Sentences with phrase «feedback effect if»

That would, I'd guess, be interesting as a very fast feedback effect if, say, plankton's changing year by year as one or more of those other signals change.

That would, I'd guess, be interesting as a very fast feedback effect if, say, plankton's changing year by year as one or more of those other signals change.

Not exact matches

It's possible, of course, that if the compensation at stake were small beer, tying it to feedback might not have much effect.

One conclusion from this episode is that learning about the stock market may feed back into the market and, by changing the behavior of the market, render our «learning» useless or — if we don't recognize the feedback effect — hazardous.

I'm not even an amateur climate scientist, but my logic tells me that if clouds have a stronger negative feedback in the Arctic, and I know (from news) the Arctic is warming faster than other areas, then it seems «forcing GHGs» (CO2, etc) may have a strong sensitivity than suggested, but this is suppressed by the cloud effect.

Thus in summary, a change in sensitivity of one of the primary actors in climate variation has only effect for the general sensitivity of climate, if all the feedbacks are essentially similar for all primary actors involved, which is highly probably not the case...

If not, those feedbacks may kick in, taking us up to a higher level of GW & other nasty effects — and we will have no ability to control it, even by reducing our GHGs to near zero.

But if our interest is in the effect of * anthropogenic * CO2 only, which is a real forcing, then the feedback CO2 could be tremendously additive.

(I wonder if such enhanced wind driven mising would in effect be a negative feedback on warming rates, enhaning ocean thermal damping.)

«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.

But even that, if you look at the literature, you'll find that about one - third of the studies indicate that by giving feedback within the context of those studies actually had a negative effect on the student achievement.

One conclusion from this episode is that learning about the stock market may feed back into the market and, by changing the behavior of the market, render our «learning» useless or — if we don't recognize the feedback effect — hazardous.

Sound too is limited, bikes need more grunt but the lack of vital sound effects relating to traction combined with the aforementioned lack of feedback from the rumble needs some work, besides these the game lacks a decent selection of music tracks, not only expected but music really can add to the marketing opportunities, again a solid job if unspectacular one.

(I take comfort in the fact that no one else can either) Even if I understood completely and could hypothesise the effect of the huge number of factors and correlations and feedback mechanisms that drive the climate I would not have accurate measurements over any significant timescale to prove this.

Even if the total effect of clouds has not been nailed down yet, it is obviously a small effect compared to the rest of the forcings and feedbacks in the system.

You are welcome to try something similar with global radiative forcing fluctuation, but if you do it will be rather tricky to isolate the cloud effect, since you have the snow and ice albedo effect to deal with then, which are largely temperature - related feedbacks.

Likewise, they prefer to debate urban heat island effects rather than to discuss the rising temperature trends, other clear signs of rising temperatures, the positive feedbacks which are beginning to kick in so that climate change will take on a life of its own independently of what we do in the future if changes are not made now (# 111, «Storm World» post, comment # 141) and what such climate change will imply for humanity as a whole (Curve manipulation, comment # 74, A Saturated Gassy Argument, comment # 116).

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.

Just to follow - up on John Finn's question (# 10), if one puts in a rough value for the emissivity of the earth (whatever that might be), so one is no longer assuming it is a perfect blackbody, then does the resulting estimate for climate sensitivity correspond to what one would expect in the absence of any feedback effects?

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).

Now, if warming also causes increased CO2, then we may be talking about a positive feedback loop in which the warming spirals upwards, which amplifies the warming effect of whatever CO2 we humans contribute to the atmosphere.

This does not rule out the possibility that the negative feedback can be overwhelmed by other effects, but if we are to believe that, some explanation would be required.

If not, those feedbacks may kick in, taking us up to a higher level of GW & other nasty effects — and we will have no ability to control it, even by reducing our GHGs to near zero.

Thus in summary, a change in sensitivity of one of the primary actors in climate variation has only effect for the general sensitivity of climate, if all the feedbacks are essentially similar for all primary actors involved, which is highly probably not the case...

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).

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?

Some fraction of the increase in upward flux at TRPP can also be transferred to the stratosphere, requiring it to warm again (if that is a small fraction, or if the fraction of that which is transferred to the TRPP flux again is small), then the resulting iteration of additional warming will converge relative quickly so that this feedback is a small effect.

And I suppose if we aren't talking about the twilight effect, then the negative feedback won't be that negative if the clear sky greenhouse effect is becoming stronger with higher temperatures.

So really it's the gain of the temperature - convection feedback that's at stake, and if it were high enough to fully offset all radiative effects on temperature, there'd be some obvious symptoms — low natural variability and glacial cycles perfectly correlated with insolation perhaps.

If we lose them rapidly then there would be a small rapid sea - level rise, major rapid local effects to do with huge quantities of meltwater, and an albedo feedback effect.

If this is wrong, and the net effect of all these factors is a negative feedback, please let me know.

Thus if you change the air constituents (ie add GHGs) then the energy transported by radiative effects will increase, but the increase in GHG residence time will cause a feedback and decrease in conduction etc residence time (ie hotter air rising faster).

If the effects of cloud feedbacks are eliminated, this range is reduced to 1.7 - 2.3 C. 2 Many other feedbacks, particularly those involving chemistry and biology, may also be important.

@David: You write: «If the beneficial aspect of CO2 increases in a lineal manner and the warming effect of CO2 decreases logarithmically, then does it not makes sense that at some point CO2 itself becomes a negative feedback?»

If the world warms by 2 or more degrees will feedback effects kick in — such as unstoppable melting of the Siberian permafrost, which could send more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, making it virtually impossible to stabilize warming at 2 degrees, let alone 1.5.

These models suggest that if the net effect of ocean circulation, water vapour, cloud, and snow feedbacks were zero, the approximate temperature response to a doubling of carbon dioxide from pre-industrial levels would be a 1oC warming.

If, for instance, CO2 concentrations are doubled, then the absorption would increase by 4 W / m2, but once the water vapor and clouds react, the absorption increases by almost 20 W / m2 — demonstrating that (in the GISS climate model, at least) the «feedbacks» are amplifying the effects of the initial radiative forcing from CO2 alone.

And if the feedbacks from that effect are going to be positive or negative.

''... the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so - called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.»

Of course feedbacks can have offsetting effects — but if you accept the radiative physics of AGW, then you believe that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes global warming.

If not either the CO2 / temp relationship is wrong [I do not think so] or the effect of the CO2 rise is being variably effected by negative feedbacks such as increased cloud formation and albedo thus offsetting the CO2 related temperature rise.

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.

but this is the full CMIP3 ensemble, so at least the plot is sampling the range of choices regarding if and how indirect effects are represented, what the cloud radiative feedback & sensitivity is, etc. across the modelling community.

If we have concerns over how much CO2 effects the flux, which makes it an overall climate response or feedback parameter, then we might also consider the uncertainty in the 3.7 number.

If there are lots of positive feedbacks (which most models assume) then we may run in trouble, if there are negative feedbacks (which I expect), then the effect is hardly measurablIf there are lots of positive feedbacks (which most models assume) then we may run in trouble, if there are negative feedbacks (which I expect), then the effect is hardly measurablif there are negative feedbacks (which I expect), then the effect is hardly measurable.

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

Since it is warming somewhat, GHGs are likely responsible for some of that, but we need to know if the bigger - impact feedback effects are actually ocurring (and what sign they have in the real world).

If the one W / m2 effect is questioned then positive feedbacks are readily found.

If the typical explanation that rising then creates a feedback loop that increases temperatures, and so on, why doesn't this cause a runaway greenhouse effect?

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).