Our first official +1.5C year. Well done everyone! It's amazing how good we are at f@$king everything up., page-303

I think I get what you're saying. you think it's overkill? and not founded on the science you accept?

I don't think it's overkill; I think it's deliberately deceitful. I think that when you misrepresent a variable by increasing the sensitivity of a system to that variable, then the system will react as if it's overly sensitive.

And, really, I would accept the models if they were scientific. The one thing that assures me that they aren't scientific is the fact that they need to tweak the sensitivity of the models to increased [CO2] in order to observe anything. It's an in-house, self-styled, +ve feedback mechanism. It is science fiction.

as I wrote above the log function is developed in the lab (in vitro) and fits nicely in a controlled environment. yet "in the wild" (in vivo) the log function doesn't work in the same manner as in glass.

How do you know the logarithm doesn't apply in vivo?

The only thing we have is observation and experimentation. There is nothing to suggest that the logarithm doesn't work in vivo. There is no hypothesis, no theoretical mechanism, that suits the notion that the system is orders of magnitude more sensitive than what we can see in nature or in the lab. If there was a plausible theoretical mechanism, I'd love to read about it. I've never heard anyone attempt to describe a mechanism whereby the system suddenly becomes more sensitive to CO2 than what is observed.

it only takes a butterfly to turn a pleasant summers day into a hurricane

The reason they've had to increase the sensitivity of the models by so much is because of the manifold +ve and -ve feedbacks of a chaotic system. If a butterfly only kicked in a +ve feedback loop, you might be able to imagine a hurricane ensuing. But, in the climate system, the butterfly kicks in a myriad of +ve and -ve feedbacks. Because of this, the butterfly won't ruin your day.