5 ms·
The discussion is quite abstract - perhaps that's why it's difficult to grasp. As I understand it, the climate can be regarded as a dynamical system currently
by jpeanuts 10y ago
The discussion is quite abstract - perhaps that's why it's difficult to grasp. As I understand it, the climate can be regarded as a dynamical system currently existing at a stable equilibrium. I.e. small perturbations to the state tend to be damped. If there's a massive volcanic event, we will have a few cold years, but the climate will return to something familiar.
It's stable, as when you add up all the positive and negative feedback effects, the result is negative. The most important negative comes from the thermal radiation of the Earth into space, which increases with increasing temperature, resulting in more cooling. Methane in Siberian ice is a hypothesised positive feedback effect: higher temperature => more methane => more warming.
If all these effects ever add up to more than 0 (the "tipping point"), the system will no longer be stable, and will travel around until it finds another stable equilibrium. The actual consequences of this are nowhere stated because they are completely unknown. But we're not talking about measuring sea-levels, we're talking a completely different climate (e.g. Venus).
- gabrielgoh 10y agoInteresting! I've never heard climate science explained this way before. Could you point me to a few papers which expound on this view? I'd be interested to see the mathematical models behind this.
- MooMooMilkParty 10y agoLorenz's Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow is the earliest work on the topic that I can think of. It's relatively accessible too. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469(1963)020%3C0130%3ADNF%3E2.0.CO%3B2 http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469(1963)0...
- mturmon 10y agoNice pointer. And in particular, Figure 2 of the paper you linked, which shows the simple "Lorenz System" orbiting about a state C for a long time, and then transitioning (at a hard-to-predict time) to a far-away state C'.
- inopinatus 10y agoThis is the most galling characteristic of climate science: there's no control sample and we are living inside the only test specimen. As a species, for long-term survival, we have two choices: ensure our survival on Earth, or go elsewhere. There is no certainty that our survival here is assured (and a considerable body of evidence to suggest it may be at risk), and there is no certainty that a mission to develop other planets or non-planetary habitats will succeed. Therefore failure to massively invest in both is to risk destruction of our entire species. Now recognise that the development of any extraterrestrial environment capable of supporting an independent (i.e. large) human population will require a much deeper understanding of climates (and other ecosystem elements) than we have today. Put simply: cutting climate research is a gamble with everyone's lives, and let's also go to Mars ASAP and start trying stuff.
- tptacek 10y agoI am having a very hard time understanding any climate scenario that would make Mars more habitable than Earth. Why should we spend a dollar getting to Mars?
- natch 10y agoI agree. However, I doubt anyone who is actually investing resources in getting to Mars is doing so with climate scenarios as their sole motivator.
- beowulf_cluster 10y agoIn and of itself, the attempt to colonize Mars probably won't do much for the species. The value is in actually going through the paces: developing primary technologies, techniques, protocols, and doing research, especially observing how organisms (ultimately, humans) are affected by extraterrestrial life, etc. If the worst comes to pass and the species needs to throw a hail mary, I have to think our chances of success would be improved (even if slightly) if we were to have these sorts of details ironed-out in advance.
- tashi 10y ago