holmes writes:
As you broaden the range some important points regarding GW should start coming up. The first is that while temps are going up, and perhaps they are going up quickly, they do not necessarily seem as out of place in a geologic context. If we start from a neutral position of not knowing what is going on and where we are headed, that context becomes important. Second is that its relative normalcy in a historical context raises the question of why it is of concern.
This is true. I have always felt that it is more the rate at which these changes are occurring that is of concern. The increases in atmospheric CO2 caused by anthropogenic emissions are occurring at a much faster rate than most of the processes which could potentially compensate for it (it's going to take several hundred years for the ocean to equilibrate, for example, and that's one of the faster ones). Given that, straight physics says the temperature has to increase. How much is the question, with the big uncertainty being the role of clouds, which both trap and reflect heat and therefore give modellers headaches.
As to whether it is a good thing or not, that really depends on your perspective. Ironically, it is human civilisation that is most likely to suffer from our own excesses. Life - in some form or another - will most likely eventually adapt and survive (though again, the rate of change may place stress on most ecosystems - which have, after all, evolved to cope with current climatic conditions - and cause some degree of extinction).
On a more general note, I've always been interested on where the burden of proof has been placed with regard to this issue. On it's own, increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will warm the planet. So people who deny a warming planet are effectively arguing that the increase we are instigating is completely compensated for by a complex climatic system which (as they themselves argue) we don't fully understand. As a hyperbolic analogy: imagine if a medical company found a cancer drug which was toxic on its own but claimed that it was all OK because the body safely broke it down. Would they need to prove it was safe, or would doctors have to prove it was harmful?
™ Version 4.2
