Should local climate effects be used as evidence of global climate change?

Here is a study that extend it out to 65M years. A key finding is the same... the rate of change that occurs over thousands of years is now occurring in decades.

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/august/climate-change-speed-080113.html

"We know from past changes that ecosystems have responded to a few degrees of global temperature change over thousands of years," said Diffenbaugh. "But the unprecedented trajectory that we're on now is forcing that change to occur over decades. That's orders of magnitude faster, and we're already seeing that some species are challenged by that rate of change."

 

Higher than what?

Clearly, something abnormal is going on when you pull back and try understand the data in the context of very long-term trends. 17 years drop you're noting is an irrelevant blip that's nothing new. The average increase over the last 100 years, on the other hand, is something very different and therefore should be of greater concern.

Again, I say this as someone who is not at all expert on these matters. But when 95% of scientists who are experts in an area agree, I pay attention.

 

No, you don't.

You chalk it up to some crazy conspiracy to get government funding from scientists who decided to get PHDs in their field because they're all about that cash monay lifestyle (???)

 

In addition to the science being total junk and easily discredited, one must also think about a cost-benefit analysis when it comes to attempting to stop "global warming" with higher taxes and subsidies for uneconomic forms of energy. If you shut down every single coal fired plant in America, and if you subscribe to the theory that C02 raises temperatures (I don't), then the reduction in C02 would lead to the average global temperature being 1/10th of 1 degree warmer by 2050. The sea levels would rise by the width (not length) of a dime. Liberals are trying to destroy the reliability of America's power grid and dramatically raise the cost of energy for these benefits? It's simply absurd. How can you ask people in India and China to forgo fossil-fueled power generation when the reasons for doing so are this absurd? Cheap energy fuels higher standards of living, period. That is real and unarguable.

 

Do you truly, honestly believe this?

 

Protect the enviorment? Psh! Too expensive! Who cares if were polluting the air and water, damn liberals, its higher standards of living, not gonna sacrafice that! Asking developing countries to not pollute the earth for years to come is absurd, as well as it would be if us developed countries tried as well, for it could destroy the reliability of our grid.

 

I don't like to pick on other posters, but you made a common mistake that the liberal movement is purposefully exploiting. A few years ago, the liberals started referring to CO2 as a pollutant. Because everyone is opposed to pollution, right? Obama now refers to pollution when he discusses CO2 emissions. He did it in the SOTU this year and has done it repeatedly in speeches. This is an intentional deception. You are being manipulated and apparently, you are falling for it. CO2 is not a pollutant. Not even close. We breathe out CO2. Plants utilize CO2 to grow and having access to CO2 reduces their water needs. Have you heard of CPR? It involves using your mouth to inject CO2 into a person in need of help. Hopefully you now realize that CO2 is not pollution.

This is just another example of how you are being mislead and deceived by this junk science movement.

 

What if there's too much CO2 and not enough trees?

 

sigh.

CO2 in mass, unbalanced quantities would be considered a pollutant based on the latest research.

Based on your logic, heavy metals which are considered pollutants would not be because they occur in nature to some extent. The Earth has natural deposits of lead in the crust. Therefore the widespread human-directed dissemination of it that has adverse effects on humans can not be considered pollution---because it seems it would be natural---(????)

 

How much do you value your grandchildren having that same cheap energy around?

 

Pollution is anything that can be harmful to the environment. When something is produced in excess such that it does environmental harm, it is pollution. The fact that CO2 is essential for plant-life is a red herring here. Do you dispute that excessive CO2 emissions is environmentally harmful?

 

You may define me as a liberal, but i don't follow politics, i am a health and thats why i am conscious of pollution.

A serious question, you honestly think pollution from our current energy use is non existent and that it would be ideal if developing countries reflected the US's energy use for living standard's?

 

I don't think you even know how to critique my posts; thus, why you resort to no critique at all, except one liners like that.

Not all combustion requires carbon; thus it doesn't release CO2. Volcanoes do not release CO2 at the levels you seem to be implying. Magma is igneous rock with very little carbon in it (by definition). The heat itself only requires Oxygen to ignite into flames. When you see flames with little to no smoke, you can bet that fire has no carbon in it.

And the reason stuff like forest fires and volcanoes do not contribute a net gain in CO2 is because they are burning things that had recently extracted CO2 from the atmosphere in photosynthesis. Magma chambers are not burning millions of years old Carbon....nor are Forest Fires.

When I say man is releasing sequestered Carbon at enormous amounts compared to any event in history, and you ask me why I use the word Carbon instead of CO2, you just don't understand.

Sequestered Carbon is stuff like oil. That contains no CO2, until burned. So, when I say Carbon is being uncovered by man, I actually mean Carbon. If we don't do anything with it, then it doesn't turn into CO2.

Can you now follow why I use Carbon, instead of CO2.

Please don't respond to me with one-liners that contribute nothing to the discussion. It just makes you look stupid.

 

When you say junk science, are you implying the scientists are sole benefactors of said conspiracy?

Or are you also saying that the government is behind the "junk science" to force companies to do something?

What's the goal of the conspiracy? I seriously don't know. I can say one thing: All my Global Fortune 500 clients take it seriously, especially the European ones. Are they in on it, too? Being fooled?

Do you know Walmart is forcing their suppliers to grade themselves and report back their compliance with environmental laws and sustainable best practices? What's in it for Walmart do take regulation into their own hands, rather than waiting on Govt laws.

I mean; you could be right, I suppose. Carbon accounting mandates by the EPA are a prelude to Carbon credits and credit exchanges. Congress reneged on the Carbon credit law in 2009? Europe has it. I'm not really seeing a nefarious plot behind Carbon credit laws, other than it includes fining big CO2e emitters who don't upgrade their stacks and **** or don't buy credits.

It sounds like govt regulation over business. But in fact, for every big emitter company in the US against credits, there are 2 or 3 wanting to compete in a credit world.,,as they upgraded and want to reap the benefitis of it. So, right now, these progressive companies are attacking their competitors with brand recognition for being greener, and the consumers are rewarding them. This is especially true for suppliers.

 

CO2 becomes toxic to plants at a certain level, I think around 3000 ppm.

 

I don't know the answer to this as far as exact relationship between CO2 emissions and the greenhouse effect. The vast majority of scientists who research this problem agree that increases in CO2 emissions are a major factor in observed climate change over the last several decades.

Of course, individual exposure to "excessive" CO2 can be hazardous to one's health, if we want to look at it that way (http://www.analox.net/carbon-dioxide-dangers.php).

Because the fact that carbon dioxide is essential for plant life tells us nothing about whether it can be considered a pollutant when released in excessive quantities.

 

Can you just spell out whatever argument you're trying to make here, please. I don't get the point you're driving at.

 

unbelievable.

you do realize those maps you are linking to are evidence of a major extinction event due to global warming caused by a massive asteroid hit. Dinosaurs were wiped out.

So, the reason your maps show no polar ice-caps ... is because of a global warming event when nearly all plant and animal species were wiped out.

You do realize that, right?

Oh, and here's my citation. I was getting a Geology major when scientists finally confirmed how the dinosaurs went extinct, by discovering a clay layer, containing iridium, was pervasive throughout the globe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous–Paleogene_extinction_event

The Cretaceous–Paleogene (K–Pg) extinction event,[a] formerly known as the Cretaceous–Tertiary (K–T) extinction, was a mass extinction of some three-quarters of plant and animal species on Earth—including all non-avian dinosaurs—that occurred over a geologically short period of time 66 million years (Ma) ago.[2][3] It marked the end of the Cretaceous period and with it, the entire Mesozoic Era, opening the Cenozoic Era which continues today​

.

next