[staytrue]

You are arguing for the equilibrium model which is how most things (thank god) works. This article is pointing to a chaotic model, where a small warming caused by changes in the earth's orbit, triggers an even greater warming caused by increased co2.

Equilibrium model says as the price of something goes up, people will buy less of it. The chaotic model suggests, that as the price goes up, people buy more of it. Most of the time, equilibrium rules, but in stock market bubbles, chaos rules. In equilibrium, if a stock goes up, people stop buying and start selling (buy low and sell high). In chaos, people buy because it is going up and sell because it is going down. Buying begets more buying and selling begets more selling.

In this case, a chaotic theory might work like this. A slight warming causes ocean temps to rise, forcing the disolved co2 out, which causes more warming, which forces more disolved co2 out of the water, and so on.

[Free the USA]

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list

[Fractal Trader]

Chaotic models do not at all differ in their long-term equilibrium properties. It is how you get to the equilibrium that differs.

For example, the three body problem in gravity is non-determnistic. Newton was quite frustrated by this discovery. However, three bodies in motion do follow predictable paths. These have always been predictable going back to the time of the ancients. Otherwise, we could never predict, say, solar eclipses.