Sentences with phrase «equilibrium between»

What is hoped for is an equilibrium between supply and demand.

During 2012, households will need to find their equilibrium between household debt levels and consumption.

Therefore, what we're finding is a relative level of equilibrium between supply and demand,» says James Shaw, president and CEO of Cap Harbor Real Estate Exchange Solutions in Beverly Hills, Calif..

Equilibrium between home prices and household income helps keep the housing market stable, although the two rarely line up.

Key Highlight: • Thrived to achieve company goals by maintaining equilibrium between interest rates and profit per vehicle.

Now that you know how to establish a healthy equilibrium between accomplishments and responsibilities, the question then becomes: which of the infinite nursing duties should you include on your resume?

A unique membership token mechanism makes Token Clarity an exclusive financial research product, without setting an arbitrary equilibrium between price and distribution.

Eventually, after a few wild fluctuations, the mining difficulty found an equilibrium between demand and profitability and has stayed fairly constant since.

Difficulty goes up and down to find an equilibrium between these three factors.

The authors outline a system that seeks to produce an equilibrium between capped and uncapped token sales.

Samsung finally appears to have found equilibrium between quirky complicated and feature - full choice.

In addition, I believe the right equilibrium between a fully - decentralized and a more centralized development paradigm for public blockchains still has to be found.»

This ELSS fund is designed with an aim to maintain equilibrium between mid-cap and large - cap companies.

Yet firms spend thousands of hours and dollars seeking the Holy Grail for law firm management: equilibrium between «work - life balance» and business interests.

He says the success of any litigation practice, whether boutique or full - service, lies in the ability to «find the right equilibrium between the need for local and international expertise and sufficiently staffed teams to manage complex international litigation, while avoiding conflict hurdles and offering realistic rates».

You live on a planet with a massive heat capacity that takes CENTURIES to warm up enough for equilibrium between incoming and outgoing radiation to be established.

So to expect an equilibrium between these to squares as you do is it self a misunderstanding.

The other innovative perspective of the same question was Frank's postulation of long term equilibrium between sea surface and land based anomalies, not visible in ground based measurements.

It will be convenient here to define the term radiative exchange equilibrium between two specified regions of space (or bodies) as meaning that for the two regions (or bodies) A and B, the rate of flow of radiation emitted by A and absorbed by B is equal to the rate of flow the other way, regardless of other forms of transport that may be occurring.

As I understand it, this is possible because the equilibrium between atmospheric CO2 and carbonic ions in the oceans depends not only upon temperature but upon the partial pressure of the atmospheric CO2 — but I think this bit can rapidly get complicated.

This would of course pose a problem because the energy transfer would never end and we would have created a perpetual motion machine, not to mention a really hot one: — RRB - In other words you would never reach energy and temperature equilibrium between the two objects, which is obviously contrary to reality.

The equilibrium between CO2 in the oceans and in the atmosphere is a matter of pressure, not a matter of quantity.

The above also is true for the opposite effect: if there were no other fast releases (like lots of volcanoes spewing lots of CO2 in short time), the ocean temperature will give more or less CO2, until a new dynamic equilibrium between ocean releases (mainly near the tropics) and sinks (mainly near the poles) and the biosphere releases and sinks is reached.

Most greenhouse gases (including water vapor) are short - lived, and so the amount in the air is a rough equilibrium between the emissions and absorptions.

The ocrean bulk probably does not change at all because the deepening and / or cooling of the 1 mm ocean skin layer restores the equilibrium between ocean bulk and ocean skin.

As we know that the atmospheric gases are in rapid dynamic equilibrium between the aquatic and atmospheric reservoirs we can use very simple maths to examine what is going on.

I didn't mention the obvious fact that you stated, that the heating will cease, when the upper atmosphere warms enough to restore the equilibrium between radiation leaving the earth and arriving from the sun.

We can therefore reasonably infer that distribution of a biotic gas, CO2, is also in rapid dynamic equilibrium between to aquatic and atmospheric reservoirs.

Was my description of the details at the molecular level of the equilibrium between water and water vapor incorrect?

philc, a key chemical mechanism is equilibrium between CO2 in the atmosphere and dissolved in the oceans.

That plays no / less role in marine plants, as most of CO2 (over 90 %) is already present as bicarbonate (less than 10 % as carbonate) and CO2 / H2CO3 is less than 1 % of the equilibrium between CO2 / H2CO3 HCO3 - CO3 --

This stock / (yearly absorption) analysis avoids all the pitfalls of the assumed equilibrium between absorption and out - gassing that is postulated by all the compartment models with constant inputs and outputs that lead to a set of linear equation and by Laplace transform to expressions like the Bern or Hamburg formulas; there is no equilibrium because as said more CO2 implies more green plants eating more and so on; the references in note 19 show even James Hansen and Francey (figure 17 F) admits (now) that their carbon cycle is wrong!

The notes on this point are self - contradictory: This derivation of [CO2](t) does not assume any given equilibrium between ingress and egress...» ANSWER: the only assumption made is that absorption is proportional to the CO2 content of the air; it applies equally to the both parts or sets of molecules of the air, the anthropic (24 ppm) and the natural (376 ppm); this makes NO hypothesis about ingress»

For any circumstances (in particular temperature) there is an equilibrium between phases.

As shown on figure 17 - D the regions for absorption and out - gassing are separate; there is no «global» equilibrium between the atmosphere and the ocean; carbon absorbed tens of years ago at high latitudes is resurfacing in upwellings; carbon absorbed by plants months to centuries ago is degassed by soils.

QUOTE: «As shown on figure 17 - D the regions for absorption and out - gassing are separate; there is no «global» equilibrium between the atmosphere and the ocean; carbon absorbed tens of years ago at high latitudes is resurfacing in up - wellings; carbon absorbed by plants months to centuries ago is degassed by soils Sorry, there is a fundamental lack of knowledge of dynamic systems here: as long as the total of the CO2 influxes is the same as the total of the CO2 outfluxes, nothing happens in the atmosphere.

Far longer than the residence time, which has nothing in common with the e-fold decay rate»... ANSWER: This presupposes there is a global equilibrium but the stock / (yearly absorption) analysis shown in truths n ° 3, 4, 17 avoids all the pitfalls and assumptions of an equilibrium between absorption and out - gassing.

The notes on this point are self - contradictory: This derivation of [CO2](t) does not assume any given equilibrium between ingress and egress...

Of the world's total carbon dioxide emissions only a small fraction comes from the activities of human beings, but it is that small fraction that might threaten the equilibrium between the much greater flows.

It DOES N'T take any net CO2 outgassing from the oceans in the case that the atmospheric CO2 growth is caused to a significant degree by warming climatic factors — there's MORE than enough human input to achieve the equilibrium between ocean and atmosphere.

Then for our last 20 million years, ocean surface pH has fluctuated within this new equilibrium between 8.4 and 8.1, as seen in Figure 1 below (Pearson and Palmer 2000).

«Outgassing» would require equilibrium between ocean and atmosphere to be the reverse of reality.

The difference is in timing: the equilibrium between ocean surface and atmosphere is reached in 1 - 3 years half life time, but the deep oceans - atmosphere exchanges are limited in flux and need much longer periods to reach equilibrium (half life time ~ 40 years).

Richard Telford suggests that equilibrium between local ice cover and local temperature occurs within several decades because melt rates of 0.5 m per year have been observed.

However what I do say is that if other factors alter albedo (or any other component of the global energy budget) then the jets will move in response to that other forcing in order to try to move back towards equilibrium between the temperature of the ocean surface and the temperature at the tropopause.

When it is warm, ice melts faster and the glacier will retreat until it reaches a new equilibrium between accumulation and ablation.

The problem of radiative equilibrium between relativistically shifted temperatures that I touched on earlier is one to which they can conveniently be applied (the aberration of light is such a spinor boost and rotation).

Due to the surface air temperature being tied to the sea surface temperature any change in the resistor efficiency of the air will attempt to prevent that equilibrium between sea and air.

By the way Kenneth, you were commented on the line «when it warms, glaciers retreat until either a new equilibrium between ablation and accumulation is found or until they disappear.»

Dear Kenneth, when it warms, glaciers retreat until either a new equilibrium between ablation and accumulation is found or until they disappear.