Rapid change is the real danger. Human habits and infrastructure are suited to particular weather patterns and sea levels, as are ecosystems and animal behaviors. The rate at which global temperature is rising today is likely unique in the history of our species.

So, what is it...has global warming happened already or is it about to happen?   Since we've been living through these "warmest years on record" then shouldn't the human habitat and infrastructure been destroyed right now?

Oh, and don't bring up Katrina.  A poorly designed levee breaking (a breakage that was predicted in the 1950s) doesn't count.

You might make the same kind of argument as you pass the third story window: "So why did you tell me not to jump?  I've been falling for 20 stories already, no problems"

"What if this weren't a hypothetical question?" -- unknown

Rapid change is the real danger. Human habits and infrastructure are suited to particular weather patterns and sea levels, as are ecosystems and animal behaviors.

Humans are inherently adaptable -- the most adaptable on the planet.

We live in every temperature zone on the planet...from Fiji to the Arctic Circle.   The people living at these extremes often use the most primitive of technologies...and yet, survive!

Sure, humans can live in any climate the earth may devise for us in the next several millenia.  But we depend on untold numbers of other organisms for food and numerous other basic services, including the water cycle.  Just look at how difficult the bio-dome experiments have turned out to be.  Do we really believe we can recreate and manage every environmental service we depend on?  Are you really ready to bet the existence of our civilisation, if not our species, on such a belief?


"What if this weren't a hypothetical question?" -- unknown

Just jump in I guess, and risk sounding selfish.

I live in Minnesota.  It's not uncommon for me to have to endure EXTREME temperature variations... as much as a 50 - 70 degree swing in a single day, and as much as 140 degree variation (-40 to + 100) over the course of a year.  Now, I know I am SUPPOSED to be both worried about, and incapable, of handling the .7 degree average increase of the last 100 years, and even more worried about a similar projected.7 degree increase in the next 100 years or so - assuming I can find a way to live to be about 140 years old - but to be frank, I find myself more concerned about the daily and yearly temperature extremes in my immediate neighborhood, than about the barely measurable fractions of single degrees I am supposed to worry about - over the course of the next 2 or 3 lifetimes.  

I could tell you stories about how on some days, I have to wear near-eskimo-like garb in the early morning, only to have to strip down to short sleeves upon my return home later... the very same DAY!  

I mean seriously... how can an average guy be expected to survive this, every day. If not for the clothes, the air conditionining, the heat, and all the other inventions we zany humans have come up with over the last few millenia to adapt to our ever changing... local climates, I would have expired long ago.  Instead, through judicious use of these handy inventions, and  the occasional use of my very own brain, I have so far muddled my way through, and have yet to accidentally overheat or freeze me-self to death during one of our frequent - and potentially deadly - local climate extremes.

Seriously, if our government(s) could do something about leveling out the local temperature extremes here in Minnesota(and everywhere?), I would be far more interested and vested than I find myself able to be in worrying about another potential half degree, imperceptible, GLOBAL average temperature increase.  

I'm old enough to remember the frigid 70's here in Minnesota - it was not pleasant.  I am also aware enough to know that we (humans) have faced climate crises since the beginning of recorded history (maybe even long before!).  I see little need to manufacture future climate change 'scary stories'.  Those with the urge to nuture their humanitarian capabilities have plenty of freezing/overheated/ and/or starving fellow humans that could use our heating, cooling, and/or water producing /or curtailing technologies - today.  Of course, to save the millions of humans already dying today from climate extremes - will require using much more of what we scary-future protagonists hate the most... the production and use of more, and more... energy. Quite a conundrum.  

Yes, better to leave be those already suffering from climate extremes today - and invent notions that it will be worse later.  Tsunami's, hurricanes, cylones, droughts, floods, volcanoes, earthquakes - we've seen it all before, and invented quite a few handy mechanisms to predict, preserve, and restore before, during, and after these tragic events.

Since our history of climate related tragedies is hard to refute, per another of Coby's thinly argued, anti-skeptic talking point articles, we are left to predict an ever-more-terrifying RATE of climate change, as the penultimate bogey-man of our projected future.  As if 300,000 almost instantly dead in our recent tsunami isn't dramatic / scary enough. No, the future is now, folks, and always has been (sort of like hydrogen fuel cells... they're the energy of the future... and always will be).

That internet thing Al Gore invented has worked out pretty well for many of us. Maybe it's time our idle er, idol Al got to work on inventing the magic energy source to save us all.  Or is Al too busy building up his carbon credit business, now that he has so succesfully built the hype necessary to drive its revenues.

Coby, sorry, unfortunately, your points intended to counter the skeptics - missed, this target.

Now I need to go put on some pants.  Its cooled off ten degrees already here, tonight.

... Le Vidiot

But with the warmer temperatures comes more violent weather.

Also we rely on many other organisms to adapt to the new climate for us to survive. From our crops, to livestock and trees, without these we will not have much of a chance of survival. We can't expect our food supply to be able to keep up.

Also our body cells normally operate within about one degree, so relative to this we have already experienced a large amount of change. This has also meant many insects in third world countries are populating new areas and spreading diseases which were once more rare.

"Tsunami's, hurricanes, cylones, droughts, floods, volcanoes, earthquakes - we've seen it all before, and invented quite a few handy mechanisms to predict, preserve, and restore before, during, and after these tragic events."

Why is climatology not allowed to contribute to those mechanisms of prediction? It's mighty peculiar to respond to the thousands of scientists saying "Something must be done to prevent rapid climate shift!" with "Sorry, but humankind is perfectly good at predicting and solving these kinds of problems on its own, thank you very much." I'm reminded of how children, when told by their parents to put on their shoes already, say "I am, I am!"

"Since our history of climate related tragedies is hard to refute, per another of Coby's thinly argued, anti-skeptic talking point articles, we are left to predict an ever-more-terrifying RATE of climate change, as the penultimate bogey-man of our projected future.  As if 300,000 almost instantly dead in our recent tsunami isn't dramatic / scary enough. No, the future is now, folks, and always has been (sort of like hydrogen fuel cells... they're the energy of the future... and always will be)."

Why is this some kind of fight between the dead of the past and the dead of the future? Does the death toll of past disasters, both weather-related and otherwise, somehow use up the possible future deaths? An extremely peculiar and crotchety argument, like being angry at the universe.

European civilization has, in the past, managed to pull out of (with a very dwindled population) a freaking Black Plague -- one which, in its own way, helped foster the Renaissance. Does this mean that we should deliberately ignore the WHO every time they tell us to vaccinate against this year's batch of flu? Indeed, our species (if not individual humans) probably will survive even the worst both ourselves and nature have to pit against us -- that's how natural selection works. Don't you think we can settle for more than that, though?

Incidentally, scientists are not "left to predict" such a rate -- the rate of change has been the point all along.

"That internet thing Al Gore invented has worked out pretty well for many of us. Maybe it's time our idle er, idol Al got to work on inventing the magic energy source to save us all.  Or is Al too busy building up his carbon credit business, now that he has so succesfully built the hype necessary to drive its revenues."

Oops, just lost my respect for a minute there. I'm just as happy to bash Mr. Gore as anyone, but I'm afraid that never has and never will change any of the scientific evidence or understanding of global warming. Not even if he drank the blood of kittens! Incroyable, non?

As for "magic," well... does it really have to be a choice between using petroleum until it runs out, or using magic? Why, exactly?

The danger is not really climate change will wipe our species off the face of the Earth as much as it is we many irreparably damage the ecosystems that provide us with the ability to sustain a high quality existence for our species.  We monitor possible damage we do by monitoring rare and endangered species.  If the environment is quality enough to allow these species to survive, it is most likely beneficial to our species, although how is now always evident immediately. Rapid climate change is one of those things that causes major unpredictable disruptions in Earth's ecosystems.  Since scientist believe a significant portion is caused by human activity, the reasonable thing to do is slow climate change down to allow more time for ecosystems to respond.

The agricultural and inhabitable land will increase enormously in the following countries :

• Canada
  
• Russia
  
• Northern Europe, Scandinavia
  
• Maybe even parts of Greenland and Alaska if temperature increases enough, and let's hope even Antarctica.

What's more, building dams and sea-structures to contain the sea can even INCREASE the size of coastal nations, like it did in the Netherlands. There are plenty of low-water areas that could be dammed-in and cultivated, belgian and dutch companies are doing that in the middle-east, japan and hongkong for decades.

Temperature increases also lengthen the time in which you can grow and harvest crops.

In fact, higher temperatures cause the entire bio-cycle to accellerate, just like in a greenhouse, where it's done on purpose. This will INCREASE bio-mass and bio-activity around the world.

If human activity would make the planet COLDER, I would be really concerned. But WARMER weather is a blessing to the earth. The technologies to cope with problems like rising sealevels are already known to the entire world for decades.

In short, if a real temperature increase happens that can affect climate, this will open tremendous opportunities for business, and increase the inhabitable land on the earth enormously.