In article af1Lf.268$fL3.134@fed1read01,
Mark Fergerson wrote:
[...]
In chaos theory, "probabilities" pretty much translates to "attractors".

Unfortunately, "attractors" only appear when the data is displayed in a
form that allows you to see them. You need to plot two interdependant
variables as X and Y to see them. This makes them hard to demonstrate for
the climate issue.

With that in mind, re-examine the curves on the Wiki page I cited and
think about the energies involved in getting those curves from one
excursion to the other. It just doesn't seem reasonable _to me_ that
anything we can do will push their pseudoperiodicity far enough off
their mutual attractors (remember, they interact) to be worth worrying
about.

What units of measure do you put on "reasonable _to me_"? In the past,
"rocks don't fall from the sky" seemed reasonable to a lot of people
because they didn't think there were any rocks in the sky.

Mr. Larkin thinks that washing his car will cause an ice age. And you
think that the amount of CO2 man has added will have no effect. I think
it is safe to assume that at least one of you is wrong.

I therefor propose the Mr. Larkin not wash his car and the CO2 production
rate be reduced to the degree we easily can.


--
--
forging knowledge