Sentences with phrase «n't reach an equilibrium»

The climate response does not reach equilibrium at the peak, because it doesn't get a chance to: at the peak, the CO2 concentrations reverse direction and begin declining.

It seems like a lot of these processes won't reach equilibrium for thousands of years.

Antarctic land ice won't reach equilibrium with global climate for hundreds if not thousands of years.

Equilibrium sea level rise is for the contribution from ocean thermal expansion only and does not reach equilibrium for at least many centuries.

It hadn't reached equilibrium from the previous rise.

Why has the planet not reached equilibrium?

Estimates based on recent observations can only be of effective, not equilibrium, climate sensitivity, since the climate system has not reached equilibrium.

Not exact matches

And if we've learned anything over the last few years, it's that expected returns do not equal realized returns, and expensive markets don't have to crash in order to reach some sort of equilibrium.

And yet the Japanese will play to a draw with equanimity, content at the last simply to let go, so that all forces can reach equilibrium, and I do not believe their version of the game is necessarily any less elegant or profound than ours.

This is not irrevocable, as the experience of France shows, but the vote shares for green parties appear to reach an equilibrium of around five to nine per cent.

Around the same time, another type (ST69, not a multidrug resistant strain) also emerged, and again quickly reached an equilibrium within the overall population.

I had to stop that calculation before it reached equilibrium, but not because of a runaway.

While I still haven't entirely renounced my beloved collection of stilettos, these days in my fifth month of pregnancy when my balance and equilibrium are a bit off (a common side effect of adjusting to a growing mid-section) you will most likely catch me reaching for midi - heels, kitten heels or chunky block heels during the work week.

Is it that the market has not yet reached equilibrium?

When the market is not priced correctly knowledgeable investors will quickly come in and either buy or sell to the point where the market reaches equilibrium.

Not sure, but it does point out what I have said recently, that housing on the low end has reached equilibrium with foreclosures.

If it doesn't rise much tomorrow, it means that the P&C reinsurers have reached equilibrium with the good quarter.

During the period of time after an equilibrium begins to change due to a change in a forcing (huge fast CO2 release for example), the planet is not in equilibrium; it is changing until the new equilibrium is reached.

There are uncertainties as to how long it will take to reach equilibrium so the speed of warming is not clearly known, but warm it will.

Co2 is not like a big battery and continuously stores more and more heat, its just a matter of equilibrium being reached of a world on average 1.6 - 2C warmer?

The problems with associating sensitivity with a temperature in 2100 are twofold: first, at the time we reach CO2 doubling, the temperature will lag behind the equilibrium value due to thermal inertia, especially in the ocean (thought experiment — doubling CO2 today will not cause an instant 3C jump in temperatures, any more than turning your oven on heats it instantly to 450F), and secondly, the CO2 level we are at in 2100 depends on what we do between now and then anyway, and it may more than double, or not.

Not only do you («you» as in Victor and not the general you, because I presume there are people who actually model these things and may know the answer) not know how large the equilibrium response would be, but you don't know if the boundary proposed by your argument (cognate to the equilibrium response) had been reached over that periNot only do you («you» as in Victor and not the general you, because I presume there are people who actually model these things and may know the answer) not know how large the equilibrium response would be, but you don't know if the boundary proposed by your argument (cognate to the equilibrium response) had been reached over that perinot the general you, because I presume there are people who actually model these things and may know the answer) not know how large the equilibrium response would be, but you don't know if the boundary proposed by your argument (cognate to the equilibrium response) had been reached over that perinot know how large the equilibrium response would be, but you don't know if the boundary proposed by your argument (cognate to the equilibrium response) had been reached over that period.

The heat source may have reached a constant temperature, but the Earth isn't necessarily at equilibrium with the new warmer environment yet.

Once the ice reaches the equator, the equilibrium climate is significantly colder than what would initiate melting at the equator, but if CO2 from geologic emissions build up (they would, but very slowly — geochemical processes provide a negative feedback by changing atmospheric CO2 in response to climate changes, but this is generally very slow, and thus can not prevent faster changes from faster external forcings) enough, it can initiate melting — what happens then is a runaway in the opposite direction (until the ice is completely gone — the extreme warmth and CO2 amount at that point, combined with left - over glacial debris available for chemical weathering, will draw CO2 out of the atmosphere, possibly allowing some ice to return).

(it would be very tiny since a million molecules have to move faster to compensate for 390 extra absorptions) If this is true then there is no delay time in reaching equilibrium & the daily temp cycles don't have to do much at all to restablish it.

It will help understand why equilibrium isn't reached until long, long after the carbon quits being added by burning fossil fuels.

Equilibrium is not reached for many, many hundreds of years — during which the planet heats up, and continues to heat up for a long while after the extra carbon stops being added.

ECS is a bogus concept, based on the late Cenozoic cooling following the closing of Tethys and the isthmus of Panama, the world keeps getting colder and colder, so we have not reached the bottom yet, indicating that there is no equilibrium, just a pathway to the next bumper that bounces the climate the other way.

Since the changes are so constant a true equilibrium will not be reached, but that doesn't matter.

I agree that the the samller the effective heat capacity, the more rapidly will the model reach equilibrium, but I do not understand how that lead to conclude «and the closer TCR will be to ECS».

Also don't understand why «slowing of cooling» is equated to warming, especially on a rotating planet that doesn't have time to reach equilibrium.

In models, the ocean heat uptake is not quite well represented in transient simulations while in long term simulations (assuming that model reaches equilibrium), ocean heat uptake may be well represented.

Based on the ice core dCO2 / dT relationship, the increase in temperature since the LIA has added not more than 6 ppmv to the atmosphere to reach a new equilibrium.

As the oceans approach some conditional equilibrium, delta S would approach 0, for the oceans, delta S for the atmosphere is faster, but not instantaneous, so there would be a lag, before it reached its conditional equilibrium.

In other words, regions receiving twice as much flux do not need to be twice as hot to reach equilibrium and cold regions have a more important weight in the mean temperature.

The planet reaches an essential equilibrium during these periods in that it reaches a certain temperature range for 10,000 or 20,000 years and does not continue the warming it did to rise out of the glacial period.

With regard to the adiabatic process the exchange of energy does not simply involve radiation and so the process takes more time to reach equilibrium.

When it starts to change by degrees, it won't be in equilibrium, but once CO2 levels hold more steady, staying within a 5 % range, as they did in the last millennium, that kind of equilibrium will be reached again.

In reality, we have a situation where no equilibrium is reached (and probably will not be reached in short term), because the extra input increases slightly exponential over time.

If we were able to continue burning the same amount of fossil fuel each year, atmospheric CO2 would not increase indefinitely, but would reach a somewhat higher equilibrium.

Back in the real world, however, CO2 residence time in the atmosphere is 5 - 10 years, and equilibrium is largely reached in a few decades, not a few thousand years.

This CO2 will last in the ATM for hundreds upon hundreds of years which is why Flannery made the claim that even if we stopped emitting CO2 the temp would not begin to fall for a thousand years and whats more the temp would continue to rise until equilibrium is reached again.

I will howl at you that you can't tell me the glass of water has reached an equilibrium with the ambient environment because the ambient temperature is inhomogeneous and always changing.

Only now heat can leave the black body via conduction and convection as well as radiation, so I don't want to say the black body reaches radiation - rate - equilibrium, rather it reaches energy - rate - equilibrium.

The fact that air in fact conducts heat just like the silver, and that if you wait for equilibrium — whether or not it actually takes a very long time on a human scale to get there — the equilibrium reached will be isothermal or violate the second law, in particular by manifestly not being the maximum entropy state of the system.

By any mechanism you like — this isn't about mechanism, this is about conservation of flow — the temperature of the rest of the system must increase enough to drive up the flow in the unblocked part of the garden hose until dynamic equilibrium is once again reached.

So asserting that heat won't flow in figure 2 above, or will stop flowing before all of the gas reaches thermal equilibrium, is just like saying that heat won't flow between two ordinary jars of gas at different temperatures in the laboratory, and well over a hundred years of experiments, the entire refrigeration and air conditioning industry, a huge body of technology and engineering, and well understood physical theories all say otherwise.

Until an equilibrium temperature is reached, present day observations will not tell us the exact value of the climate's sensitivity to CO2....»

Air is merely a relatively poor conductor and doesn't have time to reach local thermal equilibrium as it convectively moves up and down, and it takes a long time to reach global thermal equilibrium across great distances via conduction alone.

It presupposes that all thermal relaxation that can occur has occurred, unless you wish to work a system with broken ergodicity, or unless you can show that there is a vast separation of relaxation timescales, one large enough that equilibrium will not be reached in the particular times of interest in a particular problem.