Sentences with phrase «out of equilibrium between»

Not exact matches

Using as examples what he saw as the crusaders» thuggish disruption of the equilibrium between civilized Islamic and Eastern Christian lands of the eastern Mediterranean, and their destruction of Byzantium, which they had originally set out to assist, thereby allowing the Ottoman Turks to subjugate half of Christendom, Runciman sought to show how civilization — any civilization — is imperiled once high culture, reason, learning, and moderation are challenged by violent greed and ignorance.

Voltaire's poem is not a challenge to Christian faith; it inveighs against a variant of the «deist» God, one who has simply ordered the world exactly as it now is, and who balances out all its eventualities in a precise equilibrium between felicity and morality.

Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, so there is no way heat radiation could have travelled between the two horizons to even out the hot and cold spots created in the big bang and leave the thermal equilibrium we see now.

There is no surprise that the CO2 in the atmosphere winds up partially in the oceans, nor that the amount of CO2 going into or coming out of the oceans varies in time and space — that's simple equilibrium chemistry between the liquid (that is, dissolved) and gaseous phases, and does explain part of the variability about the long term rising trend.

You state in the response to # 10, ``... There is no surprise that the CO2 in the atmosphere winds up partially in the oceans, nor that the amount of CO2 going into or coming out of the oceans varies in time and space — that's simple equilibrium chemistry between the liquid (that is, dissolved) and gaseous phases...» Are the buffers a part of simple equilibrium chemistry, and where can I go to read up on this and how it pertains to the Models.

Once the appropriate planetary temperature increase has been set by the delay in transmission through the atmosphere then equilibrium is restored between radiant energy in and radiant energy out at the top of the atmosphere.

Over the long haul if OHC stops rising the lower ocean will be sucking excess heat out of upper ocean as equilibrium between them is slowly reestablished.

What I don't see is the relationship between an Earth that is roughly in equilibrium and one that is badly out of it.

If it can not warm the oceans and yet the radiative balance between solar energy in and radiative energy out has to be maintained then all that is left is for it to be ejected faster to space in order to maintain the radiative balance and if that happens then no change in the equilibrium temperature of the Earth can occur.

Far longer than the residence time, which has nothing in common with the e-fold decay rate»... ANSWER: This presupposes there is a global equilibrium but the stock / (yearly absorption) analysis shown in truths n ° 3, 4, 17 avoids all the pitfalls and assumptions of an equilibrium between absorption and out - gassing.

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.

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 upwellings; carbon absorbed by plants months to centuries ago is degassed by soils.

This stock / (yearly absorption) analysis avoids all the pitfalls of the assumed equilibrium between absorption and out - gassing that is postulated by all the compartment models with constant inputs and outputs that lead to a set of linear equation and by Laplace transform to expressions like the Bern or Hamburg formulas; there is no equilibrium because as said more CO2 implies more green plants eating more and so on; the references in note 19 show even James Hansen and Francey (figure 17 F) admits (now) that their carbon cycle is wrong!

That flow of energy prevents any equilibrium ever being reached between the components of the system because the equilibrium is set by the rates of flow of energy in and energy out and not by absolute temperature.

The short term proportionality between temp and rate of change of SST shows 1 degree deviation from equilibrium conditions causes 8 ppm / year of CO2 out - gassing from the oceans.

There was a perfect correlation of genotypes (r = 1.00, p < 0.001) between samples which suggests that rs2066713 was not out of Hardy - Weinberg equilibrium due to genotyping error.