Sentences with phrase «from energy equilibrium»

Not exact matches

The transition from tenseness, self - responsibility, and worry, to equanimity, receptivity, and peace, is the most wonderful of all those shiftings of inner equilibrium, those changes of the personal centre of energy, which I have analyzed so often; and the chief wonder of it is that it so often comes about, not by doing, but by simply relaxing and throwing the burden down.

Suns and stars maintain a range of temperatures strictly due to a equilibrium between the outward pressure of the energy from nuclear fusion and the inward pressure of gravity.

For its food, the artificial pump draws power from chemical reactions, driving molecules step - by - step from a low - energy state to a high - energy state — far away from equilibrium.

Further, the research demonstrated that far - from - equilibrium self - assembly processes involving energy and molecular exchanges between a structure and its local environment were possible for a simple composite formed from surfactants, water, and sugar.

Using global climate models and NASA satellite observations of Earth's energy budget from the last 15 years, the study finds that a warming Earth is able to restore its temperature equilibrium through complex and seemingly paradoxical changes in the atmosphere and the way radiative heat is transported.

But the behavior of systems that are far from equilibrium, which are connected to the outside environment and strongly driven by external sources of energy, could not be predicted.

When the x-ray source sent out pulses as short as 80 millions of billionths of a second, the researchers could see the first short period of the crystal melting, which occurred in an unexpected way: The atoms diverged from their initial energy equilibrium while the average crystalline structure remained — a rarely studied behavior that could not have been seen as clearly with other techniques.

From the article: «The most likely value of equilibrium climate sensitivity based on the energy budget of the most recent decade is 2.0 °C, with a 5 — 95 % confidence interval of 1.2 — 3.9 °C»

After warming stops, an equilibrium will be reached in which the frequency of water molecules entering the atmosphere from the liquid will equal the frequencey of molecules entering the liquid from the atmosphere resulting in an equilibrium of transfer of water molecules and (if atmosphere and liquid are the same temperature) of energy transfers.

Collisions that transfer energies from fast to slow would do that but reverse transfers would enlarge the gap, taking the process away from equilibrium.

The vast majority of the energy your body needs to maintain the systemic equilibrium comes from environmental infrared light exposure

According to Wunsch, as little as one - third of the energy your body requires for maintaining the thermal equilibrium comes from the food you eat.

A few things are unequivocal, perhaps (doubling from the present concentration of CO2 will take 140 years [give or take]; the idea that the changes in climate since 1880 have been in the aggregate beneficial; it takes more energy to vaporize a kg of water than to raise its temperature by 1K; ignoring the energy cost of water and latent heat transport [in the hydrologic cycle] leads to equilibrium calculations overestimating the climate sensitivity), but most are propositions that I think need more research, but can't be refuted on present evidence.

Consider a box willed with gas, under two conditions: (1) the first box is in equilibrium, at high temperature, and thus has a high energy content; (2) the second box has low energy content, but is out of equilibrium: it is stirred by turbulent convection, produced by heating from below and cooling from above.

«The rate of heat loss (4a2πσT4e) must equal the rate of energy received from the sun (πa2S0 (1 − A)-RRB- for a planet (here a is its radius) to be in energetic equilibrium (Hulburt 1931).»

«The rate of heat loss... must equal the rate of energy received from the sun... for a planet (here a is its radius) to be in energetic equilibrium (Hulburt 1931).

Added to this is the reality that the atmosphere returns to equilibrium at least twice every day since in its daily warming and cooling every point on earth goes from absorbing energy in the day to expelling energy at night, passing through equilibrium in the process.

(mostly by faster transport of radiation, which compensates for the CO2 slowdown, since tha amount of energy is fixed by what comes in from the sun) The failure to return to equilibrium means that the Laws Of Physics ie the Stefan - Boltzmann Law (SBL) is NOT allowed to function.

Since the energy emitted goes like T ^ 4 power, the earth thus emits less energy back into space, which is why it has to warm (until it reaches a temperature when the earth is again emitting as much energy back out into space as it receives from the sun and so is back in equilibrium).

APE produced from kinetic energy may take the form of temperature variations that are farther from radiative equilibrium, and thus may be destroyed by differential radiative heating.

Starting from an old equilbrium, a change in radiative forcing results in a radiative imbalance, which results in energy accumulation or depletion, which causes a temperature response that approahes equilibrium when the remaining imbalance approaches zero — thus the equilibrium climatic response, in the global - time average (for a time period long enough to characterize the climatic state, including externally imposed cycles (day, year) and internal variability), causes an opposite change in radiative fluxes (via Planck function)(plus convective fluxes, etc, where they occur) equal in magnitude to the sum of the (externally) imposed forcing plus any «forcings» caused by non-Planck feedbacks (in particular, climate - dependent changes in optical properties, + etc.).)

Yup, but by definition as we add greenhouse gasses, we depart from equilibrium, so the processes do not cancel and there is a net flow of energy from radiative to kinetic.

IF the energy required by the GCMs to create the rise in GHG induced temperature comes from the outflow to space (per Hank's model in 137, which I thought was pretty reasonable), BUT IF the GCMs are required to have inflow = outflow @TOA (ie equilibrium — per # 142 & the formal publications» descriptions of the GCMs from GISS etc,) THEN WHERE IN (rhetorical) HELL does the energy come from to create GHG Global warming?

One is that the mechanism for the GHG warming is that the radiated energy from the air is absorbed by the GHGs to heat the GHG molecule to 900 + degrees, then the energy is released within microseconds and a few centimeters back to the air by collisions with the air, to return the air & GHGs to equilibrium temperature.

The process of such evaporation and then condensation together with those other weather processes is an express route to get heat energy from ocean to surface to atmosphere to space and the bigger the temperature differential between ocean surface, atmosphere and space the faster they must all work to move the atmosphere back towards a temperature equilibrium.

On top of what you described, I would add another layer — that the Earth as a whole is a far - from - equilibrium system, and is constantly in a process of DOING WORK — instilling order out of incident energy.

Adding CO2 means that the Earth becomes even less «in thermal equilibrium with itself», becomes less efficient at discarding the energy received from the sun, and in response, raises its temperatures.

The point you missed, I believe, is that in the absence of a conducting mechanism (ala heat pump) the sum flow of energy will be from a warm body to a cold body, until equilibrium is reached.

Once thermal equilibrium has been reached between surface and atmosphere the surface will have become warm enough to both cycle energy between the surface and the atmosphere in perpetuity via conduction and convection AND have enough warmth left over to emit energy from the top of the atmosphere as fast as new energy comes in from the sun.

Between two systems not at thermodynamic equilibrium, NET energy transfer can only be in one direction — from the system of higher energy to the system of lower energy, in this case, FROM the oceans, TO the atmosphfrom the system of higher energy to the system of lower energy, in this case, FROM the oceans, TO the atmosphFROM the oceans, TO the atmosphere.

I would be surprised if anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere (if it's even anthropogenic and not just a rising ocean / atmosphere equilibrium point from some other cause) controls more energy than the gravitational and magnetic fields do.

In fact there is a gravitationally induced temperature gradient (aka lapse rate) in any planetary troposphere, and thermal energy absorbed from solar radiation in the upper troposphere can flow up that sloping thermal profile restoring thermodynamic equilibrium as it does so, and even entering the oceans.

As a technical matter, the term «equilibrium» may be inappropriate for our climate because we receive energy from the sun and return it elsewhere — to space.

Second, for millennia, our climate has been relatively close to equilibrium, as discerned from the tendency of fluctuations to return to a steadier baseline, from energy balance studies, and from observational data on feedbacks.

However there is no law that says radiative transfers have to balance, in fact we know from the law of conservation of energy that this isn't the case: a solar panel has no radiative equilibrium because the incoming radiation is converted into heat.

If a black body with a fixed - rate energy source is in radiation - rate - equilibrium with the vacuum of space at 0 Kelvins, placing additional material separate from but surrounding the black body will likely cause the temperature of the surface of the black body to change in such a way that energy - rate - equilibrium is re-established for the black body.

Once energy from CO2 and H2O begins to leak into outer space, LTE is violated, temperatures * must * fall until a more global thermal equilibrium is established with incoming thermal radiation and convection.

The temperature at various locations in the atmosphere and on the surface of the earth is determined by the net flux of energy at that location (and never reaches true equilibrium because the energy input from the sun changes with night / day and the seasons).

If CO2 and H2O molecules now are cooled below the previous equilibrium point by having their radiation allowed to escape to outer space, then I believe these molecules must then tend to absorb more energy than yield energy with each interaction with the other components of the atmosphere until that atmosphere as a whole reaches a new thermal equilibrium where the net radiation going out and the net radiation coming in (primarily from the sun and the surrounding atmosphere) is the same.

Of course there is a net energy transfer from CO2 to N2, as in every equilibrium reaction: if you add something at one side of the equation, that pushes the reaction to the other side.

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.

We have been told unendingly that there is an energy imbalance away from equilibrium such that there is an energy addition into the Earth system.

2) If minor changes in the air attempt to make the air temperature alone diverge from that equilibrium then the weather systems change to modify the energy flow and in due course restore the surface air temperature to match the sea surface temperature set by the oceans.

1) Start by computing the total GHG - free air constant mass per unit area of a gas layer between any two heights under gravity g 2) Add in the hydrostatic equilibrium pressure change with height in the gravity field 3) Compute the total enthalpy per unit area of the layer realizing the layer possesses potential energy per unit area in earth's gravity field 4) From that, realize energy conservation imposes a constraint that total dry static energy is constant in the layer (within adiabatic control volume) 5) From this, realize and compute the total entropy (S) of the layer over the height of the layer 6) Transform S computation from height to pressure by way of hydrostatic From that, realize energy conservation imposes a constraint that total dry static energy is constant in the layer (within adiabatic control volume) 5) From this, realize and compute the total entropy (S) of the layer over the height of the layer 6) Transform S computation from height to pressure by way of hydrostatic From this, realize and compute the total entropy (S) of the layer over the height of the layer 6) Transform S computation from height to pressure by way of hydrostatic from height to pressure by way of hydrostatic eqn.

Aside from kinetic energy there can be no other joules present at equilibrium, only the potential with altitude to have more when gravity does its stuff by causing something to move and acquire actual energy (thereby becoming capable of «doing work»).

But this is not equilibrium, because I have to keep removing energy from the cold parts (just like energy must continually be removed from the cold parts of the atmosphere (by radiation from GHGs)-RRB-.

There is of nevertheless a time lag between the increase or decrease in energy flow from the oceans and the ability of the atmosphere to restore the equilibrium.

For a system in energy equilibrium, if one part of the system loses energy and starts to become unusually low in energy, energy flows from another part of the system to keep the average constant.

The equilibrium temperature without energy inputs from the Sun would be the background temperature of the solar system and isothermal is of course a change in the system without a temperature change.

But, our results in Papers 1 and 2 suggested that the atmosphere were effectively in complete energy equilibrium — at least over the distances from the bottom of the troposphere to the top of the stratosphere.