Oops, triple…

Oops, triple…

Let’s first look at the two different types of feedback: internal and external. External is where some external forcing alters the effect of the initial cause for a change. That is in positive feedback, increase in “x” causes an increase in both “y” and “z” and an increase in “y” causes an increase in “z”. This means that in positive external feedback, when “x” changes, the direct change that causes in “z” is amplified by the change in “y”. An example of this would be the posited cosmic ray hypothesis. Negative external feedback works similarly, only decreasing or even reversing the initial change.

Internal feedback is a whole different kettle of fish. In negative feedback, an increase in “x” causes an increase in “y”, which causes a DEcrease in “z”. That amplifies (if that’s the word) the increase by between 0 and 1 – we’ll say 0.5 for the time being. So increase “1″ in “y” caused by “x” means “z” falls by “0.5″. This lowers “y”‘s increase to “0.5″, but this increases “z” to “-0.25″, raising “y” to “0.75″, decreasing “z” and so one. The point is, the system settles at a value (2/3 in this case). Internal positive feedback does not.

In internal positive feedback, when “x” therefore “y” rises, so does “z”, increasing “y” again, which again raises “z” etc. “y” carries on rising out of control. Our climate system simply cannot have NET positive feedback or any change up or down, however slight would result in runaway warming or cooling until equilibrium is reached; clearly, once all the ice caps have melted and humidity is at 100%, there is very little positive feedback can do. But the point is, our Earth has not in recent geological history (or, I assume, ever) experienced runaway warming or cooling to this point of equilibrium or else we would not see ice ages that revert back once it has reached it’s peak/trough. We have obviously not reached the point after which positive feedback can have no more effect, or we would not be discussing this.

Therefore, our climate MUST have no net feedback or negative feedback or we would currently be in a steaming hothouse or a ball of ice. Whatever positive feedbacks may exist, there HAS to exist negative feedback of equal or greater magnitude, or we would have gone the same way as Venus and already have experienced runaway warming/cooling. The only example of internal positive feedback is nuclear fission. Yeah…

Let’s first look at the two different types of feedback: internal and external. External is where some external forcing alters the effect of the initial cause for a change. That is in positive feedback, increase in “x” causes an increase in both “y” and “z” and an increase in “y” causes an increase in “z”. This means that in positive external feedback, when “x” changes, the direct change that causes in “z” is amplified by the change in “y”. An example of this would be the posited cosmic ray hypothesis. Negative external feedback works similarly, only decreasing or even reversing the initial change.

Internal feedback is a whole different kettle of fish. In negative feedback, an increase in “x” causes an increase in “y”, which causes a DEcrease in “z”. That amplifies (if that’s the word) the increase by between 0 and 1 – we’ll say 0.5 for the time being. So increase “1″ in “y” caused by “x” means “z” falls by “0.5″. This lowers “y”‘s increase to “0.5″, but this increases “z” to “-0.25″, raising “y” to “0.75″, decreasing “z” and so one. The point is, the system settles at a value (2/3 in this case). Internal positive feedback does not.

In internal positive feedback, when “x” therefore “y” rises, so does “z”, increasing “y” again, which again raises “z” etc. “y” carries on rising out of control. Our climate system simply cannot have NET positive feedback or any change up or down, however slight would result in runaway warming or cooling until equilibrium is reached; clearly, once all the ice caps have melted and humidity is at 100%, there is very little positive feedback can do. But the point is, our Earth has not in recent geological history (or, I assume, ever) experienced runaway warming or cooling to this point of equilibrium or else we would not see ice ages that revert back once it has reached it’s peak/trough. We have obviously not reached the point after which positive feedback can have no more effect, or we would not be discussing this.

Therefore, our climate MUST have no net feedback or negative feedback or we would currently be in a steaming hothouse or a ball of ice. Whatever positive feedbacks may exist, there HAS to exist negative feedback of equal or greater magnitude, or we would have gone the same way as Venus and already have experienced runaway warming/cooling. The only example of internal positive feedback is nuclear fission. Yeah…

I agree, but in this case I am pretty confident that “Scientist” is a troll.

“P.S. I don’t like the “don’t feed the troll” mantra. Too often trolls are identified as being anyone with the opposite opinion.”

I’d rather people follow that rule than posting nasty stupid ad hominems and offensive remarks just because they are pissed off at their target.

I don’t take scientist as a troll, but if I saw myself resort to call him an idiot innumerous times, then I’d have labelled him as one in my head already. Thus the rule. It’s a pain to watch this kind of idiotic ping pong over and over again, when a good discussion could be maintained instead. And please don’t go over that “it’s their fault, not mine”, again, scientist. You and your “opponents” lost your grip.

The ball is still dominated by a negative feedback, but it can still experience fairly large internal variation before the energy balance returns to normal.

I don’t agree with much you said, but if it “can still experience fairly large internal variation”, then a surge of, oh I don’t know, like 7 degrees celcius is not exactly off the table, now is it?

Generally feedback effects follow the same trend as atomic forces

Is that an equation or smth?

You’ve said idiocies before, and you retracted in your last comment, acknowledging that “it can still experience fairly large internal variation before the energy balance returns to normal.” so I don’t exactly believe in your words. I’m sorry for being skeptical. Show me evidence for this and I’ll think better about it.

A skeptic, in my dictionary, is someone who doesn’t think that continuous ad hominems and offensive behavior are a good argument. Snobbist smugness should always be met with a) ignore it b) refute the points without any personal remarks (as if the contender doesn’t exist) c) stick to the argument.

I know, I don’t always follow this rule of thumb, I have little patience, but when things go out of hand, it seems good to get back to it.

And Luis, you misunderstand what a skeptic is, if you think it is contradictory to posit multiple approaches which contradict one another – a skeptic is somebody who believes the evidence is not sufficient to make a claim; if there are two equally valid propositions, it would be intellectually dishonest to mention only one (although a good “popular” skeptic should make clear what he or she is doing). I could go into more detail, but let’s address your claim that the approaches in question ARE contradictory, first, because I also disagree there -

First, the claim is not that climate is chaotic, in the purest sense of that word – it is that climate has large internal variances, possibly, but not decidedly, as a result of external variable inputs. (Solar input is one such example, as is orbital variances.) A ball at the bottom of a bowl is the general example of a system in a state of negative feedback. A magnetic force acting on that ball might pull it to one side – this would be an external variable. In this example, changing the magnetic force results in a change to the ball’s x (where x is the dimension connecting the center of the ball to the “center” of the magnetic force, i/e, the angular vector) coordinate – and likely in some subsequent and quite substantial wobbling. The ball is still dominated by a negative feedback, but it can still experience fairly large internal variation before the energy balance returns to normal.

Climate is somewhat more complex, but needless to say it is possible for it to be dominated by negative feedbacks, and still experience considerable internal variability – indeed, the size of the variability gives a very good clue as to the scope of the feedbacks holding climate in check. By scope I mean the size of the bowl – as a negative feedback can be very powerful, or have a very wide range of effect. Generally feedback effects follow the same trend as atomic forces – the more powerful, the more quickly the force dissipates over distance (That is, the steeper the bowl, the smaller the circumference/radius), and the less powerful, the less quickly (That is, the reverse – the gentler the slope, the larger the circumference/radius.) The reason for this has to do with energy balances and entropy, and I shan’t get into it, but know that as a rule of thumb it generally holds.

What’s your goal here?

If it’s to point out errors in this blog, have them acknowledged and, perhaps, persuade a few non-believers, then you’d do well to follow SteveO’s advice.

If it’s just to make yourself feel more important at a cost of turning some lurkers off of AGW, then ignore him.

Whether or not you’re doing the right thing depends on what you’re trying to accomplish.

P.S. I don’t like the “don’t feed the troll” mantra. Too often trolls are identified as being anyone with the opposite opinion.

And, Mesa, “our side” looks better when “their side” is the only one behaving badly.