Sentences with phrase «negative feedback they liked»

-- and if at some time in the future there is a major adjustment to GCMs modelling like plugging in a new science based assumption that x warming will actually / or has triggered negative feedbacks like ASI area / piomass loss, or methane hydrates emissions inott eh atmosphere versus the present GCMs that such changes in the GCMs be noted in these Summary Key data Updates.

Not exact matches

No one likes to get negative feedback.

According to a 2014 Harvard Business Review study, 57 % of employees like to receive negative feedback, while only 43 % like hearing positive feedback only.

«People don't like conflict or giving what seems like negative feedback, so it either comes out sharply in a moment or it becomes vague and not clear enough for the person to act on,» Walters observes.

It's so easy to let negative feedback cancel out all the happiness I get from all the lovely comments in like 0.001 seconds.

I don't like to leave negative reviews, but I think its important to give honest feedback when a recipe doesn't turn out well.

His performances whilst out on loan has prompted a rather negative feedback, so perhaps Wenger saw something that he didn't like?

«Maybe in cases like that it's fair to say there are things we can do to promote reactions to negative feedback that encourage persistence.»

With all the forms of positive feedback we already see, what's going to create negative feedback while life is still possible on Earth, like before the oceans have finished evaporating and adding to greenhouse gasses?

The second is recognizing that negative feedback does not necessarily mean the person doesn't like you, doesn't respect your capabilities, or doesn't recognize your potential.

Now, just like a weak muscle collapsing under a heavy load, the next time you feel this urge, you're going to give in and do the exact same thing [eat] and thus create a [negative] feedback loop.

avoiding anything that is thought to detract from self - esteem, such as criticism, negative feedback, failing or low grades, reporting on a student's position in class or year, using red pens on student work and the like

To be precise it is responsive to tap but with a big delay: i tap onto «Aa» to adjust text no feedback (like «Aa» in negative) I wait at least 5 ″, if I tap more (thinking I wrongly tapped) it does nothing then suddenly execute all the taps in sequence, making a mess (the «Aa» is only an example: I can tap next page, nothing happens, tap twice... suddenly it turns 3 pages)

If you ever start to think about going to agents with bad reputations simply because you have received mostly negative feedback from reputable agents, you should stop, shut down the computer, and distract yourself with something like a movie or any other activity you enjoy doing.

Before you leave any 1,2 ratings, a neutral / negative feedback and open any dispute on DHgate or paypal.please do contact us to get a better solution.We would like to resolve your any problem.

However, in systems which behave like complex adaptive systems i.e. prone to self correction, both mean reversion (negative feedback loops) and extreme outcomes (positive feedback loops) are a possibility.

It might be tempting to describe a shirt as «like new», but if it turns up with kebab stains on it, the buyer will give you negative feedback and may demand their money back.

Kinldly gim me bubbles because fanboys on both side love giving negative feedback when I say the truth and they don't like it.

A few setbacks that will be fixed is a bad thing, not saying it isn't or that it's not worth demerits / penalties - but it's obvious that server problems at launch - as bad as they are to the consumers, to get such a hefty pounding over it where a reviewer is all like «I take my review back, I'm lowering my score until the servers get better - Oh hey, 6 months later the servers are better, here, have a 7.5 again» That does not sound professional no matter how you want to put it (Not like anyone goes to Polygon for anything professional anyways): / Short - comings or downfalls that are temporary should be given Shame I'd say, a definite negative feedback in some variety which comes all but naturally with the players whether a reviewer points it out or not, customer reviewers do that and I think should be used for these kind of problems.

It's not that its developers apparently embraced shady tactics like stealing promotional images from The Walking Dead, establishing Byzantine forum posting guidelines meant to discourage negative feedback, and sneaking «no refunds» clauses into the game's terms of service.

The first large scale negative bit of feedback I am seeing almost immediately surrounding the new LEGO The Incredibles Video Game is the scale of the content & characters in the movies compared to the 300 + characters found inside a game like LEGO Marvel Super Heroes 2.

In the end we appreciate the feedback, apologize for the negative experience... And would like to make it up to you by sending you another pouch of whatever you like just go to the website and send me a message..

However, they can provide both positive and negative forcing» and Ray # 252 «we understand extremely well the way greenhouse gasses [sic] like CO2 warm the planet» So here we go — Assumptions from considerations of physics: Unless CO2 could enlist water vapour to amplify its forcing it would simply be an unremarkable trace gas in the atmosphere, but — CO2 + water (vapour) = + ve feedback implying warming CO2 + water (liquid) = - ve feedback implying cooling Facts: Clouds cover half the surface of the planet.

Yes, overall change in clouds may be a positive feedback, rather than a negative feedback assumed from simple ideas like more water - > more clouds - > cooling.

Thus this is a direct negative feedback of (cooling) low clouds on solar changes in the stratosphere, not possible for CO2 (but may be partly applicable for other GHGs like methane, if they reach the stratosphere).

In this particular environment, it doesn't look like there are strong negative feedbacks on erosion rates because the material appears to be simply too fine - grained and ice - rich to be redeposited locally and form barriers, bars, etc..

I would like to see as comprehensive a discussion of negative and positive feedbacks as possible.

Without negative feedback, a system will tend to have a dynamic much like that of a billiard ball balanced on a knife edge; any minor perturbation will send it hurtling off in one direction or the other.

Otherwise it's likely that some major negative feedback, like Lindzen's adaptive iris, or natural forcing, like solar output, would have turned up by now.

From a geologist's view, it may mean «runaway from any earthly controls» (or negative feedback processes)-- like what has happened on Venus.

In reality there is a huge diversity of opinion within the skeptic side, like: it's cooling; it's warming (but not as much as GISSTemp says); whatever the temperature is doing, it's caused by cosmic rays, or PDO, or sunspots, or recovery from the LIA...; CO2 is a greenhouse gas (but the feedbacks are negative); CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.....

Because we should all well - remember past negative feedback claims, like Lindzen's cloud iris, that turned out to be specious fingoism without a leg to stand on.

The whole ice - snow phenomenon looks very much like the negative feedback such as that being suggested by our Alex Pope.

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.

I may be missing something, but I think Willis is describing something like a control system that uses negative feedback to run a step - function or bang - bang heating / cooling cycle.

Other feedbacks like clouds, (poleward and deep) convection may alter that in positive or negative ways, but that is exactly what the current debate between skeptics and warmers is about.

I liked Lindzen's approach that bypassed the intractable equations when he showed that the early faint sun paradox could be resolved simply by assigning cloud feedback a slight negative value.

for the purpose of talking about the positive and negative feedbacks of open water in the arctic, folks can adopt any terminology they like.

While some denyers / delayers / inactivists, like MIT's Richard Lindzen, have argued that negative feedbacks dominate the climate — all of the evidence points to amplifying feedbacks dominating (except the one negative feedback that the deniers fiercely fight, discussed below).

If you have faith in negative feedbacks preventing us moving again into an ice free world, perhaps you might like to explain why they didn't work before?

Some (positive) feedbacks (like water vapor) amplify the warming while others (negative feedbacks) do the reverse.

Stable systems, like the ones that support life, exhibit a strong «negative feedback» where any change in a forcing causes something that tries to reduce the forcing.

Some of them deny it is even warming, others claim anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a hoax, others claim that there is some magical negative feedback that will result in virtually no warming, others like Lewis cherry pick literature to delude themselves into thinking that climate sensitivity is low, while others are convinced that an ice age is imminent;)

Given the unknowns in just what the positive and negative feedbacks are on cloud formation and dissipation and how they're affected by things much smaller than a cell, like jet exhausts, cooling towers, small mountain ranges, etc., it's hard to see how they can be that accurate.

It has to be possible for the earth's temperature however to go negative instead of positive for a number of reasons.Feedbacks in a complex system like the Earth have a potential to surprise and without invalidating science in general catalyst like responses to increasing CO2 could cause negative feedbacks.

Step changes to climate like El Nino or volcanic eruptions will impact climate for short periods because negative feedback loops take some time to recover to their equilibrium.

Nor have they dropped their non-mainstream views regarding things like negative feedbacks and other stuff that will save us from the mainstream view that climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is about 3C.

If the extra GHG forcing is not accumulating in the climate system, as it seems, then the system behavior is different form what are postulating Hansen and the like and negative feedbacks are prevailing (or a negative forcing of some sort is acting).

Also, the amount of energy converted from solar to chemical energy will be a small effect compared to the reduction in greenhouse warming resulting from taking CO2 out of the atmosphere (much like burning coal doesn't release much energy compared to the increase in greenhouse effect warming), so you don't even have the right negative feedback.

Since the CO2 forcing can account for much of 0.6 C increase, how do we know «instant» positive feedbacks like water vapor will overwhelm negative feedbacks before slightly longer timescale feedbacks have a chance to kick in?