Climate, “normal variability” or “change”? (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
About “normal variability” or “change”, I don´t like to characterize the grade of perturbation of any situation if it has not been defined its stable state first. Variability and change comes within any natural process and I believe sometimes we are limited by our capability to see further than our perceptive limitations to understand how things work in our natural environment. However, I would not be surprised if the grade of perturbation generated by the Human specie development in the global ecosystem (water cycles, land use and cover, global energy balance displacement, alterations in the biota regeneration cycles and biodiversity, displacement of natural resources part of soil regeneration, land features alteration in migration routes, …) triggers reactions in the environment at global scale… would that be out of the plausible?
If we consider our atmosphere as the rechargeable battery that keeps our ecosystem running and that at the same time is getting recharged by the ecosystem functionality in itself, how much perturbation can adsorb the rechargeable cycle until both parts get compromised?
From an environmental point of view I understand that any ecosystem has a limited capacity to absorb perturbations. So, from an hypothetical approach to the subject on human impact versus environmental change I would like to see a case scenario study giving answer to three questions: Could humans alter the ecosystem at global scale? Which part of the ecosystem (soil, atmosphere, light and heat (from our sun), water or living organisms) would reflect primary the impact from human perturbation? What would have to do humans to alter the ecosystem at global scale? In case the answer is “yes” to the first question, how much of the answer for the second and third questions matches with actual facts?