Sentences with phrase «positive feedback theory»

Climate scientists, many of whom have been exposed to eco-apocalyptic narratives their entire lives, have no proof that their positive feedback theory is correct.

The issue is the positive feedback theory that turns AGW into CAGW.

It shows that most of the forecast warming from major alarmist models comes from the positive feedback theory, and not from greenhouse gas theory.

This theory that the Earth is perched precariously on the top of the hill is positive feedback theory, and is far from settled.

[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).

Not exact matches

The company's content strategy is a simple positive - feedback loop, in other words, and the theory is that each revolution lifts the overall quality of the content the audience is producing, the size of the audience, and the number of cameras and accessories sold.

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.

JCAP researchers are very encouraged by the success of their theoretical work and experimental synergistic efforts and the positive feedback loop that is now established between the JCAP high - throughout experimental pipeline and parameter - free, first - principles theory.

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].

If you want more details on how to balance games, I would point you to this article on Positive feedback by Ernest Adams, and if you are interested in Game Theory, head to my article on the topic.

, set by a robust scientific theory of some sort, regarding the degree of change that we humans could bring about (given positive feedbacks) if we just continue «business as usual» for a long period of time.

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.

The water vapour theory suggests that a small increase in CO2 will result in a large positive feedback loop from water vapour and this feedback loop will lead to dangerous warming.

This is a second theory, that the Earth's temperature system is dominated by very strong net positive feedback effects.

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.

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

Just yesterday, a peer reviewed paper was published which shows that the positive feedbacks that global warming theory depends on to predict a climate catastrophe, have been up until now vastly over stated.

We don't deny warming or greenhouse gas theory, we deny the catastrophe, which we face only if the assumption of the climate being dominated by strong net positive feedback is correct.

In review, the AGW theory is based on a CO2 - induced warming of the lower atmosphere, at a rapid and accelerating warming rate - this being a result of the theory's speculative positive feedback loop.

This second theory of strongly net positive feedback in climate is poorly proven, and in fact evidence exists the sign may not even be positive.

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).

I could say that the sun is weaker than it has been for a while in this cycle, yet global cloud cover is lower, which is evidence that the Svensmark theory is wrong, while this evidence consistent with AGW and positive cloud feedback.

So going back to the simplistic theory about increasing cloud cover being a major positive feedback.

NOAA and consensus climate theory says that when you melt Arctic Sea Ice that you have positive feedback and it warms and melts more and more Sea Ice.

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.

In theory any prolonged solar minimum period could have a substancial impact on the climate if the forcings are such that they create positive feedbacks to the climate system which make it very vulnerable to change.

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.

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).)

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.

3 (Strongly positive WV feedback): Sounds logical in theory, but long - term NOAA records on tropospheric specific and relative humidity do not confirm a constant relative humidity postulation and therefore the magnitude of the water vapor feedback.

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.

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.

As Pat Frank notes, there is NO FALSIFIABLE THEORY of CLIMATE... though a hot spot in the troposphere was predicted, though positive feedback in sync with CO2 increasing emissions was predicted, these are conveniently forgotten or homogenized because the dogma trumps observation, it is the «noble lie» necessary in cli - sci for «noble ends.»

This means that 67 % to 80 % of IPCC forecasted warming is not from greenhouse gas theory but this second theory that the Earth's climate is dominated by positive feedback.

So, we have reasonable constraints that suggest the feedbacks are net positive (amplifying), observations / theory / models that explain the bulk of that effect and remaining uncertainties on one (key) part of it.

It decimates any semblance of a «tipping point», obliterates the CAGW theory of «positive feedback» and basically shoots CAGW theory in both feet.

With the theory of positive warming feedbacks thus neatly de-bunked, in a sane world we would see the end of cagw hysteria.

There is confusion based on the fact that when most climate scientists talk about a net positive feedback, they do not mean that in the same sense that it is used in systems theory (or control theory or whatever you want to call it).