Sentences with phrase «feedback effects at»

With no feedback effects at all, the change would be just 1 degree Celsius, climate scientists agree.

In this article, I provide a diagnosis and prescription for the IPCC: paradigm paralysis, caused by motivated reasoning, oversimplification, and consensus seeking; worsened and made permanent by a vicious positive feedback effect at the climate science - policy interface.

Not exact matches

The feedback loop of the city making itself attractive to start - ups and start - ups helping to make the city attractive to talented young people (who in turn create more businesses that attract more young people) is only getting started, but Robinson says he can already see the effects both in terms of the area's legitimacy — «people are saying, «hey, I would actually invest here or I would start my business here» as opposed to 10 years ago where people would avoid the city at all costs» — and quality of life for young people.

And since Amazon does rank its employees, the Anytime Feedback Tool is more than just a way to gossip about your coworkers — it could have a real effect on your standing at the company, though an Amazon spokesperson told The Times that feedback generally tends to be pFeedback Tool is more than just a way to gossip about your coworkers — it could have a real effect on your standing at the company, though an Amazon spokesperson told The Times that feedback generally tends to be pfeedback generally tends to be positive.

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

«Past studies have looked at the effects of differential parenting on the children who get more negative feedback, but our study focused on this as a dynamic operating at two levels of the family system: one that affects all children in the family as well as being specific to the child at the receiving end of the negativity,» explains Jennifer M. Jenkins, Atkinson Chair of Early Child Development and Education at the University of Toronto, who led the team.

«We observed that a multifaceted audit and feedback intervention aimed at health professionals results in a slight reduction in the rate of caesareans for low - risk pregnancies, without adverse effects on maternal and neonatal health,» revealed Nils Chaillet, principal investigator of the QUARISMA trial, researcher at the CHU de Québec - Université Laval Research Centre and professor at Université Laval's Faculty of Medicine.

When I visit Wells at Iowa State University, he is examining the effect of «confirmatory feedback,» the sense of certainty you get when you are told that you have answered a question correctly.

When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an «Iris Effect,» wherein upper - level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2.

Basically we wanted to do the same thing at the system level, by characterizing what each cortical area does, and then hooking them together with the feedback in the model to try to understand top - down effects like attention.

Absent understanding of cloud feedback processes, the best you can really do is mesh it into the definition of the emergent climate sensitivity, but I think probing (at least some of) the uncertainties in effects like this is one of the whole points of these ensemble - based studies.

«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.

Vitex supports hormonal balance in the body by having an effect on the hypothalamic - pituitary - ovarian axis (hormonal feedback loop), correcting the problem at the source.

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.

how to get the most from marking and feedback, including looking at the depth of response, frequency and nature of feedback whilst remembering the effect on workload.

However there is also yet another sense of the word, that I want to explore, at least speculatively, for a moment, in relation to Blannin's work and that's the sense of «system» used in cybernetics, where a central concept is that of «feedback», the process in which information about the past or present influences the same phenomenon in the present or future, forming a chain of cause - and - effect, a circuit or loop: output becomes input.

One feedback that I have only rarely heard discussed is the effect that the drop in elevation of, for example, the Greenland Ice sheet will have on the melting at the top.

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»).

Climate models, on the other hand, have a successful track record — look at the melting Arctic, warming around Antarctica, the surface temperature, the water feedback effect, the reduction in mountain glaciers... etc..

With a reduced lapse rate comes a reduced greenhouse effect (the situation is opposite at the poles but tends to be a negative feedback globally).

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).

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).

The regression simply looks at the outcome of adding more CO2, net of feedbacks and not including the direct effect of other forcings.

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).

Stopping the THC should therefore have little effect, unless one goes on to look at feedbacks, etc., but we need to agree on the basic model first.

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.

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.

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 findings reinforce suggestions that strong positive ice — temperature feedbacks have emerged in the Arctic15, increasing the chances of further rapid warming and sea ice loss, and will probably affect polar ecosystems, ice - sheet mass balance and human activities in the Arctic...» *** This is the heart of polar amplification and has very little to do with your stated defintion of amplifying the effects of warming going on at lower latitudes.

So your scientific intuition rebels at the thought of runaway positive feedback (like that which causes the rapid transition from ice age to interglacial which is so well established), but it doesn't rebel at the thought that somehow, every scientist since 1922 has failed to notice an allegedly major flaw in our understanding of the greenhouse effect?

@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.

Disputes within climate science concern the nature and magnitude of feedback processes involving clouds and water vapor, uncertainties about the rate at which the oceans take up heat and carbon dioxide, the effects of air pollution, and the nature and importance of climate change effects such as rising sea level, increasing acidity of the ocean, and the incidence of weather hazards such as floods, droughts, storms, and heat waves.

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.

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.

With this you then made your transition through to your final concept as follows, «And to return to the title of the post, I think that the debate should not be about feedback at all, it should be a debate about the types and the effects of the various natural homeostatic mechanisms.»

The main place this attempt at modelling breaks down, IMHO, is assessing the effect of a change in radiation balance on a change in global temperature, without feedbacks.

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.

Research presented here and at other credible locations has shown CO2's effect to be logarithmic with possible offsetting by negative feedbacks rather than amplified greatly by positive feedback mechanisms.

At 0.04 % of the atmosphere the effect couldn't be very great, and yet somehow water vapor became a «feedback» that would multiply the effect.

What the Arctic is really good at is taking small changes in energy input and multiplying the effect via positive feedbacks.

They don't explain at all why the data shows a feedback effect, or what the mechanism is that stops the positive feedback from being a runaway process (a frequent question by skeptics).

I think you have it basically right, but at the beginning of your post you came up with and discarded the reason it is not a runaway effect: I am assuming of course that positive feedback is linear Wrong assumption!

For instance, researchers still don't completely understand the role of aerosols in the atmosphere, the variable effects of clouds at different heights, and the influence of feedback mechanisms such as the changing reflectivity of the Earth's surface and the release of gases from permafrost or deep seabeds.

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).

This saturation effect is due to negative feedback at high temperatures from chemical decomposition (molecules hitting so hard they break up) or a reversed reaction process where the breakdown of the reaction products at high temperature cancels out the enhancement in production rate by temperature, and it is similar to the negative feedback from H2O on the effect of CO2 injections, see for example Figure 6 in http://vixra.org/pdf/1302.0044v2.pdf.

The presence of feedback effects and tipping points calls into question some of the most fundamental assumptions of climate change negotiations, including the belief that we can «overshoot» to, say, 550 ppm and then work back to 450 ppm (the path advocated in the Stern and Garnaut reports), that greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere can be stabilised at some level, and the belief that we can adapt to some given degree of warming.

Just seems on top of the un / certainty pick - ems (uncertainty about negative or positive feedback) or the other of gritty hinges we see are at the «core» of the issue that we're almost assuming we can explain the last 14,000 years in climate history to a resolution of a decade and rule out all factors effecting all changes over that time prior to 1850 effectively when we hear statements «high» (most, likely, probably, etc) certainties of understanding what we are seeing being used to support invoking PP.

Meanwhile, the logarithmic effect of CO2 is excellent «concession» to make in the rhetorical sense, since it concedes the obvious state of our knowledge about the effects of CO2, while at the same time providing us with the solid argument that even if we double atmospheric CO2 levels from 400ppm to 800 ppm over the next 100 years the largest amount of warming possible — assuming all else remains the same and Gaia has no homeostasis negative feedback systems which tend to moderate any runaway trends — is 1.2 c.

At a recent debate at Oxford University, organized by the OU Engineering Society, I gave the undergraduates an argument from process engineering (which you will find in outline in my Union College presentation, and in more detail in my Hartford College lecture) to the effect that the closed - loop temperature - feedback gain in the climate system (i.e., the product of the Planck parameter and the net sum of all unamplified feedbacks) can not much exceed 0.1, implying at most 1.3 K of warming per CO2 doubling, compared with the IPCC's central estimate of 3.3 At a recent debate at Oxford University, organized by the OU Engineering Society, I gave the undergraduates an argument from process engineering (which you will find in outline in my Union College presentation, and in more detail in my Hartford College lecture) to the effect that the closed - loop temperature - feedback gain in the climate system (i.e., the product of the Planck parameter and the net sum of all unamplified feedbacks) can not much exceed 0.1, implying at most 1.3 K of warming per CO2 doubling, compared with the IPCC's central estimate of 3.3 at Oxford University, organized by the OU Engineering Society, I gave the undergraduates an argument from process engineering (which you will find in outline in my Union College presentation, and in more detail in my Hartford College lecture) to the effect that the closed - loop temperature - feedback gain in the climate system (i.e., the product of the Planck parameter and the net sum of all unamplified feedbacks) can not much exceed 0.1, implying at most 1.3 K of warming per CO2 doubling, compared with the IPCC's central estimate of 3.3 at most 1.3 K of warming per CO2 doubling, compared with the IPCC's central estimate of 3.3 K.