Rapid changes in the winter climate

"The results suggest that a future temperature increase may lead to a decreasing freshwater supply in the South but an increasing supply in the North, which may significantly affect the salt balance in the Baltic Sea and therefore its sensitive ecosystem."

It is also obvious to the most casual observer that the so called "sensitive" ecosystem adapted innumerable times in the past to the changes and will do so in the future. The problem lies in OUR need to gnash our teeth, wring our hands, and find fault with ANY changes.

It is also obvious to the most casual observer that the so called "sensitive" ecosystem adapted innumerable times in the past to the changes and will do so in the future. The problem lies in OUR need to gnash our teeth, wring our hands, and find fault with ANY changes.

It's not so much about life's ability to adapt to new circumstances, but about ours: We are highly dependent on the environment as it is now and it would be just stupid to let our own actions alter the environment so fast and so drastically, that it would mean death and suffering for millions of humans and other animals IF the alternative is to reduce our impact on the environment and "buy more time" to adapt in a more controlled pace.

It is also obvious to the most casual observer that the so called "sensitive" ecosystem adapted innumerable times in the past to the changes and will do so in the future. The problem lies in OUR need to gnash our teeth, wring our hands, and find fault with ANY changes.

It's not so much about life's ability to adapt to new circumstances, but about ours: We are highly dependent on the environment as it is now and it would be just stupid to let our own actions alter the environment so fast and so drastically, that it would mean death and suffering for millions of humans and other animals IF the alternative is to reduce our impact on the environment and "buy more time" to adapt in a more controlled pace.

Humans have adapted to an ice age, warm periods, minimums and optimums. The only difference between then and now is that a small number of gloom-n-doom types can stampede an amazingly large number of people in an incredibly short period of time.

Humans have adapted to an ice age, warm periods, minimums and optimums. The only difference between then and now is that a small number of gloom-n-doom types can stampede an amazingly large number of people in an incredibly short period of time.

I assume from your text that you agree that human actions have effect on the climate and the various ecosystems on Earth? So which one is more rational approach: minimize our impact on the ecosystems that we depend on and therefore maintain the environment that we, to some degree, understand OR let the said ecosystems develop in ways which we can't fully anticipate and therefore subject ourselves to the risk of drastic changes in agriculture, economy and social structures, not to mention millions of possible lives lost due to our inadequate risk-assesment? Better safe than sorry, right?

I assume from your text that you agree that human actions have effect on the climate and the various ecosystems on Earth?

Localized short term changes in the environment. There is no conclusive evidence supporting human influence of the climate.

So which one is more rational approach: minimize our impact on the ecosystems that we depend on and therefore maintain the environment that we, to some degree, understand OR let the said ecosystems develop in ways which we can't fully anticipate and therefore subject ourselves to the risk of drastic changes in agriculture, economy and social structures, not to mention millions of possible lives lost due to our inadequate risk-assesment? Better safe than sorry, right?

That is a misstatement of the choices. Your proposing that changes be made without connecting those changes to the issue at hand. If those changes have no connection to climate but will cost lives are you safe or sorry?