Sentences with phrase «reach an equilibrium with»

«At low and high relative humidity, SOAs evaporate too slowly to reach equilibrium with the gas phase.»

This suggests that the stores of vitamin D that infants accumulate as fetuses are used up within the first eight weeks of life, after which their vitamin D levels reach equilibrium with what they continue to acquire from sunshine, breast milk or supplements.

Not sure, but it does point out what I have said recently, that housing on the low end has reached equilibrium with foreclosures.

If it doesn't rise much tomorrow, it means that the P&C reinsurers have reached equilibrium with the good quarter.

But by using contrasting elements to both complement and question each other, Gorchov reaches equilibrium with aplomb.

And in the long term, human emissions would have to drop to ZERO in order to stabilize concentrations, because the deep ocean will eventually reach equilibrium with the surface layers.

Antarctic land ice won't reach equilibrium with global climate for hundreds if not thousands of years.

Clearly the earth's groundwater has yet to reach an equilibrium with modern sea levels.

I will howl at you that you can't tell me the glass of water has reached an equilibrium with the ambient environment because the ambient temperature is inhomogeneous and always changing.

With business as usual, we will see accelerating CO2 emissions causing deteriorating climate, and we will also see deteriorating climate as the Earth tries to reach equilibrium with the CO2 already emitted.

If there were no IR active gases in the atmosphere, then the system as a whole would still reach equilibrium with the energy absorbed equal to the energy radiated out.

Even with a shell an entity will reach equilibrium with the input of the energy supplied.

With Longwave radiation the tendency is for the cooler object not to increase the temperature of the warm object, and if they are at the same air pressure, and ambient temperature - take 2 identical apples, one at 8C the other at 15C an inch apart, in a room at 20C — the likely outcome is that each apple reaches equilibrium with the ambient temperature of its own entropy, as if they were not in each other's presence.

At Blake Ridge on the Atlantic continental rise, the GHSZ started at 190 m depth and continued to 450 m, where it reached equilibrium with the gaseous phase.

The heat energy will radiate and convect and conduct away until the tire reaches equilibrium with the ambient temperature of its surroundings.

That's not actually correct (think about how long it takes changes in sea level to reach equilibrium with a new temperature), but I think I understand why you made the argument.

Not exact matches

And yet the Japanese will play to a draw with equanimity, content at the last simply to let go, so that all forces can reach equilibrium, and I do not believe their version of the game is necessarily any less elegant or profound than ours.

That signaled that the water and minerals in the surrounding sandstone had reached a chemical equilibrium with the injected seawater far more quickly than anticipated — in two years rather than a century.

This option avoids having to flush the column with chemicals between sampling runs; researchers simply allow enough sample to run through to reach a new equilibrium.

It takes 4 to 6 weeks to reach a new equilibrium with hormones, so be patient.

It would appear the books market has reached an equilibrium of sorts, with about one in three books being a digital one, and the rest being physical books.

Radiation also works, of course, but the equilibrium with the planet temperature is reached either way.

The standard assumption has been that, while heat is transferred rapidly into a relatively thin, well - mixed surface layer of the ocean (averaging about 70 m in depth), the transfer into the deeper waters is so slow that the atmospheric temperature reaches effective equilibrium with the mixed layer in a decade or so.

Heated water from such events rises vertically and mixes with ambient waters much like a smoke stack in winter until they reach equilibrium density with surrounding water masses at which they spread out horizontally.

The problems with associating sensitivity with a temperature in 2100 are twofold: first, at the time we reach CO2 doubling, the temperature will lag behind the equilibrium value due to thermal inertia, especially in the ocean (thought experiment — doubling CO2 today will not cause an instant 3C jump in temperatures, any more than turning your oven on heats it instantly to 450F), and secondly, the CO2 level we are at in 2100 depends on what we do between now and then anyway, and it may more than double, or not.

To cope with this situation, population and consumption will have to fall until an equilibrium is reached.

With a GHG increase, say doubling of CO2, upon reaching equilibrium there will be a surface temperature increase by dTs, and a change in the stratospheric temperature by an amount dTt.

The upper atmosphere has a small heat capacity and reaches equilibrium temperature in considerably under a year; this feeds back on the forcing of the trosphere + surface, which are generally convectively coupled with the ocean (strongly with the upper ocean) and take a number of years to reach equilibrium.

Does a grassland continue to sequester carbon continuously or does it get saturated with carbon and reach an equilibrium?

The heat source may have reached a constant temperature, but the Earth isn't necessarily at equilibrium with the new warmer environment yet.

I take issue with the assunption that equilibrium is reached.

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).

Fiddling with GHGs changes the distribution of the Sun's energy until a new equilibrium is reached.

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.

With regard to the adiabatic process the exchange of energy does not simply involve radiation and so the process takes more time to reach equilibrium.

By reducing the cooling rate, the ocean gets warmer as it reaches a different equilibrium with the day - time warming.

The ocean surface layer is what directly matters, that contains somewhat more CO2 than the atmosphere (1,000 GtC vs. 800 GtC), but the chemical reactions in the ocean water push the equilibrium back, so that ultimately the surface water - air equilibrium is reached with a 1:9 partitioning between water and air, reverse and far away from the 50:1.

At the same temperature, at pH - values between 7 and 9, CO2 reaches 99 % chemical equilibrium with water and calcium carbonate in about 100 seconds (Dreybrodt et al., 1996).

Thus if we could stop today with all emissions, nature still would be a net sink, but the (average) sink rate would decrease to zero over time when the basic equilibrium setpoint is reached, about 290 ppmv for the current temperature.

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).

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.

Yes, by gosh, the system in fig. 2 with real non-perfect insulator will reach thermal equilibrium over time by 0th law.

If the new forcing is actually continually increasing then a new equilibrium will never be reached (e.g. as is happening with CO2 emissions).

It presupposes that all thermal relaxation that can occur has occurred, unless you wish to work a system with broken ergodicity, or unless you can show that there is a vast separation of relaxation timescales, one large enough that equilibrium will not be reached in the particular times of interest in a particular problem.

In fact, a gas with a DALR is a fairly special case of the many «equilibria» one can reach in the specific limit of hydrodynamic relaxation (only) to a state of hydrostatic balance neglecting the much slower thermal relaxation that eventually makes the gas isothermal.

When temperatures reach equilibrium gently agitate by an electromagnet acting with Lorentz force on the saline ions (geomagnetic storms).

One is then left with an uncomfortable picture of the gas moving constantly — heat must be adiabatically convected downward to the bottom of the container in figure 1 in ongoing opposition to the upward directed flow of heat due to the fact that Fourier's Law applies to the ideal gas in such a way that equilibrium is never reached!

It will eventually reach thermal equilibrium again by oth law, isentropic now with 4 bodies.

So if we allow for thermal inertia, the Earth takes a time to reach equilibrium, then this is quite consistent with the IPCC's figure of 3 deg C

* Here Anthony Watts acknowledges the fact that AGW has nothing to do with faith, but is true and tried science that should be the guideline for future, as physics and engineering both point to the fact that once a system that tries to reach an equilibrium according to QM (approximated by Newtonian mechanics) is disturbed enough it will change towards a new equilibrium state with potentially catastrophic and chaotic alterations in the system, which will present problems for the subsystems functioning within this system, in the AGW case this could be the human cultural system, though Watts doesn't mention it in the lead.