Sentences with phrase «feedback effects caused»

Publications by James E. Hansen pubs.giss.nasa.gov, his latest book is: Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity. Amazon.com Runaway climate change Runaway climate change describes a scenario in which the climate system passes a threshold or tipping point, after which internal positive feedback effects cause the climate to continue changing, even...

Not exact matches

The result — and, thanks to feedback effects, also the cause — is dwindling sea ice.

Remember that direct greenhouse effect from CO2 is quite small; the predictions rely on positive feedback from other effects (particularly water vapour feedbacks, a far more significant greenhouse gas) to cause substantial warming.

This combined with positive feedback effect from melting of a huge amount surface ice was enough to cause the 5 - 6C rise.

Formally known as systems thinking, it's the way of viewing the world as a series of interlocking causal (cause and effect) feedback loops.

June 17, 2014 Jami Gold Writing Stuff advice for writers, beta reader, cause and effect, critique partners / groups, editing, Editing Your Story, editors, feedback, Jami Gold, Learn about Writing, organized, pacing, paranormal author, plot - driven vs. character - driven

September 19, 2017 Jami Gold Writing Stuff advice for writers, antagonist, beat sheet, cause and effect, character flaws, drafting, editing, Editing Your Story, emotional heart, feedback, genre, Jami Gold, listening to characters, organized, pacing, paranormal author, Planning Your Story, plot - driven vs. character - driven, premise, risk, story structure

August 2, 2016 Jami Gold Writing Stuff advice for writers, antagonist, Ask Jami, cause and effect, emotional heart, feedback, genre, Jami Gold, Learn about Writing, listening to characters, paranormal author, point of view, risk, romance novels, romance novels are not porn, showing vs. telling, story structure, tension, Writing Your Story

February 23, 2016 Jami Gold Writing Stuff advice for writers, beta reader, cause and effect, drafting, editing, feedback, genre, information dump, Jami Gold, Learn about Writing, listening to characters, Mary Buckham, pacing, paranormal author, point of view, scenes and sequels, setting and description, tension, voice

February 21, 2013 Jami Gold Writing Stuff advice for writers, beta reader, cause and effect, editing, Editing Your Story, Edittorrent, feedback, Jami Gold, Learn about Writing, paranormal author, subtext, theme

December 10, 2013 Jami Gold Writing Stuff advice for writers, cause and effect, drafting, Dwight Swain, editing, Editing Your Story, feedback, head - hopping, Jami Gold, Learn about Writing, listening to characters, paranormal author, point of view, romance novels, showing vs. telling, subtext, Writers Helping Writers

September 13, 2016 Jami Gold Writing Stuff advice for writers, cause and effect, character flaws, editing, feedback, Jami Gold, Janice Hardy, Learn about Writing, listening to characters, organized, pacing, paranormal author, romance novels

There is a feedback effect, causing a faster uptake of ebooks as hard copy books become harder to find, which of course means that less people buy hard copy books, driving shelf space decreases.

They cause a negative feedback effect on the pituitary gland, resulting in a decrease of signals to the adrenal gland to release sex hormones.

DESIGN & BALANCE Level cap raised to 35 Reviewed all survival events: obstacles have a lesser slow down effect Added Pure Time Attack game mode in Quick Race Slightly increased Turbo performances for Conqueror, Lunare, ESA Slightly increased engine power for ESA Slightly increased wall damage (10 %) Solved a bug for which the AI would very rarely use powerups Fixed some contracts that would propose the wrong event and / or the wrong reward AUDIO & VISUALS Option to change audio to 5.1 or 2.0 Added Windowed / Fullscreen option Audio feedback for lobby countdown start BUGFIXES & STUFF Solved problem with corrupted save files (famous RedoutSettings.sav), causing the game to hang in the loading screen.

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.

These feedbacks amplify warming well beyond the effects caused by increasing greenhouse gas concentrations alone.

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.

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.

The exposed open water caused by the wind divergence may absorb some additional sunlight and melt more ice than usual over the next few weeks (temperature - albedo feedback)[related NASA animation], but given that the sun is well on its way to setting for the winter, I think this effect will be fairly minimal.

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

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).

However, the greenhouse effect from water vapour is due to a (positive) feedback from the temperature and so any warming caused by CO2 is amplified by water vapour.

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?

As the surface and atmosphere warm, the model atmosphere becomes moister, which in turn causes more warming - a positive feedback effect.

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.

Which was cause, which effect — or was there a feedback loop with warm dry conditions causing drought and erosion leading to dust storms, leading to albedo feedback to further add to the warming?

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.

May I recommend another implicit / hidden and commonly overlooked critical factor is the assumption of cause vs effect, or phase and feedback sign in models.

These changes will have cascading effects on key regional bio-physical systems and cause global climatic feedbacks, and in the north will affect socio - economic systems (high confidence).

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

True, but I keep thinking the entire system is dominated by negative feedback and so really as a whole it is never quite in equilibrium, but is always chasing equilibrium, Taking a look over a long time period and quantifying the lag time between cause and effect, even when the cause is unknown might help to isolate what the cause might be.

However, there are several other effects which need to be measured and taken into account to determine whether this extra energy input will cause an overall positive feedback (and accelerated melting) or whether it will be counted by other effects.

and there are several other effects which need to be measured and taken into account to determine whether this extra energy input will cause an overall positive feedback

there are several other effects which need to be measured and taken into account to determine whether this extra energy input will cause an overall positive feedback (and accelerated melting) or whether it will be counted by other effects.

«This is the cause - versus - effect issue I have been harping on for years: You can not measure cloud FEEDBACK (temperature changes causing cloud changes) unless you can quantify and remove the effect of internal radiative FORCING (cloud changes causing temperature changes).

On the face of it, for the layman, temperature rises causing CO2 to come out of the ocean, with no feedback effect, seems like a perfectly reasonable explanation.

And that non CO2 feedbacks would cause 66 % — 80 % of all the temp effects (warming) they estimate.

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 point you keep missing is that WAter VApor, is a feedback, an effect, not the cause.

This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation.

Even with feedbacks, cause must precede effect.

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?

Thus, long - term variations of TSI (with account for their direct and secondary, based on feedback effects, influence) are the main fundamental cause of climate changes since variations of the Earth climate is mainly determined by a long - term imbalance between the energy of solar radiation entering the upper layers of the Earth's atmosphere and the total energy emitted from the Earth back to space.»

The water heats up and more ice melts, the cause and effect feeding each other in a example of a phenomenon known as climate feedback.

«All 18 periods of significant climate changes found during the last 7,500 years were entirely caused by corresponding quasi-bicentennial variations of [total solar irradiance] together with the subsequent feedback effects, which always control and totally determine cyclic mechanism of climatic changes from global warming to Little Ice Age.»

As I have pointed out in the «essay», what has happened (in an accelerating manner since 1246 CE) is that the insolation reaching far northern latitudes has increased during the first half of each year, and this should be anticipated to cause earlier and more - extensive spring melting of snow and ice, and therefore a progressively - earlier albedo reduction, and therefore more sunlight subsequently being absorbed across spring and summer: the ice albedo feedback effect acting positively (causing warming).

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).

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.