Sentences with phrase «get out of equilibrium»

Not exact matches

It sounds to me like that's exactly what happened, that he was in a smooth state of equilibrium when he got out of the diapers at night, but has now moved into the stage of disequilibrium and he just can't control his body like he used to.

When they get out of balance with each other, it can be quite challenging to reestablish equilibrium.

To say it a bit worse but in modern lingo: to maintain radiative equilibrium, the planet has to put out a certain amount of heat, and if it can't radiate it out from the surface, the lower atmosphere somehow has to get warmer until there's some level that radiates the right amount.

If we initialize the anomaly at -0.4 C, which amounts to an assumption that the system is wildly out of equilibrium in 1900, then this is what we get:

It gets tricky now because the equilibrium climate sensitivity requires a timescale to be defined — barring large hysteresis, it isn't so large going out many millions of years (weathering feedback); there will be a time scale of maximum sensitivity.

A particular molecule will get mixed into the upper ocean, but chemical equilibrium in the absence of a rising CO2 concentration forces another out.

If the sun suddenly shut off, the earth would cool down quickly, and get so cold that the greenhouse gases (most, if not all; certainly water vapor and CO2 - methane freezes at 91 degrees k or -182 deg C) that slow the loss of heat to space would condense out, making the equilibrium surface temperature even colder.

That hasn't worked so far, and if anything that will probably become less useful as things (by things I mostly mean the oceans) get further and further out of thermodynamic equilibrium.

It gets knocked out of this «equilibrium» temporarily by some cloud and rain cover.

A person could figure out that ratio, multiply BEST's sensitivity by it then consider the issue of timing (transient versus equilibrium sensitivity)... but why should someone have to go through that just to be able to get a meaningful result from BEST's paper?

Now, if you can sort that out, where you're getting his quotes, maybe I've missed them, why you've totally ignored his scenario, why you're arguing against a straw man of thermal equilibrium of your own invention and brought in the totally irrelevant conduction through solids and all the arguments about the 2nd law with respect to that, maybe you could write something worth reading about his paper.

At its most basic, global warming is trivial, and beyond any doubt: add more energy to a system (by adding more infra - red absorbing carbon dioxide to the atmosphere), and the system gets hotter (because, being knocked out of equilibrium, it will heat up faster than it loses heat to space, up and until it reaches a new equilibrium).