The warming trend started near the end of the last glacial epoch and essentially ended when the continental ice sheets had receded. The Holocene climate has been quite stable, with very little temperature variation. What is of concern now is an apparent rapid warming trend that is at least in part caused by human activities. As the data gets better, something these studies contribute to, the ability to quantify the human contribution will improve.
The second key question is: What the hell can we do about it if it's really a threat to life on the planet?
Disregarding the hot-button Kyoto Protocol, which isn't a good answer to your question above, let me dissect your question.
Global warming isn't a threat to "life" on the planet; life in some form will survive. However, global warming will stress a number of systems that are important to the survival of both the human and natural realms. A very notable effect could be a significant reduction in the flow of fresh water derived from mountain glaciers. We need it to drink and irrigate, animals and rivers need it to maintain their natural existence, etc. This is a significant and expected "downstream" change due to global warming, and we shouldn't ignore the fact that the CIA Global 2015 report indicated a high likelihood of wars over water in coming decades.
So global warming, along with other types of climate and environmental change, will significantly alter life on this planet.
How much is too much? I'm particularly worried about the fate of coral reefs, Darwinist or not. I'm also kinda worried about honeybees, though the problem with them is not really climate-caused, but could be affected by climate.
When you ask what can (or should) be done about it, the first thing I say is to get better answers to pertinent questions, such as how much warming is too much for ecosystems to handle. That means more research, and dedicated research, and less nay-saying that the research isn't important because global warming isn't happening. It is.
The next step is to identify free market-based ways to make addressing climate change and GHG emissions something that people recognize they need to do. Coercion won't work, but incentives probably will. The key is identifying what incentives will be effective and implement-able.
Won't the reefs migrate northward over time? If the water temperature off Hilton Head will be about the same in 100 years as it is now in the Florida Keys, why wouldn't coral get a foothold there? It may take a while, but I don't think reefs are going to go extinct.
-ccm
Your tone sounds like you believe "life" will be degraded in some why. Perhaps life will be enhanced instead?
If your standard is that mere change in species distribution is a bad thing, then yes, any temperature changes is "bad".
I prefer to look at this positively. Evolution is encouraged by climate changes. Whatever species made extinct by human actions can be balanced out by new species niches created by climate change.
A very notable effect could be a significant reduction in the flow of fresh water derived from mountain glaciers. We need it to drink and irrigate, animals and rivers need it to maintain their natural existence, etc.
Are you claiming that less precipitation will result from global warming? I thought more precipitation was predicted. In any event, the current surplus of water from glaciers is merely past precipitation being released. When the glaciers are gone, "normal" water flow will be resumed.
So global warming, along with other types of climate and environmental change, will significantly alter life on this planet.
The only thing "normal" about life on this planet is change. I'm actually kind of enthused that global warming may improve some things. That some things may be "damaged", well, that's life.
When you ask what can (or should) be done about it, the first thing I say is to get better answers to pertinent questions, such as how much warming is too much for ecosystems to handle.
Your implication is that you expect ecosystems to "handle" temperature change by not changing itself. What's wrong with change? Is there something about man changing the earth that makes it "bad" or "sinful"? This seems to be your gist.
The next step is to identify free market-based ways to make addressing climate change and GHG emissions something that people recognize they need to do. Coercion won't work, but incentives probably will.
I don't think there's a dimes worth of difference between "coercion" and "incentives". Even if you pay people money, that money has to be taken from the general population and so is still coercion.
This planet is strong. It can handle a new dominant species. Let's study the change, but there's no reason to panic over it. Life will continue.
Besides, when the third world catches up to the first, they'll go into population decline like we have. The human population on earth I think has been estimated to peak in 50 years or so.
Don't worry, be happy.
Assuming the flaky hockey stick theory is correct, this 'apparent rapid warming trend' is not all that abnormal over the 4 Billion years of the earth's existance. The earth's climate has never been stable, and trying to pin all the instability on man is kookiness. Trying to make the case after 4,000,0000,000 years the earth finally became stable and man screwed it up just doesn't fly. Global Warmers are not making an honest effort at finding alternative explainations, instead it is the great 'consensus' (read ASSUMPTION) that it is man's fault.
It's way too early for incentives. We haven't even decided what the optimum climate is for quality of life. It is likely to be a few degrees warmer than it currently is and we should currently be giving incentives to generate GHG.
Technology will have many answers, if it's even a problem we need to solve. If GHG generation is a true problem, half or more of the solution will be on the GHG consumption side.
Ocean water has the wonderful property of turning reflective white when vaporized. We can control the amount of sunlight absorpbtion we want be developing cloud management technology.