Sentences with phrase «feedback effects such»

Not exact matches

This is not the only such «positive feedback» effect.

The theory of dangerous climate change is based not just on carbon dioxide warming but on positive and negative feedback effects from water vapor and phenomena such as clouds and airborne aerosols from coal burning.

While the ECS factors in such «fast» feedback effects as changes in water vapor — water itself is a greenhouse gas, and saturates warm air better than cold — they argued that slow feedbacks, such as changes in ice sheets and vegetation, should also be considered.

The effect of these small orbital changes was amplified by positive feedbacks, such as changes in greenhouse gas levels.

development of two - way coupling between WRF and CCSM to represent the upscaled effects of climate hot spots such as the Maritime Continent, the subtropical eastern boundary regime, and the monsoon regions where global climate models fail to simulate the complex processes due to feedback and scale interactions.

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

However, this climate sensitivity includes only the effects of fast feedbacks of the climate system, such as water vapor, clouds, aerosols, and sea ice.

«These results suggest that phytoestrogens can interfere with the normal estrogen feedback mechanisms with respect to release of gonadotropin in the ewe... although most studies into the effects of phytoestrogens have concentrated on changes in the reproductive tract, there are indications that they interfere with the hormone balance between the ovaries and the hypothalamo - adenohypophysical system... ewes on phytoestrogens have shown follicular abnormalities such as numerous small follicles, deficient antrum formation and signs of early atresia... it is possible that the permanent changes brought about by phytoestrogens in the brain are a result of these compounds interacting with estrogen receptors in this tissue, and subsequently influencing the re-synthesis or replenishment of cyto - plasmic estrogen receptors... phytoestrogens can interfere with the delicate feedback mechanisms involved in the release of the gonadotrophins.»

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.

Such a negative effect, however, seems to be somewhat mitigated by post-RE feeding, which has been shown to increase muscle AR content, resulting in increased testosterone tissue uptake and enhanced luteinizing hormone (LH)- which also has been shown to elevate testosterone levels - release via feedback mechanisms.1 These observations provide a possible mechanism for increased protein synthesis following post-RE food intake.

In a sequential, multilevel video game, feedback of progress is often ongoing, such as accumulating points, visual tokens, or celebratory sound effects, but the real jolt of dopamine reward is in response to the player achieving the challenge, solution, sequence, etc. needed to progress to the next and more challenging level of the game.

- after the remakes of Terry's Wonderland 3D and Dragon Quest Monsters 2, Yuji Horii asked the team what should be next - the choices were Caravan Heart (GBA), a professional version of Dragon Quest Monsters 2, or a brand new game - the staff made the plot together with Takeshi Uchikawa (who is currently directing Dragon Quest XI)- the suggestion was to make the theme become something catchy, which lead to a science fiction vibe - Horii said «anything's alright as long as it's interesting» - the creation of the Dragon Quest Monsters: Super Light helped build Joker 3 - fan feedback from the mobile game was used, which lead to monster stats being seen - the Reactor device lets you easily see all the things that occur on the field - the team had some trouble bringing together the ridable monsters aspect of the game, but eventually worked it out - the full game starts off with monsters that players can ride on land - you'll eventually unlock sea, air, and multi-jump land rising monsters - a «Big Air ride» was teased as well - by clearing the story, features will be unlocked that further modify monsters such as abilities and changing their sizes - Stealth Boxes which can not be found without using the Reactor only contains useful items that are optional - compulsory items that are needed to be found with the Reactor are placed in non-stealth locations - accessories can strengthen monsters, but monster strength is mainly determined from raising and combining them - features more offense - related content in the form of new spells and skills - new water - type spells are included - new skills added enable more detailed adjustments in versus, adding more strategic features - one of the items that can be bought with Communication Coins has the same effect with «Key of Encounters» - this lets players recruit monsters a bit more easily they've befriended before - since Communication Coins can only be obtained from multiplayer battles, it's completely optional - people who still do StreetPass but don't want to do multiplayer battles can still get them by combining monsters - DLC monsters are planned to be added regularly post-release until around Golden Week (April 29 — May 5)- - A national tournament is also planned, with more details coming later - carryover feature from Dragon Quest Monsters 2 that comes into play after the ending - players can bring up to 10 monsters which are ranked A or below from DQM2 to DQMJ3 each day

Core, fluidity, mechanics, effects, feedbacks... every aspect of Demoniaca has been improved, to such an extent that even we can't keep track of all the changes made..»

The move to a full retail build has also brought new features to Assetto Corsa, such as a career mode with «fully blown championship series», new sound effects and updates to the title's tyre and force feedback simulation.

The standard climate sensitivity and climate model do not in - clude effects of «slow» climate feedbacks such as change in ice sheet size.

Polar amplication is of global concern due to the potential effects of future warming on ice sheet stability and, therefore, global sea level (see Sections 5.6.1, 5.8.1 and Chapter 13) and carbon cycle feedbacks such as those linked with permafrost melting (see Chapter 6)... The magnitude of polar amplification depends on the relative strength and duration of different climate feedbacks, which determine the transient and equilibrium response to external forcings.

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).

Dave Cooke (# 303), +4 C per doubling is a somewhat higher than usual (but still reasonable) number that includes feedbacks such as an increasing amount of atmospheric H2O but also non-greenhouse effects such as a diminshed reflective ice cover on the surface of the planet.

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).

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).

This has been reinforced with increasing urgency by scientists around the world, with US climate scientist James Hansen this week publishing a paper highlighting that «conceivable levels of human - made climate forcing could yield the low - end runaway greenhouse effect» including «out - of - control amplifying feedbacks such as ice sheet disintegration and melting of methane hydrates».

It might be that serious authorities such as Hansen and the head of the UNFCCC secretariat are wrong to declare that goal of a 2.0 C ceiling of warming poses unacceptably dangerous climate destabilization, but it seems widely accepted that a peak of 450ppmv CO2 would allow a near - even chance of staying below 2.0 C and thereby avoiding the feedbacks taking off with catastrophic effects.

However, while positive feedbacks are obviously necessary for such an effect, they do not by any means force that to happen.

Water vapor feedback can also amplify the warming effect of other greenhouse gases, such that the warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere.

And, quite disturbingly, with a manifest warming of only 0.8 ºC, we are already seeing effects − such as the precipitous receding of the Arctic sea ice − that are not only dangerous in themselves but also producing positive feedbacks that accelerate the warming.

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.

I suppose one could assume non-linearity such that the feedback effects accelerate with time past some tipping point, but I will say I have yet to see any convincing physical study that points to this effect.

Its warming effect, however, is simultaneously amplified and dampened by positive and negative feedbacks such as increased water vapor (the most powerful greenhouse gas), reduced albedo, which is a measure of Earth's reflectivity, changes in cloud characteristics, and CO2 exchanges with the ocean and terrestrial ecosystems.

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.

BBD, As relieved as we are a devout «believer» such as yourself is finally stumbling towards a grasp of the basic principles of radiative physics etc, you need to now start thinking about joining the adult discussions on vastly less clear problems like the * size * of the AGW effect of AGW compared to natural forces, feedbacks etc..

While we can be more sure of first order effects, Nth order effects such as feedback mechanisms are far less understood — climate sensitivity remains a controversy, not a matter of fact.

However, such an approach not only neglects the effect of year - to - year or longer - term variability (Overland and Wang, 2013) but also ignores the negative feedbacks that can occur when the sea ice cover becomes thin (Notz, 2009).

Phrases such as «outright destructive dishonesty» have been directed toward lots of things, including the benign statement that the CO2 effect might be overestimated, or the the water vapor feedback is improperly assumed to be positive..

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.

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).

In this article I present prima facie evidence that the ongoing natural increase in spring insolation occurring at high northern latitudes, coupled with the positive feedback effect of the resultant snow and ice loss reducing the region's mean albedo over summer, comprises just such a causative agency.

The feedback from another variable such as the AMO may have an effect that is not accounted for in the discussion.

However, this climate sensitivity includes only the effects of fast feedbacks of the climate system, such as water vapor, clouds, aerosols, and sea ice.

If the climate models that are used to predict the reaction to the climate from natural and anthropogenic effects include positive feedbacks independent of the warming mechnism, then your statement about such feedbacks not being invoked when talking about natural warming is manifestly incorrect.

«In various kinds of problems in physics, we can start with this «first order perturbation» effect and then systematically correct for feedback and such to reach a more accurate answer.»

Other climate scientists, such a Richard Lindzen, have stated that based upon their empirical research the warming will be dampened by other climate effects, a net negative feedback.

This is the result of polar amplification - warming at the tropics is less than warming at the poles due to various effects such as positive feedback from ice albedo changes.

«The team emphasized that clouds are particularly sensitive to subtle differences in surface warming patterns, and researchers must carefully account for such pattern effects when making inferences about cloud feedback and climate sensitivity from observations over short time periods.»

The runaway greenhouse effect has several meanings ranging from, at the low end, global warming sufficient to induce out - of - control amplifying feedbacks, such as ice sheet disintegration and melting of methane hydrates, to, at the high end, a Venus - like hothouse with crustal carbon baked into the atmosphere and a surface temperature of several hundred degrees, a climate state from which there is no escape.

-- Their strong claim of shaking the foundations of climate science is extremely unlikely; They don't provide compelling evidence for such an extraordinary claim; They vastly overestimate the likelihood of cooling effects (feedbacks), and underestimate, deny or ignore warming effects.

Most of the warming in climate models is not from CO2 directly but from feedback effects, and the evidence for strong positive climate feedback on temperature is very weak (to the point of non-existence) as compared to the evidence of greenhouse gas warming (yes, individual effects like ice cover melting are undeniably positive feedback effects, the question is as to the net impact of all such effects).

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»).

Such an amplifying feedback may have operated in the past, with devastating effects.