气候变化确实像是年代际尺度上的恶性循环。其他答案指出有许多积极的(反馈)[1],如:1。温暖的气氛持有更多的水蒸气(温室气体)导致更多的云2。降低积雪反射太阳辐射(低反照率)3。减少了冰雪覆盖的土地上导致更快的释放之前“锁定”的甲烷冻土4。变暖增加分解有机物的一般(特别是担心以前的地区如泥炭地)然而,这“恶性循环”可能会降低强度随着时间的推移,黑体辐射等原因中提到的其他答案。“潜在的”全部或部分逆转的周期中,然而,依靠生物圈的反馈(黑体辐射只能稳定)。我认为从进化的角度来看,* * * *最生物圈的消极反馈(这是本质上的生态反应精制通过大规模的万古养分不平衡选择实验)* *操作更大时间尺度比上述积极反馈* *,因为在地球的历史上不太可能,地球经历了当前快速升温的速度,导致有效的选择动态(你可能认为我们见过,但巨大的灾难和稀缺的脉冲是无效的选择的一个例子,并不导致有意义的适应和像彩票,而连续的和渐进的影响是最好的形式的选择压力)。如果存在一个生物圈“负反馈”机制,导致很快冷却,本身不会是可持续的(就像快速变暖),进化会淘汰。所以足够的进化理论,生态负面反馈是如何工作的(大约)? Carbon dioxide fertilization and warming would favor and select the most efficient primary producers within the community repository (those who can use CO2 for growth and reproduction efficiently would be able to expand in numbers). Globally, in ocean, it would be r-strategists (phytoplanktons) that can grow and reproduce quickly whereas on land it would be trees that have conquered the limitation of height in primary production (I'm talking about on average what would be favored, there would be local variation no doubt). Also, note that two of the fastest flowing nutrient cycles i.e. C and N cycles are to some extent coupled and increased N deposition has indeed been shown to reinforce carbon sequestration (there is solid evidence of the increase in concentration of N compounds in the atmosphere which would deposit back to the environment when rained down.) It should be noted that while the primary producers have some time to enjoy the "feast", the increased input of organic matter (OM) in the ecosystems (from primary producers) in turns constitute another selection pressure to select the most efficient consumers and decomposers. The duo processes would get closer and closer to an equilibrium eventually, but it is not likely to be the same state we had seen in pre-industrial time, however. So yes, in the "short-term" i.e. decades (which in itself is considered "long" relative to human lifespan), climate change does seem like a vicious cycle but on a longer-term it would likely find its "peace" through wax and wanes of biospheric responses. [1]: https://climate.nasa.gov/nasa_science/science/