Sentences with phrase «force feedback sensitivity»

There's the usual array of options for wheel users to adjust the force feedback sensitivity among other options, but Slightly Mad Studios realise that not everyone who plays Project CARS have access to expensive racing peripherals cluttering their living room.

Not exact matches

Earlier studies on the sensitivity of tropical cyclones to past climates have only analyzed the effect of changes in the solar radiation from orbital forcing on the formation of tropical cyclones, without considering the feedbacks associated to the consequent greening of the Sahara.

The climate sensitivity classically defined is the response of global mean temperature to a forcing once all the «fast feedbacks» have occurred (atmospheric temperatures, clouds, water vapour, winds, snow, sea ice etc.), but before any of the «slow» feedbacks have kicked in (ice sheets, vegetation, carbon cycle etc.).

S&W argue further that this sensitivity does not only represent the direct solar forcing, but includes all the feedback mechanisms.

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.

The change in temperature you'd need to balance a forcing of 4 W / m2 with no feedbacks is around 1.2 ºC and the difference between that and the real sensitivity (around 3 ºC) is a measure of how strong the net feedbacks are.

(where T = temperature, f = feedback factor and F a Flux or Forcing and C is the baseline climate sensitivity i.e. for a clear atmosphere)

In some sense, though, almost any known forcing is useful in inferring climate sensitivity, since the same feedbacks that determine the response to Milankovic also determine response to CO2, though the relative weightings of the different feedbacks are likely to be different.

They got 10 pages in Science, which is a lot, but in it they cover radiation balance, 1D and 3D modelling, climate sensitivity, the main feedbacks (water vapour, lapse rate, clouds, ice - and vegetation albedo); solar and volcanic forcing; the uncertainties of aerosol forcings; and ocean heat uptake.

The regional climate feedbacks formulation reveals fundamental biases in a widely - used method for diagnosing climate sensitivity, feedbacks and radiative forcing — the regression of the global top - of - atmosphere radiation flux on global surface temperature.

A few other things — Mann et al. does not «get rid» of a MWP and LIA — «weaker TSI forcing would imply the presence of a stronger climatic feedback to TSI variation and / or a stronger climate sensitivity to other solar changes» — What about non-solar changes?

However, in view of the fact that cloud feedbacks are the dominant contribution to uncertainty in climate sensitivity, the fact that the energy balance model used by Schmittner et al can not compute changes in cloud radiative forcing is particularly serious.

Note then, that the SEA definition of sensitivity includes feedbacks associated with vegetation, which was considered a forcing in the standard Charney definition.

Plotting GHG forcing (7) from ice core data (27) against temperature shows that global climate sensitivity including the slow surface albedo feedback is 1.5 °C per W / m2 or 6 °C for doubled CO2 (Fig. 2), twice as large as the Charney fast - feedback sensitivity.»

Abstract:» The sensitivity of global climate with respect to forcing is generally described in terms of the global climate feedback — the global radiative response per degree of global annual mean surface temperature change.

The climate sensitivity classically defined is the response of global mean temperature to a forcing once all the «fast feedbacks» have occurred (atmospheric temperatures, clouds, water vapour, winds, snow, sea ice etc.), but before any of the «slow» feedbacks have kicked in (ice sheets, vegetation, carbon cycle etc.).

My question concerns the interplay of forcings and feedbacks to produce a «climate sensitivity»:

However, in the global mean, these changes sum to zero (or very close to it), and so the global mean sensitivity to global mean forcings is huge (or even undefined) and not very useful to understanding the eventual ice sheet growth or carbon cycle feedbacks.

This empirical climate sensitivity corresponds to the Charney (1979) definition of climate sensitivity, in which «fast feedback» processes are allowed to operate, but long - lived atmospheric gases, ice sheet area, land area and vegetation cover are fixed forcings.

Because high latitudes are thought to be most sensitive to greenhouse gas forcing owing to, for example, ice - albedo feedbacks, we focus on the tropical Pacific Ocean to derive a minimum value for long - term climate sensitivity.

It is my understanding that the uncertainties regarding climate sensitivity to a nominal 2XCO2 forcing is primarily a function of the uncertainties in (1) future atmospheric aerosol concentrations; both sulfate - type (cooling) and black carbon - type (warming), (2) feedbacks associated with aerosol effects on the properties of clouds (e.g. will cloud droplets become more reflective?)

by James Hansen which explains some of the physics details (see Box 1 in that paper, called Climate Forcings, Sensitivity, Response Time and Feedbacks and Figure 4, which gives the numbers in W / m2 for the various foForcings, Sensitivity, Response Time and Feedbacks and Figure 4, which gives the numbers in W / m2 for the various forcingsforcings).

Abstract:» The sensitivity of global climate with respect to forcing is generally described in terms of the global climate feedback — the global radiative response per degree of global annual mean surface temperature change.

(Orbital forcing doesn't have much of a global annual average forcing, and it's even concievable that the sensitivity to orbital forcing as measured in terms of global averages and the long - term response (temporal scale of ice sheet response) might be approaching infinity or even be negative (if more sunlight is directed onto an ice sheet, the global average albedo might increase, but the ice sheet would be more likely to decay, with a global average albedo feedback that causes warming).

Feedbacks as discussed by Rind are applicable to all forcings, not just solar, and the idea that climate sensitivity is greater than S - B would suggest is well known.

This means the rate of energy accumulation is dependent on feedbacks as well as forcing, even though higher sensitivity models trigger larger Planck responses.

The point of Part III was that there are complexities to very large climate changes, wherein the same change in forcing agent will tend to cause the same magnitude of change in forward and reverse if everything is is held constant, but the change will be a different combination of forcing and feedback, with different climate sensitivity.

One can consider net PR+CR as a response to externally - imposed RF (external forcing) plus feedback «RF», or one can consider PR + CR — feedback «RF» as the response to the externally imposed RF; the later is perhaps more helpful in picturing the time evolution toward equilibrium (and illustrates why the time it takes for an imbalance, equal to: externally imposed RF — climate dependent terms (PR + CR — feedback «RF»), to decay is proportional to both heat capacity and climate sensitivity (defined per unit externally imposed RF).

Obviously, sensitivity to radiative forcing of greenhouse gases (not water vapor, but CO2 and CH4) can't include feedbacks of those same gases — those are defined as forcings in such a sensitivity.

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).

part of the utility is that Charney sensitivity, using only relatively rapid feedbacks, describes the climate response to an externally imposed forcing change on a particular timescale related to the heat capacity of the system (if the feedbacks were sufficiniently rapid and the heat capacity independent of time scale (it's not largely because of oceanic circulation), an imbalance would exponentially decay on the time scale of heat capacity * Charney equilibrium climate sensitivity.

A «baseline» no - feedback scenario can be shown, through taking the derivative of the Stefan - Boltzmann law, to have a sensitivity of about 0.25 degrees Kelvin per W / m2 forcing.

During a period in which surface warming is stifled by internal variability the rate of energy accumulation would be influenced only by the forcing — there would be no difference between a high - sensitivity model and a zero - feedback model (assuming zero - dimensional models; the reality, with regionally varying temperatures and feedbacks, would be more complex).

Charney sensitivity can be expressed for such forcings as CO2 changes; longer term processes involve CO2 as a feedback (ice ages).

They got 10 pages in Science, which is a lot, but in it they cover radiation balance, 1D and 3D modelling, climate sensitivity, the main feedbacks (water vapour, lapse rate, clouds, ice - and vegetation albedo); solar and volcanic forcing; the uncertainties of aerosol forcings; and ocean heat uptake.

A highly - touted (and exaggerated in the media) claim in Spencer & Braswell (2011) was that their results suggested that climate sensitivity is low because climate scientists are misinterpreting climate feedbacks as climate forcings.

The aiTCS is an amalgum of everything that happens when more CO2 is added to the atmosphere; increase in forcing, no - feedback climate sensitivity, feedbacks, including lapse rate, etc., everything.

«The sensitivity of this model to an increase in lambda of 0.02 (which gives a 4 W / m2 forcing) is 1.19 deg C (assuming no feedbacks on lambda or a).

However if «unknown feedbacks» and other forcings can explain an even greater proportion of past temperature changes, then researchers would be forced to suggest climate sensitivity to CO2 is much lower.

It's not about climate sensitivity or forcings or feedbacks; it's not about biophysical systems at all.

Sensitivity is related to climate feedbacks and has to do with the amount of positive or negative forcing that occurs in response to a given climate forcing.

Hansen et al. 2013 (a) CO2 amount required to yield a global temperature, if fast - feedback climate sensitivity is 0.75 °C per W m − 2 and non-CO2 GHGs contribute 25 % of the GHG forcing.

I think what you are objecting to is the idea of one sensitivity that that can be projected to higher levels of forcing without considering that the negative feedbacks may become more vigorous and diminish or effectively cap it.

They are weakly damped decay responses due to the differences in ocean / atmosphere sensitivities to difference forces and feedbacks.

Steven, it is kinda funny that since aerosols and ocean circulation are so poorly understood, the no feedback CO2 forcing is the best understood tracer we have:) So Vaughan could reset his CO2 sensitivity to 1.0 and produce a pretty accurate range of uncertainty.

Traditionally, only fast feedbacks have been considered (with the other feedbacks either ignored or treated as forcing), which has led to estimates of the climate sensitivity for doubled CO2 concentrations of about 3 ◦ C.

In a sensitivity study, a subset of the forcings and / or feedback of the system may be perturbed to examine its response.

As it is, the redistribution of surface energy is not a «forcing» or «feedback» even though it impacts «sensitivity».

For a method for that, may I encourage you to look at Roy Spencer's recent model on thermal diffusion in the ocean: More Evidence that Global Warming is a False Alarm: A Model Simulation of the last 40 Years of Deep Ocean Warming June 25th, 2011 See especially his Figure Forcing Feedback Diffusion Model Explains Weak Warming in 0 - 700 m layer as Consistent with Low Climate Sensitivity His model appears to be more accurate than the IPCC's.

So you have two hemispheres with different «sensitivities» because land mass amplifies changes in forcing / feedback.