Sentences with phrase «feedback effects where»

Thereby you get a positive feedback effect where the ice sheet absorbs even more solar radiation producing yet more melt.»

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.

This all exists in a weird positive feedback loop where the longer rates are low, the less effect the low interest rates have.

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.

Elisabeth Kruegar, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ): «The World Water Scenarios Initiative can help raise awareness about where our behavior is leading to, and can also help to compare trends and different aspects of global change, like the drivers that they identified have an effect on water, and also how water has an effect on the drivers, the feedback between both the drivers and impacts are important.

For starters, one simply can not equate the positive feedback effect of melting ice (both reduced albedo and increased water vapor) from that of leaving maximum ice to that of minimum ice where the climate is now (and is during every interglacial period).

This 2006 study found that the effect of amplifying feedbacks in the climate system — where global warming boosts atmospheric CO2 levels — «will promote warming by an extra 15 percent to 78 percent on a century - scale» compared to typical estimates by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Instead, vitex has an effect on the hypothalamic - pituitary - gonadal axis (a feedback loop) where it interacts with the anterior pituitary gland and reduces its secretion of prolactin.

In addition to the most powerful effects of teachers receiving direct feedback from formative assessment on the learning progress of their students, research has shown that high quality feedback to students that helps them see where they stand in relation to clear learning targets, and to see a clear path to achieving the learning target, is a powerful tool to engage students in their own learning and enhance student progress.

Research by John Hattie and Helen Timperley has shown that simply delivering feedback on its own has little effect on students; rather effective feedback gains its power from the context in which it is given, most particularly when students can put it to use.1 Using Hattie and Timperley's research as a framework, the teams sought to give feedback that pushed students to answer three questions: 1) Where am I going?

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.

It is a spiritual destination where the fine - grained network effects and feedback dynamics of reality can be clearly perceived.

These are areas where they have tended to fall down, but typically this has been due to their underestimating the effects of climate change by failing to take into account all of the positive feedbacks.

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).

The loss of the GBR WILL IMPACT and directly effect more than just QLDers where they live, but will have negative feedbacks downstream to the rest of this nation and many other nations as well as a result.

However, what you don't seem to appreciate is the risk of methane feedback, where the warming effect of the methane leads to further methane emissions in a vicious feedback loop.

''... 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.»

C) However, since the ice core record shows many instances where temperatures reverse and drop while CO2 is still increasing and vice versa, it is evident that there are other (largely unknown) climate drivers that routinely overwhelm whatever effect CO2 has on temperatures (positive feedback included).

The overall effect can be to increase the output (positive feedback) or to reduce the output (negative feedback) in comparison with the situation where the feedback is prevented.

Most of the moisture is found below about 10,000 feet, so that is where the effect of changes in lapse rate will be felt, and the effect of an increase in moisture is to decrease the near - surface lapse rate, potentially resulting in an important negative feedback on radiative forcing.

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.

This 2006 study found that the effect of amplifying feedbacks in the climate system — where global warming boosts atmospheric CO2 levels — «will promote warming by an extra 15 percent to 78 percent on a century - scale» compared to typical estimates by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

However, even though surface temperatures of land and ocean may experience feedback effects, there are few possible feedbacks posited for the level of the atmosphere where the net radiation to space takes place, and this means that the 1.2 degrees C heating effect must be absorbed within the boundaries of the atmosphere somewhere.

And anyways, is the solar uncertainty (we understand the sign) really so much more greater than that associated with the effects of clouds on climate (see my recent post The cloud climate conundrum), where even the sign of the feedback is uncertain and the magnitude of cloud forcing swamps greenhouse gas radiative forcings.

In discussions of global change, the term tipping point has been used to describe a variety of phenomena, including the appearance of a positive feedback, reversible phase transitions, phase transitions with hysteresis effects, and bifurcations where the transition is smooth but the future path of the system depends on the noise at a critical point.

You could also come up with a series of forcings and feedback where this would have negligible effect.

Which is true, but irrelevant for someone interested in examining meso - scale thermodynamic cause - and - effect, where the sorts of feedbacks that Sam tried to analogize are valid.

Positive feedback, sometimes referred to as «cumulative causation», refers to situations where some effect causes more of itself.

Where the science is much less certain is both, what is the scale of the feedbacks and what are the consequences of the total effects (direct plus feedback) of CO2 warming?

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.

Since no such effect has been observed or inferred in more than half a billion years of climate, since the concentration of CO2 in the Cambrian atmosphere approached 20 times today's concentration, with an inferred mean global surface temperature no more than 7 ° K higher than today's (Figure 7), and since a feedback - induced runaway greenhouse effect would occur even in today's climate where b > = 3.2 W m — 2 K — 1 but has not occurred, the IPCC's high - end estimates of the magnitude of individual temperature feedbacks are very likely to be excessive, implying that its central estimates are also likely to be excessive.

But there has been at least one time where I brought up the amplification carbon dioxides» effect by water vapor, and if I didn» explain that the feedback had feedback, that became an issue for someone else — and I was trying to avoid that aspect of it.

Now there were two papers put out by a Swiss team (you should know who) on consideration of European warming where they argued that natural effects could be ruled out; the first paper argued for strong water vapour feedback causing the 1980 to 1998 temperature rise and the later paper, using exactly the same data, argued for a reduction in aerosols causing a recovery in temperatures over the same period.

Frequently, Dr. Kahn provides an innovative and extremely effective procedure for couples by recommending that either one or both partners join his own separate relationally focused group where that person can receive support and understanding, learn techniques of positive interaction, become thoughtful of the effect of his words and behaviors on others, receive feedback from others who are not their spouse (but may be like their spouse), have an opportunity to practice the couples dialogue with the group person who reminds them of their spouse and thereby develop empathy for their spouse.