Sentences with phrase «reach its equilibrium as»

Swim beneath rainbows in the pools created by the majestic Angel Falls, and feel your soul reach its equilibrium as you gaze up at the world's tallest waterfall in Venezuela.

Not exact matches

Since Golem works as a marketplace, therefore, these prices will reach equilibrium over time.

A permanent state has been reached in which no macroscopically observable events occur, a state which the physicist speaks of as thermodynamical equilibrium or «maximum entropy.»

Abrupt motions, such as reaching to turn off a noisy alarm clock, can disturb your equilibrium.

This is not irrevocable, as the experience of France shows, but the vote shares for green parties appear to reach an equilibrium of around five to nine per cent.

«What we expect in the long run is that the ash and the fungi will reach equilibrium — a kind of armed stand - off, and the fungus will merge into the background as a parasite of only moderate importance,» said Professor Brown.

However, how fast this equilibrium is reached depends on the collision rate, as well as on any external influences working against this equilibration.

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.

As computer ownership and Internet usage reaches a saturation point throughout the world, the personals industry will reach a state of equilibrium and growth will maintain at a regular annual rate.

So, as the motor comes up to speed the current (and torque) are reduced until an equilibrium is reached.

He offered no guidance as to when production and demand for the iPad would reach equilibrium.

All else equal, if CO2 goes up, it affects that balance, and temperature increases until a new equilibrium is reached (which takes a long time as the ocean is a big heat sink).

There are uncertainties as to how long it will take to reach equilibrium so the speed of warming is not clearly known, but warm it will.

Another way of putting it: Just like H2O (outside runaway), the C gain by the atmosphere from C loss from permafrost «penultimately» reaches an equilibrium value that varies as a continuous function of the imposed forcing, rather than having a discontinuous jump.

Since the energy emitted goes like T ^ 4 power, the earth thus emits less energy back into space, which is why it has to warm (until it reaches a temperature when the earth is again emitting as much energy back out into space as it receives from the sun and so is back in equilibrium).

Not only do you («you» as in Victor and not the general you, because I presume there are people who actually model these things and may know the answer) not know how large the equilibrium response would be, but you don't know if the boundary proposed by your argument (cognate to the equilibrium response) had been reached over that period.

As long as there is an increase in the GHG induced air temp there will be an increase in convection / conduction as feedback, UNTIL they reach equilibrium, at the original temperaturAs long as there is an increase in the GHG induced air temp there will be an increase in convection / conduction as feedback, UNTIL they reach equilibrium, at the original temperaturas there is an increase in the GHG induced air temp there will be an increase in convection / conduction as feedback, UNTIL they reach equilibrium, at the original temperaturas feedback, UNTIL they reach equilibrium, at the original temperature.

As such, when emissions quit rising, according to their framework, the climate system is no longer being forced, but the temperature will continue to rise and it will still take a considerable amount of time for the system to reach equilibrium.

As things warm up, outflow rises (more longwave, more convection) until equilibrium is reached at a higher temperature.

Rising ocean temperature increases cloud cover until such time as clouds starve the ocean of solar energy until an equilibrium is reached.

Once thermal equilibrium has been reached between surface and atmosphere the surface will have become warm enough to both cycle energy between the surface and the atmosphere in perpetuity via conduction and convection AND have enough warmth left over to emit energy from the top of the atmosphere as fast as new energy comes in from the sun.

It will never reach thermodynamic equilibrium, the kind of equilibrium specified and necessary, as in Henry's Law, the carbonate equations, and the 2d Law.

But these are limited in time, as a new equilibrium (3 ppmv / °C) is reached fast, longer periods of increased or decreased temperature will have more influence (8 ppmv / °C), but still limited.

If you double the feed supply, the number of mice will initially increase fast, but stop increasing as a new equilibrium is reached at about a doubling of mice counts.

A new equilibrium (at a higher CO2 level) can be reached, if the increase in atmospheric CO2 is sufficient to increase the uptake by the oceans and biosphere to the same levels as the continuous addition.

You can call this nonlinearity if you like, but as I tried to argue in that post, I think it is better to regard it a linear in the temperature field — it is just that this field changes its structure as a new equilibrium is reached.

As the oceans approach some conditional equilibrium, delta S would approach 0, for the oceans, delta S for the atmosphere is faster, but not instantaneous, so there would be a lag, before it reached its conditional equilibrium.

In other words, regions receiving twice as much flux do not need to be twice as hot to reach equilibrium and cold regions have a more important weight in the mean temperature.

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

When it starts to change by degrees, it won't be in equilibrium, but once CO2 levels hold more steady, staying within a 5 % range, as they did in the last millennium, that kind of equilibrium will be reached again.

3) That this is a continuous process, so we are really seeing a vertical circulation, where the original surface water is going to reach an equilibrium T2a (dependent on turbulence), but which is > T2, and it will eventuall be diplaced upwards as well.

The net result is that the 14C intake by the oceans is much faster for 14C (despite the slower intake speed) than for 12C or 13C, as the total 14C in the atmosphere will go down until about the same ratio as for the other isotopes, that is 1:1, then a new equilibrium for 14C is reached.

Much as a drop of dye in a set of connected containers will diffuse between them until reaching some equilibrium concentration, at rates dependent upon exchange rates, bomb - spiked C14 CO2 will reduce its level in the atmosphere at a fairly quick rate, replaced by other isotopes in relation to their concentration, because quite frankly there is more C14 at the spike point (atmosphere) than in the oceans.

[Equilibrium] climate sensitivity is defined as the increase in global mean surface temperature (GMST), once the ocean has reached equilibrium, resulting from a doubling of the equivalent atmospheric CO2 concentration, being the concentration of CO2 that would cause the same radiative forcing as the given mixture of CO2 and other forcing Equilibrium] climate sensitivity is defined as the increase in global mean surface temperature (GMST), once the ocean has reached equilibrium, resulting from a doubling of the equivalent atmospheric CO2 concentration, being the concentration of CO2 that would cause the same radiative forcing as the given mixture of CO2 and other forcing equilibrium, resulting from a doubling of the equivalent atmospheric CO2 concentration, being the concentration of CO2 that would cause the same radiative forcing as the given mixture of CO2 and other forcing components.

As I've said three times now (and you've ignored) Henry's law determines a fixed partitioning ratio between the atmosphere and oceans of 1:50 at equilibrium meaning that when equilibrium between PCO2 (g) and PCO2 (aq) is reached the oceans must contain about 50 times as much CO2 as the atmospherAs I've said three times now (and you've ignored) Henry's law determines a fixed partitioning ratio between the atmosphere and oceans of 1:50 at equilibrium meaning that when equilibrium between PCO2 (g) and PCO2 (aq) is reached the oceans must contain about 50 times as much CO2 as the atmospheras much CO2 as the atmospheras the atmosphere.

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.

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.

Only now heat can leave the black body via conduction and convection as well as radiation, so I don't want to say the black body reaches radiation - rate - equilibrium, rather it reaches energy - rate - equilibrium.

He asserts that gravity will create a thermal lapse rate that is there in his isolated ideal gas in a near - Earth gravitational field in thermal equilibrium — the condition that an air column will reach after all irreversible relaxation processes such as conduction, convection, and radiation have completed.

They matter only as long as there is bulk «vertical» transport, but vanish as the gas reaches static equilibrium in the experimental chamber.

Air is merely a relatively poor conductor and doesn't have time to reach local thermal equilibrium as it convectively moves up and down, and it takes a long time to reach global thermal equilibrium across great distances via conduction alone.

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

Where he directly stated that an isolated atmosphere in a gravitational field reaches isothermal equilibrium, as first demonstrated by Gibbs some 120 years ago?

But once the system reaches isoentropic equilibrium at the DALR, heat will flow via real conduction, not adiabatic movement of parcels, and the system will, I believe, relax to isothermal equilibrium that — as I've clearly shown — is an entirely valid thermodynamic state that is dynamically stable.

It is defined as the amount of warming expected if carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations doubled from pre-industrial levels and then remained constant until Earth's temperature reached a new equilibrium over timescales of centuries to millennia.

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.

* 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.

The effects of 2xCO2 can not be measured, as you appear to state *, since we can't know that the equilibrium has been reached because we don't and will never fully understand the earth system (which certainly isn't described fully by the model FG used).

- we lack a timescale short enough to consider the forcing as fixed (volcano, CO2 emissions, TSI variations) but long enough to get meaningful climate average (even if such average makes sense, that climate is only weakly chaotic) and certainly too short to reach equilibrium T. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is thus a purely theoretical construct not much more related to reality than the no - feedback senequilibrium T. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is thus a purely theoretical construct not much more related to reality than the no - feedback senEquilibrium climate sensitivity is thus a purely theoretical construct not much more related to reality than the no - feedback sensitivity...

Once equilibrium is reached, there is no more warming and things continue as Willis has shown (well, in the ideal).