Sentences with phrase «on energy equilibrium»

Not exact matches

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»

The Geochemistry and Interfacial Sciences Group conducts fundamental and applied research on fluid - solid interactions that control (a) contaminant fate and transport and energy extraction in subsurface geologic environments; (b) electrical energy storage in porous electrode materials; and (c) heterogeneous reaction rates, mechanisms and equilibria in general.

At the center of the Sun, where its density reaches up to 150,000 kg / m3 (150 times the density of water on Earth), thermonuclear reactions (nuclear fusion) convert hydrogen into helium, releasing the energy that keeps the Sun in a state of equilibrium.

Yäan offers a range of unique energy treatments to help release blockages, heal on deep levels, harmonize the chakras and restore equilibrium and general wellbeing for the mind, body and spirit.

On the other side, equilibrium between the current 8.0 - litre mill and a KERS (Kinetic Energy Recovery System) can not be denied either.

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.

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.

There is a whole science to uppermost atmosphere physics, where a lot of stuff typically breaks down (like the ideal gas law and Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium which climatologists take for granted) but it's almost a different field all together with little, if any, influence on surface temperature and energy budget discussions.

I suppose that for a 3,7 W / m2 forcing, the additional energy of forcing + feedbacks is used for faster processes (melting ice, evaporation, warming of subsurface oceanic layers, etc.) and the new equilibrium is reach on a quite short timescale.

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.

Can we agree on the fact that there is an equilibrium between the incoming solar radiation and the energy the planet is radiating back into space?

The first is that the TOA «average» radiant equilibrium is dependent on the «average» surface or surfaces reflecting 30 % of the «average» solar incident radiant energy.

So it seems to me that the simple way of communicating a complex problem has led to several fallacies becoming fixed in the discussions of the real problem; (1) the Earth is a black body, (2) with no materials either surrounding the systems or in the systems, (3) in radiative energy transport equilibrium, (4) response is chaotic solely based on extremely rough appeal to temporal - based chaotic response, (5) but at the same time exhibits trends, (6) but at the same time averages of chaotic response are not chaotic, (7) the mathematical model is a boundary value problem yet it is solved in the time domain, (8) absolutely all that matters is the incoming radiative energy at the TOA and the outgoing radiative energy at the Earth's surface, (9) all the physical phenomena and processes that are occurring between the TOA and the surface along with all the materials within the subsystems can be ignored, (10) including all other activities of human kind save for our contributions of CO2 to the atmosphere, (11) neglecting to mention that if these were true there would be no problem yet we continue to expend time and money working on the problem.

Equilibrium temperature can only change when a forcing element acts on both loops together so as to change the amount of energy tied up in both loops by the same amount.

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.

So, on those grounds, more GHGs could not affect equilibrium temperature because they provoke an equal and opposite system response to any effect they might have on the transfer of energy through the planetary system.

To rely on equilibrium, one needs to invoke a governing physical principle, such as the 2d Law, Minimum Kinetic Energy, or Zero Torque.

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).

We know that in equilibrium the distribution of the vibrational quantum states (e.g how many molecules are in a state with energy Ei) is invariant and depends only on temperature.

The atmosphere is never in equilibrium because the planet rotates, there is a non-uniform surface and moving clouds which alter the solar energy falling on the surface.

In order for some part of the gas to gain energy, it has to move downward and, on average, no part of the gas in static force equilibrium moves up or down.

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 greenhouse effect theory explicitly relies on the assumption that the air is only in local energy equilibrium.

First, it relies on the assumption that the atmosphere is only in local energy equilibrium, which has never been proven.

Coffee on a hotplate — not boiling — of course will reach an equilibrium temperature dependent on the energy input and the temperature of the surrounding CO2.

For an equilibrium climate, global mean outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) necessarily balances the incoming absorbed solar radiation (ASR), but with redistributions of energy within the climate system to enable this to happen on a global basis.

If the equilibrium temperature were set by the effect of the air alone the solar energy would not have been retained on the planet long enough to reach the current temperature.

4) If WV stayed the same on a planet entirely covered by land and all else being equal the equilibrium temperature of that planet would be much less than that of Earth because the faster response time in warming up from solar energy would be matched by an equally fast loss of energy at night and in winter.

The fundamental hypothesis is that at some time in the past and over some unspecified time - averaging period that on a whole - planet basis radiative energy transport attained a state of equilibrium; out - going energy = in - coming energy.

The inner shell will due to this recieve on its outer surface 50 % of 117.5 w / m2 and heat to some degree where a new equilibrium of energy is established.

Energy budget estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) and transient climate response (TCR) are derived based on the best estimates and uncertainty ranges for forcing provided in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Scientific Report (AR5).

Energy budget estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) and transient climate response (TCR) are derived using the comprehensive 1750 — 2011 time series and the uncertainty ranges for forcing components provided in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Working Group I Report, along with its estimates of heat accumulation in the climate system.

The S - B Law applies to a planetary body in space without an atmosphere and relies on the planet reaching a thermal equilibrium whereby the amount of energy reaching the planet from the local star is matched by energy leaving that planet to space.

Another thing we don't see skeptics taking on is the energy imbalance being positive (ocean heat content measurements show this) which indicates that we are below the equilibrium temperature even after all this warming.

As early as 1859, Gustav Kirchhoff proposed that «At thermal equilibrium, the emissivity of a body (or surface) equals its absorptivity» and as far as I can understand, nobody objected and his proposition was accepted as part of «Kirchhoff's Law», and, to me, it seems logical and should be unavoidable as it is based on «energy conservation».

For that point on the surface of the earth to stop heating up (equilibrium) the radiative energy emitted by that point in a 24 hour period must therefore exceed the radiative energy it absorbed from the sun in that 24 hour period.

showing how EM radiation, heat and air / water kinetic energy (in cells, circulations, currents, weather systems and convection columns and so on) move and how long they have to move before they reach some kind of equilibrium would go some way to visualising why it takes time for the earth system to respond to radiative forcing (commitment time lag).

On average, the net short - wave energy flux (visible light) on earth is roughly 240 W / m 2, which must balance an equal upward energy flow for a planet in equilibriuOn average, the net short - wave energy flux (visible light) on earth is roughly 240 W / m 2, which must balance an equal upward energy flow for a planet in equilibriuon earth is roughly 240 W / m 2, which must balance an equal upward energy flow for a planet in equilibrium.

You based this on the following definition of the 2nd law: «'' When two isolated systems in separate but nearby regions of space, each in thermodynamic equilibrium in itslef, but not in equilibrium with each other t first, are at some time allowed to interact, breaking the isolation that separates the two systems, and they exchange matter or energy, they will eventually reach a mutual thermodynamic equilibrium.»

You based this on the following definition of the 2nd law: ««When two isolated systems in separate but nearby regions of space, each in thermodynamic equilibrium in itself, but not in equilibrium with each other at first, are at some time allowed to interact, breaking the isolation that separates the two systems, and they exchange matter or energy, they will eventually reach a mutual thermodynamic equilibrium.»

But, it can warm the air close to the ground, if the air is cooler, and does do that if that very energy just bounces around locally in the air maintaining equilibrium and equipartition, and this is what normally happens (really it is thermalization and re-emission from the GHGs), in your room, on your patio, in a field, on the ocean, its just it can never raise the temperature greater than the local surface itself is.