Of particular concern is what White
describes as a positive feedback loop where ice meets ocean.
Not exact matches
As I describe in Survival +, there is a positive feedback in the process of concentrating wealth and thus political power: the more wealth one acquires, the more political influence one can purchase, which then enables the accumulation of even more wealth as the State / Elite partnership showers benefits and monopolies on those who fund elections, i.e. the wealth
As I
describe in Survival +, there is a
positive feedback in the process of concentrating wealth and thus political power: the more wealth one acquires, the more political influence one can purchase, which then enables the accumulation of even more wealth
as the State / Elite partnership showers benefits and monopolies on those who fund elections, i.e. the wealth
as the State / Elite partnership showers benefits and monopolies on those who fund elections, i.e. the wealthy.
One Tory activist spoke hesitantly of the
feedback on the doorstep being «pretty
positive» and
described their support
as «mostly holding up».
Weblogs, commonly
described as online personal journals, retain many of the more
positive aspects of the traditional format - supported by the words of a pre-service teacher, «[I] f you write it down, you have to think about it» - while offering a fresh space for reflective thought, the option of communal
feedback, and the ease of electronic availability.
I think this are somewhat worse than what is usually
described (IPCC estimates are conservative and do not take into account all of the
positive feedback which results from moving outside of the metastable attractor), and in my view we can't afford to take any of the options off the table — although if we see problems with a given approach, we may try to minimize them through safeguards, e.g., so
as to keep nukes out of the hands of rogue regimes.
And again, since the majority of the warming
as described in this post is a function of natural variability, then the
positive feedbacks are natural
as well.
What you
describe, if it happens, is in the same direction
as that which reduces the size of the so - called hot spot, and we know that the hot spot would be a negative
feedback, so its weakening makes the total
feedback more
positive.
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).)
Dr. Curry has made some very astute suggestions concerning what needs to be done to reverse the «direction of this
positive feedback loop» (
as she
described it).
This could perhaps be the identification of cyclical patterns in the temperature records that explain recent warming, the GCR experiments, an unkown
feedback (or the full understanding of clouds, removing their possibility
as a
positive feedback as described by thr IPCC) or something else.
Now they have
described some of the known knowns: we now know without doubt that methane is venting to Earth's atmosphere from parts of the ESAS seabed in copious quantities
as a response - a
positive feedback - to warming.