Sentences with phrase «talk about equilibrium»

When the whole ocean is mixed, then you can really talk about equilibrium.

Nevertheless its sometimes helpful to think about them as if they're low - order systems and to talk about equilibrium, under the assumption that the envelope of variable behavior moves in a predictable, low - order way.

Economists like to talk about equilibrium, because that allows them to publish their complex math papers, but economies are big on variation, things are far more volatile than theory can admit.

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 yes, actually the market reaction has really being quite muted and I don't know whether this partly reflects the new economic norm, you know the flattening of the Phillips Curve, disruptive change, lower inflation the Fed talked about at the Jackson Hole Summit last year, something called Our Star which is going to lower long - term rate of equilibrium interest rates.

Grantham talked about how profit margins and valuations on the market were far too out of whack from the historical equilibrium.

(And the people I would really tut - tut are the people who talk about the * general * equilibrium effects of robots using * partial * equilibrium reasoning.)

Instead of talking about cures and remission, doctors are now talking about cancer as being more of a controlled equilibrium with a tumor, in which it does not grow or cause issues.

To restore equilibrium, our kidneys need to work overtime, and have less time to get rid of those nasty toxins I keep talking about.

I talk about this more in Hair Equilibrium.

Included in the PowerPoint: Macroeconomic Objectives (AS Level) a) Aggregate Demand (AD) and Aggregate Supply (AS) analysis - the shape and determinants of AD and AS curves; AD = C+I+G + (X-M)- the distinction between a movement along and a shift in AD and AS - the interaction of AD and AS and the determination of the level of output, prices and employment b) Inflation - the definition of inflation; degrees of inflation and the measurement of inflation; deflation and disinflation - the distinction between money values and real data - the cause of inflation (cost - push and demand - pull inflation)- the consequences of inflation c) Balance of payments - the components of the balance of payments accounts (using the IMF / OECD definition): current account; capital and financial account; balancing item - meaning of balance of payments equilibrium and disequilibrium - causes of balance of payments disequilibrium in each component of the accounts - consequences of balance of payments disequilibrium on domestic and external economy d) Exchange rates - definitions and measurement of exchange rates - nominal, real, trade - weighted exchange rates - the determination of exchange rates - floating, fixed, managed float - the factors underlying changes in exchange rates - the effects of changing exchange rates on the domestic and external economy using AD, Marshall - Lerner and J curve analysis - depreciation / appreciation - devaluation / revaluation e) The Terms of Trade - the measurement of the terms of trade - causes of the changes in the terms of trade - the impact of changes in the terms of trade f) Principles of Absolute and comparative advantage - the distinction between absolute and comparative advantage - free trade area, customs union, monetary union, full economic union - trade creation and trade diversion - the benefits of free trade, including the trading possibility curve g) Protectionism - the meaning of protectionism in the context of international trade - different methods of protection and their impact, for example, tariffs, import duties and quotas, export subsidies, embargoes, voluntary export restraints (VERs) and excessive administrative burdens («red tape»)- the arguments in favor of protectionism This PowerPoint is best used when using worksheets and activities to help reinforce the ideas talked about.

Secundino Hernández talks about his academic origins, the delicate equilibrium he seeks between acc...

Question: before talking about simulating climate CHANGE, how long does the climate science community expect it to take before GCM's can reproduce the real world climate PRIOR to human induced CO2 perturbation in terms of: — «equilibrium point», i.e. without artificial flux adjustment to avoid climatic drift, — «natural variability», in terms of, for instance, the Hurst coefficient at different locations on the planet?

So it is clear that we are not talking about a simple system that is in «equilibrium» except for the human emissions.

Scientists often talk about it in terms of the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), which is the long - term temperature increase that we expect from a permanent doubling of atmospheric CO2.

Scientists often talk about it in terms of the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), which is the

The Second Law (with this condition quoted from Wiki) «Thermodynamic equilibrium has the greatest entropy amongst the states accessible to the system» is exactly what I talk about in the 4 page Appendix of «Planetary Surface Temperatures.

«greenhouse» gases in the atmosphere, since, as anybody but a climate change advocate nut knows, heat rises, most will then waft back harmlessly up into space, as the earth, as all functions seek equilibrium and homeostasis (those scientists believing that is a function of physiology and biology or entropy in a closed rather than open and single ended variant and changing input system don't know what they are talking about) then shifts back into balance, which is really what it is doing all along, since

«Brown is impassioned and convincing when talking about the world's ills and what he considers the four great goals to restoring civilization's equilibrium...» — April Streeter, TreeHugger.com

It talks about «assuming a linear - thermal - gradient profiles» and «reate a dynamic equilibrium», not thermal equilibrium.

As to the comment about equilibrium, I was mostly talking about the system with a single particle.

If you want to talk about thermal equilibrium, perhaps you should learn what it really is and stop trying to do statistical mechanics in your head with some naive notion of «energy balance».

Sure, given that nearly any introductory physics textbook — I'm not talking about thermodynamics text, just things like Tipler and Mosca, or Halliday, Resnick and Walker — teach enough thermodynamics for one to be able to see that the spontaneous appearance of a stable thermal gradient in any system is impossible, because it is a direct violation of the second law, and indirectly the first, which more or less says that equilibrium is isothermal (in order to permit the definition of thermometry in the first place).

So when one talks about an adiabatic ideal gas — one where no internal heat transfer occurs via conduction — one is already talking bullshit, or rather, restricting your attentions to short enough times that thermal equilibrium hasn't been established.

The resolution is, I believe, simple; Brown is talking about a thermally isolated (equilibrium) hypothetical atmosphere, whilst kdk33 is talking about a steady state atmosphere with sources of incoming and outgoing energy.

You're quoting stuff I can't find, you've ditched his scenario and put your own in its place, and changing energetic equilibrium for thermal equilbrium you then spend your whole time arguing that he can't get an adiabatic lapse rate from a thermal equilibrium which he never said he could, and, you bring in conduction, the wire, when he is explicitly talking about gases.

... all they talk about is «thermal equilibrium» and they seem to be implying that the equilibrium state in a calm troposphere would be isothermal.

If the atmosphere was in «thermal equilibrium», as you claim we «talk about», then there would be no lapse rate!

Obviously, a lot of people talking about «the greenhouse effect» have never heard of «local thermodynamic equilibrium».

Starting with the most trivial, when you call 3oC»... the average IPCC estimate...» for the equilibrium temperature response to x2CO2, it is unclear which «average» you are talking about.

Basic thermo: there exists a theoretical state called equilibrium, which when talking about the CO2 - Water system depends on temperature.

Even a simple ocean model usually has a number of slightly different equilibria actually, due to shifts in the location of convective activity (by a few grid boxes - I'm not talking here about a big reorganisation of the circulation).

You said between the lines in # 270: «as you equilibrate», «by the time you get there», all sounds like now you are talking about a transient process, while in # 269 you said «that equilibrium state... happens to absorb more LW than you started with» (which I read as an absorption process related to the state of equilibrium).

Radiative equilibrium takes place on very fast (microsecond or less) timescales, so what on earth are you talking about?

Yes, I deliberately glossed over the state / path - dependence issue and «real» stochasticity, this can indeed lead to a small uncertainty in the equilibrium achieved in a given experiment, but this uncertainty is very small indeed in model world, and I am sure that most scientists think it to be small in the real world too - so long as we are only talking about moderate differences in climate state, compatible with the present day climate.

There ought to be some time units in there, unless you're talking about some sort of equilibrium level?

Please find other words for equilibrium and thermodynamics to express what you are talking about.