My understanding is that GCMs can be prodded to show this sort of thing in
the Amazon, in experiments where the entire rain forest is digitally
removed. It does not really show up anyplace else to a strong extent.
Not that this argues against other more complex homeostatic mechanism as
proposed by Lovelock.
If I could wax philosophical I hold what has to be taken as a bleaker view
than Lovelock's: that there is little homeostasis in the biosphere. What we
are seeing in this view is the weak anthropic principle: planets that were
not extremely lucky never developed a scientific/technical civilization to
ask these sorts of questions.
Hence the appearance of homeostasis is illusory, like evidence of Bill
Gates' genius it is simply the consequence of a very large sample space
having to contain one individual with ridiculously good luck. It requires no
special skill to speak of. On that principle, the likelihood of collapse of
the biosphere is high on geologic time scales.
Either way it seems we shouldn't go out of our way to rock the boat.
mt
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
