These are the same people that think "global average temperature going up 2 degrees C" means that the only outcome is local maximum temperature being 2 degrees higher.
To be fair, nobody started to understand chaotic systems until the 1960s. That's roughly 5,000 years of people saying that in any system, moving the inputs a tiny bit should always produce a similarly small change in the output.
I dunno, I think the person who invented the lever understood the principle well enough to jest that they could move the world?
Yes, and chaos theory is SO fundamental to climate and weather that understanding its application there is compulsory. So if you've not heard of chaotic systems, it's completely impossible to be up to speed on what reality's doing.
How is chaos theory fundamentally different than Prigogine's notion of self organizing systems, and is it really a better model than the latter?
Does chaos theory help to understand this particular phenomenon?
Might have missed a bit of sarcasm.
Nothing I said was the least bit sarcastic. The direct application to the upper atmosphere cooling isn't exactly what I meant, but 'counterintuitive things happening which are outside our experience of what can happen' is completely down to chaos in action on a global scale.
Well, I didn't think that anyone would say "completely impossible to be up to speed on what reality's doing" without some arcane math topic and mean it perfectly seriously.
Counterintuitive or not, this effect was predicted decades ago. It doesn't seem like chaos factors into it.
People were talking about the greenhouse effect at the end of the 1800s. You don't need chaos theory to know more energy in a system will mean more energetic events.
That's 5000 years of not having a climate model at all. Zero years of people confidently asserting small outputs from small changes.
I think alot of people before 1960 were aware that one thing somewhere would lead to other things elsewhere
How I learnt to stop worrying and love global warming.