Sentences with phrase «negative feedback theory»

Is it or is it not that case that the author's of the IPCC reports have systematically conspired to silence intelligent climate science and the divine negative feedback theory?

Not exact matches

The theory of dangerous climate change is based not just on carbon dioxide warming but on positive and negative feedback effects from water vapor and phenomena such as clouds and airborne aerosols from coal burning.

Regarding feedbacks, both positive and negative, I recommend a goodly dose of what is called linear systems theory [or was 50 years ago when I studied it from David Cheng's admirable textbook].

[blockquote] The water vapour positive feedback theory has already been comprehensively disproven by independent investigations by Douglass, Lindzen, Paltridge and Spencer, inter alia (who used satellite data and radiosondes to reach their conclusions and showed that the posited feedbacks are either missing or negative).

The theory suggests that the system is pushed by greenhouse gas changes and warming — as well as solar intensity and Earth orbital eccentricities - past a threshold at which stage the components start to interact chaotically in multiple and changing negative and positive feedbacks — as tremendous energies cascade through powerful subsystems.

It's hard to see how water vapor could be a negative feedback if 1) water vapor is a greenhouse gas (undeniable); and 2) water vapor increases with temperature (supported by theory and observations).

Lindzen has IIRC variously argued that it has not warmed as much as the AGW theory suggests it ought to have, and that there is a negative feedback.

One theory is the decline in temperature from 1940 to 1970 was due to increased aerosols from pollution that caused a negative feedback.

Complexity theory suggests that the system is pushed by such things as solar intensity and Earth orbital eccentricities — past a threshold at which stage the components start to interact chaotically in multiple and changing negative and positive feedbacks — as tremendous energies cascade through powerful subsystems.

The theory of climate shifts suggests that there are control variables and multiple positive and negative feedbacks in a complex dynamical system.

The three - body problem is of course at the center of Chaos theory and climate research has long acknowledged that the climate is a dynamical system existing on the edge of spatio - temperal chaos and that the complexity of multiple interacting positive and negative feedbacks make it so particularly complex and nonlinear.

He was attacked in the blogosphere because his theory requires water vapor feedback to be negative, the exact opposite of IPCC.

This is really basic CS theory; negative feedback always stabilizes, and positive feedback always destabilizes.

However, much of the negative feedback is due to clouds and understanding clouds requires advances in the mathematical theory of turbulence.

They are not, however, part of the (self - proclaimed) larger group who simultaneously say that AGW can't be falsified even as they say that valid theories / hypotheses must be falsifiable even as they say that they don't doubt that that the basic AGW theory / hypothesis is valid (they only doubt the magnitude of the sensitivity and / or negative feedback).

• biological aerosol seeding of clouds (phytoplankton and forests releasing isoprenes, Lovelock, Makarieva / Gorshkov), • and the «biotic pump hypothesis» (Makarieva / Gorshkov) •... among others... In addition, AGW - theory advocates systematically downplay the number and contribution of damping / stabilizing (or «negative») feedbacks (both of heat and CO2) in the global climate system — most implicated directly or indirectly with the activities of life, as illustrated in point # 3.

This (discussion of) a paper / theory suggests that water is indeed important; it is a key in a negative feedback cycle that locks the earth into a nearly constant total greenhouse effect.

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).

My «Pope's Climate Theory» says that when you melt Arctic Sea Ice, you get Arctic Ocean Effect Snow which increases Albedo and provides negative feedback to the temperature of the earth.

In fact, it was one of my criticisms earlier that AGW theory seems overly intent on finding positive feedback loops, while not considering negative feedbacks seriously enough — one such potential negative feedback is that on a warmer Earth, more water is evaporated into clouds, in turn cooling things back off.

This is also consitent with theory that water vapour is schizophrenic ie it has both positive and negative feedbacks, suspicions are the late is dominant in the SH.

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.

Never mind the physics of CO2 or its counter theories... Never mind the balance of positive and negative feedback mechanisms... Never mind estimates of «impacts»... Nor even the merits and demerits of wind turbines... The climate debate is at its core about the form of politics that established itself in the late 20th century.

The theory suggests that the system is pushed by greenhouse gas changes and warming — as well as solar intensity and Earth orbital dynamics — past a threshold at which stage the components start to interact chaotically in multiple and changing negative and positive feedbacks — as tremendous energies cascade through powerful subsystems.

My point is that uncertainty both in theory and in data makes it conceivable (to me, anyway), that a net negative cloud feedback could be compensated by changes in forcings elsewhere.

The theory suggests that the system is pushed by greenhouse gas changes and warming — as well as solar intensity and Earth orbital eccentricities — past a threshold at which stage the components start to interact chaotically in multiple and changing negative and positive feedbacks — as tremendous energies cascade through powerful subsystems.

In control loop theory if you have a negative feedback loop with enough gain it will override all the other influences.

In sytem theory the planck response is just a negative feedback and for short time analysis can be approximated as nearly linear with some factor.

Nor is theory unequivocal because there is reason to believe that the models lack negative feedbacks found in nature.

In climatology, the Planck response, a negative feedback, is included in theory and modelling, but when refering to «net feedback», it is generally the net feedback of all feedbacks besides the Planck response.

Any theory based on some unknown negative feedback has to deal with the same problem: If one argues that this negative feedback took over at the temperature peaks (in black) doesn't one also have to argue that it should be taking over now at our current temperature peak?

On the one hand he can't admit to a feedback factor of 2.5 from his own numbers, but on the other he can't say this warming is just due to cloud changes, because that hurts his friends» theories about net negative cloud feedback.