Sentences with phrase «lack of an equilibrium»

The lack of an equilibrium means the system is always adjusting it does not rest.

It is not a lack of equilibrium effect, and it can't hide in the ocean.

But forcing is the lack of equilibrium.

Not exact matches

The principle of complementarity — each bringing to the relationship what the other lacks — is closely related to the idea of «marital balance» as described by Dorothy Fahs Beck in her insightful analysis of marital conflict; marital balance is «a dovetailing of the partners» needs and patterns of reciprocity in meeting them such as will maintain over the long run an equilibrium in gratification that is acceptable to both.

«The lack of an ankle and the rotation that normally comes with it can make it tricky to find your equilibrium.

If you're one to experience stress, fatigue, lack of energy or poor stamina, ashwagandha's powerful adaptogenic properties may help to reinforce your body's overall equilibrium!

This piece will have echoes from my recent piece The Bane of Broken Balance Sheets, where I tried to point out why many assets are trading below equilibrium levels, but also why it is rational for them to be so valued, because of the lack of long - term financing capacity.

When double inside bars form, they indicate a lack of volatility, the market is said to be resting or at a point of equilibrium.

What is somewhat unsettling here is the lack of apparent negative feedbacks that would lead to a new stable equilibrium state.

Many palaeoclimate studies have quantified pre-anthropogenic climate change to calculate climate sensitivity (equilibrium temperature change in response to radiative forcing change), but a lack of consistent methodologies produces awide range of estimates and hinders comparability of results.

What you have not yet realised is that I can help you and David overcome the incorrect belief that you have been led to accept because of your lack of sufficient education about and / or understanding of just what entropy is and what processes have to occur for it to be maximized, and what the conditions will thus be in the state of maximum entropy which physicists call thermodynamic equilibrium.

It also states, «No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.»

Note 16 «No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.»

It is the lack of atmospheric equilibrium that gives us weather.

Surely the onus of proof is upon you to show why the ordinary laws of thermodynamics, the ordinary definition of thermodynamic equilibrium, is suddenly on holiday so that this gas, perfectly balanced in terms of gravitational force and energy, and utterly lacking a thermal gradient to drive the flow of heat, is somehow going to change.

The only thing I find noteworthy is that it further reinforces the point that there is no scientific consensus on a best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity, which is entirely in agreement with the IPCC's statement in AR5 WG1 SPM: «No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.»

It follows from the above proof that the problem of determination of the prior and posterior probability density functions belonging to the equilibrium climate sensitivity lacks a solution.

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.

Those like you, Basil, who call upon the authority of journals and persons in the climatology field (who obviously, like yourself, demonstrate a serious lack of understanding of such matters as thermodynamic equilibrium, entropy and unbalanced energy potentials) epitomise the process whereby the greatest hoax of all time has been, and continues to be promulgated by those with personal pecuniary interests in maintaining the status quo.

The TSD purports to rely on IPCC work as a basis for a supposed «sensitivity» of climate to increasing atmospheric C02, but fails to mention that the most recent IPCC report completely undermines any basis for determining climate sensitivity with the following statement: «No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.»

A footnote in the new AR5 SPM says «16 No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.»

It is a lack of understanding of such things as thermodynamic equilibrium, entropy and energy potentials which has meant that climatologists (with limited education in physics, and far less understanding) have got their physics wrong and got the world into a horrible mess, wasted billions and cost many lives.