1. 

There's no irreversible damage. They just say that to scare you into worrying about every bit of warming to come. They talk of 'tipping points' which even the latest IPCC report discounts as not likely.

Another .8C of warming is likely over a century, as the planet comes out of the Little Ice Age. It's possible the CO2 contribution to that warming is small.

This is where I get confused. I watch science shows and they go to places that USED TO BE UNDERWATER and no longer are. So that means it was warmer back when. As a matter of fact one show on the rise of man claimed it started to warm up 5 million years ago. It was also warm when the dinosaurs roamed. How did all this warming not cause irreversible damage.

In a killer heat wave, every hundredths of a degree can kill someone.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/education/te...

Regarding Alph's comments, 0.8C does cause ice to melt. If you don't believe me, take an ice cube out of your refrigerator and put it outside when the temperature is 33F. But is comment about the polar vortex supposedly being caused by global warming shows that your side does not have a monopoly on morons.

Note.: Global warming didn't "cause" the heat wave. In a cold country like Russia, 38C is still pretty hot. But it made the heat wave worse.

It seems that these "climate science dorks" don't understand their own science http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/12... . 600 million years ago (according to them) there were "rangeomorphs" ("sickly CO2 sucking creatures") that may have gone extinct because CO2 levels dropped too far down for them to survive.

" ... That, in turn, meant the rangeomorphs maximized their surface area, which made them ideally suited to absorb the dissolved carbon and oxygen from the water column in the peaceful Ediacaran Oceans, about 575 million years ago.

"These creatures were remarkably well-adapted to their environment, as the oceans at the time were high in nutrients and low in competition," said Hoyal Cuthill. "Mathematically speaking, they filled their space in a nearly perfect way." ... "

How do they really know how peaceful it was 600 million years ago, since carbon is such a vicious perpetrator of doom to the atmosphere and oceans?

" ... The new, fast-moving cast of sea organisms quickly snapped up the stationary, defenseless rangeomorphs. ... "

It seems that higher CO2 concentrations cause too much life ("action") for these "rangeomorphs" like the "Dorkster" to even keep up with.

:-)

Nothing really comes to mind other than severe damage done to the credibility of science, due to the greed and corruption among the CAGW crowd. The Planet is doing just fine.

None, which can easily be seen by the crap Hey Dook says. He shows no statistical analysis showing any of the changes he claims, then references some consensus as if science is a popularity contest.

The "damage" is greater crop yields that feed more people. Granted there are many who would like to see a mass kill off of a lot of people just to reduce the population of the planet, but these are just sick minds.

6 billion people on the planet and a level of prosperity never before seen in human history, oh the horror!

Start with arctic melt and changes in weather patterns. Already forgot the polar vortex?

I don't expect wuwt giving you better information

This statement has been made, "Some irreversible damage is already done, we need to stop it from getting worse."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/30/how-long-before-we-reach-the-catastrophic-2c-warming/

This is the warming that has occurred.

Zero, nada, zilch.

Record floods, droughts, damage to coastal infrastructure, spread of pests and invasive species, wide-ranging disruption of economically important ecosystems, denuding of forest, shrinkage of water resources, etc. have been copiously documented and linked to AGW for decades. What is more much more significant, however, is that incurable hatred of science blinds your limited mental faculties from noticing the much more important competent of the statement your "question" seeks to denigrate by lazy copy-paste: Because of major time lags in the processes of climate change, the damage that has occurred so far (much of which IS reversible, actually) is trivially tiny compared to what is likely to occur in the medium and long term future if anti-science ignorance and slavish obedience to fossil fuel industry deception, exhibited in nearly every one of your many hundreds of fake questions and bogus answers here, continues to guide the dominant political party in the US House of Representative. I refer to the grand old party of Lincoln, Roosevelt, Eisenhower and Goldwater, who -were it scientifically possible- would most assuredly be spinning in their graves at the world historical laughingstock of willfull idiocy which most of today's Republican politicians have become regarding science.

U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010 (founded under U.S. Republican president Abraham Lincoln):

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record...

“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpine...

“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”

http://www.physics.fsu.edu/awards/NAS/

“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes.

Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”