Tom's view is largely how I see the debate/discussion over climate change.
One side sees the man-made burning of fossil fuels as a key factor in global warming and all of the changes that will occur as a result (sea level rise, severe weather pattern shifts, mass extinctions of certain species, etc.). The other side sees the warming of the planet as part of a natural cycle of cooling and warming. The difference is that the first group recognizes that the current changes have been accelerated by humans, and that humans can reverse the trend, but only if the proper steps are taken in a timely manner. The second group sees no need to (over)react because no such catastrophe has ever occurred in the history of mankind, and besides, we'll just use our ingenuity to face/conquer/adapt to any consequences when/if they may occur. Of course there have been periods of global warming and global cooling in the past, but at least during mankind's brief time on this planet, humans have not experienced/endured them. Other species have lived through them (cockroaches come to mind). So if you are a cockroach, there really is no need to panic. Likewise for the species living deep below the sea near themal vents. In fact, for a lot of species on Earth, major changes associated with global warming will not be catastrophic. Only for those species (including homo sapiens) which have grown accustomed to existing within relatively narrow temperature limits will the consequences of global warming (or cooling) be perceived as a problem. If humans cause certain environmental tipping points to be exceeded, it could lead to massive dieoffs of plant and animal species on which we depend for our existence, which in turn will lead to massive dieoffs of humans. In a planetary sense this is neither good nor bad -- it just IS. It is a natural form of population control. When an ecosystem goes out of balance, when the equilibrium shifts, it will eventually establish a new equilibrium. It's only a "problem" for those that can't adapt to the new balance. Personally, I'd rather take steps to avoid the changes/catastrophe than try to adapt to it afterwards. Steve Kunz In a message dated 6/5/2009 9:03:22 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: Ecosystems and "collapse." I think that many people have become habituated to thinking of ecosystems as stable sorts of things, hence the recent widespread and inappropriate use of the adjective "healthy" in their description. I tend to think of ecosystems as complex sets of interactions in which the dynamics operate along a scale from subtle oscillations to catastrophic change. Note the selection of the word "change" over collapse, for as one system (sets of interactions) undergoes massive change (perterbation, disturbance, etc) another undergoes construction: For each system that collapses, another, often equally as complex, will arise. In this manner, any change in predator-prey or host-parasite (etc) relationship or in the physical forcing functions will cause anything from a ripple in the oscillations to minor or major restructuring. The most appropriate example is how exotic species insert themselves into systems. Well, enough. Everyone knows all this, I guess I was just reminding folks. Tom > Ecolog: > > In that complex ballet between organisms and their "hosts" or "prey" at > every level of life, just what is it that keeps the ecosystem from > collapsing? > > WT > **************Mortgage rates dropped. Record lows. $200,000 for $1,029/mo Fixed. LendingTree® (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222627882x1201465404/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fwww.lendingtree.com%2Fborrower%2Falliance%2Ffrom.a sp%3Fwhereto%3Dpromopagev3%26promo%3D00279%26loan%5Ftype%3D2%26source%3D2889 570%26esourceid%3D2889570%26800num%3D1%2D800%2D289%2D3915%26AdType%3D2)
