Sentences with phrase «feedback cycle when»

Not exact matches

Although audit and feedback is often suggested as a way of improving hand hygiene, this study puts its use on a firmer footing than previous non-randomised studies, providing the strongest evidence yet that this is an effective way to improve hand hygiene when coupled with a repeating cycle of personalised goal - setting and action planning.

«Firms may, therefore, benefit from a better understanding of when and how hormones assert their influence — such as through exceptionally positive feedback cycles that are unsupported by fundamentals or technical indicators,» says Nadler.

When I began learning about my cycle and became more body literate through charting, I could start having sensible conversations with doctors, ask questions on why they thought what they did and get feedback on whether my charts indicated the same thing.

This can become a negative - feedback cycle of sorts, as when we perceive ourselves as being less well, that has a negative impact on our actual physiological well being.

Targeted feedback is effective when included within a larger cycle of learning where a teacher sets learning goals based on the needs of his or her students and the teacher's own instructional practice data.

When this happens, won't there be a feedback cycle and the indexes be affected by the passive funds?

It's a difficult job because the feedback cycles are so long — especially when it comes to investing in illiquid assets like startups (and Unicorns).

Sony was very open to working with developers such as ourselves when they started making the PS4, and for us to be able to feed back this early on the dev cycle of new hardware meant we could gave game dev feedback and have that fruition into something amazing.

Those establish a feedback cycle with a lot of inertia, so that they keep on building & selling particular sorts of cars, even when — as we've seen over the last 40 years or so — large parts of the market clearly prefer something different.

(57k) When I state that the equilibrium climatic response must balance imposed RF (and feedbacks that occur), I am referring to a global time average RF and global time average response (in terms of radiative and convective fluxes), on a time scale sufficient to characterize the climatic state (including cycles driven by externally - forced cycles (diurnal, annual) and internal variability.

Starting from an old equilbrium, a change in radiative forcing results in a radiative imbalance, which results in energy accumulation or depletion, which causes a temperature response that approahes equilibrium when the remaining imbalance approaches zero — thus the equilibrium climatic response, in the global - time average (for a time period long enough to characterize the climatic state, including externally imposed cycles (day, year) and internal variability), causes an opposite change in radiative fluxes (via Planck function)(plus convective fluxes, etc, where they occur) equal in magnitude to the sum of the (externally) imposed forcing plus any «forcings» caused by non-Planck feedbacks (in particular, climate - dependent changes in optical properties, + etc.).)

How come when it comes to «feedback in climate» no bugger knows what it means, but when it comes to «feedback in the rabits / foxes cycle» or «feedback as in my mic is next to the loudspeaker for the mic», everyone knows it?

[Response: That is a positive feedback that acted during ice age cycles: when it got warmer at the end of an ice age, this led to release of stored CO2 from the deep ocean, thus raising atmospheric CO2 levels.

When we say «positive» and «negative» feedbacks in the sense of radiation (so I'm not talking about carbon - cycle responses such as methane release from the oceans or such) we're referring to temperature - sensitive variables which themselves affect the radiation budget of the planet.

When ice age cycles are concerned Milankovitch cycles and feedback through CO2 are surely involved, but — Milankovitch cycles are weak, at least on global level.

The natural acceleration of the the hydrological cycle that occurs when CO2 levels rise, increases rock weathering and is the key to the negative feedback that eventually pulls the atmospheric CO2 levels back down.

The plot below shows how the temperature increases, when started off by an initial dollop of CO2, followed by many cycles of feedback.

Only when the cloudcover stretches over the poles does it start to provide a negative feedback to the 6 montly polar warming cycle.

So the carbon cycle sensitivity to temperature should be more relevant than the climate sensitivity to CO2... or maybe not after all, considering that the ppm / C ratio around 280 ppm seems to be an order of magnitude higher when CO2 is a forcing rather than a feedback.

The only sense in which your argument for a negative water cycle feedback makes much sense is if you are grouping together cloud and water vapor effects in such a feedback (which I guess is not unreasonable when you refer to it as «water cycle» but becomes confusing when you refer to it as «water vapor feedback»).