Extinction level event !=instant global explosion

Read the entire thread. The point is that climate change activists are making outrageous and scientifically unsupported claims.

No data?. A simple google search is all you need.

The pages you point to are wrong in claming that this increase in CO2 or temperature is "unprecedented". The fact is that nobody knows how fast climate has changed over most of earth's history because nothing records it at high resolution.

What you say is factually true but ignores the numbers that sea level is rising at an unprecedented rate. From wikipedia:

You're comparing the beliefs of conference participants with historical data to establish an increase in the rate of sea level rise; that isn't valid.

Please look at all the cities that will be under water if projections are correct.

Even at the unreasonably high estimate of 1 m / century from those conference participants, it would take 8000 years to reach the levels depicted in those videos. Not only is that an enormous time period, human civilizations have actually experienced more and faster sea level rise than that during the period of 12000 BC to 4000 BC.

So you admit global warming is happening? I guess your argument is indicative of the deniers and their flawed logic.

I'm not "denying" anything. I'm pointing out a whole bunch of bullshit that people like you falsely present as scientific fact.

Scientists have never said that there are no periods of global warming in the past. They have never said that the Earth will blow up if global warming occurs.

So-called experts like Hansen very much talk about "extinction level events" and Venus-like conditions. They are either lying or incompetent.

The current problem is that we are experiencing global warming now and we are most likely the cause.

If it's not harmful, what's the problem?

The second part is that the warming trend may be faster than flora and fauna to adapt. Climate change in the past has occurred at a much slower rate.

There is absolutely no data to support those statements. Nobody knows how fast climate change or CO2 level increases have occurred in the past, and nobody knows how fast ecosystems can adapt.

In the past as it will be in the future, climate change will cause major changes to ecosystems. This has serious ramifications to agriculture for example which will make life harder for the human population.

That is pure guesswork as well. It is just as reasonable to believe that rising temperatures will lead to a rapid expansion of arable lands, since temperature is one of the major limiting factors.

Sea level rise is another major issue. Historically humans have built population centers near oceans for transportation reasons. These population centers (Venice, New Orleans, New York, Sydney) will have to be relocated.

Sea levels have been rising steadily for the past 100 years. Has that forced us to "relocate" major population centers? Have New York City, Tokyo, or Los Angeles disappeared under the waves?And projecting into the future, theory suggests they can't rise much faster no matter how much we emit, and in practice, they show no signs of accelerating or following CO2 emission patterns. In addition, many coastal areas have been gaining land area, not losing, due to river sediment, and will continue to do so for a long time.

Yes but you can arbitrary chose the average or median trip from samples.

If the variation among how people drive is high, it doesn't matter what you pick, the measurements will always be inaccurate for most users.

An urban, non-urban split in the rating would be useful as well.

You mean like the EPA estimates already provide?

To answer your question: during the Eocene optimum, CO2 levels probably were 2000ppm. There was no mass extinction until the end of the Eocene, when temperatures started dropping. Mammals were thriving and greatly diversifying during the Eocene. The P-T extinction was due to other causes, since high CO2 levels and temperatures by themselves do not cause such extinctions.

Your analysis is just stupid because you wrongly assume that this can be measured "accurately". There are too many ways in which people drive, and any choice of a standard is arbitrary. The current standard actually matches driving around here quite well.

Of course, the most important "super" is "superluminal flight".

Whether those numbers represent a real world mix of driving accurately really doesn't matter all that much, since fuel economy for other driving styles strongly correlates with fuel economy for the conditions that are actually measured. Long term consistency, on the other hand, matters a great deal for car buyers and for evaluating progress on reducing emissions and consumption.