't.

Yes, I can.

We could be here forever refuting each-other's statements so let's call it a day.

When you show me the evidence that we can stop global warming I will believe it. A bunch of scientists quoting probabilities is NOT evidence. It is speculation.

You may as well show me a passage from the bible & call it proof there is a God.

**Mid** · 29-08-2007, 04:53 PM

evidence that we can stop global warming

thought the deal was about slowing it ??

**Gerontion** · 29-08-2007, 05:09 PM

When you show me the evidence that we can stop global warming I will believe it.

Again, you make no sense. I don’t have to be able to fix a smashed egg to prove that I have the ability to crush it. Why would I?

This is your evidence - probabilities?

Don’t be so asinine. Of course they’re not proof that anthropogenic climate change is real. They’re proof that the IPCC says it’s real. And, clearly unlike you, on scientific matters I respect what scientists say.

Yes, I can.

Well go on then. Do. Line them all up. I’d love to see them. But please make sure (a) it’s all recent research (b) it’s from peer-reviewed publications and not corporate wank from the capitalist media. Perhaps you could begin by posting rebuttals to the recent IPCC report. As this represents a kind-of base line of thought on anthropogenic climate change it should be fairly easy for you to do so. You can find a copy of the report at IPCC WG1 AR4 Report

A bunch of scientists quoting probabilities is NOT evidence. It is speculation.

What does that mean? You seem not to have read the last line of my previous post. Let me repeat it for you:

not knowing everything is not the same as knowing nothing. Deniers almost always forget this.

**Boon Mee** · 29-08-2007, 05:23 PM

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

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?

Read a newspaper lately.

**shehiredahitman** · 29-08-2007, 05:37 PM

Absurd comments such as

Again, you make no sense. I don’t have to be able fix a smashed egg to prove that I have the ability to crush it. Why would I?

are the ones making no sense. Stick to language normal people can understand & I will have more of an idea of what you are trying to convey.

Of course they’re not proof that anthropogenic climate change is real

This is what I have been saying from the start.

Not all scientists agree with each other, therefore providing a list of who said what is pretty pointless. The bottom line is - unless they all agree is is not a scientific fact. It is speculation.

We could be here all day. Let's agree to disagree.

**Gerontion** · 29-08-2007, 06:29 PM

Let's agree to disagree.

No, because this is not an argument about whether Arsenal are better with or without Henry but whether or not at the end of this century we’re going to have a biosphere. As awful as Iraq is, as intractable and problematic as the issues around debt repayments are, there is nothing more important in (and to) the world than confronting and dealing with climate change.

Stick to language normal people can understand & I will have more of an idea of what you are trying to convey.

My apologies. I had thought my meaning was transparent. You said thought you would ‘believe’ in climate change if you were presented with evidence that the process could be reversed but many processes occur only in one direction. This does not mean that they don’t occur and nor does it mean that no proof can be offered for their occurrence. Does this make sense? I hope so because I’m not sure how to show the fallacy in your reasoning any more clearly.

This is what I have been saying from the start.

As I thought my use of the quotation function made clear, this was in response to your question about who said it.

Anyway, some (extremely brief) facts about ACC.

1. As I have already said, atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases have risen sharply since the industrial revolution from 280ppm to around 430ppm CO2 equivalent at the moment. This is mainly due to burning of fossil fuels, change in land use, changes in agriculture and the ‘development’ of industrial products. At no time in the previous 800,000 years have they been this high.

2. CO2 has a greenhouse effect (investigated by Arrhenius in the late 19th century so not exactly ground-breaking stuff) with a radiative forcing calculated according to the formula Delta F = 5.35 ln (C/Co), where C is CO2 concentration in ppm by volume and Co is the reference concentration. Other greenhouse gases include, as I have said, methane, CFCs (also responsible for the ozone hole) and nitrous oxide. These are much less prevalent than CO2 but have a much greater effect. Concentrations of these gases have risen too.

3. The world has warmed recently and continues to warm (in the last 50 years by I think 0.65 degrees centigrade). Melting land and sea ice, the migration of species toward the poles and changes in weather patterns are all further evidence of this warming.

Not all scientists agree with each other, therefore providing a list of who said what is pretty pointless. The bottom line is - unless they all agree is is not a scientific fact. It is speculation.

In that case, you’re using the vocabulary in a peculiar and unusual way and by your standards very little (possibly nothing other than truths of definition) can be said to be a fact (Certainly, with your use of the words we don’t know that evolution is a fact). To think that because some people who (at a very generous stretch) can be said to be scientists dispute key aspects of ACC means that there is any real disagreement is grossly to misrepresent the facts and as I have said, reviews of the scientific literature show an extraordinary unanimity of opinion. To say that you can match, post-for-post, proof-for-proof, author-for-author those who agree that climate change is real with those who deny is just not true. However, don’t take my word for it. Let’s, in good scientific fashion, test the validity of my thesis. I've given links to the IPCC report and realclimate so after you…

Thread: World clock

Thread Tools

Display

World clock

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions