Sentences with phrase «much as positive feedback»

Negative feedback, if constructive, is welcome as much as positive feedback.

Not exact matches

I appreciate you letting me know — I honestly like critical feedback just as much as positive!

I have utilized this book as a teaching tool for some patients and have heard much positive feedback.»

Thanks so much for reading today and for your positive feedback as I'm opening up my life a bit more on social media.

As soon as I started asking my instagram followers what they wanted to read on my blog I got so much more positive feedback and engagemenAs soon as I started asking my instagram followers what they wanted to read on my blog I got so much more positive feedback and engagemenas I started asking my instagram followers what they wanted to read on my blog I got so much more positive feedback and engagement!

But lots of outfits this cute (or cuter even) don't get as much positive public feedback.

Toodyay, Western Australia About Blog After writing for clients as a virtual assistant for years and receiving so much positive feedback I released I was damn good at this thing!

Feedback from readers has been hugely positive as well which makes it that much more rewarding.

Toodyay, Western Australia About Blog After writing for clients as a virtual assistant for years and receiving so much positive feedback I released I was damn good at this thing!

[1] CO2 absorbs IR, is the main GHG, human emissions are increasing its concentration in the atmosphere, raising temperatures globally; the second GHG, water vapor, exists in equilibrium with water / ice, would precipitate out if not for the CO2, so acts as a feedback; since the oceans cover so much of the planet, water is a large positive feedback; melting snow and ice as the atmosphere warms decreases albedo, another positive feedback, biased toward the poles, which gives larger polar warming than the global average; decreasing the temperature gradient from the equator to the poles is reducing the driving forces for the jetstream; the jetstream's meanders are increasing in amplitude and slowing, just like the lower Missippi River where its driving gradient decreases; the larger slower meanders increase the amplitude and duration of blocking highs, increasing drought and extreme temperatures — and 30,000 + Europeans and 5,000 plus Russians die, and the US corn crop, Russian wheat crop, and Aussie wildland fire protection fails — or extreme rainfall floods the US, France, Pakistan, Thailand (driving up prices for disk drives — hows that for unexpected adverse impacts from AGW?)

But with our GHG forcing, we may be triggering positive feedbacks and tipping into a much greater warming period, as has happened several times in the past (251 mya, 55 mya), using this high warm plateau as our launching pad into hysteresis.

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).

Cumulus clouds will have the same effect, but more in balance with the positive effects, resulting in less negative net feedback, but with the same result, much lower climate sensitivity than the IPCC would have you believe.I realize that climate sensitivity is not usually discussed as a local phenomenon, but it should be, since it is the integral of all local phenomena.

There is much discussion as to the value of the climate sensitivity, which swirls around whether there is net positive or negative feedback from things like clouds and water vapor.

A future strong positive feedback from the carbon cycle, on the other hand, could add as much CO2 to the atmosphere as humans have, leading to temperature increases well beyond the International Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) upper limits.

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).

As it stands, net positive feedbacks are very much in the grey category, so I remain unconvinced of the seriousness of the AGW claim

The assumption of net positive climate feedback is not at all settled — in fact there is as much evidence the feedback is net negative as net positive — which may be why catastrophic theory supporters seldom if ever mention this aspect of the science in the media.

Sulphate aerosols in the stratosphere (which were the main topic of this piece and these Climate Feedback posts) and mirrors / refractors in space (also in that piece, and in this paper by Roger Angel) both have the potential to provide as much by way of negative forcing as a doubling of CO2 provides by way of positive forcing.

Spencer & Braswell (2008) found: «we obtain positive cloud feedback biases in the range -0.3 to -0.8 Wm ^ -2 K ^ -1... our results suggest the possibility of an even larger discrepancy between models and observations than is currently realized» See Spencer's discussion on Foster's comments «As can be seen, most models exhibit large biases — as much as 50 deAs can be seen, most models exhibit large biases — as much as 50 deas much as 50 deas 50 deg.

It's apparent that the negative feedbacks from water in all its phases are much stronger than the positive feedback from water vapor as a GHG.

There was much positive feedback, such as «The atmosphere of the streets has changed drastically, and it has become very pleasant to spend time in the city,» «Very comfortable to ride on,» «Development of the area along the LRT line will be essential for revitalization of Toyama City's urban area,» «Sightseeing tour packages featuring LRT are possible.»

The WTR 1000 2017 noted that «virtually no other trademark professional gets as much — or as positive — feedback as Iain Stewart».

Toodyay, Western Australia About Blog After writing for clients as a virtual assistant for years and receiving so much positive feedback I released I was damn good at this thing!

Toodyay, Western Australia About Blog After writing for clients as a virtual assistant for years and receiving so much positive feedback I released I was damn good at this thing!

Thanks so much girls, I'm stopping over to your blog as well, thanks so much for the positive feedback:) xo