You can't stop it so learning to adjust is the wise choice
I don't think the article was trying to present what you say but if the climate change is partly cause by human activity then our approach should be one of caution and addressing the problems that are human caused. For the other conditions, that may be acting, we must, as you say, adjust.
TFC 101, what are your thoughts on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works' Minority Report linked below:
Is any of this believable?
I don't know any of these people. But, that's not important. I can only believe that their credentials are sound. However, for every one of the 650 I can find 10 who would argue their points. When you read the extracts of what they are saying I do have the feeling that the media has edited with a vengeance. What I see in their indictment is that politics and science should not mix; on this I agree most vehemently.
I see that there is no one who doubts that global climate is changing and temperatures are on the rise; globally. What is at issue is the cause. Many of the above indicate that the solar energy is on the rise but there is little evidence of that. The solar constant is a sound measure and may be duplicated at any time; 1.98 cal / m^2. sec. I hate to see some evidence bandied about as absolute proof that climate change is man made but other evidence indicates that other natural rhythms are at work even though the apparent acceleration is not explainable in any other way than rampant industrialization. When I say rampant I mean industrialization without any concern for an energy economy. Waste heat and waste products of all sorts are being dumped into the atmosphere. Some of those waste products can also be made profitable but rampant industrialization has no intention of any focus other that what they do. critic of global warming are apt to point out that CO2 is not as potent a greenhouse agent as methane gas. But, if temperature increases slightly because of CO2 then the tundra thaws and releases all the methane that is needed to do the job; big time.
As for politization of science I provide the DSCVR spacecraft. It was bought and paid for and is sitting at GSFC. It purpose was to monitor the earth radiation budget. It was grounded by politicians (Chaney) because it would demonstrate that either the sun or man is responsible for climate change. It have been revitalized but without the principle monitoring experiment. If we really want to know what the truth is; find out don't guess. Al Gore guessed and Chaney is guessing. Frankly I don't like guessing. It's like wondering why my wife isn't talking to me. If you ask the answer is, 'you know why'. I'm sorry I don't know dear. That's why DSCVR is needed. If the 650 are real then they would like to know too. I'm willing to bet, if they are real, they don't like guessing either.
As long as we keep dumping heat into the air it will keep getting warmer unless it reaches equilibrium.
That would be true if it were not for the rate of growth of industrialization and human activities is lower than the rate of global climate temperature increase. The fluctuations of the growth of industrialization also do not correlate with fluctuations in the accelerated growth of global temperature.
similar phases of warming
Similar warm periods yes similar rates of change no. Do you know the cause; no. Well, neither do I. Still if it is human activity we can do something about it now. If it is not human activity then we will have learned to conserve and be warmer with some left over to spend on cooling.
If the rate of growth of industrial activity does not correlate with the warming why then is human activity being attributed to the cause of global warming?
The growth of industrialization is related to wealth created per investment. The investment and growth does not include the waste products. As technology grows, the industries that exhibit those technologies produce what they can vend and discard what is unusable. In the process of discarding what is unusable, other natural phenomena take place like; the CO2 output increases temperature slightly. That temperature increase melts out methane gas from tundra. Methane is a more potent greenhouse gas. Thus the rate of industrialization may reflect a linear growth while the global temperature exhibits a quadratic increase. The linear growth of industry is not correlated with the growth of global climate temperature.
Most natural phenomena are self regulating. There are linear feedback that regulate growth. If a population of grazing animals increases the numbers of predators increases and the population of grazing animals decreases. As the population of grazing animals decrease the population of predators also decreases. Thus the two populations regulate each other. If the ranching business (industry) sees predators as cutting into profit then predators are eliminated. Without predators the population of other non commercial grazers explodes without regulation. Because most natural systems involve more than one or two regulating conditions. Perhaps hundreds of actors involved in ecological regulation. Any human interference can be disastrous. So, research means that the case of climate change may be understood eliminating the controversy; what is the human factor?
In the case of global warming, human activity might be a small factor. I don't know. What I do know is that in the event that human activities are a primary cause and if life as we know it comes to an end the earth will continue as it has for 4 billion years. Continents will drift, ice ages will come and go, mountains will be pushed up and wear away, the earth will orbit the sun, and the sun will continue to burn its hydrogen. The people who panic and make demands are those who think they are critical to the great scheme of things. So, if we address what we can address we will have done what we can. If we continue to destroy our chances of long term survival (if that is what we are doing) then we only destroy ourselves. Who would miss us: the oceans; the mountains; the amoeba?
More news from Poland. Perhaps the 650 signees were asking questions that deniers don't understand.
when we've had the winter we've had for the past two years.
And, for the last two years during your winter, the southern hemisphere has recorded above average temperatures. What is experienced on a daily basis locally is not what is experienced globally over a thirty year period. Look at the yearly averages for your weather and average it out over thirty years. Form a running average for as far back as your records can.
In science, the data that shows up the way we want and the data that doesn't show up the way we want, must be used. Scientists don't ignore data that doesn't fit a preconceived notion. Science records the hits as well as the misses.
what the north had for ~30 years, now the south gets.
No, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) refers to a cyclic climate change that is related to ocean currents and their effect on landmass regions near those currents. If you look at climate data you will see the PDO cycle within the climate. When I referred to a 30 year average, I was not referring to a 30 oscillation. The climate is a 30 year running average of weather. When I referred to north and southern hemisphere differences I referred to the fact that weather in the north could be countered by weather in the south. Even in the face of climate change and warming, it's cold during winter and hot during summer. Checking the local garden thermometer is only one very local measurement that makes up a few days of all the days in thirty years in every garden on the planet.
I will provide an Don Esterbrook article http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/la-nina-and-pacific-decadal-oscillation-cool-the-pacific.pdf Don't be confused by the PDO index and the climate graph near the end of the article. Casual inspection of his fig. 3 shows the PDO and climate change. While he claims a non-catastrophic climate change, fig 3. still shows the warming trend exists and continues even with PDO added.
Now is there proof that human activities are the culprit in this warming trend, I really don't know. I do know that the sun's energy output is still pretty much constant. I also know that if human activity is an added cause and we don't act on it then we will be complicit in the demise of many species and radical change in most environments. These two factors have global economic impact. If human activity is not a cause then nothing ventured nothing gained and the impact is inevitable. If we can do something and don't; what claim do we have on the futures of our grand children?