Does Neo Thermodynamics Prove that Climate Change is Theoretically Impossible?

Im a BM wrote:
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.

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:

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.

James, I don't think you ever saw my response to your question.

It got covered with so much troll manure that you probably couldn't find it.

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.