Sentences with phrase «very warm feedback»

Tomb Raider, released earlier this month received some very warm feedback from both critics and fans alike.

Not exact matches

«If you can time your emissions so they have the least impact then you will not trigger these very sensitive regions to start warming by this ice albedo feedback process.»

If this is correct, then we could be seeing be a very limited negative feedback from global warming just now which increases hydroxyl concentrations which in turn breaks down the methane faster.

The latter has already begun producing methane and CO2 in the Arctic, starting a feedback process which may lead to uncontrollable, very dangerous global warming, akin to that which occurred at the PETM.

Positive feedback from customers and fans is very encouraging to us in our day - to - day design work for the MINI brand,» explains Anders Warming, Head of MINI Design.

In general, models suggest that they are a positive feedback — i.e. there is a relative increase in high clouds (which warm more than they cool) compared to low clouds (which cool more than they warm)-- but this is quite variable among models and not very well constrained from data.

And those initial warming events can trigger even greater warming because of the «feedback loops» associated with the melting of ice and the potential release of methane (a very strong greenhouse gas).»

With even further warming more hydrates are released, additional global soil feedback (extreme soil respiration rates, compost bomb instability) and weathering becomes a driver, now Ocean very stratified, maybe things like permanent El Nino, weather systems probably move very slow — everything gets stuck due to lack of perturbed ocean, no or very little frozen water at the poles.

«If you can time your emissions so they have the least impact then you will not trigger these very sensitive regions to start warming by this ice albedo feedback process.»

It is also very crucial to include the most definitive estimates of additional carbon cycle feedbacks that have already been locked in due to current (and future) warming.

Note also that the global warming trend has not been terribly strong over the last decade, so inferring a negative feedback to surface temperature change is a bit odd to me, particularly when the feedback would have to be very sensitive.

If C02 is the largest single contributing factor to the Greenhouse Effect (because supposedly water vapor is only involved as a feedback to primary chemistry involving C02 itself), and C02 lags temperature increases (as has been stated on this very blog), how has the Earth ever returned to colder glacial conditions following periods of warming?

The snow and ice feedback is generally positive and becomes very large at very cold temperatures; obviously it approaches zero when the temperature is sufficiently warm that very little snow or ice remain and when they occur when and where there is little solar radiation to reflect.

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.

bozzza - The differences in the Arctic are perhaps 1/4 the ocean thermal mass as global ocean averages, small overall size (the smallest ocean), being almost surrounded by land (which warms faster), more limited liquid interchanges due to bottlenecking than the Antarctic, and very importantly considerable susceptibility to positive albedo feedbacks; as less summer ice is present given current trends, solar energy absorbed by the Arctic ocean goes up very rapidly.

In climate change experiments with our LES framework, the Cu regime shows a modest positive shortwave feedback under warming, while the Sc and Sc - over-Cu regimes both show strong but state - dependent positive shortwave feedbacks, with a possible break - up of Sc layers in very warm climates.

But the known clathrate store off the US East Coast is very significant and large scale releases could result in much more widespread anoxia, acidification, and provide a substantial atmospheric heating feedback to human - caused warming.

The latter has already begun producing methane and CO2 in the Arctic, starting a feedback process which may lead to uncontrollable, very dangerous global warming, akin to that which occurred at the PETM.

DK12 used ocean heat content (OHC) data for the upper 700 meters of oceans to draw three main conclusions: 1) that the rate of OHC increase has slowed in recent years (the very short timeframe of 2002 to 2008), 2) that this is evidence for periods of «climate shifts», and 3) that the recent OHC data indicate that the net climate feedback is negative, which would mean that climate sensitivity (the total amount of global warming in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels, including feedbacks) is low.

Especially when one considers that it is just a single instance of many possible amplifying carbon feedbacks set off by a very rapid human warming.

Given that the published track records of some of these feedbacks show a very significant potential contribution to warming in the next 50 years, the DDP assertion of having a 66 % chance of staying under 2.0 C by continuing anthro - warming for 135 years looks to me like sheer wishful thinking.

Their fellow activists on the Panel say that very nearly all of the feedbacks from the small warming that may be caused by our enriching the atmosphere with plant food act over timescales of hours to — at most — decades.

It is very hard to put a percentage on how much of the ice is being lost from warmer water versus warmer air versus feedback from less ice and more SW entering the water.

In recent decades, much research on these topics has raised the questions of «tipping points» and «system flips,» where feedbacks in the system compound to rapidly cause massive reorganization of global climate over very short periods of time — a truncation or reorganization of the thermohaline circulation or of food web structures, for instance, caused by the loss of sea ice or warming ocean temperatures.

Schaeffer's 2014 paper — which was very blunt in its warmings of the Permafrost Melt Feedback outputs using up much of the carbon budget tacitly adopted in Paris — looks highly understated in view of recent papers.

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).

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.

And, since IPCC assumed essentially constant relative humidity with warming to arrive at the water vapor feedback and it appears that RH decreases with warming (Minschwaner + Dessler 2005, NOAA radiosonde and satellite humidity records), the water vapor feedback is very likely too high by around 0.3 C to 0.6 C, bringing the overall adjusted ECS to roughly 0.9 C to 1.2 C.

He has published two papers stating that climate change is not serious: a 2001 paper hypothesizing that clouds would provide a negative feedback to cancel out global warming, and a 2009 paper claiming that climate sensitivity (the amount of warming caused by a doubling of carbon dioxide) was very low.

Or very own Steve Short seems to subscribe to Gaia as having the ability to limit warming use negative feedbacks.

That's all very interesting, but the new alarmism is that warm air holds more moisture, giving the required water vapor feedbacks in order to make the world scary hot, instead of the piddling little lukewarm, of a non feedback, co2 stand alone warming.

Global warming would seem to be a much greater threat than we thought, with very negative results from the feedback loop of warming influencing carbon dioxide production.

They come up with all kinds of hypothetical feedback mechanisms involving more natural aerosol emissions in response to global warming: Dimethylsulfide from marine phytoplankton (although a very intriguing possibility, this has never been confirmed to be a significant feedback mechanism, and there is ample evidence to the contrary, which is omitted from the report), biological aerosols (idem), carbonyl sulfide (idem), nitrous oxide (idem), and iodocompounds (idem), about which they write the following: «Iodocompounds — created by marine algae — function as cloud condensation nuclei, which help create new clouds that reflect more incoming solar radiation back to space and thereby cool the planet.»

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).

These would kick out the whole concept of a positive water vapor feedback with warming, so would be very embarrassing for IPCC.

Hunter: While I understand why water vapor is deemed a feedback in that is does contribute to the variability of warming, to stop there is very misleading.

If this is natural, so if a «warming regime» (the word choice may indicate bias, by the way) is changed unforced into a cooling regime you may very have proven that a positive feedback mechanism due to water vapor is impossible.

(2) It made the point (not an original point, but on the other hand one that is not widely known even among the cognoscenti) that water vapour feedback in the global warming story is very largely determined by the response of water vapour in the middle and upper troposphere.

The majority of the warming, the amount that converts the forecast from nuisance to catastrophe, comes from feedback which is very poorly understood and not at all subject to any sort of consensus.

In a very real sense, the current warming period is a net biological feedback to the warmth of an interglacial.

So we have the peculiar situation that both of these approaches try to claim that climate sensitivity is small, but the NIPCC approach is to claim that aerosol forcing is very large (thus providing a negative feedback to warming), whereas the Lindzen approach is to claim that aerosol forcing is very small (thus necessitating a small sensitivity to explain the observed warming so far).

Instead of the proposed positive feedback producing ever faster atmospheric temperature increases, the plot reveals a very strong warming trend that accelerated during the 2015/16 El Nino phenomenon, which then quickly decelerated to a per century trend of 4.3 degrees Celsius - and, in the recent past, similar deceleration patterns have lead to outright negative per century cooling trends.

What happened in the Arctic, was a slow, very slow and gradual decrease in cooling, caused by progressively longer warmer seasons, with a feedback loop of warm air reducing albedo, with reduced albedo increasing warm air.

I think the case for not only CO2 attribution, but positive feedback is strong enough to merit «very likely», mainly because of the gap to explain between the no - feedback response and the actual warming, which is too large for any decadal internal variability so far detected.

For example, the argument that follows very substantially from the extent of continental shelf that there is within the Arctic Basin and, therefore, the particular relationship that warming on that relatively shallow sea has on trapped methane - for example, the emergence of methane plumes in that continental shelf, apparently in quite an anomalous way - leading possibly to the idea that there may be either tipping points there or catastrophic feedback mechanisms there, which could then have other effects on things, such as more stabilised caps like the Greenland ice cap and so on.

I think research on negative feedbacks is very important, because they could help lessen the warming effect of GHGs.

The science that Earth is dominated by net positive feedbacks that increase modest greenhouse gas warming to catastrophic levels is very debatable.

I suspect that given the paucity of knowledge in relation to clouds and aerosols (not to mention cycles)... the original X factors for the equation ranged through values that at the lower end produced no scary warming scenarios for the future doubling (ie at or lower than 1.5 C) to those that were very scary at 3 - 4.5 C — or even 6 C if you add strong feedbacks from melting ice, permafrost and emissions of methane.

Since the theoretical physics behind GH warming only predict a very small effect of doubling CO2, all sorts of «positive feedbacks» are contrived to make this GH warming appear less insignificant (our recent exchange).