Sentences with phrase «strong feedback effect»

And that entropy will almost certainly have strong feedback effects on their planet's habitability, as we are already beginning to see here on Earth.»

Not exact matches

When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an «Iris Effect,» wherein upper - level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2.

I'm not even an amateur climate scientist, but my logic tells me that if clouds have a stronger negative feedback in the Arctic, and I know (from news) the Arctic is warming faster than other areas, then it seems «forcing GHGs» (CO2, etc) may have a strong sensitivity than suggested, but this is suppressed by the cloud effect.

Athlete feedback confirms (observationally) «strategic» carbohydrate intake actually has a much stronger and lasting effect when the athlete is of fat - adapted (keto - adapted) and using VESPA when following the OFM protocol.

Hansen et al. recently explored the effect of stratification of meltwater water on storminess, sea surface temperature and sea level rise and found that, among other things, their model predicted strong feedbacks in ice sheet exposure to destabilizing influences.

Cloud feedbacks may be complicated, but a simple rule of thumb that emerges from that complexity is that high clouds exert a strong greenhouse effect and low clouds don't.

And I suppose if we aren't talking about the twilight effect, then the negative feedback won't be that negative if the clear sky greenhouse effect is becoming stronger with higher temperatures.

The findings reinforce suggestions that strong positive ice — temperature feedbacks have emerged in the Arctic15, increasing the chances of further rapid warming and sea ice loss, and will probably affect polar ecosystems, ice - sheet mass balance and human activities in the Arctic...» *** This is the heart of polar amplification and has very little to do with your stated defintion of amplifying the effects of warming going on at lower latitudes.

The problem arises, I believe, when strong feedbacks, «masking» effects of aerosols and volcanoes and other uncertain assumptions are fed into computer models to generate catastrophic scenarios for the near - medium future.

The net effect is a much stronger albedo feedback in the NH than in the SH, enhance because the large land mass in the NH results in larger temperature fluctuations in any event.

Once triggered, the radiative effects of H2O are completely overwhelmed by the storms, resulting in a very strong localized negative feedback.

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

That the earth's climate is dominated by strong positive feedback that multiplies the effect of # 1 3,4,5 times or more.

The CO2 is a feedback to ocean warming, but not strong enough for a runaway effect.

The feedbacks are therefore likely to be considerably stronger when the cooling effect of the ocean is taken into account.

(While the data did suggest strong positive water vapor feedback, which enhances warming, that was far exceeded by the cooling effect of negative feedback from cloud changes.)»

This water vapour feedback may be strong enough to approximately double the increase in the greenhouse effect due to the added CO2 alone.

Not one of these effects is very strong on its own, and even adding each separately together would not fully explain the higher temperatures but rather than interacting additively, these different effects appear to interact multiplicatively, with feedbacks among the contributing factors leading to the surprisingly large increase in the chance of much higher temperatures.»

Ice albedo feedback change is mainly limited to high latitude NH * land * during deglaciation, and its effects — though strong — are limited compared to those of a radiative forcing over the global ocean.

When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an «Iris Effect,» wherein upper - level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2.

If they're in phase with the convective effects and if they are strong enough, they might form a feedback loop that sustains the MJO.

-- Their strong claim of shaking the foundations of climate science is extremely unlikely; They don't provide compelling evidence for such an extraordinary claim; They vastly overestimate the likelihood of cooling effects (feedbacks), and underestimate, deny or ignore warming effects.

Most of the warming in climate models is not from CO2 directly but from feedback effects, and the evidence for strong positive climate feedback on temperature is very weak (to the point of non-existence) as compared to the evidence of greenhouse gas warming (yes, individual effects like ice cover melting are undeniably positive feedback effects, the question is as to the net impact of all such effects).

Professor Lindzen's hypothesis is termed the iris effect — that the Earth possessed an adaptive infrared iris that regulated temperature through a strong negative feedback.

It all starts with a small trigger (whatever the cause), that is fortified by responses which are strong positive feedbacks, but limited (self limiting, like ice sheets in the case of ice ages) in total effect.

Chuck, the quote seems pretty accurate to me, but some will cavil about the use of the phrase «out - of - control runaway warming process» for «each» of those systems; but there are certainly feedbacks associated with most of them that will indeed drive toward more warming, though some effects are going to be stronger and faster than others.

Now there were two papers put out by a Swiss team (you should know who) on consideration of European warming where they argued that natural effects could be ruled out; the first paper argued for strong water vapour feedback causing the 1980 to 1998 temperature rise and the later paper, using exactly the same data, argued for a reduction in aerosols causing a recovery in temperatures over the same period.