Sentences with phrase «point of equilibrium with»

«I always believed there would be a natural point of equilibrium with digital reading — that it would overshoot, then come back and settle down.

Not exact matches

One of his views that always stuck with me on that subject, at least as a starting point for thinking about it, was that it was somewhat nonsensical to talk about what «equilibrium exchange rates» should be in a world of fiat currencies and fractional reserve banking.

And here we can see with complete clarity the importance of the idea, suggested above, that it is at its point or superstructure of spiritual concentration and not at its base or infrastructure of material arrangement that humanity must biologically establish its equilibrium.

Instead of picturing the bottom point of a normal pendulum's swing, the equilibrium, as a stable point in a stable swing, now, with the upside - down pendulum, the equilibrium is the top-most point.

In other words, with soft - cut rev limiter that point of equilibrium slightly depends on how much engine power output responds to a constant throttle.

The functional response for cat trapping (the offtake with constant effort per unit time) overlaid against the curve of cat productivity suggested a stable equilibrium point at low cat densities (0.07 — 0.13 cats km — 2).

(There are equilibrium climates between the points where the runaway starts and where it ends, but they are unstable equilibria, and the equilibrium coverage of snow / ice increases with forcing that would cause warming.)

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).

I agree with Maxwell's point that at equilibrium two bodies they exchange equal amounts of thermal radiation with each other.

The terrestrial biosphere can respond slowly to large, regional - scale forcing, but may not always be in equilibrium with that forcing at any point in time, leading to subsequent commitments to significant future change for decades or centuries following stabilization of forcing.»

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.

It is appropriate as this point to add that if Bolin & Eriksson's conditions in the last paragraph were true, carbonated beer (Bohren, 1987) and soda «pop» as we know it would be an impossibility with their «buffer» factor (see below); rain and fresh water would not show the observed equilibrium pH of 5.7 (Krauskopf, 1979); and experiments would not had shown complete isotopic equilibrium between CO2 and water in just hours, which in turn is the prerequisite for routine stable isotope analysis involving CO2 (Gonfiantini, 1981).

By «falling towards equilibrium» I mean that equilibrium is never achieved but always oscillates around an equilibrium point, with each variable presumably operating on a number of different time scales.

We need to be careful focussing upon «trends» — it can lead to serious errors of context — and this underlies the entire «global warming» thesis which relies upon computer models with entirely false (i.e. non-natural) notions of an equilibrium starting point and calculations of trend — this conveniently ignores cycles, and it has to because a) there are several non-orbital cycles in motion (8 - 10 yr, 11, 22, 60, 70, 80, 400 and 1000 - 1500) depending on ocean basic, hemisphere and global view — all interacting via «teleconnection» of those ocean basins, some clearly timed by solar cycles, some peaking together; b) because the cycles are not exact, you can not tell in any one decade where you are in the longer cycles.

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.

But I think that misses the point; if you've got a hollow sphere, filled with a mixed gas at equilibrium at a certain temperature, and then you replace some of the gas with CO2 (raise the concentration) does the sphere necessarily retain more heat?

``... the point is that a stable thermal equilibrium of an isolated ideal gas with a lapse rate violates the second law of thermodynamics... the zeroth law clearly states that the two locations (with different temperatures) are not in thermal equilibrium.»

The entire point of Fourier's Law is that it drives any system with conductivity towards isothermal equilibrium.

In the simplest idealization, for example, a linear spring with spring constant K attached to a perfectly rigid support at one end and a point mass M on the other will oscillate at a radial frequency sqrt (K / M), or a pendulum of length L in a constant gravity field with acceleration g will oscillate about the equilibrium at a frequency of sqrt (g / L).

But it is the adiabatic lapse rate (itself a function of the acceleration due to gravity) that determines the surface temperature, along with the long - established temperature gradient from the core to the surface which has established a stable approximate equilibrium point at the interface of the surface and atmosphere over the life of the Earth..

The only thing I find noteworthy is that it further reinforces the point that there is no scientific consensus on a best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity, which is entirely in agreement with the IPCC's statement in AR5 WG1 SPM: «No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.»

These are not classified as equilibrium thermodynamics, because the path is between a state with a forcing function applied and a state where the arrow of entropy points.

The recent transient warming (combined with ocean heat uptake and our knowledge of climate forcings) points towards a «moderate» value for the equilibrium sensitivity, and this is consistent with what we know from other analyses.

In cases where the thinning is substantial along the entire length of the glacier, even in the accumulation zone than no point of equilibrium can be achieved with present climate and the glacier is unlikely to survive.

Here is a key point made by R&F (I removed the reference numbers for clarify of reading here — see the original paper for the links to the relevant peer - reviewed literature; GHG = greenhouse gases, CEWGA = committed equilibrium warming from greenhouse gases and aerosols, Wm2 = watts per metre squared, DAI = dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system):