> If I am giving you one apple per hour and you are giving me 100 apples per hour, is it accurate to say you are feeding apples back to me? Yes. I am feeding a

> If I am giving you one apple per hour and you are giving me 100 apples per hour, is it accurate to say you are feeding apples back to me? Yes. I am feeding apples to you. You are feeding apples to me. that's why a feedback loop is called a loop. > No, I am feeding apples back to you. I am the feedback loop. You are the source. You are not a loop. You are a person. I realize that sounds silly, but I think this actually is the miscomprehension at play. We are both sources. And sinks. That's literally the whole point of a feedback loop. Because I'm writing this on a site with a combinator in the upper left-hand corner, consider the following programming/logic analogy: let A = λx.xx Does the program diverge? NO. However, the program let A = λx.xx; AA does diverge. This is analogous to llamataboot's point: if anthropogenic warming triggers a feedback loop, then the effects of that feedback loop are attributable to anthropogenic warming. A is a function definition, not a diverging program. You are a person, not a loop. The observation by llamataboot that "maybe we shouldn't execute AA given what we know about the definition of A" demonstrates a competent and accurate understanding of feedback loops.