brazil84 comments on You're Entitled to Arguments, But Not (That Particular) Proof - Less Wrong

57 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 15 February 2010 07:58AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (221)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 10 December 2011 06:44:13PM 0 points [-]

A system can have a balance between positive and negative feeback. If it has a mix of both, there's amplification, not necessarily a runaway. (The balance between solar input and radiation to space, among other things provides negative feedback)

Moreover, it isn't even just a multiplication problem. There are different styles of feedback - proportional, integral, differential - and those latter two can come with different time scales

It's obvious that pushing the same direction for a hundred years can be much bigger a deal than pushing a hundred times as hard in the same direction for a day, but it's also true of a hundred-times-as-strong push lasting for, say, two years. Or, depending on the different feedbacks, the hundred times as hard for a day could have a bigger effect.

And all of that is without going nonlinear!

Comment author: brazil84 11 December 2011 03:08:33AM 0 points [-]

A system can have a balance between positive and negative feeback. If it has a mix of both, there's amplification, not necessarily a runaway.

I'm not sure of that. If negative feedback dominates and overwhelms any positive feedback, then how would you get amplification?

Anyway, the burden is on the proponents of CAGW to demonstrate amplification. So far they have not done so.