Sentences with phrase «by positive feedback effects»

Or is the Earth's climate an exception to most other physical processes, is it in fact dominated by positive feedback effects that, like the sudden acceleration in grandma's car, apparently rockets the car forward into the house with only the lightest tap of the accelerator?

Not exact matches

The effect of these small orbital changes was amplified by positive feedbacks, such as changes in greenhouse gas levels.

«Also, if the atmosphere isn't accumulating heat at the rate forecast by the models, then the theoretical positive climate feedbacks which were expected to amplify the CO2 effect won't be as large,» McNider said.

Some studies in both Massachusetts and New York City have found that a «No Excuses» educational approach — characterized by mandated intensive tutoring, longer instruction times, frequent teacher feedback, strict disciplinary policies, and high expectations for students — is a common feature among charter schools with the biggest positive effects (however, the most effective of these schools are located in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods, making it difficult to disentangle whether this is due to the No Excuses approach or sub-par public school alternatives).

A study conducted by American Institutes for Research (AIR) for the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) shows that even small amounts of the right kind of feedback to teachers and principals can have a positive effect on student achievement in math.

Too often the statistics cited are from small data sets, or unstable distributions generated by processes that are influenced by positive and / or negative feedback effects.

«By comparing the response of clouds and water vapor to ENSO forcing in nature with that in AMIP simulations by some leading climate models, an earlier evaluation of tropical cloud and water vapor feedbacks has revealed two common biases in the models: (1) an underestimate of the strength of the negative cloud albedo feedback and (2) an overestimate of the positive feedback from the greenhouse effect of water vapoBy comparing the response of clouds and water vapor to ENSO forcing in nature with that in AMIP simulations by some leading climate models, an earlier evaluation of tropical cloud and water vapor feedbacks has revealed two common biases in the models: (1) an underestimate of the strength of the negative cloud albedo feedback and (2) an overestimate of the positive feedback from the greenhouse effect of water vapoby some leading climate models, an earlier evaluation of tropical cloud and water vapor feedbacks has revealed two common biases in the models: (1) an underestimate of the strength of the negative cloud albedo feedback and (2) an overestimate of the positive feedback from the greenhouse effect of water vapor.

These are areas where they have tended to fall down, but typically this has been due to their underestimating the effects of climate change by failing to take into account all of the positive feedbacks.

Observations of the humidity in the upper troposphere and its relation with sea surface temperature in areas of deep convection point to an overall positive climate feedback by water vapour in the upper troposphere, which is inconsistent with the Iris effect.

Re 9 wili — I know of a paper suggesting, as I recall, that enhanced «backradiation» (downward radiation reaching the surface emitted by the air / clouds) contributed more to Arctic amplification specifically in the cold part of the year (just to be clear, backradiation should generally increase with any warming (aside from greenhouse feedbacks) and more so with a warming due to an increase in the greenhouse effect (including feedbacks like water vapor and, if positive, clouds, though regional changes in water vapor and clouds can go against the global trend); otherwise it was always my understanding that the albedo feedback was key (while sea ice decreases so far have been more a summer phenomenon (when it would be warmer to begin with), the heat capacity of the sea prevents much temperature response, but there is a greater build up of heat from the albedo feedback, and this is released in the cold part of the year when ice forms later or would have formed or would have been thicker; the seasonal effect of reduced winter snow cover decreasing at those latitudes which still recieve sunlight in the winter would not be so delayed).

Is less poleward transport of heat by the Gulf Stream as the AMOC weakens a positive feedback for global warming, since that energy will escape more slowly in the humid (higher water vapor GHG effect) tropics than near the poles?

However, the greenhouse effect from water vapour is due to a (positive) feedback from the temperature and so any warming caused by CO2 is amplified by water vapour.

However, while positive feedbacks are obviously necessary for such an effect, they do not by any means force that to happen.

Assuming that scientists haven't left out anything vital, this suggests that the net effect of water - based feedbacks is positive and would amplify GHG - induced warming by more than a factor of two.Many assumptions have been made, but the historical evidence increases our confidence in model results.

Much of the warming feared by the alarmists relies upon a positive feedback involving increased water vapour exaggerating any CO2 warming effect.

It just strikes me that given this history, adaptation is the only viable strategy but also that there are large natural variability things with negative and positive short term feedbacks that are constrained by nonlinear effects and other offsetting feedbacks.

The notion of an H2O positive feedback (which probably is present on a clear day) is squashed by this process.While warmer air can hold exponentially more water vapor, presumably increasing greenhouse effects (an process the IPCC hangs its collective hat on), it is also this exact same property that vastly improves the chances of convective and phase change heat transport by thunderstorms.

This is a second theory, that the Earth's temperature system is dominated by very strong net positive feedback effects.

That the earth's climate is dominated by strong positive feedback that multiplies the effect of # 1 3,4,5 times or more.

Its warming effect, however, is simultaneously amplified and dampened by positive and negative feedbacks such as increased water vapor (the most powerful greenhouse gas), reduced albedo, which is a measure of Earth's reflectivity, changes in cloud characteristics, and CO2 exchanges with the ocean and terrestrial ecosystems.

«We build on this insight to demonstrate directly from ice - core data that, over glacial — interglacial timescales, climate dynamics are largely driven by internal Earth system mechanisms, including a marked positive feedback effect from temperature variability on greenhouse - gas concentrations.»

Your statement suggests that the CO2 input into the system by burning FF only has moderate effects, even if one takes some positive feedback loops into account.

(While the data did suggest strong positive water vapor feedback, which enhances warming, that was far exceeded by the cooling effect of negative feedback from cloud changes.)»

However, there are several other effects which need to be measured and taken into account to determine whether this extra energy input will cause an overall positive feedback (and accelerated melting) or whether it will be counted by other effects.

there are several other effects which need to be measured and taken into account to determine whether this extra energy input will cause an overall positive feedback (and accelerated melting) or whether it will be counted by other effects.

Research presented here and at other credible locations has shown CO2's effect to be logarithmic with possible offsetting by negative feedbacks rather than amplified greatly by positive feedback mechanisms.

It only becomes significant in the models by assuming that water vapor concentration increases in response to the slight warming produced by CO2 increases and therefore constitutes a powerful positive feedback effect which triples the effect of CO2 by itself.

They don't explain at all why the data shows a feedback effect, or what the mechanism is that stops the positive feedback from being a runaway process (a frequent question by skeptics).

To point out just a couple of things: — oceans warming slower (or cooling slower) than lands on long - time trends is absolutely normal, because water is more difficult both to warm or to cool (I mean, we require both a bigger heat flow and more time); at the contrary, I see as a non-sense theory (made by some serrist, but don't know who) that oceans are storing up heat, and that suddenly they will release such heat as a positive feedback: or the water warms than no heat can be considered ad «stored» (we have no phase change inside oceans, so no latent heat) or oceans begin to release heat but in the same time they have to cool (because they are losing heat); so, I don't feel strange that in last years land temperatures for some series (NCDC and GISS) can be heating up while oceans are slightly cooling, but I feel strange that they are heating up so much to reverse global trend from slightly negative / stable to slightly positive; but, in the end, all this is not an evidence that lands» warming is led by UHI (but, this effect, I would not exclude it from having a small part in temperature trends for some regional area, but just small); both because, as writtend, it is normal to have waters warming slower than lands, and because lands» temperatures are often measured in a not so precise way (despite they continue to give us a global uncertainity in TT values which is barely the instrumental's one)-- but, to point out, HadCRU and MSU of last years (I mean always 2002 - 2006) follow much better waters» temperatures trend; — metropolis and larger cities temperature trends actually show an increase in UHI effect, but I think the sites are few, and the covered area is very small worldwide, so the global effect is very poor (but it still can be sensible for regional effects); but I would not run out a small warming trend for airport measurements due mainly to three things: increasing jet planes traffic, enlarging airports (then more buildings and more asphalt — if you follow motor sports, or simply live in a town / city, you will know how easy they get very warmer than air during day, and how much it can slow night - time cooling) and overall having airports nearer to cities (if not becoming an area inside the city after some decade of hurban growth, e.g. Milan - Linate); — I found no point about UHI in towns and villages; you will tell me they are not large cities; but, in comparison with 20-40-60 years ago when they were «countryside», many small towns and villages have become part of larger hurban areas (at least in Europe and Asia) so examining just larger cities would not be enough in my opinion to get a full view of UHI effect (still remembering that it has a small global effect: we can say many matters are due to UHI instead of GW, maybe even that a small part of measured GW is due to UHI, and that GW measurements are not so precise to make us able to make good analisyses and predictions, but not that GW is due to UHI).

Basically, Dr Ferenc Miskolczi's life as a NASA climate research scientist was made hell because he discovered that the extra water vapour being evaporated is not having a positive - feedback (increasing the CO2 warming effect by absorbing more infrared from the sun), instead it is going into increased cloud cover, which reflects incoming sunlight back to space.

Lets imagine that there is a positive feedback that in the secondary effect increases an initial disturbance by 50 %.

It's all as it was in those happy carefree days of 2009 and before, BC (yes, Before Cli **** ga **) as we call it now, when the MSM would happily «highlight the most alarmist aspects and downplay any mention of uncertainty» (Zorita), when no doubts were allowed, or should I say expressed, about the holy trilogy of WG1, 2, and 3 — how certain it was that the well - accepted theory of ghg effect, and the impacts thereof, would lead to a Copenhagen / Kyoto utopia of global cooperation, and that the IPCC was cool (whoops, «the request for more research about the social dynamics of the IPCC, of positive feedbacks as described by Judith, is meaningful for me» (von Storch).)

If one doesn't, positive feedback by radiative effects.

Yet warmists postulate that higher CO2 will result in positive feedback from water, thus magnifying the effect of CO2 alone by 2 - 3 times.

In this article, I provide a diagnosis and prescription for the IPCC: paradigm paralysis, caused by motivated reasoning, oversimplification, and consensus seeking; worsened and made permanent by a vicious positive feedback effect at the climate science - policy interface.

Both casual relationships are operative at all times: In the 19th and 20th centuries, the temperature - driving CO2 causal relationship amplified the original temperature effect, as one of several factors leading to a net positive feedback on temperature due to CO2 increase, and a climate sensitivity of about 3C for a doubling of CO2 — a number verified multiple times by calculation from proxy data from multiple epochs in Earths prehistoric past.

Publications by James E. Hansen pubs.giss.nasa.gov, his latest book is: Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity. Amazon.com Runaway climate change Runaway climate change describes a scenario in which the climate system passes a threshold or tipping point, after which internal positive feedback effects cause the climate to continue changing, even...

In particular: i) the emphasis on reconstructions of historical temperature records; ii) the over-sensitivity of climate models; iii) the exaggeration of positive feedback mechanisms and the opposite with respect to negative feedbacks; iv) the over-statement of second and Nth - order effects of warming on natural processes and society as «impacts»; v) the IPCC reports are not written exclusively by scientists, but in the case of WGII and WGIII especially, are, as has been discovered — by sceptics — written by academics from other disciplines, often without any remarkable expertise, and by activists, with particular agendas.

Since the less than positive feedback of clouds in the tropics appears to be the reason that the tropical troposphere hot spot signature of WMGHG warming is missing which implies that the water vapor and cloud feedbacks that are supposed to produce 2/3 of the GHG effect warming are not following the game plan, Spencer et al., by averaging ever damn thing they would find that might possibly show the tropical troposphere hot spot, are basically telling Trenberth and Dessler, «told ya so!»

It all starts with a small trigger (whatever the cause), that is fortified by responses which are strong positive feedbacks, but limited (self limiting, like ice sheets in the case of ice ages) in total effect.

Corrections: Del Genio et al. (1991); Raval and Ramanathan (1989) found that satellite infrared measurements gave «compelling evidence for the positive feedback between surface temperature, water vapour and the greenhouse effect; the magnitude of the feedback is consistent with that predicted by climate models;» similarly, Rind et al. (1991), p. 500; Sun and Held (1996); and the final nail in the coffin, Soden et.

Notable among these are Wentz et al. (2007), who suggest that the IPCC has failed to allow for two - thirds of the cooling effect of evaporation in its evaluation of the water vapor - feedback; and Spencer (2007), who points out that the cloud - albedo feedback, regarded by the IPCC as second in magnitude only to the water - vapor feedback, should in fact be negative rather than strongly positive.

1) CO2 is not rising significantly compared to earlier in the 20th century (Beck, Segalstad, Jaworowski) 2) OK, so CO2 is rising, but human sources are but a minor player (Howard Hayden, Spencer on WUWT) 3) OK, so human CO2 is significant, but its temperature effect is nonexistant (Heinz Hug) 4) OK, so CO2 has a temperature effect, but it is dwarfed by water vapour (Lindzen, Reid Bryson, Tim Ball 5) OK, so the CO2 temperature effect is not completely dwarfed by water vapour, but the sun is much more important (Svensmark, Shaviv, many others) 6) OK, so the solar output has been flat since the 50ies, but there are no net positive feedback (Lindzen again, Spencer again) 7) Actually, there has been no significant global warming (Watts, Singer + more), 8) Hey, all this warming is a) unstoppable anyway (Singer again) b) good for humanity (Michaels).

Regardless, climate models are made interesting by the inclusion of «positive feedbacks» (multiplier effects) so that a small temperature increment expected from increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide invokes large increases in water vapor, which seem to produce exponential rather than logarithmic temperature response in the models.

Frequently, Dr. Kahn provides an innovative and extremely effective procedure for couples by recommending that either one or both partners join his own separate relationally focused group where that person can receive support and understanding, learn techniques of positive interaction, become thoughtful of the effect of his words and behaviors on others, receive feedback from others who are not their spouse (but may be like their spouse), have an opportunity to practice the couples dialogue with the group person who reminds them of their spouse and thereby develop empathy for their spouse.