4 ms·

Putting more energy into a meta-stable chaotic system will greatly increase the number of extremes across the board. Models and forecasts are currently mostly f

Putting more energy into a meta-stable chaotic system will greatly increase the number of extremes across the board. Models and forecasts are currently mostly focused on how the various averages are trending, which is fine and useful. It's most correct to plan around every location getting more wet, more dry, more hot, more cold, more storms and more droughts.

treis 5y ago
>Putting more energy into a meta-stable chaotic system will greatly increase the number of extremes across the board This doesn't really track. We're talking about adding less than 1% increase in energy.
- eximius 5y ago
  > chaotic system
  - treis 5y ago
    What exactly is your point?
    - wbsss4412 5y ago
      A chaotic system is generally defined to mean one in which small changes to the inputs lead to large variations in the outputs. So your reply noting that it’s only a 1% change doesn’t contradict the previous statements.
      - treis 5y ago
        >A chaotic system is generally defined to mean on in which small changes to the inputs lead to large variations in the outputs. A large variation, yes. A direct relationship between a small increase in input and a corresponding large increase in a specific output, no.
        wbsss4412 5y ago
        It depends on the system, I’m not familiar enough with climate science to state anything about the particular case at hand, but chaotic systems can be deterministic.
        treis 5y ago
        >It depends on the system Sure, which makes the blanket statement the GP made incorrect: >Putting more energy into a meta-stable chaotic system will greatly increase the number of extremes across the board
        wbsss4412 5y ago
        I think you’re being a bit pedantic, in context GP was clearly referring to the climate, not making blanket statements about all chaotic systems. In either case, a 1% change in energy input is always going to be a big deal with regards to an energy dependent chaotic system.
        enraged_camel 5y ago
        You're being pedantic. Chaotic systems, in essence, are known for its unpredictability. Watch this to get an idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEjZd-AvPco https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEjZd-AvPco
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  You body temperature is 309 degrees Kelvin. 1% less, and you die of hypothermia. 1% more, and you get braindamage and can die in convultions.
mjfl 5y ago
So the best climate is an ice age then?
- zarzavat 5y ago
  It's not only about the climate but also the rate of change of climate. When the climate changes very quickly, ecosystems cannot adapt and they die. Remember that humans are actually very adaptable, our range of habitats extends from the arctic to the tropics, desert to rainforest. Most life is not so tolerant.
  - polotics 5y ago
    Our range of habitat has been artificially extended by cheap plentiful energy. Watch this space.
    - zarzavat 5y ago
      Indigenous peoples have been living in all corners of the globe for thousands of years. The range of our habitat has stayed roughly the same since antiquity, but the population that any given land can support has been vastly boosted by technology.
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      Not really. Given pelts and basic hand tools human populations can survive damn near anywhere.
      - ben_w 5y ago
        Both of these things are true, depending on what is meant by our range of habitat. A small number of people can survive just about anywhere just as you describe, but current population densities are not sustainable in many places without cheap abundant energy. (I’m not actually concerned with us running out of cheap abundant energy; PV is already fantastic in this regard, and in a hypothetical collapse of all dispatchable power sources that included never being able to make more batteries, we would be severely inconvenienced rather than utterly finished).

treis 5y ago

>Putting more energy into a meta-stable chaotic system will greatly increase the number of extremes across the board This doesn't really track. We're talking about adding less than 1% increase in energy.

eximius 5y ago
> chaotic system
- treis 5y ago
  What exactly is your point?
  - wbsss4412 5y ago
    A chaotic system is generally defined to mean one in which small changes to the inputs lead to large variations in the outputs. So your reply noting that it’s only a 1% change doesn’t contradict the previous statements.
    - treis 5y ago
      >A chaotic system is generally defined to mean on in which small changes to the inputs lead to large variations in the outputs. A large variation, yes. A direct relationship between a small increase in input and a corresponding large increase in a specific output, no.
      - wbsss4412 5y ago
        It depends on the system, I’m not familiar enough with climate science to state anything about the particular case at hand, but chaotic systems can be deterministic.
        treis 5y ago
        >It depends on the system Sure, which makes the blanket statement the GP made incorrect: >Putting more energy into a meta-stable chaotic system will greatly increase the number of extremes across the board
        wbsss4412 5y ago
        I think you’re being a bit pedantic, in context GP was clearly referring to the climate, not making blanket statements about all chaotic systems. In either case, a 1% change in energy input is always going to be a big deal with regards to an energy dependent chaotic system.
        enraged_camel 5y ago
        You're being pedantic. Chaotic systems, in essence, are known for its unpredictability. Watch this to get an idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEjZd-AvPco https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEjZd-AvPco
ClumsyPilot 5y ago
You body temperature is 309 degrees Kelvin. 1% less, and you die of hypothermia. 1% more, and you get braindamage and can die in convultions.

mjfl 5y ago

So the best climate is an ice age then?

zarzavat 5y ago
It's not only about the climate but also the rate of change of climate. When the climate changes very quickly, ecosystems cannot adapt and they die. Remember that humans are actually very adaptable, our range of habitats extends from the arctic to the tropics, desert to rainforest. Most life is not so tolerant.
- polotics 5y ago
  Our range of habitat has been artificially extended by cheap plentiful energy. Watch this space.
  - zarzavat 5y ago
    Indigenous peoples have been living in all corners of the globe for thousands of years. The range of our habitat has stayed roughly the same since antiquity, but the population that any given land can support has been vastly boosted by technology.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    Not really. Given pelts and basic hand tools human populations can survive damn near anywhere.
    - ben_w 5y ago
      Both of these things are true, depending on what is meant by our range of habitat. A small number of people can survive just about anywhere just as you describe, but current population densities are not sustainable in many places without cheap abundant energy. (I’m not actually concerned with us running out of cheap abundant energy; PV is already fantastic in this regard, and in a hypothetical collapse of all dispatchable power sources that included never being able to make more batteries, we would be severely inconvenienced rather than utterly finished).