Absolutely, but the fuel management system ought to be able to compensate for this during closed - loop operation via
lambda feedback and fuel trims.
Unmetered air or insufficient fuel delivery + lack of
lambda feedback would totally explain this.
This leads me to believe that there is another issue present, something like unmetered air or partially - clogged injectors which the fuel management can not accommodate for due to the absence of
lambda feedback.
Not exact matches
By using via
feedback from the
lambda sensors, the fuel management can determine the level of deviation in AFR.
open - loop mode, which runs without
lambda sensor
feedback.
«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).
likewise,
lambda must be 0.231 for clouds and 0.091 for ice / albedo
feedback, using Hansen's figures.
There are papers were they make maps of «the local
feedback parameter
lambda (W m ^ -2 K ^ -11)».
He uses
lambda (λ) as a
feedback parameter, which is very peculiar considering that a physicist would reserve this for denoting wavelength of radiation.
That is equivalent to an almost uniform prior were instead 1 / S, the climate
feedback parameter (
lambda), to be estimated.
We have defined things here such that $ \
lambda > 0 $ for a positive
feedback, $ \
lambda < 0 $ for a negative
feedback.
Let's reserve the symbol $ \
lambda $ to mean the overall or net climate
feedback, and use subscripts to denote specific
feedback processes.
The λ (
lambda) in S&H (2005) have the untis of thermal conductance per unit area, and are referred to as
feedbacks.
I don't know precisely what Wyant's values for other
feedbacks are, but he explicitly gives us his sensitivity parameter:
lambda = 0.41 K / Wm -2, which gives us a climate sensitivity of 1.5 K. And anyway, in later papers, Wyant argues that SPs grossly exaggerate the negative cloud
feedback.