You need to go back to the basics in statistics to see the problem. As you suggest, a 0.8C change in mean temperature is not large. The mean mask the influence of the extremes and makes a "less noisy" data-set that is easier to examine graphically. What an increase in the mean indicates is that some areas have warm extremes that have been greater than the cool extremes - in either temperature, duration or both. It is not the mean that the flora and fauna are going to experience. It is the extremes that generate the increase in the mean that are the problem.
Railroad, I think you missed a zero on the maximum CO2 concentration but it is an estimation. Obviously smartrnyou is smarter than any of the alarmists. It never ceases to amaze me how bad answers from alarmists get any thumbs up. This means that there are actually people out there reading their answers and showing they are enthusiastic dunces. Gary talks about organisms at the extreme of their habitat which at least has some validity but those sorts of pressures always exist. Climates always change and always have. For the vast majority of creatures a 1 degree rise will help. As noted, in the winter you don't see too many creatures. That is because they are waiting for decent weather.
Bubba just repeats the gibberish of increased extremes. No doubt his fellow alarmists will be enthusiastic about that response as well and they suggest they have science on their side.
The effects of short term fluctuations tend to have little long term effect, because when the proverbial pendulum shifts the other way, the effects of it shifting the other way tends to cancel what happened slightly before.
Glacial margins tend to be stable where the average temperature is 0 degrees C, even if annual or even decadal cycles differ dramatically from 0 degrees C. But warm the glacial margin by 0.8 degrees C, and the glacier WILL melt.
Absolutely correct. And that change is over a century. Do you really think any plant or animal could feel that? Well, maybe my wife can, but I doube that any other species could.
It is called making a mountain out of a mole hill.
To the censored name who claims:
You are claiming something that can never be proven in your lifetime, is utter nonsense, and of no theoretical scientific value. Your bullying tactics are not appreciated among true scientists. Your scam is visaible and vapid.
For example, the corn grows in Iowa much the same as it did a century ago, and this with an estimated 0.8 degree rise. Yes, corn production has increased during that time but that is more due to scientific achievments rather than the temperature. So ask any 90 year old farmer and he won't agree with you. Ha! Ha! Why do farmers have more common sense than ddegreed scientists? Maybe that is because they have to produce a good product, in order to live. Degreed scientists don't have to. They, obviously can live on bluster.
< It is from this that we've learned that, contrary to your claim, earth is currently not recovering from an ice age as the 'natural forcings' responsible for those earlier episodes> To make such a blanket statement is ludicrus. We have not learned anything of the such. Where is your proof? Talk is cheap, but it takes money to buy whiskey. Don't try this bluster on honest people.
on 12 21 12 atmospheric CO2 hit 400 ppm * . during earths hottest period , the carboniferous epoch , atmospheric CO2 was as high as 363 ppm . the entire earth was tropical , the ice caps melted . sea levels were a few hundred feet higher . 400 ppm is passed the tipping point . the earth will go into a runaway greenhouse effect . in 20 years the noon temp will be 400 degrees C . the oceans will boil off into space and humanity turns to dust .
You cannot be serious. Haven’t you ever noticed the absence of leaves, fruit, and flowers – as well as bears snakes, and insects - during the winter compared to the summer? Why do you suppose that is?
It is possible for plants to be affected by daily swings - for example, if there is a hard freeze after they have begun to flower - or slightly longer changes in temperature – for example, if there is a warm period during the dormant cool season long enough to trigger their new-growth response.
The impact of recent warmer temperatures has impacted many agricultural plants because an early onset of the growing season shortens their juvenile growth period which, as a result, reduces flower production. Although overall yield has been up, that is the result of an aggressive technological agricultural war (reflected in higher grocery prices). While overall yield remains positive, individual plant yields in many instances have decreased. Whether the techo-agrri war against climate change is sustainable is problematic. Consumers are going to pay for it one way or another.
=======
Railroad Dave ---
ROTFLMAO - Here is a map of the continents during the Carboniferous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Blakey...
Denier stupidity is an insult to stupid people.
Global average surface temperature is so yesterday. It means nothing today, It is all about heat in the oceans now.
(The big money used to be in Climate Change. Now the goalpost removal companies are making a pile.)
To oikoσ, remind me, where do most people and plants live? Is it at the equator or at the poles? So does life prefer cold to hot or hot to cold?
"Rate of Change" - see Younger Dryas.
<
Dear Kano, you (still) fail to understand the most basic (Step One) premise of Climate Change. As long as this 'puzzles you', it is no surprise really you get so many things wrong.
You are comparing apples and oranges: there is no place on earth which doesn't have daily temperature variations or seasonal temperature variations of at least 0.8C. It happens in the Arctic, in the Tropics and everywhere else on earth. The 0.8C figure relates to Global Average Temperature rise over the last century and its' major effect is NOT that it increases temperature regionally but that it CHANGES entire CLIMATE SYSTEMS regionally.
Flora and fauna are typically adapted to their regional environment; the availability of food, the type of food, the presence of predators, etc. When that environment suddenly changes due to rapidly changing climate conditions, any of those environmental conditions needed for their survival could disappear thereby threatening their own existence.
It is the RATE of change which is the key factor here, not the change itself as earth has experienced in the past natural climate changes. Yet those typically took thousands of years for the earth to warm the same amount of degrees we've warmed now over the past 100 years. Flora and fauna can adapt to changing environmental conditions but only when the rate of change is gradual (and some species cope better than others).
Got it now?
Edit @ smart-n-u:
<< Flora and Fauna tend to be very resilient to minor climatic changes>>
The average global temperature difference between an ice age and an interglacial is typically just 8.0C of gradual increase/decrease over many thousands of years (the duration of the Milankovitch cycles). A 0.8C increase in just one hundred years is therefor by no stretch of the English language 'a minor climatic change'.
<
Quite the contrary. To be able to understand why this episode of climate change is different than earlier climatic changes, those earlier episodes have been studied extensively (ie, paleoclimatology). It is from this that we've learned that, contrary to your claim, earth is currently not recovering from an ice age as the 'natural forcings' responsible for those earlier episodes (ie Milankovitch cycles, increased solar influence) are currently not present.
<< Ice ages (like the one we're in now) ..>>
LMAO. We're currently in an interglacial. We should be gradually cooling, not rapidly warming.
<< The notion that a warming earth will somehow be bad for life on this planet simply doesn't agree with the fossil record. >>
That's because previous episodes of warming happened gradually, over thousands of years. Not centuries as we are seeing now.
The problem comes at the equatorial edge of the range, where the organisms can just about survive the heat. A small rise in temperature is enough to push them to extinction. Think of getting into a hot bath, as hot as you could tolerate it. Would you want someone to increase the temperature 0.8°C?
That statement puzzles me, because we have had 0.8C temperature rise over the last century, taking into account how temperatures fluctuate so much from daytime to nighttime, from winter to summer, and from year to year.
How would a small rise like 0.8C cause distress.
Not sure what or where you are referring to, but here's what I've found.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Feature...
http://www.sciencerecorder.com/news/eart...
http://beforeitsnews.com/libertarian/201...
