Does Neo Thermodynamics Prove that Climate Change is Theoretically Impossible?

keepit wrote:
Maybe it's translation problem. Itn, what's your native language?

GasGuzzler wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

The thread title says "Neo Thermodynamics".

Perhaps it should have said "Para Thermodynamics" or "Parathermodynamics".

Perhaps we should actually be discussing a branch of proxy science known to the hard core scientific community called biogeoorganicsthermodynamics. Very cool stuff and has the potential to draw a HUGE audience. Heh! I can make shit up too!

Im a BM wrote:
This thread topic is the specific issue that most often dominates any discussion of climate on this website.

Is climate change even theoretically possible?

Does thermodynamics prove that increasing the concentration of so called greenhouse gases in the atmosphere cannot possibly result in higher air temperatures at the surface?

THIS is a thread where that particular discussion is welcomed.

Indeed, it is the intended topic.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
How, exactly does THERMODYNAMICS apply here?

RQAA. Stop mindlessly repeating the question, Sock. It's already been answered.

Stop spamming.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
The high bar for the kind of proof required to contradict the published science has not been met.

Science is not a publication. When will you learn this? If I publish something and call it science, what threshold must be crossed to make it science?

Why do you believe published papers trump the 0th, 1st, and 2nd LoT, and the Stefan's Boltzman law? NONE of these have been falsified.

You cling to your climate change religion but these laws destroy you every time.

Why is your helium issue so urgent?

GasGuzzler wrote:

Im a BM wrote:


All we've gotten here so far is "RQAA".

Repeated Question ALWAYS AVOIDED.[/b]

Bullchit, can you not read?
Into the Night answered the question and cited the law which is violated by helium floating into outer space.

Dude, you're overdosing on Spam. It's overcooked so bad my dog won't even eat that shit.

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
This thread was your opportunity to display your superior knowledge of thermodynamics.

Instead of making vague references to "thermodynamics" to hide your ignorance of chemistry on other threads, this was your chance to show your stuff.

It would appear that there is only ONE thing that you actually understand about thermodynamics.

"Thermodynamics does not cancel gravity"

Sounds like the title of a PhD dissertation, doesn't it?

G'wan! SCRAM!

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
"Helium is not created by fission." - Into the Night

A unilateral authoritative proclamation decrees that "helium is not created by fission".

The closest thing to a citable reference is the (clearly self evident) omniscience and scientific infallibility of the proclaimer.

Becoming more and more obvious that Into the Night doesn't really know ANYTHING about thermodynamics.

"Thermodynamics does not cancel gravity".

It is a very short list of things that DO cancel gravity.

And it is a very very very LONG list of things that science is NOT.

Be sure to keep us informed.

So, all the earth scientists are WRONG about the ORIGIN of helium as a product of heavy element fission reactions emitting alpha particles, AND they are WRONG that nearly all the helium that used to be in the atmosphere floated off into outer space.

How do we know?

Because Into the Night decrees it to be so.

And THAT is all the proof that anyone could ever need.

Blaming me for the laws of thermodynamics that you want to ignore isn't going to work, Sock.

God i wish dat i waz smert enough to ubnderstands thermodynambics

John Marsriver wrote:

Im a BM wrote:.

At least you now specifically identify the 1st law of thermodynamics as the basis for refusing to believe the objective reality that helium escapes the atmosphere.

In the "para" theoretical model of the Universe, Earth is the heart feeding the entire Universe.

There is no doubt, Earth is entirely shielded by yellow glass, but the model does not absolutely forbid gases to escape the atmosphere, because that would defeat the purpose of Earth. But the channels must be narrow.

Helium must be escaping. It's apparently used to charge the Sun. Charged Helium glows pink. That is what often causes sunsets to make the sky appear orange, when the brightness of the white sunlight is dimmed. The yellow glass, and the pink glow, makes tiger orange.

Into the Night wrote:
Now here's where the Church of Global Warming gets it wrong:

First, there is no power source required for the presence of carbon dioxide (or any other Holy Magick Gas). Therefore, it is possible to use the Earth itself as the system. As in any given system, you cannot consider any heat source or sink from outside that system.

Therefore, the mere presence of carbon dioxide (or any other Holy Magick Gas) is incapable of warming the Earth. Earth cannot heat itself. THAT would violate both the 1st and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Now let's consider a different system, which includes the Sun and the surrounding space.
The Sun heats the Earth, and thermal energy from Earth is radiated into space. With the same output from the Sun, the same radiance will occur into space.

The mere presence of carbon dioxide (or any other Holy Magick Gas) cannot change that. THAT would violate the Stefan-Boltzmann law by REDUCING radiance at higher temperature.

It would also violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics by decreasing entropy in the system. It is literally trying to heat a warmer surface using a colder gas in the atmosphere.

It would also violate the 1st law of thermodynamics by adding additional energy (the output of the Sun PLUS additional energy from somewhere unnamed) to the system simply by the mere presence of carbon dioxide (or any other Holy Magick Gas).

You cannot create energy out of nothing.
You cannot trap heat.
You cannot trap light.
You cannot heat something warmer with something colder.

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

keepit wrote:
seal lover,
Could you say more about earth's alpha particle emission.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

keepit wrote:
seal lover,
Could you say more about earth's alpha particle emission.

If the "debate" actually referred to specific details beyond "Thermodynamics does not cancel gravity", I would recommend a search in Google Scholar to find peer-reviewed scientific papers or textbooks on the subject.

Attempting to deny science using Google isn't going to work, Robert.
Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science. Science is not a paper or a textbook or Google.

Im a BM wrote:
But a resource that is more user friendly to the lay person is just Google.

Google is not God.

Im a BM wrote:
Any radium present in the Earth's crust 4600 million years has LONG since decayed and emitted alpha particles which immediately became helium.

You don't know what conditions were like 4600 million years ago. Omniscience fallacy. Radium exists.

Im a BM wrote:
On the other hand, if ITN knows enough about radioactive decay to invoke NEW formation of radium in the time since the Earth formed...

Radium exists in the Earth.

Im a BM wrote:
That is even MORE helium unaccounted for in the atmosphere.

Radium is not helium. Redefinition fallacy.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
"Radium is not helium." - Into the Night

Another straw man bites the dust.

Your redefinition fallacy, Robert. You cannot blame your problem on me or anybody else.
Radium is not helium.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
"Radium is not helium." - Into the Night

Another straw man bites the dust.

Your redefinition fallacy, Robert. You cannot blame your problem on me or anybody else.
Radium is not helium.

I'm pretty sure that I said that RADIUM EMITS ALPHA PARTICLES during its radioactive decay, and that ALPHA PARTICLES BECOME HELIUM.

And I'm pretty sure that ITN said alpha particles do NOT become helium.

And OF COURSE radium is not helium.

Pigs are not mosquitoes. True, but did someone really have to spell it out?

Nobody ever claimed that pigs ARE mosquitoes.

Perhaps you should identify the quote where someone allegedly said that radium IS helium, if you really don't believe you are just making another of your MANY false accusations.

Tell us again about how alpha particles do NOT become helium.

Tell us what the evidence is that helium does NOT escape the atmosphere.

You don't even need to invoke "thermodynamics", just tell us where we can find the evidence that supports your extraordinary contrarian claims.

You won't be able to cite any references to back it up.

But that never stopped you before.

SCIENCE IS NOT A REFERENCE!

Right. I forgot.

A theory of science IS a reference.
You just want to ignore the 1st law of thermodynamics again. Helium cannot escape the atmosphere.

Im a BM wrote:

No attempt was made to support the previous ITN assertion that alpha particles do NOT become helium. (very easy to fact check in any case)

James_ wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

No attempt was made to support the previous ITN assertion that alpha particles do NOT become helium. (very easy to fact check in any case)

Why did you say nothing? You omitted the original source of radiation. Ergo, its decay cannot be known. Please include the original source of radiation and ask your question again. Thank You for your cooperation in this matter.

Im a BM wrote: ... and become helium atoms that would still be in the atmosphere if they weren't continuously floating off to outer space.

keepit wrote:
Mars lost its atmosphere for example.
Also, there's much less gravity at much higher altitudes. And so, the escape velocity is much less.

Im a BM wrote:
The first time I posted the basic fact that alpha particles emitted during radioactive decay of some heavy elements are the source of helium in the Earth's crust, I was contradicted with the assertion that alpha particles do NOT become helium (as per ITN decree).

Im a BM wrote:
Now, the "RQAA" is a pivot to "Alpha particles are not helium".

Im a BM wrote:
Maybe not, but alpha particles BECOME helium within a microsecond of their emission during radioactive decay.

Im a BM wrote:
"Original source of radiation" could be decay of uranium, thorium, radium, radon, polonium, and others.

Let's say it is RADIUM as the original source. Alpha particles are emitted during radium decay, correct?

And before they have traveled four centimeters at incredibly high velocity they acquire two electrons, slow way down, and become helium atoms that would still be in the atmosphere if they weren't continuously floating off to outer space.

keepit wrote:
Mars lost its atmosphere for example.
Also, there's much less gravity at much higher altitudes. And so, the escape velocity is much less.

Im a BM wrote:

keepit wrote:
Mars lost its atmosphere for example.
Also, there's much less gravity at much higher altitudes. And so, the escape velocity is much less.

All the NEWEST literature about helium escaping atmospheres is from gigantic "exoplanets", the size of Jupiter or Neptune.

Im a BM wrote:
Even with such an intense gravitational field, helium is light enough to reach escape velocity with just a little kick.

Im a BM wrote:
The burden of proof is on those who claim all the scientists are WRONG about helium leaving the Earth's atmosphere.

Im a BM wrote:
They will not find even ONE scientific paper that supports the absurd claim.

Im a BM wrote:
There are HUNDREDS that support the common knowledge that helium has been escaping the Earth's atmosphere for as long as the Earth has had one.

Im a BM wrote:
I guess we are expected to trust the omniscience of trolls.
Who, apparently, are the ONLY ones who truly understand "thermodynamics".
Why is is not even theoretically possible for helium to leave the Earth's atmosphere?

keepit wrote:
itn,
Your last post here might be your most incompetent one yet. Can you top it?

keepit wrote: itn, Your last post here might be your most incompetent one yet.

keepit wrote:
itn,
Your last post here might be your most incompetent one yet. Can you top it?

Im a BM wrote:

keepit wrote:
itn,
Your last post here might be your most incompetent one yet. Can you top it?

Oh, man... If you tried to compile a list of the top 100 most scientifically incompetent posts... out of more than 22,000.

I think it would be easier to say a particular post made the 99th percentile, putting it in the top 219 most scientifically incompetent posts.

But I'm having fun with the armchair psychiatric diagnosis.

Yes, in modern psychology, it would be "malignant narcissism".

But the old school Freudians would have called it "penis envy".