I am not into the 'humans are causing this' imbroglio---the whole ecosytem is just that, a system. We ARE part of that. Both 'sides' of the argument miss this--we are NOT apart from it! In the sense of outcomes, per se, therefore, it doesn't matter what the cause is. It DOES matter if we can (or should--there is another angle entirely) do anything about it. Which is not limited to if it is 'just' man-made, you know what I mean? The ramifications of if we DO 'interfere' with the warming cycle (or any cycle) are illustrated with the arguments about hurricane modification. Many scientists have concluded we shouldn't modify them even if we could, the outcome of that might be worse than what we experience now---the heat budget will balance some way, just as HF says. What if the way was a flurry of 10s or 100s of F5+ tornadoes every Spring, instead of what we have now? Or, conversely, sorta, terrible blizzards (yes, they run on heat too)--or northeasters that were thousands of miles across and much worse.

Or--what if the heating is helping to HOLD OFF a new ice age, or ameliorate it?? We need to be very careful fooling with things we don't understand that are much bigger than we are.

And--following the hurricane modification 'model'---where we mitigate/move people out of harms way....the same could/will apply to GW/SLR (sea level rise) issues. It is much safer that way, until we really understand the sea-air-land interface and how it works and all the interrelated factors.

Off my soapbox now.

sc