For example - add a very small amount of extra heat continuously beyond what a system was designed to dissipate, even if that extra heat is many orders of magnitude below the normal inputs, and the consequences should be obvious.
The very obvious consequence is the system temperature will increase causing it to dissipate the extra heat. Systems do not have a 'designed' dissipation limit. A heatsink designed to dissipate 100W at 100C does not increase temperature till it melts if you feed it an extra watt.
I was not specifically referring to heat sinks or electronics but giving a simple example of a general principle. Nevertheless, the principle holds true. A relatively small continuous input of heat beyond what a system can dissipate (regardless of design) will have adverse consequences (and no I'm not talking about melting a heatsink
![Roll Eyes ::)](https://www.eevblog.com/forum/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif)
). Electronic systems, automobile systems, geophysical systems, biological systems, etc, etc.
Are you disputing that or just tr.....
Or from human physiology - eat just 20 extra calories a day, every day (normal daily intake is around 2000) and in a few years you will be very fat.
No, you will gain enough extra weight to burn an extra 20 calories a day moving it around.
Wouldn't it be nice if that were true! We could all eat as much as we want then... Again - I was simplifying but the idea is factually correct. To be more specific - take in just 20 calories more a day than your body burns (by whatever mechanism) and you will gain large amounts of weight over time - despite the extra calories being a small fraction of total caloric intake.
Are you disputing that or just tr.....
All complex systems geophysical and biological systems (and well designed by human systems) have mechanisms to maintain a steady state or homeostasis. Generally these involve a set of negative feedback loops. But there are limits to the inputs and it's just a fact that beyond some point, continuous inputs that are relatively small compared to the total inputs, will result in loss of that steady state or homeostasis. A new steady state is often achieved eventually but it may be quite different one. There are countless examples of this in mammalian physiology (the field I am most familiar with) - body temperature, body weight, blood pH, ion concentrations, etc, etc..
Yes, but do we really want to go back there if we can avoid it?
Back where? What is the ideal global temperature and ideal for who/what? I and most of the life on the planet would rather it got warmer than go back just 11,000 years when much of the currently temperate climes were under kms of ice.
That's an extremely uninformed view. Even if one ignores the adverse impact that warming has on human life-supporting local and global ecosystems, there are hard limits as to what temperature animal life can tolerate. For humans and other large mammals those limits will begin to be exceeded within a few decades if current trends continue. A 3-4 degree C temp rise means very large numbers of people start to die from heat related illness. Continue that trend to a rise of 7 degrees and parts of the planet become uninhabitable. 12 degrees and most of the planet is uninhabitable.
See:
An adaptability limit to climate change due to heat stressBut it's likely that long before then, ecosystem stress would result in lower food production, lower atmospheric O2, and of course loss of currently highly populated areas and large amounts of arable land due to sea level rise - all resulting in a large decrease in human population.
But I'm a cynic. Humans won't change enough to make a difference. Eventually we'll burn every bit of fossil fuel we are able to get our hands on. If you zoom out both spatially and temporally, AGW could be seen as the earth's way of re-achieving homeostasis. To quote George Carlin "The planet is fine, the people are fucked" and "The planet will shake us off like a bad case of fleas"