famousringo said:
I don't think homeostasis in the Earth's climate is a fair assumption at all. There are all kinds of feedback loops, both positive and negative, which come into effect when the temperature shifts. Which is why climatologists refer to CO2 levels as a 'forcing' agent which can trigger those feedback loops and have a disproportionate effect on the planet's climate. Possible feedback mechanisms include water vapour in the atmosphere, changing albedo of the planet's surface, growth and decay of vegetable matter, release of methane trapped in permafrost, acidification of oceans, and probably a lot more I'm not aware of. Of course, the interaction of all these systems is incredibly complex and poorly understood, but I don't think we can just shrug our shoulders and assume it will all balance out. |
If the earth was not a system that preserved homeostasis than an imbalance in the system would create a feedback loop that would destroy all life on this earth; and (being that CO2 levels have been much higher in the past) if the earth did not preserve homeostasis life would not exist on this planet today.
You're right that we don't have a full understanding of the system, and things we are just learning about today will drastically change our understanding in the future. One example of this is clouds (which are entirely ignored in all climate-change models) have shown an ability to regulate temperature very effectively and the electromagnetic radiation from sunspot activity impacts cloud formation; and the temperature changes associated with "Climate Change" has a direct corelation to sunspot activity.
Of course you can continue to believe that our impact of 0.0042% to the earth's atmosphere has a greater impact on worldwide temperature than the sun, but I think that is a foolish choice.
