Sentences with phrase «system reaches equilibrium»

When the system reaches equilibrium, the same number of photons will leave the gas column as enter.

Energy is accumulated in the earth and shell until the system reaches equilibrium.

The system reaches equilibrium when the shell emits 256 W / m2 to space, and then it also emits 256 to the surface, 512 in total, which must all come from the surface, the only source.

There is a time delay before the system reaches equilibrium.

Not exact matches

The molecules coming to rest — at least on the macroscopic level — is the result of thermalization, or of reaching equilibrium after they have achieved uniform saturation within the system.

The idea of climate inertia is that when you increase the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere it takes the climate system a good deal of time for all its components to fully adjust and reach a new equilibrium temperature.

The approximately 20 - year lag (between atmospheric CO2 concentration change and reaching equilibrium temperature) is an emerging property (just like sensitivity) of the global climate system in the GCM models used in the paper I linked to above, if I understood it correctly.

Now, should the reduced concentration persist, more energy will continue to accumulate in the system until a new, higher equilibrium temperature is reached (the equilibrium response).

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.

When we stop raising the level of carbon dioxide, the temperature continues to rise because it takes a while for the climate system to reach equilibrium.

I accept the idea that for a system surrounded by a vacuum when radiation - rate - equilibrium is reached, the amount of energy per unit time leaving a system via radiation is equal to the amount of energy per unit time entering the system.

Once the system reaches a state of dynamic equilibrium the energy lost by the ground equals the energy reaching the ground.

Modulations on the 11 year solar cycle are damped, leaving only 10 or 20 % of the temperature variations that would have been seen if the system could have reached equilibrium.

For these conditions, when radiation - rate - equilibrium is reached for the «two - shell system» (i.e., when the rate of energy being radiated outward by the outer shell equals the rate of energy being generated in the wall of the inner shell, I believe the presence of body «A» will affect the temperature of the external surface of the inner shell.

The fact that air in fact conducts heat just like the silver, and that if you wait for equilibrium — whether or not it actually takes a very long time on a human scale to get there — the equilibrium reached will be isothermal or violate the second law, in particular by manifestly not being the maximum entropy state of the system.

Try, really try, to address just Jelbring's imaginary world, perfectly insulated above and below, ideal gas in between, near - Earth gravity, infinite time for the system to reach true thermodynamic equilibrium (or long enough for a non-GHG to reach thermal equilibrium through radiation, which is going to be a hell of a lot longer than its thermal relaxation through conductivity for a gas on average 200 - 300K in temperature at 1 g).

By any mechanism you like — this isn't about mechanism, this is about conservation of flow — the temperature of the rest of the system must increase enough to drive up the flow in the unblocked part of the garden hose until dynamic equilibrium is once again reached.

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

Over time, I would expect the system to reach thermal equilibrium.

Heat will flow in this system forever; it will never reach thermal equilibrium.

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.

Another possibility is that the exchange would continue only until the new, combined wire - gas system reached its own equilibrium, in which we would not in general expect the gas to exhibit the same mean - molecular - kinetic energy profile it did when it was isolated.

Once a system has reached a minimum free energy and dG = 0 (or equivalently dA = 0) throughout, it has reached thermodynamic equilibrium and all macroscopic changes cease.

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.

Any such system would quickly reach thermal equilibrium — one where the top and bottom of the gas are at an equal temperature.

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).

And — all things equal — as long as nothing changes, everything will remain the same, once the system has reached thermal equilibrium.

So while, at first there is a difference (i.e. when the system is not at equilibrium), but once equilibrium is reached then they are equal at all frequencies.

That flow of energy prevents any equilibrium ever being reached between the components of the system because the equilibrium is set by the rates of flow of energy in and energy out and not by absolute temperature.

I thought it was worth drawing attention to the fact that we can't assume we are looking a system that has reached a new equilibrium as a result of increases in «greenhouse» gases.

One point to bear in mind is that equilibrium climate sensitivity of any sort is an artificial concept since the ocean - atmosphere system can only approach equilibrium as a limit, never actually reaching it.

Because of the slow response time of the climate system, the equilibrium climate consistent with current levels of greenhouse gases will not be reached for many centuries.

The earth / sun system is never in perfect equilibrium but it will always seek to attain equilibrium and the farther out of equilibrium the harder it tries to reach equilibrium.

In the climate case, the system is very complex, because the increase in temperature in response to the back radiation, increases a number of other responses to increased temperature before equilibrium is reached.

showing how EM radiation, heat and air / water kinetic energy (in cells, circulations, currents, weather systems and convection columns and so on) move and how long they have to move before they reach some kind of equilibrium would go some way to visualising why it takes time for the earth system to respond to radiative forcing (commitment time lag).

The system has reached equilibrium, the heat conducted down from the warmer surface exactly cancels out the cold advected along the bottom.

Estimates based on recent observations can only be of effective, not equilibrium, climate sensitivity, since the climate system has not reached equilibrium.

However, in the real world where the climate system is open to radiation, the sun is the source of energy that prevents thermal equilibrium being reached.

You based this on the following definition of the 2nd law: «'' When two isolated systems in separate but nearby regions of space, each in thermodynamic equilibrium in itslef, but not in equilibrium with each other t first, are at some time allowed to interact, breaking the isolation that separates the two systems, and they exchange matter or energy, they will eventually reach a mutual thermodynamic equilibrium.»

«When two isolated systems in separate but nearby regions of space, each in thermodynamic equilibrium in itself, but not in equilibrium with each other at first, are at some time allowed to interact, breaking the isolation that separates the two systems, and they exchange matter or energy, they will eventually reach a mutual thermodynamic equilibrium.»

You based this on the following definition of the 2nd law: ««When two isolated systems in separate but nearby regions of space, each in thermodynamic equilibrium in itself, but not in equilibrium with each other at first, are at some time allowed to interact, breaking the isolation that separates the two systems, and they exchange matter or energy, they will eventually reach a mutual thermodynamic equilibrium.»

At its most basic, global warming is trivial, and beyond any doubt: add more energy to a system (by adding more infra - red absorbing carbon dioxide to the atmosphere), and the system gets hotter (because, being knocked out of equilibrium, it will heat up faster than it loses heat to space, up and until it reaches a new equilibrium).