Sentences with phrase «feedback cooling effect»

In the case of water vapor, it is referred to as «negative lapse rate feedback» and demonstrates a net negative feedback cooling effect from increased water vapor.

Not exact matches

One of the cool side effects of welcoming customers into his home, Blumenthal says, is it gave the customers a rare opportunity to «peek behind the curtain» of a start - up, while simultaneously giving the founders a rare opportunity to get immediate feedback from customers.

Because a hurricane cools surface water, it discourages the formation of later storms in its wake, providing a form of negative feedback that limits the hurricane merging effect.

Hansen seems to argue for a maximum rate of SLR, under BAU forcing, of at least 4 - 5 meters per century, somewhere in the coming centuries (including a negative feedback he calls the «ice berg cooling effect»).

It is my understanding that the uncertainties regarding climate sensitivity to a nominal 2XCO2 forcing is primarily a function of the uncertainties in (1) future atmospheric aerosol concentrations; both sulfate - type (cooling) and black carbon - type (warming), (2) feedbacks associated with aerosol effects on the properties of clouds (e.g. will cloud droplets become more reflective?)

For instance, increasing cloud cover due to global warming may change the albedo, but this would be a feedback to a larger warming effect, rather than a cooling.

The total effect (including water vapour feedback) was a cooling of maximum 0.6 ºC.

Warming must occur below the tropopause to increase the net LW flux out of the tropopause to balance the tropopause - level forcing; there is some feedback at that point as the stratosphere is «forced» by the fraction of that increase which it absorbs, and a fraction of that is transfered back to the tropopause level — for an optically thick stratosphere that could be significant, but I think it may be minor for the Earth as it is (while CO2 optical thickness of the stratosphere alone is large near the center of the band, most of the wavelengths in which the stratosphere is not transparent have a more moderate optical thickness on the order of 1 (mainly from stratospheric water vapor; stratospheric ozone makes a contribution over a narrow wavelength band, reaching somewhat larger optical thickness than stratospheric water vapor)(in the limit of an optically thin stratosphere at most wavelengths where the stratosphere is not transparent, changes in the net flux out of the stratosphere caused by stratospheric warming or cooling will tend to be evenly split between upward at TOA and downward at the tropopause; with greater optically thickness over a larger fraction of optically - significant wavelengths, the distribution of warming or cooling within the stratosphere will affect how such a change is distributed, and it would even be possible for stratospheric adjustment to have opposite effects on the downward flux at the tropopause and the upward flux at TOA).

There will be Regionally / locally and temporal variations; increased temperature and backradiation tend to reduce the diurnal temperature cycle on land, though regional variations in cloud feedbacks and water vapor could cause some regions to have the opposite effect; changes in surface moisture and humidity also changes the amount of convective cooling that can occur for the same temperature distribution.

A clear answer to the question, and to the question of how much of the observed cooling is due to the above direct effect of the forcings, and how much is due to feedbacks, like the conversion of CH4 in the stratosphere to H20 etc. would be welcome?

Also it works in reverse, any cooling effect gets a slowdown in convective feedback — eg at night there tends to be a very quiet no wind time at 3 am — ie the convection feedback has slowed the winds down below normal.

The feedbacks are therefore likely to be considerably stronger when the cooling effect of the ocean is taken into account.

This led to a nasty scene, when he said I was unable to see what was obvious, ever - accelerating cooling which would lead to a runaway «Neptune Effect» because of mechanisms of positive feedback (his best examples were clouds which collect over the winter solstice — the «in - law» effect — persisting through to mid-February — the «Cupid» effect — and combining forces to wreck the climate for the entire first half of the Effect» because of mechanisms of positive feedback (his best examples were clouds which collect over the winter solstice — the «in - law» effect — persisting through to mid-February — the «Cupid» effect — and combining forces to wreck the climate for the entire first half of the effect — persisting through to mid-February — the «Cupid» effect — and combining forces to wreck the climate for the entire first half of the effect — and combining forces to wreck the climate for the entire first half of the year.)

We do not need models to anticipate that significant rises in atmospheric CO2 concentrations harbor the potential to raise temperatures significantly (Fourier, 1824, Arrhenius, 1896), nor that the warming will cause more water to evaporate (confirmed by satellite data), nor that the additional water will further warm the climate, nor that this effect will be partially offset by latent heat release in the troposphere (the «lapse - rate feedback»), nor that greenhouse gas increases will warm the troposphere but cool the stratosphere, while increases in solar intensity will warm both — one can go on and on

(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.)»

The forcing is really a net albedo forcing from the varying ice extent, and the albedo has a positive feedback effect both on itself and with CO2 / H2O as the earth cools into an Ice Age.

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).

The allarms about much higher rises assume feedback effects from that rise, but these feedbacks work both ways, some warming some cooling, and the net effect is speculative.

They assume «positive feedbacks» from GHGs that trap heat, but understate the reflective and thus cooling effects of clouds.

As for your V&V discussion, I don't see the relevance of it in this talk, but in the context of physical science of climate change we have overwhelming evidence of model usefulness and verification (water vapor feedback, simulating the Pinatubo eruption effects, ocean heat content changes, stratospheric cooling, arctic amplification, etc).

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).)

This is generally not long enough to cause any feedback effects that might make the resulting cooling more long term.

[As a caveat, it is of course reasonable to postulate the relative risk / rewards involved in all feedbacks and warming / cooling knock - on effects for the future, additional sea - level rise predicated on deep ocean warmth perhaps being one of them.

-- Their strong claim of shaking the foundations of climate science is extremely unlikely; They don't provide compelling evidence for such an extraordinary claim; They vastly overestimate the likelihood of cooling effects (feedbacks), and underestimate, deny or ignore warming effects.

Aerosols Many of the proposed feedbacks involve the cooling effects of aerosols.

This correlation provides evidence that the translation speed of a storm can exert a significant control on the intensity of storms by modulating the strength of the negative effect of the storm - induced sea surface temperature (SST) reduction on the storm intensification (i.e., the SST feedback): Faster - moving storms tend to generate weaker sea surface cooling and have shorter exposure to the cooling, both of which tend to weaken the negative SST feedback

For example, if aerosols caused net cooling in the industrial Northern hemisphere, the positive feedback would magnify the cooling effect.)

This presumably would have the effect of cooling the arctic eventually (but in reality not necessarily) and is a negative feedback.

(A positive feedback magnifies whatever effect other forcers have, so warming is made warmer and cooling is made cooler.

Another climate feedback found: «cooling effect of natural atmospheric particles is greater during warmer years»

These three sources speak of three entirely different things: a) the water vapor feedback, b) the carbon cycle feedback, and c) effects on precipitation of reduced longwave radiative cooling in the tropical lower troposphere.

Berkeley Lab researchers Dev Millstein and Surabi Menon found that atmospheric feedback — such as changes in cloud cover or precipitation — does have an important effect, resulting in different amounts of cooling in different cities, but that cool roofs and pavements are still beneficial for combating global warming.

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.

The new study, published in Nature Geoscience, identified a negative feedback loop in which higher temperatures lead to an increase in concentrations of natural aerosols that have a cooling effect on the atmosphere.