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

Once it has a clear, measurable negative impact on various environment factors, I would call it excessive. Are you disputing that CO2 significantly contributes to global warming, or are you disputing that global warming is harmful?

I suppose the crux of the disagreement may be when we decide something is having a negative impact. Some may consider it negative only when it is actively actively doing harm at the moment. Others may say that it is a negative when it is contributing to a particular condition which in a matter of time will do irreversible harm, though which is currently not felt.

 

The impact caused globally warming and complete extinction of all non-flying dinosaurs...not "some." It wiped out 75% of all plant and animal life. Global warming and global freezes caused by GHGs have wiped out nearly all plant and animal life on two occasions.

The pictures you show are from when the Earth was cooling down. Why are you showing those anyhow. To prove what? Are you saying the Earth will be fine if we return to an era of no polar ice caps?

 

Global warming results in more EXTREME WEATHER, not extreme heat. Also while there is such extreme cold in the states I read Australia is having major bushfires from extreme heat.

I have to repeat, people hear global warming and think well it must be really hot all the time when Global Warming doesn't work that way at all.

A bunch of people looking at a complex issue without actually studying it at all. That is how you get right-wingers blowing a wad whenever it gets cold, freaking out about how it is global cooling.

 

Um..pretty sure the ice in the Antarctic is rapidly melting.

 

I agree with this. I think durvasa's comments are indeed subjective to humans, and not the history of Earth.

I'm not being facetious. You are right. Too much O2 can have drastic impacts to climate change, and species, as much as CO2. I believe that is a scientific fact.

I know, and you are right. The immediate impact most likely only led to horrific casualties, but not 75% elimination of all plant and animal species. I was just clarifying that the impact led to global warming, which is partly why your images have less polar ice caps than today.

Note also that global ice caps are an extreme abnormally and rare occurrence in geological time. There was no ice ages prior to the asteroid extinction event, aside from the Snowball Earth thingie. There were no ice ages for about 99% of Earth's history. So, hence, why I was wondering why you posted the pictures.

Twice this has occurred in Earth's history. I'm not saying anything we are doing is going to repeat these drastic events.

I'm saying a little change can go a long way wrt to major disruption in terms of our brief history.

Yep, the Earth has. Species haven't.

Is man's goal, and your goal, to try to save a big resilient rock,,,, or people, plants, locations and things. We aren't arguing prevention of a Nuclear Holocaust here with definitive judgement on man. We are talking about TRYING. Trying to do No Harm!

What justification does any company have to not upgrade their emissions stacks when all their competitors are.
What justification does China and India have to burn dirty coal at 1800s levels, when they can adapt.
What justification do any of us have to not TRY!

GHG's can do massive harm and kill species. To little GHGs can, too. That's a fact. Whether we are causing the current global warming and climate change is not known. You are right about that.

 

"What needs to be done?"

Nothing more. I'm done here.