Sentences with phrase «positive runaway feedback»

If an adaptive system is getting pushed hard enough, its defense systems can switch from negative to positive runaway feedback.

Not exact matches

This positive feedback phenomenon, called the runaway albedo effect, would eventually lead to a single dominating ice cap, like the one observed on Pluto.

Scientists worry that a runaway «positive feedback» loop, in which one event reinforces or strengthens the next, is already taking place, with fewer plants leading to less rain, leading to still fewer plants, and so on.

So, what I would propose, since «runaway» is a useful term, indicating a positive feedback scenario more succinctly, is to distinguish between «permanent runaway» and «temporary or limited runaway» GW (temporary on the geological time scheme of thousands or millions of years).

The Arrhenius rate laws do not show runaway positive feedback with increases in temperature.

See here for an overview of positive feedbacks and how this doesn't imply a runaway scenario.

There is no science behind the claim of future runaway warming from positive water vapor feedback.

Because if it dose we might be stuck down the rabit whole for good because of runaway global warming caused by more bushfires and more melting of the permafrost releasing greenhouse gases and establishing a positive feedback loop.

So, what I would propose, since «runaway» is a useful term, indicating a positive feedback scenario more succinctly, is to distinguish between «permanent runaway» and «temporary or limited runaway» GW (temporary on the geological time scheme of thousands or millions of years).

When their is enough CO2 to start thawing near the equator, a runaway positive feedback would tend to ensue, not stopping until the climate is much warmer.

We don't know that anthropogenic global warming will be limited before the system goes into runaway positive feedback driven by melting methane hydrates we can't control.

The problem in the «slow» feedback analysis is that it seems a never - ending runaway: there are positive feedbacks (ice melting, carbon pump saturation); which imply less albedo, more CO2; which imply new positive feedbacks (more ice melting, more carbon pump saturation)... and so on.

People often conclude that the existence of positive feedbacks must imply «runaway» effects i.e. the system spiralling out of control.

You can think of the Earth's climate (unlike Venus») as having an «r «less than one, i.e. no «runaway» effects, but plenty of positive feedbacks.

A «runaway greenhouse effect» occurs when something warms the planet, triggering positive feedbacks which warm it further; however, even this does not mean the planet continues warming infinitely, forever.

In fact, positive feedbacks do not necessarily lead to «runaway warming».

Positive feedback, on the other hand, requires exquisite tuning to avoid runaway amplification.

If our climate was dominated by positive feedbacks, it would have saturated to a runaway greenhouse state long ago.

So your scientific intuition rebels at the thought of runaway positive feedback (like that which causes the rapid transition from ice age to interglacial which is so well established), but it doesn't rebel at the thought that somehow, every scientist since 1922 has failed to notice an allegedly major flaw in our understanding of the greenhouse effect?

This is the definition of feedback where if it was positive, you'd get runaway warming.

Positive feedback will always cause some kind of runaway, and is always stopped by some non-linearity (for instance Stefan Boltzmans law decides that the earth will not melt due to runaway CO2).

any positive feedback is enough for a runaway effect, unless there is negative feedback elsewhere.

There is a class of positive feedback that is amplification and not runaway, which is f between 0 and 1.

However, you have avoided my last comment that without a positive feedback from water vapour there is no chance of runaway global warming arising from increasing atmospheric CO2 levels.

This led to a nasty scene, when he said I was unable to see what was obvious, ever - accelerating cooling which would lead to a runaway «Neptune Effect» because of mechanisms of positive feedback (his best examples were clouds which collect over the winter solstice — the «in - law» effect — persisting through to mid-February — the «Cupid» effect — and combining forces to wreck the climate for the entire first half of the year.)

Of course Ferdinand is right not to project catastrophism onto anthropogenic CO2 levels for as you likely know there is a inverse logarithmic relationship between changes in temperature and CO2 levels such that without the assumed positive feedback from water vapour there is no chance of runaway global warming, tipping points or whatever.

As an engineer, I recognized such positive feedback as the hallmark of a fundamentally unstable system subject to «runaway», which is precisely what the likes of James Hansen were postulating.

One that this positive feedback was predicted to be «runaway» in your OP.

Your thesis appears to be that a net positive sea ice feedback should result in runaway loss of ice, a fundamental misunderstanding of the use of feedbacks in climate science.

Since it has been substantially warmer than today many times in the past, without any evidence of runaway warming, the hypothesis of runaway warming due to positive feedbacks began to look distinctly unpromising.

They don't explain at all why the data shows a feedback effect, or what the mechanism is that stops the positive feedback from being a runaway process (a frequent question by skeptics).

I think you have it basically right, but at the beginning of your post you came up with and discarded the reason it is not a runaway effect: I am assuming of course that positive feedback is linear Wrong assumption!

The cumulative CO2 growth causes global warming that accelerates (they hypothesize) to a condition of «runaway» temperature increases via positive feedbacks, leading to catastrophic «tipping point» climate change.

Per the IPCC's global warming hypothesis, at the very top of the troposphere, above the equator region, is the location (12 km, 200hPa @ 20 ° N - 20 ° S) that triggers a positive climate feedback, which produces the mythical runaway, tipping point of accelerated, dangerous global warming, which of course is unequivocal and irrefutable, except when it isn't.

The problem arises because climate alarmist prefer to assume there are only positive feedback mechanisms in play with increasing CO2 emissions such that we will have runaway temperatures and catastrophic climate outcomes.

Some skeptics ask, «If global warming has a positive feedback effect, then why don't we have runaway warming?

Positive feedback won't lead to runaway warming; diminishing returns on feedback cycles limit the amplification.

Actually I think the claim is that CO2 warming (but mysteriously not «natural» warming) triggers other positive feedbacks causing a runaway effect (I won't call it «greenhouse» because that's a misnomer).

Positive feedback means runaway warming «One of the oft - cited predictions of potential warming is that a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from pre-industrial levels — from 280 to 560 parts per million — would alone cause average global temperature to increase by about 1.2 °C.

If the feedbacks from higher carbon dioxide levels are strongly positive, then in past geological eras when CO2 levels were much higher than today there should have occurred the «runaway climate» that James Hansen fantasizes about.

Long - term stable systems do not demonstrate this kind of radically positive feedback - driven runaway behavior (much longer post on climate and positive feedbacks here).

Then even mineral water will cause a runaway apocalypse through positive feedback loops.

(a) the environment is a delicately balanced system that can be pushed, by the least little perturbation, into a runaway positive feedback loop, turning the Earth into another Venus.

The principal basis of climate change alarmism has always been that positive feedback mechanisms will produce «runaway climate change».

This runaway effect that manmade climate change believers talk about comes from the hypothesis that climate change feedback mechanisms are positive and the small warming we have experienced will lead to drastic increases in global temperature.

Publications by James E. Hansen pubs.giss.nasa.gov, his latest book is: Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity. Amazon.com Runaway climate change Runaway climate change describes a scenario in which the climate system passes a threshold or tipping point, after which internal positive feedback effects cause the climate to continue changing, even...

point 4: There is not the slightest reason why a moderate positive feedback (feedback factor smaller than 1) would lead to instability (a runaway reaction).

With Hansen talking about «tipping points» in the climatic energy - budget, high priests of AGW raising the specter of «runaway greenhouse,» and modelers resorting to a fictitious positive water - vapor feedback in their calculations, energetics (power fluxes) in the geosystem is not only relevant, but the central issue.

Eventually, we're going to have to do what works scientifically, that keeps methane out of the atmosphere, and takes CO2 back out of it — if it is not already too late to stop positive feedback generated low level runaway global heating.

The global warming catastrophe premise requires that trace Co2 gases produce a positive feedback loop that creates the rapid and runaway tipping point of accelerating temperature increase.