Sentences with phrase «global feedbacks when»

Not exact matches

Time - variation of the global climate feedback arises naturally when the pattern of surface warming evolves, actuating regional feedbacks of different strengths.

When One Ping Only received positive feedback during January's Global Game Jam, the student team behind the concept and development decided to continue their work on it.

His desire for a connection to others mirrors our own; yet his work offers a way to critically explore that desire at a moment when interconnectivity and instant feedback are conditioning our collective consciousness to an unprecedented, global degree.

Interested in status of latest estimate of when irreversible tipping point thresholds of various cascading feedback loops of global warming might be exceeded...

Time - variation of the global climate feedback arises naturally when the pattern of surface warming evolves, actuating regional feedbacks of different strengths.

(57k) When I state that the equilibrium climatic response must balance imposed RF (and feedbacks that occur), I am referring to a global time average RF and global time average response (in terms of radiative and convective fluxes), on a time scale sufficient to characterize the climatic state (including cycles driven by externally - forced cycles (diurnal, annual) and internal variability.

Starting from an old equilbrium, a change in radiative forcing results in a radiative imbalance, which results in energy accumulation or depletion, which causes a temperature response that approahes equilibrium when the remaining imbalance approaches zero — thus the equilibrium climatic response, in the global - time average (for a time period long enough to characterize the climatic state, including externally imposed cycles (day, year) and internal variability), causes an opposite change in radiative fluxes (via Planck function)(plus convective fluxes, etc, where they occur) equal in magnitude to the sum of the (externally) imposed forcing plus any «forcings» caused by non-Planck feedbacks (in particular, climate - dependent changes in optical properties, + etc.).)

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).

Note also that the global warming trend has not been terribly strong over the last decade, so inferring a negative feedback to surface temperature change is a bit odd to me, particularly when the feedback would have to be very sensitive.

When a temperature anomaly of ~ 0.1 degrees Celsius (the difference between 2015 and the previous global heat record of 2014 — please note the above graph is in Fahrenheit, not Celsius) can lead to such an extreme carbon feedback response, we know we can expect a lot more feedback - induced CO2 now that world leaders are about to seal a 3.5 degrees warming deal — if at least 2030 pledges are not raised before the start of COP21, the Paris climate summit.

Abrupt and severe temperature shifts have occurred on occasion in the past, typically separated by hundreds of years or more, but shifts of this magnitude that are global in extent have almost always occurred during glacial eras, when the extent of snow and ice allowed for great changes in feedback in response to only modest signals.

At the London conference, 80 Professors, 60 Doctors of Science and 40 other experts, including Piers Corbyn, brother of Britain's opposition leader, who has a first - class degree in Astrophysics, were shocked to learn that the error, first introduced a generation ago when climate scientists borrowed feedback math from electronic network analysis without really understanding it, is the reason for their exaggerated predictions of how much global warming Man may cause.

When ice age cycles are concerned Milankovitch cycles and feedback through CO2 are surely involved, but — Milankovitch cycles are weak, at least on global level.

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).

Per the IPCC's global warming hypothesis, at the very top of the troposphere, above the equator region, is the location (12 km, 200hPa @ 20 ° N - 20 ° S) that triggers a positive climate feedback, which produces the mythical runaway, tipping point of accelerated, dangerous global warming, which of course is unequivocal and irrefutable, except when it isn't.

Reducing global warming by 0.5 °C may not sound like much, but when it comes to climate change, every tenth of a degree matters, and slowing near - term warming is particularly important to avoid triggering feedback loops that could accelerate further warming.

Note that I am not necessarily claiming that this is the feedback operating on the long time scales associated with global warming — only that it is the average feedback involved in the climate fluctuations occurring during the period when the satellite was making its measurements.

So when someone mentions to you that CO2 lags temperature, remind them they're actually invoking evidence for a positive feedback that further increases global warming by an extra 15 to 78 %.

It's all as it was in those happy carefree days of 2009 and before, BC (yes, Before Cli **** ga **) as we call it now, when the MSM would happily «highlight the most alarmist aspects and downplay any mention of uncertainty» (Zorita), when no doubts were allowed, or should I say expressed, about the holy trilogy of WG1, 2, and 3 — how certain it was that the well - accepted theory of ghg effect, and the impacts thereof, would lead to a Copenhagen / Kyoto utopia of global cooperation, and that the IPCC was cool (whoops, «the request for more research about the social dynamics of the IPCC, of positive feedbacks as described by Judith, is meaningful for me» (von Storch).)

Only when we have an INDEPENDENT method of calculating the the marginal CO2 effect on global T can we assign a value to the glacial - interglacial CO2 feedback effect.

So I baulk when it comes to trying to specify a surface no - feedback sensitivity, because it is very spatially dependent, and you would need to do a global integral, which is an orders of magnitude bigger problem than at the top of the atmosphere.

Noting that it «worked closely with Apple to design» this new charging pad Belkin said it also «conducted a wireless global consumer insights study earlier this year to understand charging behaviour and purchasing preferences and kept consumer feedback in mind when designing the product.»