Sentences with phrase «much out of equilibrium»

Not exact matches

When the markets are pricing in something like continued perfection, sometimes it doesn't take much to jolt them out of what is an unstable equilibrium.

[1] CO2 absorbs IR, is the main GHG, human emissions are increasing its concentration in the atmosphere, raising temperatures globally; the second GHG, water vapor, exists in equilibrium with water / ice, would precipitate out if not for the CO2, so acts as a feedback; since the oceans cover so much of the planet, water is a large positive feedback; melting snow and ice as the atmosphere warms decreases albedo, another positive feedback, biased toward the poles, which gives larger polar warming than the global average; decreasing the temperature gradient from the equator to the poles is reducing the driving forces for the jetstream; the jetstream's meanders are increasing in amplitude and slowing, just like the lower Missippi River where its driving gradient decreases; the larger slower meanders increase the amplitude and duration of blocking highs, increasing drought and extreme temperatures — and 30,000 + Europeans and 5,000 plus Russians die, and the US corn crop, Russian wheat crop, and Aussie wildland fire protection fails — or extreme rainfall floods the US, France, Pakistan, Thailand (driving up prices for disk drives — hows that for unexpected adverse impacts from AGW?)

We've been moving CO2 out of sequestration (fossil fuels) into the more mobile atmosphere, water, biosphere — and as a result atmospheric concentrations of CO2 will be out of equilibrium until much slower natural processes move the carbon out of those compartments.

Anyway, I have encountered this question out in the wilds, and my response was that the CO2 container would have the lower equilibrium temperature, the N2 container the higher because the CO2 is a good LW emitter and the N2 is not, consistent with, «So if you assume that two contained «bubbles» of gas with a given temperature were placed in space the N2 would cool much more slowly.»

Sorry Mike, but as I pointed out above, you're ignoring the fast - equilibrium of Henry's law, which sets a fixed partitioning ratio of 1:50 for how much CO2 resides in the atmosphere and oceans respectively at the current mean surface temperature of 15C.

I think you're conceptualizing that we have this nice stable climate system, and that as we kick it out of equilibrium and it transitions to something else, it's not going to go quietly, much like a river changing its course.

If a black box were the absorbing heat at maximum potential, then it theoretically emits as much as it receives, but only if it is out of equilibrium.

Spencer and Braswell freely admit that using their simple model is just the first step in a complicated diagnosis, but also point out that the results from simple models provide insight that should help guide the development of more complex models, and ultimately could help unravel some of the mystery as to why full climate models produce high estimates of the earth's equilibrium climate sensitivity, while estimates based in real - world observations are much lower.