Global Warming :D

[Chalenge]

It also is nowhere near even touching global temperature.

Fail.

[MORAY37]

It also is nowhere near even touching global temperature.

Fail.

Simply from the existence of "heat islands" you can extrapolate man's effect on the planet, using only high school thermodynamics.  Whether or not you choose to recognize this, is completely your choice.

[Chalenge]

And you can extrapolate out that when you create heat in one place you create cold in another. When you warm up a city it always develops more rain downwind. The overall global effect is nill.

[Angus]

So, when I warm my house, I create cold elsewhere.
Naaah. You have a long way to go bud....

[MORAY37]

And you can extrapolate out that when you create heat in one place you create cold in another. When you warm up a city it always develops more rain downwind. The overall global effect is nill.

Pretty sure you just stated an "effect" right there, and it's not "nill".

[Chalenge]

Im pretty sure it is obvious except to the most stubborn that what I am talking about is localized and not global.

If you think we (humans) can affect global temperature then I want you to prove it. Warm the entire globe by 1 degree. You have 100 years. Go!

Nil.

[MORAY37]

Im pretty sure it is obvious except to the most stubborn that what I am talking about is localized and not global.

If you think we (humans) can affect global temperature then I want you to prove it. Warm the entire globe by 1 degree. You have 100 years. Go!

Nil.

I think I'll just let you keep talking.  I'll cut that time by 75%.

[Chalenge]

You have been in school too long and you have lost touch with reality and common sense.

[WMLute]

I see somebody didn't look at the peer reviewed paper I posted...

Just curious, but does anybody else remember in the 1970's when there was a big "scare" that we were entering into another ice age?

I should also add that in this same period of time hydrocarbon use increased 3-fold.

The Earth has been warming as it recovers from the Little Ice Age at an average rate of about 0.5 ºC per century. Fluctuations within this temperature trend include periods of more rapid increase and also periods of temperature decrease. These fluctuations correlate well with concomitant fluctuations in the activity of the sun. Neither the trends nor the fluctuations within the trends correlate with hydrocarbon use. Sea level and glacier length reveal three intermediate uptrends and two downtrends since 1800, as does solar activity. These trends are climatically benign and result from natural processes.

According to this trend, in the next hundred years we will see a .9 degree Fahrenheit increase in temperature if the current trend continues.

So Morray37, in the 25 year span you suggested, you will see an .225 increase in temperature Fahrenheit.

A hundred years is about right for a 1 degree F temp. increase.

and I would leave you with the following...

Human activities are producing part of the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas from below ground to the atmosphere, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of this CO2 increase. Our children will therefore enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life than that with which we now are blessed.

[Angus]

You have been in school too long and you have lost touch with reality and common sense.

At least you admit that there was a touch with common sense and reality. Chalenge, you have fallen into the pit of a typical GW denialist, - since you get pawned by lack of knowledge and logical thinkings, you enter the zone of shooting out rubbish.

Oh, and Lute, I got to know the ice age scare from Lazs. I have not found much of it. While doing college in the early 80's, our studies did involve speculations of a Nuclear winter (due to global dimming) as well as GW due to human activities. Now that was some 25 years ago. The cooling scare IMHO seems to have been a thing from USA.
And BTW, why the "F-WORD" do you always calculate in Fahrenheit!!!!!!!!! Who the "F-WORD" does that!!!! 

[MORAY37]

At least you admit that there was a touch with common sense and reality. Chalenge, you have fallen into the pit of a typical GW denialist, - since you get pawned by lack of knowledge and logical thinkings, you enter the zone of shooting out rubbish.

Oh, and Lute, I got to know the ice age scare from Lazs. I have not found much of it. While doing college in the early 80's, our studies did involve speculations of a Nuclear winter (due to global dimming) as well as GW due to human activities. Now that was some 25 years ago. The cooling scare IMHO seems to have been a thing from USA.
And BTW, why the "F-WORD" do you always calculate in Fahrenheit!!!!!!!!! Who the "F-WORD" does that!!!! 

Anyone who does anything in Fahrenheit doesn't do anything in science at all.

[Angus]

Out of curiosity, is it just the USA, - and as soon they get deeper into science it is still Celcius/Kelvin (same scaling, just geting rid of the negative) or the other one,,now what was that one again...
I am not a scientist (you know that Moray), but bloody hell, this one I had in school 20+ years before I took the odd decision of getting into various earth bound jobs....

[Anaxogoras]

It's just the USA. I can speak metric but reserve it for conversing with foreigners or when I'm abroad.

[MORAY37]

I see somebody didn't look at the peer reviewed paper I posted...

Just curious, but does anybody else remember in the 1970's when there was a big "scare" that we were entering into another ice age?

I should also add that in this same period of time hydrocarbon use increased 3-fold.

According to this trend, in the next hundred years we will see a .9 degree Fahrenheit increase in temperature if the current trend continues.

So Morray37, in the 25 year span you suggested, you will see an .225 increase in temperature Fahrenheit.

A hundred years is about right for a 1 degree F temp. increase.

and I would leave you with the following...

Your final quote is particularly disgusting.  Considering most biologists and ecologists are remarking we are currently in the midst of a global extinction event, don't look forward to a "lush new world" like your denialist handbook tells you to.

During the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), a period 55 million years ago marked by a rapid rise in greenhouse gases that heated Earth by roughly 9° F (5° C) in less than 10,000 years, climate warming caused widespread changes, including mass extinction in the world's oceans from acidification

To date, the most comprehensive forecast for the impact of climate change on global biodiversity was made in two 2004 papers published in Nature by Chris Thomas and colleagues. Analyzing the distributions of 1103 species of animals and plants from various parts of the world, the authors showed that 15-37 percent are likely to go extinct based on the best projections of future climate change.

Most biologists agree that we are presently in the midst of a sixth great extinction event, one where species loss is outpacing species birth. In a paper published last year in the Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, Camille Parmesan, a biologist from the University of Texas at Austin, argued that current global warming has already caused extinctions in the world's most sensitive habitats and will continue to cause more species to go extinct over the next 50 to 100 years. Parmesan's work shows that while some species—especially those with short generation times like insects—are evolving in response to climate change, they are not evolving in ways that could prevent extinction. Overall species evolution is not making up for species disappearance.

[bozon]

Considering most biologists and ecologists are remarking we are currently in the midst of a global extinction event, don't look forward to a "lush new world" like your denialist handbook tells you to.

So you say we are heating them to death? Silly me thought that we were just hunting them, poisoning them and cutting down their forests in order to make them go extinct.