Sentences with phrase «out of that equilibrium for»

Not exact matches

Put another way, in order for the holder of any security of spend out of that investment, the security has to be sold to another investor who locks in the identical amount of funds (Iron Law of Equilibrium).

Jury is still out on secular stagnation — «At present, it looks likely that the equilibrium interest rate will remain low for the policy - relevant future, but there have in the past been both long swings and short - term changes in what can be thought of as equilibrium real rates»

The resin pulled CO2 out of the polycarbonate in its vigorous quest for chemical equilibrium.

Gullies and dips in the road are approached at high speed, and the moment of nausea you instinctively anticipate as you prepare for your mount to bottom out and then perform an interpretive dance as it sets out to recover equilibrium never materializes.

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.

This piece will have echoes from my recent piece The Bane of Broken Balance Sheets, where I tried to point out why many assets are trading below equilibrium levels, but also why it is rational for them to be so valued, because of the lack of long - term financing capacity.

If my miles and points balances, travel needs, and manufactured spend strategy were previously in equilibrium, they are now by definition out of equilibrium: I've now accidentally purchased more (deeply - discounted) travel than I have a current plan for using.

[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?)

Why should it be any different for the Kilimanjaro glacier, which is also a matter of finding an equilibrium where rate of mass in equals rate of mass out?

of anthropogenic CO2 releases that have been taken out of the atmosphere (over and above the amount taken out of the atmosphere that balances the natural additions to the atmosphere), perhaps mainly as a direct biogeochemical feedback (increased CO2 favoring more rapid biological fixation of C, net flux of CO2 into water until equilibrium for the given storage of other involved chemical species in the upper ocean) fairly promptly.

This leads to a higher equilibrium temperature, but balance is reestablished again in a sense that time averages of energy in - and - out are equal for each volume element, given some fixed elevation of greenhouse gas concentration.

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.

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 effect it has on the equilibrium sensitivity is more indirect, as the more the ocean can buffer excess heat, the more chance it will give for CO2 to sequester out of the system.

For those who want to check out the physics, read up the statistical thermodynamics which leads to Kirchhoff; s law of radiation and realise that «Prevost exchange energy» is needed to connect the IR density of states in the two objects in radiative equilibrium and maintain absorptivity = emissivity.

The result turned out to be precisely a sawtooth, which struck me as both a simple way of accounting for this three - way coincidence (frequency, amplitude, and phase) and one that (as Greg himself has pointed out) naturally occurs in geophysics as a result of sudden events perturbing equilibrium followed a return to equilibrium that may be far from complete when the next such event occurs.

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 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.

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.

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.

In spite of the fact that the top post derives the explicit form for an ideal gas in hydrostatic and thermal equilibrium, I might point out.

It is just a proxy for heat conduction, something that he seems to have left out of consideration when he listed the agents responsible for establishing thermal equilibrium in his «thought experiment».

Actually, the relevant «law» is not the ever rising entropic «heat death» of the universe from CO2, but instead is Le Châtelier's principle for a reaction in physical chemistry: the disturbance of the equilibrium of greenhouse gases H2O and CO2 by CO2 injections acts to oppose the change to the equilibrium, and thus to cancel out the effect on temperature from the increase in CO2.

As Joshua Gans points out here The Russell Girl divx the effect of the scheme will be to reduce the demand for permits and therefore the equilibrium price.

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.

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.

Therefore, estimating equilibrium climate sensitivity based on measurements of a climate that's out of equilibrium requires making some significant assumptions, for example that feedbacks will remain constant over time.

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.

If our use of the IPCC's own predictions of future CO2 growth on the A2 scenario, and its own equation for converting those predictions to equilibrium temperature, leads to predictions of temperature response that are different from those of the IPCC, then it may be that we are doing the sums wrong, in which case a true scientist would point out what we are doing wrong.