Chaos impact on climate systems

As the science of change (Strogatz, 2008), chaos theory also poses some interesting questions for global warming politics. When viewed through a political lens, global warming politics might make sense as a tool for driving societal change by consolidating global power for facilitating sustainable societal development (United Nations, 2002). However, chaos theory also implies some interesting questions about global warming science. With the predictability window of the weather being about three days and seven-day forecasts being “worthless”, of what value are the 100 to 1,000-year forecasts that fuel global warming politics?

Lorenz agreed that people may be able to influence the weather (Strogatz, 2008; Gleick, 2008), and chaos theory would explain how small changes in current conditions can have large consequences. However, as Lorenz’s predictability argument implies, how is it possible to determine whether the results are different from what they would have been otherwise and if the consequences are good or bad compared to other possible outcomes?

Climate change happens; it always has and will likely continue in the foreseeable future regardless of human efforts to control the dynamic system by controlling interconnected subsystems, including political structures and human behavior. Even if humans somehow develop methods for controlling the weather, what would be the consequences of stabilizing the environment? As Capra (1996) pointed out, the earth is a dynamic living open system in which the interaction of subsystems generates and supports life. Mars and the moon serve as examples of relatively stable climates. From a system perspective, achieving a static and stable state means the system is dead.