raypierre said...which motivated Bart to ask
You wrote that, after an unforced change in climate state, there isNow Eli might venture out on the thin ice (have the bunnies noticed the Arctic Ice Disappearance Act?) and note that at least for the fast feedbacks the system is tightly coupled, so that with the exception of solar each forcing couples back and becomes a feedback only, as Jay Zimmerman points out, being limited by the Stefan Boltzman law, therefore, QED the larger any single feedback, the faster the system returns to equilibrium and the larger the overshoot, because it ain't gonna be a soft landing.
"a tendency for the state to relax back to an equilibrium with a certain time constant. What's more, that time constant is proportional to the climate sensitivity"
Intuitively it makes sense that if a random change can push the system far away from its equilibrium, it must mean the system is very sensitive to any changes in state (whether forced or unforced), but I don't quite grasp the explanation you gave that the timescale of equilibration is proportional to climate sensitivity. Could you elaborate?
PS: On local and global scales the driving negative feedbacks are IEHO convection and radiation.
Also some fine poetry there abouts