Sentences with phrase «out of equilibrium with»

Of course you can «average» temperatures sampled from subsystems out of equilibrium with each other, in the sense that your computer will oblige and the police won't show up at your door.

The real world is a little more complicated, in that as CO2 in the atmosphere increases, we expect the partial pressure in the atmosphere to be out of equilibrium with the CO2 in the ocean.

In case of a car jack, it could be enough for a big vehicle to drive close to your car and blow it out of the equilibrium with the wind it creates.

Not exact matches

In an ambitious project of precisely this nature, William Everett and T.J. Bachmeyer work out an elaborate paradigm in which they interrelate three theological approaches — cultic (Catholic), prophetic (Protestant), and ecstatic (Anabaptist)-- with three sociological traditions — functionalism (unitary view of society), dualism (conflictual), and pluralism (balance of powers)-- with three psychological viewpoints — conflictual, fulfillment, and equilibrium.

The stand out box of the Penfolds Grandfather provides us with a perfect example of this heritage and innovation equilibrium in question.

In the parlance of astrobiologists, the highly reactive gas is a potent «biosignature,» because in large concentrations it tends to be «out of equilibrium» with its surroundings.

The researchers found that even with the molecular motors driving the system out of equilibrium, the defects were still able to sense the curvature, with the +1 / 2 defects migrating towards the region of positive curvature and the -1 / 2 defects migrating towards the region of negative curvature.

When the x-ray source sent out pulses as short as 80 millions of billionths of a second, the researchers could see the first short period of the crystal melting, which occurred in an unexpected way: The atoms diverged from their initial energy equilibrium while the average crystalline structure remained — a rarely studied behavior that could not have been seen as clearly with other techniques.

So while a mature forest is in chemical equilibrium with the atmosphere, coral reefs form permanent limestone structures that keep on taking carbon out of the air forever.

They applied the trick to describe other out - of - equilibrium phase transitions, such as a dynamic Mott transition and a spin system, and saw the results agreed with either observed experiments or simulations.

Two Argonne physicists offered a way to mathematically describe a particular physics phenomenon called a phase transition in a system out of equilibrium (that is, with energy moving through it) by using imaginary numbers.

And is the current large scale ablation seen on these glaciers due to these glaciers coming to some equilibrium with a warmer world due to coming out of the LIA and response times associated with the large masses involved?

Vegetables (as well as fruit) also supply us with fiber that binds itself to old estrogen, thereby clearing it out of the system, leading to better overall equilibrium.

To ride out our own waves of life with skill requires that same internal sense of equilibrium.

When they get out of balance with each other, it can be quite challenging to reestablish equilibrium.

Bowen re-balances the body with gentle stimulating activations that support the body and bring it back into equilibrium and out of a dysfunctional state.

[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?)

Consider a box willed with gas, under two conditions: (1) the first box is in equilibrium, at high temperature, and thus has a high energy content; (2) the second box has low energy content, but is out of equilibrium: it is stirred by turbulent convection, produced by heating from below and cooling from above.

If we start out with a balanced system which contains frozen water at the poles, the mid to high latitudes begin to thaw, triggering soil greenhouse gas feedbacks (permafrost thaw and following oxic and anoxic sources add to the greenhouse gas budget), a chronic linear process (which helps to accelerate changes of the equilibrium state, reduces the ability of the atmosphere to break down greenhouse gases — less hydroxide radicals).

Andrew (23) and Bryan (35): The problem is that climate sensitivity and thermal inertia could be traded off mathematically in producing a decent match with the observed temeperature record of the 20th century (because it's out of equilibrium.

It is assigned only to the new GHGs, because it is assumed that the old GHGs had already come to equilibrium with the air and the pre-existing energy - out flux prior to the emission of the new GHGs.

Since anthropogenic emitted CO2 comes out of a power plant stacks / vehicle exhausts at an elevated temperature (due to the trivial manmade waste heat energy), and then cools down to near equilibrium with the rest of the atmosphere, why would this new CO2 then absorb more energy and heatup again?

In equilibrium, all fluxes into the surface will be balanced by fluxes out of the surface (including momentum, etc, as well as energy), so whatever lies beneath the surface gives the surface an effective heat capacity and also (in the oceans) some ability for local / regional imbalances to be balanced globally, with all of that responding to forcings and PR+CR and other feedbacks at the surface.

Over geological time ie the hundreds of millions of years it must balance out but with a chemical potential of components in a far from equilibrium state.

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).

The temperature of the Earth at which energy in = energy out is governed broadly by the Stephen Boltzmann equation, if I remember the name of the equation correctly, which assumes a perfect black body in thermal equilibrium with itself.

In his 2007 paper, Miskolczi (still screwed up on Kirchhoff's Law) goes overboard with his misunderstanding of the virial theorem, radiation pressure (he left out the light speed «c» factor), and hydrostatic equilibrium.

It turns out that like all tightly coupled systems, the ocean and the atmosphere like to be in equilibrium with each other, which means that the chemistry of the ocean is affected by the chemistry of the atmosphere.

There may be temporary imbalances, but they must average out over time.In an «equilibrium - response» experiment, scientists begin by setting up a climate model with concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) at their present real - world levels.

The effective temperature is how hot the Earth looks from space, as a result of being in equilibrium with incoming heat from the Sun: heat in equals heat out, and one can deduce the effective temperature of the Earth from that balance.

With regard to the diabatic process the exchange of radiation in and out reaches thermal equilibrium relatively quickly (leaving Earth's oceans out of the scenario for current purposes) and once the temperature rise within the atmosphere has occurred then equilibrium has been achieved and energy in at TOA will match energy out.

The main point is that for a spherical body in radiative thermal equilibrium with the sun, where absorptivity = emissivity, then the temperature is independent of albedo and emissivity, because they cancel out of the equation.

Yes, you're absolutely right, the system is out of equilibrium, with CO2 moving into the oceans.

KR: Yes, you're absolutely right, the system is out of equilibrium, with CO2 moving into the oceans.

The absorption we see is due to the climate attempting to return to that equilibrium, with the absorption rate related to how far out of balance things are, not a fixed rate.

In calm conditions, with equilibrium established, new deposits of energy will spread out in all directions.

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.»

If CO2 and H2O molecules now are cooled below the previous equilibrium point by having their radiation allowed to escape to outer space, then I believe these molecules must then tend to absorb more energy than yield energy with each interaction with the other components of the atmosphere until that atmosphere as a whole reaches a new thermal equilibrium where the net radiation going out and the net radiation coming in (primarily from the sun and the surrounding atmosphere) is the same.

Even though I can't imagine gravity functioning as a Maxwell Demon, even though Caballero in section 2.17 both states and leaves as a student exercise the proof that the thermodynamic equilibrium state of a vertical column of gas is isothermal, there has been a lot of confusion and strange assertions about a gas arriving at a state because of bulk transport that sorts out temperature differences approximately adiabatically (neglecting conduction), but that is somehow thermodynamically stable without transport and with conduction in the end.

Now, if you can sort that out, where you're getting his quotes, maybe I've missed them, why you've totally ignored his scenario, why you're arguing against a straw man of thermal equilibrium of your own invention and brought in the totally irrelevant conduction through solids and all the arguments about the 2nd law with respect to that, maybe you could write something worth reading about his paper.

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.

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!

There is never a state of instantaneous radiative energy transport equilibrium at the TOA, so these assertions must refer to some kind of quasi-equilibrium, again over some as yet un-specified time period, in which there are some degrees of departure from equilibrium with both net incoming or net out - going states.

If we begin out of equilibrium, with a net natural flux outward of whatever magnitude and for whatever reason (as Salby might suggest), that means that ocean pCO2 exceeds that of the air.

Is it not true that the equilibrium radiation in / out is consistent with a temperature of about 255K, which is the average temperature at about 5 km elevation?

In doing so the molecules components that are now vibrating disturb the electromagnetic balance of all the surrounding molecules electromagnetic fields which due to their state of equilibrium with the wider body of gas offer resistance but must acquiescent to the force of the field by propagating the energy though out medium.

Remaining steady and calm during these moments is the key to supporting children through them; staying present with them until the emotional wave breaks and they reach a state of equilibrium allows them to feel safe, loved and acceptance when they are feeling out of control.