| I'm familiar with chaos theory, and not rejecting issues related to chaotic systems. But this part doesn't really seem well formed: > It means "5 * the thermal mass of the earth's biosphere" worth of extra energy Here it seems that the units were missing, at best. The extra energy would be "5K * the heat capacity of the biosphere (in J/K)" > in an extremely chaotic system that is currently in a local stable point, but doesn't have to stay there. First of all, I don't think the current state is THAT stable. And when it comes to any disturbance to the stability caused by the extra energy, that's what we have climate scientists for. Specifically, those are the ones that need to assign specific probabilities to the varous scenarios available. For instance, while it is POSSIBLE that a result of the chaotic dynamics of the system would be that the Gulf Stream got reversed, it seems that the curren consensus is that this is highly unlikely. However, there are a lot of other effects that would be highly likely, such as an increased rate of hurricanes for instance. But hurricanes is not a state of the whole system, it's basically just a type of weather that gets more common. So, maybe "gibberish" was not the perfect word to describe it, as I was able to parse it. It's just that it didn't say anything specific. It was more at the level "It's getting chaotic, and chaos is scary", without making any specific predictions or producing references. |