Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
It is infinitely less complex than the human
>body and brain, or the ecosystem of the Serengeti, or my back yard,
>for that matter.
It is more complex than all of those things, because they all form a
part of it.
Every living thing on the planet affects the weather to some extent, just by
living.
I realize that, but the effect of short term inputs from living
creatures (things that vary by the century or millennium) is much
smaller than inputs from chemicals which are present in stable
amounts. (Or chemicals that used to be present in stable amounts,
before the Industrial Revolution.) Obviously, life has a huge impact
on the atmosphere with plants freeing up oxygen, and animals
producing CO2 from respiration. Things like forest fires can only
happen on a planet with life. The color of the ground being green in
summer and brown in winter is another important input to weather. But
these inputs are stable over long periods of time, and predictable,
so they can be discounted -- you might say.
The major contributions to weather are relatively simple and few in
number -- mainly sunlight and about a couple dozen chemicals I
believe -- and this is nothing compared chemicals that play a role in
cells. The fact that some of those dozen chemicals (such as O2) come
from living systems does not make them particularly unpredictable or complex.
There have been dramatic short-term changes to weather from
non-living natural phenomena such as the explosion of Krakatoa. If
anything, these changes give credence to the global warming theories.
Humans perhaps more than most, because our intelligence magnifies our
influence beyond our direct influence (i.e. beyond the amount of CO2
our bodies
produce, and the amount of food we consume).
That's the crux of the matter. Living creatures themselves have a
predictable effect on weather. Industrialize intelligent species are
a new phenomenon and the effect they may have is entirely different
from what other species have had.
- Jed
