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.
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!
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.