Sentences with phrase «feedback effect because»

These attitudes communicate themselves to the bar, [creating] an unfortunate feedback effect because of the dependence of judges on lawyers in our adversarial legal system.

According to Professor Nico Eisenhauer, the senior author of the study: «It is most likely that instead of soil animals and microorganisms, the plants are responsible for the feedback effect because they also breathe with their roots.

Not exact matches

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.

Answer: because in (6) according to the black - body approximation positive feedbacks due to the greenhouse gas effects do not exist.

The balancing of such altered metabolite level may change the adverse effects for some extent because of existence of normal feedback mechanism exists in the body.

Because teachers and students diligently prepare for SLCs in advance by reflecting on projects verbally and in writing, culling work that represents progress or challenges, and giving and receiving feedback, the investment from students can have a domino effect on family participation.

Hydroxyzine veterinary medicine is usually not recommended by the physicians for treating pets because there is no direct verbal feedback from the receptor and the effect and efficiency of the drug is questionable.

This sensitivity estimate is not the last word on the subject, because of uncertainties in the approximate formulae used to compute the terms in the energy balance, and neglect of possible effects of water vapor feedback on the surface budget.

I think what Alastair is alluding to is the fact that, say by 2050 when the arctic ocean will conceivably be ice - free in the summer, the atmosphere will have a much higher relative humidity than it has currently because of the open air = water interface, so this will have a magnifying effect beyond just the feedback from increased CO2.

Those who think that there's nothing to worry about, because sea ice might recover on its own accord, are requiring some negative forcing or feedback effect to come into play, to make the PIOMAS trend line do a U-turn.

Setting aside the effects of the deep ocean, etc, — ie just using a single unified reservoir's heat capacity — and using only fast feedbacks (I didn't introduce any slow feedbacks anywhere in this particular series of comments), the expectation based on physics is that each delayed response T curve (each of which must correspond to a different value of heat capacity, for the same ECS) must have a maximum or minimum when it intersects the instantaneous response curve (my Teq value)-- maximum if it was below Teq before, minimum if it was above — because it is always going toward Teq.

For instance, the effect of soot making snow and sea ice darker has a higher efficacy than an equivalent change in CO2 with the same forcing, mainly because there is a more important ice - albedo feedback in the soot case.

And even that would not do it because much of the greenhouse effect comes from feedbacks.

[Response: These feedbacks are indeed modelled because they depend not on the trace greenhouse gas amounts, but on the variation of seasonal incoming solar radiation and effects like snow cover, water vapour amounts, clouds and the diurnal cycle.

I can't understand why that is a sensible definition of a runaway feedback effect, or why that ends up «putting things completely out of our control» (as if once the methane starts going up, let's just give up and burn all the coal because it won't matter anyway).

It doesn't bother with «water has a feedback effect on anything that increases ore reduces air temperatures» because that isn't needed: it's an inherent property of the physics you've included in your model.

If C02 is the largest single contributing factor to the Greenhouse Effect (because supposedly water vapor is only involved as a feedback to primary chemistry involving C02 itself), and C02 lags temperature increases (as has been stated on this very blog), how has the Earth ever returned to colder glacial conditions following periods of warming?

First, for changing just CO2 forcing (or CH4, etc, or for a non-GHE forcing, such as a change in incident solar radiation, volcanic aerosols, etc.), there will be other GHE radiative «forcings» (feedbacks, though in the context of measuring their radiative effect, they can be described as having radiative forcings of x W / m2 per change in surface T), such as water vapor feedback, LW cloud feedback, and also, because GHE depends on the vertical temperature distribution, the lapse rate feedback (this generally refers to the tropospheric lapse rate, though changes in the position of the tropopause and changes in the stratospheric temperature could also be considered lapse - rate feedbacks for forcing at TOA; forcing at the tropopause with stratospheric adjustment takes some of that into account; sensitivity to forcing at the tropopause with stratospheric adjustment will generally be different from sensitivity to forcing without stratospheric adjustment and both will generally be different from forcing at TOA before stratospheric adjustment; forcing at TOA after stratospehric adjustment is identical to forcing at the tropopause after stratospheric adjustment).

Subject of some specific concern about global warming because of large temperature rises predicted for the arctic, and because of some arctic - specific feedback effects (e.g. the albedo feedback following loss of arctic sea ice).

There is no GHG caused global greenhouse effect, because convective etc feedback negates it.

As Alan points out, the very fast feedback from the full effect of new methane emissions will create larger effects than the averaged numbers indicate, partly because that effect is primarily in the Arctic before mixing has diluted it.

Because the net effect of clouds — whilst still one of the major sources of uncertainty in relation to climate sensitivity is likely a positive feedback

The net effect is a much stronger albedo feedback in the NH than in the SH, enhance because the large land mass in the NH results in larger temperature fluctuations in any event.

The Arctic has been warming at twice the rate of the rest of the world for decades because of feedback loops that have reduced the albedo effect, a measure of the way Earth reflects heat.

Today will actually be fun, because it involves criticism of some of my writing around what I find to be the most interesting issue in climate, that of feedback effects.

Spencer further makes the point he has made for a couple of years now that feedback is really, really, really hard to measure, because it is so easy to confuse cause and effect.

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.)

Any feedback loops must also fall in effect because if their driving factor is forcing from CO2, then the driving factor is dropping.

Because they live and work in highly urbanized areas that have the necessary attributes that cause a positive temperature feedback - often referred to as the Urban Heat Island effect (UHI).

The feedbacks in the climate system are negative and, therefore, any effect of increased CO2 will be probably too small to discern because natural climate variability is much, much larger.

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).

Increase of CO2 concentration and their effects this century are an underestimation because they can not — and do not — accurately reflect the effects of feedbacks initiated by anthropogenic emissions.

And even those assessments are made on the basis of models which tend to underestimate the risks, because they omit hard - to - measure feedback effects.

All told, I think this is a great model because it appears to require a significant GHG feedback effect from the CO2.

«I think this is a great model because it appears to require a significant GHG feedback effect from the CO2.

While the GCMs do not account for this positive feedback of CO2 release due to temperature increases, they need not do so because the effect is insignificant — lost in the noise.

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.

Actually I think the claim is that CO2 warming (but mysteriously not «natural» warming) triggers other positive feedbacks causing a runaway effect (I won't call it «greenhouse» because that's a misnomer).

It is easy in term of derivation because it collapse all possible external influence into an equivalent forcing and make all feedbacks respond only to mean temp, but given that: - variation (noise) around mean temp are more than enough to trigger multiple non-linear effects, and T can not in principle be collapsed into a single mean temperature state variable - I think that some external influence can not be fitted into a forcing, because they could modify the way the system respond to a mean temperature (feedbacks).

Modeling even one of these to the required level of detail is currently beyond our abilities, because they are all inter-related by feedbacks and chains of effect and non-linear couplings and individual and multi-system resonances, both known and unknown.

The Arctic is warming up three times more quickly than the rest of the Earth, in part because of the reflectivity, or the albedo feedback effect, of ice.

It is intellectually dishonest to devote several pages to cherry - picking studies that disagree with the IPCC consensus on net health effects because you don't like its scientific conclusion, while then devoting several pages to hiding behind [a misstatement of] the U.N. consensus on sea level rise because you know a lot reasonable people think the U.N. wildly underestimated the upper end of the range and you want to attack Al Gore for worrying about 20 - foot sea level rise.On this blog, I have tried to be clear what I believe with my earlier three - part series: Since sea level, arctic ice, and most other climate change indicators have been changing faster than most IPCC models projected and since the IPCC neglects key amplifying carbon cycle feedbacks, the IPCC reports almost certainly underestimate future climate impacts.

In any event, all of these calcs are B S because we don't really understand the sum total of past / present and future aerosol effects nor of CO2 feedbacks nor of the combo of CO2 feedbacks with changing aerosols nor of natural low frequency climatic variation.

And I repeat: hypothesis A doesn't require any argument of logarithmic versus linear effects because it argues that any feedback amplification is not significant.

JimD,» The sensitivity is not very sensitive to the temperature you start at because the water vapor feedback and CO2 effects are linear with forcing.»

The sensitivity is not very sensitive to the temperature you start at because the water vapor feedback and CO2 effects are linear with forcing.

Where water vapor is important is as a feedback effect... whereby the warming of the atmosphere due to increased CO2 causes the «equilibrium» concentration of water vapor to increase and this then enhances the warming because of water vapor's absorption of infrared radiation.

If you haven't found anything in the journals on linearity of the effect of those molecules at 10x concentration — assuming you've asked a good reference librarian for help and she's not been able to find anything to answer you — I'd speculate that nobody's published on that narrow question because all the other feedbacks at that point would be so complex as to muddy the waters, so to speak.

However, the true climate sensitivity remains uncertain, in part because it is difficult to model the effect of feedback.

He also notes that it has a feedback effect, which it clearly does because heating of bodies of water increases evaporation, putting more WVP in the atmosphere, and increasing it's GH impact.