However, the argument isn’t focused on this lag, because the climate scientists think that the rate of change is also important and might change the response time. I am not sure that this is correct. It depends on how big the influence is. It’s like air resistance of cars at a velocity of 15 mph against the forces necessary to accelerate the car to 30 mph. it is insignificant…

Feedback is where a change in some input parameter causes a change in an output parameter which in its turn changes the input parameter. Positive feedback will always cause some kind of runaway, and is always stopped by some non-linearity (for instance Stefan Boltzmans law decides that the earth will not melt due to runaway CO2). Negative feedback is very common, and keeps systems stable at a certain value, unless timedelays are involved in the feedback, in which case oscillations might occur. All this is described mathematically with Control Theory. The subject has been wel understood for at least a century by engineers.

Amplification is a factor that modifies the effect of an input parameter onto the output parameter. Amplifications can have any value, positive or negative. Amplification factors can not cause runaway systems When Lindzen talks about an amplification factor of -1, he means that other mechanisms modify the original CO2 heat contribution so that the final effect on global temperature is 0.

I once read somewhere that the climate modelers are not really aware of control theory. If they are really confusing feedback and amplification, than that’s certainly the case. That would make the outcome of their models pretty much without value.

Please enlighten us, O Wise Hunter, (i) how long does it take for the climate system to respond to forcings, and (ii) does this delay in response ultimately result in a higher or a lower feedback and why?

AnonyMoose is correct. In nuclear reactors the control rods and fission poisons (like boron in the fuel rods) absorb neutrons to prevent a runaway reaction. Without these negative feedback processes the average 2.01 neutrons produced from each fission would near instantaneously produce a mushroom cloud.

In an environment where so many neutrons are absorbed the moderator around the fuel rods becomes important. Most pressurized water reactors (PWR, the type I worked on in the U.S. Navy) use water around the fuel rods to both and transfer heat away fro the fuel to do work and reflect neutrons back into the fuel rods. Chernobyl and U of Chicago designs used graphite as a moderator which had inherent many more risks. If a PWR loses primary coolant the reaction stops; however, the issue latent heat removal remains (as it was a TMI when the core was partially uncovered).

This is just so true.