Sentences with phrase «if equilibrium states»

If equilibrium states are states of maximum entropy, in what direction would a system respond to fluctuations occurring exclusively within the system, in the absence of an external perturbation such as a climate forcing?

Not exact matches

e We are at the point where, if we are to restore complete equilibrium to the state of psychic disarray which the atomic shock has induced in us, we must sooner or later (sooner?)

Rohling: Yeah, so what we see is that for a current level of forcing, so 1.6 watts per meter square net forcing, if we look in the relationship that we now recognize between sea - level change and climate forcing, we're are, more or less, looking at in the equilibrium state, natural equilibriumstate, where the planet would like to be that is similar to where we were 3.5 million years ago and that's where we're looking at sea level, you know, at least 15 meters, maybe 25 meters above the present.

Grahamites also recognise that if markets tend towards but never attain a state of equilibrium, and if profit - seeking entrepreneurs constitute the «oil» that enables the market mechanism to operate and adapt so smoothly, then over time particularly talented and shrewd and lucky entrepreneurs will tend, more often than not and relatively consistently, to accumulate capital.

The middle equilibrium b is unstable: if the ball is displaced ever so slightly to one side or another, the displacement will accelerate until the system is in a state far from its original position.

If we start out with a balanced system which contains frozen water at the poles, the mid to high latitudes begin to thaw, triggering soil greenhouse gas feedbacks (permafrost thaw and following oxic and anoxic sources add to the greenhouse gas budget), a chronic linear process (which helps to accelerate changes of the equilibrium state, reduces the ability of the atmosphere to break down greenhouse gases — less hydroxide radicals).

(aside: for those thermodynamic disequilbrium states, hysteresis would be avoided if they remain — I mean, if you don't then go to equilibrium at the same T, p and then try to reverse the process)

If they did not, then the climate would, sooner or later, end up stuck in the new state, and thus that would be the equilibrium climatic state.

If you performed a Granger Casuality analysis to check for the trend or lead / lag variability you could then clearly state the current equilibrium point.

In a phase transition from liquid to solid, a liquid may persist in a supercooled state beyond the equilibrium threshold for solidification if there are insufficient nucleation points (e.g., impurities) to induce solidification.

If quantum thermodynamics had been used, molecules would find their equilibrium height according to their state, because when a molecule accepts or rejects a photon of energy it changes state.

It clearly states that (a) emission of energy by radiation is accompanied with cooling of the surface (if no compensating changes prevent it), and (b) the tendency to a radiative equilibrium means that the emitter with the higher surface temperature will loose energy due to a negative net radiation balance until this net radiation balance becomes zero.

Calling a steady state an equilibrium is wrong, and treating a steady state as if it is an equilibrium is the same as treating a helicopter as a helium balloon.

If you are claiming that the system includes chaos, then it does not attempt to return to some equilibrium state.

This necessity would not apply to a climate in a metastable state capable of settling into two different stable equilibria if slightly perturbed.

Such states may have prevailed in the distant past, but there is nothing about the current Holocene climate to suggest that more than a single equilibrium is within range — we are not close to a new glaciation nor a new «hothouse climate» (although the latter might become possible if continued greenhouse gas emissions were to remain unmitigated for a prolonged interval).

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is now stated «An isolated system, if not already in its state of thermodynamic equilibrium, spontaneously evolves towards it.

The Second Law says: «An isolated system, if not already in its state of thermodynamic equilibrium, spontaneously evolves towards it.

Jump on him if his definition of LDE (Local Dynamic Equilibrium) and the physics of that state is incorrect otherwise jump on him when he finishes defining his terms and goes on from there.

I would also invite you to think about how perfect LTE could possibly be observed if it did exist; any device you use to measure the thermal radiation or the distribution of velocities or the population of excited states must itself be at a different effective temperature from the gas in question, and must absorb energy from it, disturbing the very equilibrium you are trying to observe.

Solution: don't use the word equilibrium, and instead substitute the word steady - state or even quasi-equilibrium if we want to be able to solve practical problems.

The fact that air in fact conducts heat just like the silver, and that if you wait for equilibrium — whether or not it actually takes a very long time on a human scale to get there — the equilibrium reached will be isothermal or violate the second law, in particular by manifestly not being the maximum entropy state of the system.

If one could concede that the true equilibrium state may be isentropic instead of isothermal ``

It seeks to convince the reader that they should not believe that the atmosphere intrinsically establishes a vertical thermal gradient as a spontaneous stable thermodynamic equilibrium state, one that would somehow «heat» the bottom relative to the top even if the whole thing were in a giant Dewar flask and one waited long enough for true equilibrium to be established.

If you want, I'd be happy to help you out and show you, or you can continue to argue as if hydrostatic equilibrium is itself a unique state, the one with the DALIf you want, I'd be happy to help you out and show you, or you can continue to argue as if hydrostatic equilibrium is itself a unique state, the one with the DALif hydrostatic equilibrium is itself a unique state, the one with the DALR.

Now, if the Earth was isothermal right through, beyond the point at which the influence of the Sun becomes indiscernible, then one could say that a state of thermal equilibrium existed.

The 20th and 21st centuries are jointly a transition between equilibrium states, which is what we should be studying if we expect to be able to say anything useful about the likely climate profile of the coming century.

The middle equilibrium (b) is unstable: if the ball is displaced ever so slightly to one side or another, the displacement will accelerate until the system is in a state far from its original position.

Atmospheric pressure is 760 torr, so if this pressure were all due to CO2, the equilibrium temperature (where CO2 would stay in place) would be -109 degrees F as you stated.

On the shorter term, fluctuations occur because a state would not be in equilibrium if it were constant, but the change in external forcing means that with the same climate, the shorter term imbalances would be changed, so the weather patterns even in the shorter term would evolve differently.

He stated that a black body near a light bulb in equilibrium would not heat up if a reflector was then introduced to reflect back onto the black body some of the radiated heat.

[13] The AR5 Glossary (Annex III) states:» The traditional radiative forcing is computed with all tropospheric properties held fixed at their unperturbed values, and after allowing for stratospheric temperatures, if perturbed, to readjust to radiative - dynamical equilibrium.

If you think of the system as being in steady - state, at least approximately, instead of equilibrium; and if you think of the effect of CO2 increase to be a change from one steady - state to another, it would not necessarily be the case that the temperature increase of the surface, middle troposphere, and upper troposphere to be the samIf you think of the system as being in steady - state, at least approximately, instead of equilibrium; and if you think of the effect of CO2 increase to be a change from one steady - state to another, it would not necessarily be the case that the temperature increase of the surface, middle troposphere, and upper troposphere to be the samif you think of the effect of CO2 increase to be a change from one steady - state to another, it would not necessarily be the case that the temperature increase of the surface, middle troposphere, and upper troposphere to be the same.

That's why the ECS even if well defined is totally useless and irrelevant because you know that the asymptotic final state (e.g equilibrium) will never happen in reality.

What if the neuroscience of each individual requires some type of release to maintain emotional equilibrium — without one of these «alleged money / time waster activities» the individual spirals into an unhealthy state?

Each of us only has 24 - hours in a day and maximizing that ROI for each individual varies — got ta find your personal equilibrium / steady state even if you wan na make mo» money, mo» money, mo» money.