Remember me
▼ Content

Does Neo Thermodynamics Prove that Climate Change is Theoretically Impossible?



Page 5 of 6<<<3456>
02-06-2024 02:05
keepit
★★★★★
(3286)
Maybe it's translation problem. Itn, what's your native language?
02-06-2024 04:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22183)
keepit wrote:
Maybe it's translation problem. Itn, what's your native language?

What are you talking about, keepit? Void context.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
02-06-2024 04:45
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(921)
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.
02-06-2024 04:46
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(921)
The term "thermodynamics" is very frequently invoked in discussions on this website.

The thread title says "Neo Thermodynamics".

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

That is because the arguments presented at this website are inconsistent with what is classically called thermodyamics, and represent a major revision.

For example, within classical thermodynamics it IS theoretically possible for a molecule of hydrogen gas (H2) to leave the Earth's atmosphere and float off into outer space. Helium too. That's why there is no helium left in the atmosphere.

But, according to parathermodynamics, it is NOT possible for these lightest gases to escape the Earth's atmosphere.

It would violate the laws of "thermodynamics", as revised for the new paradigm.

Make that "as revised for the new paraparadigm."
02-06-2024 04:47
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(921)
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!



ANYONE can make shit up!

Just ask Parrot Boy.

However, the burden of proof for contrarian assertions is a high bar.

It requires more than a one sentence proclamation to rebut more than a century of reproducible results as per the Scientific Method.

Because "thermodynamics" is constantly invoked on threads that are about CHEMISTRY rather than PHYSICS, it seemed like a good idea to have a thread explicitly dedicated to this question.

An affirmative argument with some kind of EVIDENCE would be required to support the assertion that "thermodynamics" proves that changing the concentration of carbon dioxide, methane, or nitrous oxide in the atmosphere cannot possibly result in a change to average air temperature at the surface
02-06-2024 04:48
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(921)
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
"There is helium in the atmosphere." - Into the Night

In a rare deviation, ITN has posted a sentence of accurate science.

Yes, there is helium in the atmosphere.

About 5 ppm. He = 0.00005% of gas in atmosphere.

Helium has been generated by nuclear reactions in the Earth's crust for about 4600 million years.

It is too inert to bond to anything and end up in land or water.

It eithers stays in the atmosphere or floats off to outer space.

If it weren't floating away, helium would be present at double digit percentage concentration in the atmosphere today. Not just 5 ppm.
02-06-2024 04:50
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(921)
"Nuclear fission does not create helium." - Into the Night

In the universe as a whole, it is nuclear FUSION that creates the most helium.

Deuterium + Deuterium = Helium + ENERGY (one of the sun's many reactions)

Deuterium is "heavy" hydrogen. It has a NEUTRON as well as a proton in its nucleus.

But here on earth, this source of helium is limited to hydrogen bombs or nuclear research labs.

Nuclear FISSION, here in the Earth's crust, often creates "alpha particles"

An alpha particle is a helium nucleus with no associated electrons.

It almost instantaneously becomes helium following alpha particle emission.

And at least 99.99% of the helium generated by these fission reactions has long since escaped the Earth's atmosphere.
02-06-2024 04:51
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(921)
At least one of the proposed questions has been addressed explicitly in a response.

"Can helium leave the atmosphere? (of course it can)" - Im a BM

"Not possible. Thermodynamics does not cancel gravity." - Into the Night

This was the direct reply to the question.

It is not possible for helium to leave the atmosphere because "Thermodynamics does not.... (something)"

Okay, having invoked thermodynamics to explain the assertion.

How, exactly does THERMODYNAMICS apply here?

Remember THIS is the thread where you get to go whole hog on all the laws of thermodynamics, and you don't even have to pretend to understand chemistry.

---------------------------------------------------------

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.


--------------------------------------------


Opening salvo.

The term "thermodynamics" is very frequently invoked in discussions on this website.

The thread title says "Neo Thermodynamics".

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

That is because the arguments presented at this website are inconsistent with what is classically called thermodyamics, and represent a major revision.

For example, within classical thermodynamics it IS theoretically possible for a molecule of hydrogen gas (H2) to leave the Earth's atmosphere and float off into outer space. Helium too. That's why there is no helium left in the atmosphere.

But, according to parathermodynamics, it is NOT possible for these lightest gases to escape the Earth's atmosphere.

It would violate the laws of "thermodynamics", as revised for the new paradigm.

Make that "as revised for the new paraparadigm."
02-06-2024 04:52
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(921)
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.




Right! You already answered the question...

"Thermodynamics does not cancel gravity."

Do you even know what thermodynamics IS?

Nothing you write suggests that you have any idea.

So, all the reports are wrong about how much helium has escaped from the atmosphere.

Because "thermodynamics does not cancel gravity".

The high bar for the kind of proof required to contradict the published science has not been met.

Shouldn't you at least give a number for which law of thermodynamics would be violated by helium leaving the atmosphere?
02-06-2024 04:53
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(921)
When I began posting a little more than two years ago, I started about ten threads related to environmental chemistry (carbon sequestration, ocean acidification, nitrous oxide emission, etc.).

Into the Night constantly trolled them, with posts outnumbering mine more than three to one on my environmental chemistry threads.

ALWAYS invoking "thermodynamics"!

"You are ignoring thermodynamics." "You deny thermodynamics" "You are ignoring the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics" "Thermodynamics blah blah blah" "Blah blah blah thermodynamics"

All in the context of environmental chemistry.

NOW Into the Night has a chance to display mastery of thermodynamics on a thread that is NOT about chemistry.

A thread that specifically cited Into the Night's claims about "thermodynamics", including the assertion that helium cannot escape the atmosphere.

And defend the cryptic answer that "Thermodynamics does not cancel gravity" as the explanation for why it should not be theoretically possible for helium to leave the atmosphere.

(Fact check: Helium DOES leave the atmosphere)
02-06-2024 04:54
keepit
★★★★★
(3286)
itn,
I'm just trying to figure out why your interpretations are so much different than what is intended.
02-06-2024 04:54
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(921)
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?




My "helium issue" is not "urgent".

My issue was having "thermodynamics" constantly invoked by members who trolled the environmental chemistry threads.

THIS thread was meant to provide a specific forum for the specific issue that kept coming up in the context of chemistry rather than physics.

Into the Night STILL claims that helium cannot leave the atmosphere, invoking "thermodynamics" as the explanation.

"Thermodynamics does not cancel gravity"

The published papers I believe do not "trump" ANY laws of thermodynamics.

The burden of proof is on anyone who claims that "thermodynamics" proves something that contradicts the published papers whose results have been shown to be reproducible by the Scientific Method.

Not that the helium issue is urgent, but do YOU have any opinion on how "thermodynamics" applies to whether or not helium can escape the atmosphere?

I didn't think so.

In case you forgot, YOU also trolled environmental chemistry threads, invoking "thermodynamics".

THIS is the thread where you can go ALL IN and cite the (zero?) law of thermodynamics to prove that virtually ALL the world's scientists are wrong.
02-06-2024 04:55
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(921)
HELIUM FUN FACTS

At least 1600 metric tons of He leave the atmosphere each year to outer space.

This is the most conservative (low end) estimate I could find.

The atmosphere is 5 ppm He.

1600 metric tons per year only represents 1 out of every 2 million metric tons of total He in the atmosphere.

If one were concerned that our atmosphere is losing precious helium, it might be dismissed as a negligible loss.

But then multiply it by 2 million years at that rate, and it is the entire 5 ppm of He in the atmosphere.

Multiply it by 2000 million years, and we lost 5000 ppm of He from the atmosphere.

The Earth's peak production of helium via alpha particle emission in nuclear reactions was LONG before 2000 million years ago.

And if there were 5000 ppm He in the atmosphere today, it would certainly be lost to outer space at a rate MUCH higher than 1600 metric tons per year.
02-06-2024 04:57
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(921)
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.



My dyslexia must have prevented me from seeing where Into the Night answered the question and cited the law which is violated by helium floating into outer space.

The physic police need to arrest a lot of helium atoms for breaking the law.

The only answers that I saw to the question were:

"Thermodynamics does not cancel gravity."

Which was elaborated in a later post to:

"You cannot create energy out of nothing. Nothing in thermodynamics cancels gravity."


It didn't cite any law, but it indirectly describes the first law of thermodynamics.

GasGuzzler, can you remind me of any more explicit answer that I did not see?

Anyway, the entirety of Into the Night's explanation were these three sentences, as far as I could tell.

Not a very compelling argument. Not even a coherent argument.

Acknowledging the scientific fact that helium CAN escape the atmosphere does NOT imply that thermodynamics somehow "cancels gravity."

Anyway, I'm glad that it is being discussed on THIS thread, rather derailing every discussion on every other thread.

Does thermodynamics really prove that increasing the atmospheric concentration of a gas such as carbon dioxide cannot possibly result in an increase to air temperature at the Earth's surface?

No it does not. At least, not the kind of thermodynamics they taught me in physics classes at the University of California. Actually, I took physics courses at all three schools I got degrees from: Santa Cruz, Berkeley, and Davis.

What effs up every thread here is not classic thermodynamics.

It is neo thermodynamics, para thermodynamics, or just pseudo thermodynamics.
02-06-2024 04:58
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(921)
Google search keywords: Does helium leave the atmosphere?

"Helium is produced by radioactive decay of heavy elements within the earth's crust. Given the amount being produced and the estimated age of the earth, there should be very much more of it in the atmosphere than the present 4 to 5 parts per million. It is clear that it escapes, as indeed do other light gases."



Google may not be God, but why would they bother to participate in a conspiracy to lie about this issue?

Anyone who does this search will find hundreds of references, many of them peer-reviewed scientific papers, to verify the assertions of the summary paragraph.

Why would they all conspire to promote a lie?

What good does it do the the Marxist libtard gullible corrupt evil disciples of the Church of Global Warming to push a BIG LIE about HELIUM LEAVING THE ATMOSPHERE?


------------------------------

HELIUM FUN FACTS

At least 1600 metric tons of He leave the atmosphere each year to outer space.

This is the most conservative (low end) estimate I could find.

The atmosphere is 5 ppm He.

1600 metric tons per year only represents 1 out of every 2 million metric tons of total He in the atmosphere.

If one were concerned that our atmosphere is losing precious helium, it might be dismissed as a negligible loss.

But then multiply it by 2 million years at that rate, and it is the entire 5 ppm of He in the atmosphere.

Multiply it by 2000 million years, and we lost 5000 ppm of He from the atmosphere.

The Earth's peak production of helium via alpha particle emission in nuclear reactions was LONG before 2000 million years ago.

And if there were 5000 ppm He in the atmosphere today, it would certainly be lost to outer space at a rate MUCH higher than 1600 metric tons per year.
02-06-2024 05:00
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(921)
I have no peer-reviewed scientific publications about thermodynamics.

I DO have widely-cited, peer-reviewed scientific publications about the biogeochemistry carbon and nitrogen cycling.

Many of the citations are in papers about climate change research, or applied biogeochemistry for climate change mitigation.

One of the most recent ones came out just over a month ago, in fact.

Published April 10, 2024.

B. Adamczyk. 2024. Tannins and climate change: Are tannins able to stabilize carbon in the soil? Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. Volume 72, Issue 16, Pages 8928-8932.


Cited my published research because I showed how tannins influence carbon and nitrogen cycling, most famously in a 1995 paper in the journal Nature.

I stuck to my own threads about biogeochemistry, and avoided the incessant discussion of "thermodynamics" on nearly every other thread on this website that even pretended to be about climate change or anything related to it.

But the "thermodynamics" discussion didn't steer clear of ME.

My threads were constantly trolled by the thermodynamics experts, constantly telling me that my biogeochemistry was all wrong because I was "ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics".

So, I figured it makes sense to have a thread specifically dedicated to allowing the "resident science experts" to explain the "thermodynamics" connection.

So far, they have utterly failed to rise to the challenge.



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
02-06-2024 05:02
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(921)
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.




OOPS!

I just double checked.

The "exoplanets" recently referenced in astronomy publications as showing helium escape from their atmospheres are NOT moons of Jupiter or Neptune.

They are "Jupiter-like" or "Neptune-like" exoplanets outside of our solar system, all of them at least 73 light years away from here.
-----------------------------------

Okay, as Spongy John correctly points out, helium has spectral properties that can be seen and measured from great distance.

Astronomers had long been aware that helium escapes the atmospheres of planets the size of the Earth.

But it was a surprise that these massive exoplanets were losing helium.

And they are debating different theories about how even such large planets can lose helium.

Mostly they are invoking mechanisms through which some helium atoms get kicked extra hard and escape the atmosphere despite the strong gravitational field.

"Charged helium glows pink."

The glow can be seen more than 73 light years away, exiting the atmosphere.[/quote]
02-06-2024 05:04
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(921)
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.




Someone who never studied science might read this and think it has a lot of scientific sounding words.

It even makes vague references to specific laws of thermodynamics.

But you won't find these claims in any scientific literature.

The guardians of these scientific secrets can only be found in Internet rabbit holes.

"No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth".

Just keep repeating that one.

Over and over and over and over and over.

It sounds like a prayer.
02-06-2024 05:06
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(921)
Google search keywords: Does helium leave the atmosphere?

The first thing it shows, on upper left, is a one paragraph summary of what the Google algorithm thinks the question was and what the answer is:

"Helium is produced by radioactive decay of heavy elements within the earth's crust. Given the amount being produced and the estimated age of the earth, there should be very much more of it in the atmosphere than the present 4 to 5 parts per million. It is clear that it escapes, as indeed do other light gases."


Going further down to the left is a section about "People also ask"

Below that is a section about "Questions & answers"

And then, below that, begins a long list of specific websites where the question, as interpreted by Google's algorithm, is addressed.

I didn't go more than 30 down, but I did not see ANY that suggested that helium cannot leave the atmosphere.

Certainly no reference to a scientific explanation of how it would violate the 1st law of thermodynamics if all the data/evidence were TRUE about helium leaving the atmosphere (which it is)

For THAT you will have to rely on the omniscience of our local troll.

Who offers an entire sentence to support the assertion.

"Thermodynamics does not cancel gravity".

Google may not be God, but why would they bother to participate in a conspiracy to lie about this issue?

Anyone who does this search will find hundreds of references, many of them peer-reviewed scientific papers, to verify the assertions of the summary paragraph.

Why would they all conspire to promote a lie?

What good does it do the the Marxist libtard gullible corrupt evil disciples of the Church of Global Warming to push a BIG LIE about HELIUM LEAVING THE ATMOSPHERE?


------------------------------

HELIUM FUN FACTS

At least 1600 metric tons of He leave the atmosphere each year to outer space.

This is the most conservative (low end) estimate I could find.

The atmosphere is 5 ppm He.

1600 metric tons per year only represents 1 out of every 2 million metric tons of total He in the atmosphere.

If one were concerned that our atmosphere is losing precious helium, it might be dismissed as a negligible loss.

But then multiply it by 2 million years at that rate, and it is the entire 5 ppm of He in the atmosphere.

Multiply it by 2000 million years, and we lost 5000 ppm of He from the atmosphere.

The Earth's peak production of helium via alpha particle emission in nuclear reactions was LONG before 2000 million years ago.

And if there were 5000 ppm He in the atmosphere today, it would certainly be lost to outer space at a rate MUCH higher than 1600 metric tons per year.
02-06-2024 05:08
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(921)
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.

But a resource that is more user friendly to the lay person is just Google.

Search 1 - Google search words: "Alpha particle emission"


At the top left you see the summary paragraph:

"Alpha particles (a) are composite particles consisting of two protons and two neutrons bound tightly together (Figure 1). They are emitted from the nucleus of some radionuclides during a form of radioactive decay, known as alpha-decay".

Going down to the list of specific websites, the first one says, "...a type of radioactive decay in which an atomic nucleus emits an alpha particle (helium nucleus).."

To better answer the keepit inquiry, one might go on to ask:

Google keywords: "Do alpha particles become helium?"

Summary paragraph says:

"Alpha particles cannot travel more than a few centimeters in air and readily capture two electrons to become ordinary helium"


But maybe the real question was..

Google keywords: Which heavy elements emit alpha particles during radioactive decay?


Summary paragraph begins with the sentence:

"Alpha particles come from the radioactive decay of the heaviest elements, such as uranium, radium, and polonium."


The list is much longer than this, but just looking at two of those listed.

Google search keywords: "What is the half life of radium?"


3-5 days for 224-radium (isotope)
1600 years for 226-radium (isotope)
6.7 years for 228-radium (isotope)

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

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

That is even MORE helium unaccounted for in the atmosphere.
02-06-2024 05:10
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(921)
"Radium is not helium." - Into the Night

Another straw man bites the dust.

All those fools who claimed that radium IS helium just got humiliated.

Radium is of great concern for human health because gamma rays are emitted during its decay process.

But alpha particles are also emitted, which immediately become helium.

New radium is generated all the time as OTHER radionuclides decay.

For example, uranium and thorium produce radium during their decay process.

And new alpha emitters are created by other fission reactions.

For example when radon decays to polonium, becoming an alpha emitter.

The DEFINER OF WORDS can now explain how alpha particles DO NOT BECOME HELIUM, despite what all those references claim, because ONLY HE KNOWS.



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.
02-06-2024 05:11
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(921)
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.
02-06-2024 05:12
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(921)
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.



No energy is created or destroyed when helium leaves the atmosphere, as it does all the time.

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)

Never admitted that chemists DO refer to hydrogen ion (H+) as "protons".

Never explained why it made any sense to point out that "radium is not helium".

Never attempted to explain in any scientifically valid manner how climate change would violate any law of thermodynamics.

Never stops ****ing TROLLING trolling trolling trolling spamming spamming

MORE THAN 22,000 posts of parrot poop, telling everyone else that THEY do not know anything about science.
02-06-2024 06:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22183)
Stop spamming.
02-06-2024 14:24
James_
★★★★★
(2273)
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.
Edited on 02-06-2024 14:28
04-06-2024 02:04
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(921)
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.



Actually, I DID say something, and the source of radiation has been clearly identified repeatedly.

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).

Now, the "RQAA" is a pivot to "Alpha particles are not helium".

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

"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.
04-06-2024 19:37
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14652)
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.

Why do you believe that helium can escape gravity?

I'm not asking why other atmospheric gases adhere to gravity, thus giving helium the illusion of somehow defying gravity by "rising." I am asking that once helium bubbles to the top of other gases, how do you imagine that helium can then ignore gravity and just "float away"?
04-06-2024 19:58
keepit
★★★★★
(3286)
Mars lost its atmosphere for example.
Also, there's much less gravity at much higher altitudes. And so, the escape velocity is much less.
04-06-2024 20:32
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(921)
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.

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

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

They will not find even ONE scientific paper that supports the absurd claim.

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.

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?

RQAA, dumbass. It is because "thermodynamics does not cancel gravity".
05-06-2024 11:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22183)
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).

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

Nope. It never meant that. Stop making shit up.
Im a BM wrote:
Maybe not, but alpha particles BECOME helium within a microsecond of their emission during radioactive decay.

Alpha particles are not helium.
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.

Helium cannot escape Earth's gravity. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
05-06-2024 11:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22183)
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.

Mars hasn't lost it's atmosphere.

You cannot create energy out of nothing.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
05-06-2024 11:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22183)
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.

No gas can escape Jupiter or Neptune. You cannot create energy out of nothing. The 1st law of thermodynamics does not allow you to cancel gravity.
Im a BM wrote:
Even with such an intense gravitational field, helium is light enough to reach escape velocity with just a little kick.

No 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.

You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy. Helium cannot leave Earth's atmosphere.
Im a BM wrote:
They will not find even ONE scientific paper that supports the absurd claim.

Science isn't a paper.
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.

Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science.
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?

RQAA


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
05-06-2024 17:41
keepit
★★★★★
(3286)
itn,
Your last post here might be your most incompetent one yet. Can you top it?
Edited on 05-06-2024 18:27
05-06-2024 21:23
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(921)
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".
06-06-2024 08:18
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14652)
keepit wrote: itn, Your last post here might be your most incompetent one yet.

keepit, you're full of baloney. Too many false statements.
06-06-2024 09:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22183)
keepit wrote:
itn,
Your last post here might be your most incompetent one yet. Can you top it?

Argument of the Stone fallacy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
06-06-2024 09:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22183)
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".

Mantra 1d.
Assumption of victory fallacy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
10-06-2024 20:23
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(921)
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.

----------------------------------------------------
THIS WAS THE WRONG QUESTION

Does thermodynamics prove that the fundamental relationship between temperature and other physical properties and processes has changed?

A change that is purely coincidental with the increase in concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

The null hypothesis is that there has been NO increase in average temperatures on Earth in the past 50 years.

The acceleration of glacier melting is because the basic thermodynamic relationship has changed.

The phase change of water going from solid to liquid now occurs at a lower temperature than before.

Snowmelt, melting of sea ice, melting of permafrost in the tundra, all at a lower temperature than before.

Because it isn't getting any warmer in the air, sea, or soil.

Another basic thermodynamic relationship has also suddenly shifted, in pure coincidence with the same time period that greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere increased.

The phase change of water going from liquid to vapor now can occur at lower temperature than before.

The amount of water vapor that air can hold at a given temperature has changed.

The significantly higher concentration of water vapor in an atmosphere whose temperature has not increased is proof that the laws of physics have changed.
10-06-2024 21:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22183)
Stop spamming.
11-06-2024 18:15
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(921)
Does thermodynamics prove that the fundamental relationship between temperature and other physical properties and processes has changed?

A change that is purely coincidental with the increase in concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

The null hypothesis is that there has been NO increase in average temperatures on Earth (air, sea, or soil) in the past 50 years.

Assuming no temperature increase, the acceleration of glacier melting must be because the basic thermodynamic relationship has changed.

The phase change of water going from solid to liquid now occurs at a lower temperature than before.

Snowmelt, melting of sea ice, melting of permafrost in the tundra, all at a lower temperature than before.

Because it isn't getting any warmer in the air, sea, or soil.

Assuming no temperature increase, another basic thermodynamic relationship must have also suddenly shifted, in pure coincidence with the same time period that greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere increased.

The phase change of water going from liquid to vapor now can occur at lower temperature than before.

The amount of water vapor that air can hold at a given temperature has changed.

The significantly higher concentration of water vapor in an atmosphere whose temperature has not increased is proof that the laws of physics have changed.

Assuming that it isn't really getting any warmer.
Page 5 of 6<<<3456>





Join the debate Does Neo Thermodynamics Prove that Climate Change is Theoretically Impossible?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Every time I say that this board is dead, someone says something to prove me wrong, but901-01-2024 05:08
The Kent Papers: NEW THERMODYNAMICS: HOW MANKIND'S USE OF ENERGY INFLUENCES CLIMATE CHANGE1102-02-2023 22:07
The Kent Papers: New Thermodynamics: The Second Law Buried by Illusions2101-02-2023 13:42
I Can Prove I am The Messiah, I Want To Talk With Top People GOV Of China or USA To Save The World025-09-2021 04:15
10 Reasons To Prove That Climate Change is a Hoax8405-02-2021 17:43
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact