Remember me
▼ Content

Does Neo Thermodynamics Prove that Climate Change is Theoretically Impossible?



Page 2 of 4<1234>
15-05-2024 07:44
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21960)
Im a BM wrote:
HELIUM FUN FACTS

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

Argument from randU fallacy. Making up numbers and using them as 'data' won't work.
Im a BM wrote:
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.

Argument from randU fallacies.


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
15-05-2024 19:02
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(791)
John Marsriver wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
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."


LOL, "parathermodynamics" posits that a mass the size of earth spinning 1000 mph at the equator, must need a wind shield to protect life on earth from winds of lethal force, and furthermore it posits it to be an absurd notion, called "magical gravity" , that a pebble floating in an infinite vacuum of space would not be ripped apart into microscopic pieces of dust.


Spongy John, your behavior on this website is respectful and you consistently display common decency.

To your credit, you never pretended to have special knowledge of the field of study within physics called "thermodynamics".

You didn't troll every thread, invoking "thermodynamics" as the basis for any unsupported contrarian assertion you happened to make up in the moment.

You never pretended that "thermodynamics" proved virtually every scientist in the world to be either supremely incompetent or hopelessly corrupt as a member of a vast evil conspiracy.

But THIS thread is where the "resident science experts" are explicitly invited to show off their knowledge of thermodynamics and support their contrarian assertions, so often repeated, about its implications for climate change.

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

Repeated Question ALWAYS AVOIDED.
15-05-2024 19:40
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2949)
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.


Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
15-05-2024 20:04
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(791)
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.
15-05-2024 21:40
John Marsriver
★☆☆☆☆
(59)
Im a BM wrote:
You never pretended that "thermodynamics" proved virtually every scientist in the world to be either supremely incompetent or hopelessly corrupt as a member of a vast evil conspiracy


Well I did posit your newly coined term "parathermodynamics" proves gases are rigidly contained in a greenhouse, literally.

I suppose that includes much of your statement by extension of the position.
16-05-2024 00:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21960)
Im a BM wrote:
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.

You can't blame your argument of the stone fallacy on dyslexia.
Im a BM wrote:
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.

RQAA.
Im a BM wrote:
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.

Argument of the Stone fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
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."

Learn what 'fact' means. It does not mean 'proof' or 'Universal Truth'. Science is neither. Helium cannot escape the atmosphere. You can't create energy out of nothing. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.
Im a BM wrote:
Anyway, I'm glad that it is being discussed on THIS thread, rather derailing every discussion on every other thread.

You aren't having a discussion in any thread. You are just spamming and occasionally preaching.
Im a BM wrote:
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?

RQAA
Im a BM wrote:
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.

Science is not a physics class. It is not a degree, license, certification, college, university, or course. You deny and discard thermodynamics.
Im a BM wrote:
What effs up every thread here is not classic thermodynamics.

No such thing as 'classic' thermodynamics.
Im a BM wrote:
It is neo thermodynamics, para thermodynamics, or just pseudo thermodynamics.

No such thing. Buzzword fallacies.


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
16-05-2024 00:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21960)
John Marsriver wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
You never pretended that "thermodynamics" proved virtually every scientist in the world to be either supremely incompetent or hopelessly corrupt as a member of a vast evil conspiracy


Well I did posit your newly coined term "parathermodynamics" proves gases are rigidly contained in a greenhouse, literally.

I suppose that includes much of your statement by extension of the position.

Greenhouses are not gas tight.


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
16-05-2024 01:24
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(791)
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
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.

You can't blame your argument of the stone fallacy on dyslexia.
Im a BM wrote:
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.

RQAA.
Im a BM wrote:
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.

Argument of the Stone fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
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."

Learn what 'fact' means. It does not mean 'proof' or 'Universal Truth'. Science is neither. Helium cannot escape the atmosphere. You can't create energy out of nothing. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.
Im a BM wrote:
Anyway, I'm glad that it is being discussed on THIS thread, rather derailing every discussion on every other thread.





You aren't having a discussion in any thread. You are just spamming and occasionally preaching.
Im a BM wrote:
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?

RQAA
Im a BM wrote:
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.

Science is not a physics class. It is not a degree, license, certification, college, university, or course. You deny and discard thermodynamics.
Im a BM wrote:
What effs up every thread here is not classic thermodynamics.

No such thing as 'classic' thermodynamics.
Im a BM wrote:
It is neo thermodynamics, para thermodynamics, or just pseudo thermodynamics.

No such thing. Buzzword fallacies.





You continue to ignore and deny science.

You have locked yourself into a paradox.

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.
16-05-2024 02:37
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(791)
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.
16-05-2024 06:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21960)
Im a BM wrote:
You continue to ignore and deny science.

You have locked yourself into a paradox.

You are describing yourself. You cannot blame YOUR problems on me or anybody else.
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.

It doesn't.


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
16-05-2024 06:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21960)
Im a BM wrote:
Google search keywords: Does helium leave the atmosphere?

Google is not God.
[b]Im a BM wrote:
"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."[/b]


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

Google is not a source.
Helium is not created by fission.
Im a BM wrote:
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.

Science is not a paper. Science does not use consensus.
Im a BM wrote:
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?


The Church of Global Warming is a conspiracy.


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
16-05-2024 07:23
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(791)
"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.



Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Google search keywords: Does helium leave the atmosphere?

Google is not God.
[b]Im a BM wrote:
"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."[/b]


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

Google is not a source.
Helium is not created by fission.
Im a BM wrote:
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.

Science is not a paper. Science does not use consensus.
Im a BM wrote:
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?


The Church of Global Warming is a conspiracy.
16-05-2024 20:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21960)
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.


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
16-05-2024 21:30
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(791)
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.
16-05-2024 21:54
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5734)
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


IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD.

According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA

So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic?


It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck.


Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
16-05-2024 21:55
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21960)
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!

RQAA. You cannot ignore the laws of thermodynamics by belittlement, Sock.


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
16-05-2024 23:31
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5734)
Into the Night 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!

RQAA. You cannot ignore the laws of thermodynamics by belittlement, Sock.


Says the Burger King fry cook


IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD.

According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA

So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic?


It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck.


Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
16-05-2024 23:40
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(791)
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
17-05-2024 00:27
Xadoman
★★★★☆
(1036)
The earth has been at once a molten blob with a surface temperature over 5000 degrees. But then it started to cool down. At one point the oceans started to rain down. The incredibly thick atmosphere full of CO2 and other greenhouse gases started to dissolve into the oceans. The earth continued cooling. At one point ice stated to form on the poles. The earth continued cooling.

The earth has been cooling down historically, it cools down today and it will continue to cool down in the future. The molten core inside the earth is cooling. Simple as that. This is simple thermodynamics - everything hot will eventually cool down. The molten core inside the earth inevitably cools down and nobody is going to refuel it again.

Greenhouse gases have been historically in the atmosphere but the earth still cooled down. We can argue that maybe they slowed down cooling. But the end result is still cooling not heating. Also, it they would slow down cooling then it would be beneficial to add them into the atmosphere because we would not want to hurry up cooling. Warmer planet is better for survival.
17-05-2024 00:46
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(791)
Thank you for sharing that.

I'm hearing acknowledgement that it is possible for the average temperature to change over time. Historic periods of cooling are a scientific fact.

I'm NOT hearing any assertion that "thermodynamics" proves it is not possible for "cooling" to have ever occurred.

Thank you for not pushing any pseudo thermodynamics.




Xadoman wrote:
The earth has been at once a molten blob with a surface temperature over 5000 degrees. But then it started to cool down. At one point the oceans started to rain down. The incredibly thick atmosphere full of CO2 and other greenhouse gases started to dissolve into the oceans. The earth continued cooling. At one point ice stated to form on the poles. The earth continued cooling.

The earth has been cooling down historically, it cools down today and it will continue to cool down in the future. The molten core inside the earth is cooling. Simple as that. This is simple thermodynamics - everything hot will eventually cool down. The molten core inside the earth inevitably cools down and nobody is going to refuel it again.

Greenhouse gases have been historically in the atmosphere but the earth still cooled down. We can argue that maybe they slowed down cooling. But the end result is still cooling not heating. Also, it they would slow down cooling then it would be beneficial to add them into the atmosphere because we would not want to hurry up cooling. Warmer planet is better for survival.
17-05-2024 02:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21960)
Im a BM wrote:
Thank you for sharing that.

I'm hearing acknowledgement that it is possible for the average temperature to change over time. Historic periods of cooling are a scientific fact.

Learn what 'fact' means. It is not science. It is not a proof. It is not a Universal Truth.
There is no such thing as 'average temperature'. Now you are discarding the 0th law of thermodynamics.
Im a BM wrote:
I'm NOT hearing any assertion that "thermodynamics" proves it is not possible for "cooling" to have ever occurred.

Thank you for not pushing any pseudo thermodynamics.

No such thing. He did deny the 1st law of thermodynamics, just as you do.

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.


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
Edited on 17-05-2024 02:59
17-05-2024 03:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21960)
Xadoman wrote:
The earth has been at once a molten blob with a surface temperature over 5000 degrees. But then it started to cool down. At one point the oceans started to rain down. The incredibly thick atmosphere full of CO2 and other greenhouse gases started to dissolve into the oceans. The earth continued cooling. At one point ice stated to form on the poles. The earth continued cooling.

The earth has been cooling down historically, it cools down today and it will continue to cool down in the future. The molten core inside the earth is cooling. Simple as that. This is simple thermodynamics - everything hot will eventually cool down. The molten core inside the earth inevitably cools down and nobody is going to refuel it again.

Nice story, but you don't know what happened.
Xadoman wrote:
Greenhouse gases have been historically in the atmosphere but the earth still cooled down. We can argue that maybe they slowed down cooling. But the end result is still cooling not heating. Also, it they would slow down cooling then it would be beneficial to add them into the atmosphere because we would not want to hurry up cooling. Warmer planet is better for survival.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. 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
17-05-2024 03:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21960)
Im a BM wrote:
I have no peer-reviewed scientific publications about thermodynamics.

Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science. Science is not a publication, magazine, journal, newspaper, paper, university, degree, 'expert', license, or any other sanctification.
Im a BM wrote:
I DO have widely-cited, peer-reviewed scientific publications about the biogeochemistry carbon and nitrogen cycling.

No such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. Buzzword fallacy. Science is not a publication. Science does not use consensus.
Im a BM wrote:
Many of the citations are in papers about climate change research, or applied biogeochemistry for climate change mitigation.

Climate cannot change. Buzzword fallacies.
Im a BM wrote:
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.

Climate cannot change. Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
But the "thermodynamics" discussion didn't steer clear of ME.

Because you deny and discard the 0th, 1st, and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
Im a BM wrote:
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".

Calling people a 'troll' is meaningless. You cannot justify discarding the laws of thermodynamics that way!
Im a BM wrote:
So, I figured it makes sense to have a thread specifically dedicated to allowing the "resident science experts" to explain the "thermodynamics" connection.

Science isn't 'expert'. RQAA.
Im a BM wrote:
So far, they have utterly failed to rise to the challenge.

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
18-05-2024 02:27
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(791)
Having, once again, read the post by Xadoman, I'm having trouble finding the sentence(s) where "He did deny the first law of thermodynamics, just as you do."

As I recall, the 1st LOT is something about how neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed.

Perhaps your personal definition for the 1st law of thermodynamics should be clarified.

I'm very strongly suggesting that you don't understand it enough to even pull off a good bluff.

Or at least identify in a less vague and ambiguous manner HOW anything Xadoman said is a DENIAL of the first law of thermodynamics.

Just tell us that "RQAA", because you have already explained it all so clearly.



Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Thank you for sharing that.

I'm hearing acknowledgement that it is possible for the average temperature to change over time. Historic periods of cooling are a scientific fact.

Learn what 'fact' means. It is not science. It is not a proof. It is not a Universal Truth.
There is no such thing as 'average temperature'. Now you are discarding the 0th law of thermodynamics.
Im a BM wrote:
I'm NOT hearing any assertion that "thermodynamics" proves it is not possible for "cooling" to have ever occurred.

Thank you for not pushing any pseudo thermodynamics.

No such thing. He did deny the 1st law of thermodynamics, just as you do.

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.
18-05-2024 09:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21960)
Im a BM wrote:
Having, once again, read the post by Xadoman, I'm having trouble finding the sentence(s) where "He did deny the first law of thermodynamics, just as you do."

As I recall, the 1st LOT is something about how neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed.

Perhaps your personal definition for the 1st law of thermodynamics should be clarified.

I'm very strongly suggesting that you don't understand it enough to even pull off a good bluff.

Or at least identify in a less vague and ambiguous manner HOW anything Xadoman said is a DENIAL of the first law of thermodynamics.

Just tell us that "RQAA", because you have already explained it all so clearly.

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
19-05-2024 04:42
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(791)
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Having, once again, read the post by Xadoman, I'm having trouble finding the sentence(s) where "He did deny the first law of thermodynamics, just as you do."

As I recall, the 1st LOT is something about how neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed.

Perhaps your personal definition for the 1st law of thermodynamics should be clarified.

I'm very strongly suggesting that you don't understand it enough to even pull off a good bluff.

Or at least identify in a less vague and ambiguous manner HOW anything Xadoman said is a DENIAL of the first law of thermodynamics.

Just tell us that "RQAA", because you have already explained it all so clearly.

RQAA.



Does your cult leader agree with your most recent proclamations that contradict all the published science?

Does the cult leader agree that helium cannot possibly leave the atmosphere because the first law of thermodynamics does not cancel gravity?

Does the cult leader agree that radioactive decay of heavy elements that emit alpha particles during fission is NOT the source of helium released from the Earth's crust?
19-05-2024 05:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21960)
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Having, once again, read the post by Xadoman, I'm having trouble finding the sentence(s) where "He did deny the first law of thermodynamics, just as you do."

As I recall, the 1st LOT is something about how neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed.

Perhaps your personal definition for the 1st law of thermodynamics should be clarified.

I'm very strongly suggesting that you don't understand it enough to even pull off a good bluff.

Or at least identify in a less vague and ambiguous manner HOW anything Xadoman said is a DENIAL of the first law of thermodynamics.

Just tell us that "RQAA", because you have already explained it all so clearly.

RQAA.



Does your cult leader agree with your most recent proclamations that contradict all the published science?

You deny science. Science is not a publication. Your religion is not science.


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
19-05-2024 07:59
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14537)
Im a BM wrote: As I recall, the 1st LOT is something about how neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed.

Just energy. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

Matter can easily be destroyed (converted into energy) and we don't know of any examples of matter being created from energy, but that doesn't mean it isn't possible.

Im a BM wrote: Perhaps your personal definition for the 1st law of thermodynamics should be clarified.

You blew it by adding the word "personal." A scientist would know that science is not a subjective matter of opinion. There is no such thing as a "personal" definition of a law of science.

Im a BM wrote: I'm very strongly suggesting that you don't understand it enough to even pull off a good bluff.

What about me. Are you suggesting that your prowess with a gamma-spec makes you an expert on thermodynamics? You can learn from me or I can pick you apart. You choose.

Im a BM wrote: Or at least identify in a less vague and ambiguous manner HOW anything Xadoman said is a DENIAL of the first law of thermodynamics.

I confess that you have me at a disadvantage. What did Xadoman write that is in question? Xadoman writes a lot of crazy stuff, and I mean a lot.

Im a BM wrote: Historic periods of cooling are a scientific fact.

You don't know what a "fact" is and no, you are not omniscient about the unobserved past.
19-05-2024 22:19
John Marsriver
★☆☆☆☆
(59)
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.


Edited on 19-05-2024 22:23
19-05-2024 22:26
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(791)
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.





Astronomers have to rely on spectral imaging to determine if helium is escaping the atmosphere of "exoplanets", such as the moons of Jupiter and Neptune.

Yes, the pink glow proves that it is there, escaping the atmosphere.
19-05-2024 22:36
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(791)
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.
19-05-2024 23:09
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(791)
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.
19-05-2024 23:10
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(791)
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."
19-05-2024 23:10
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(791)
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.
19-05-2024 23:12
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(791)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
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!

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

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 surface.


The contrarian assertion was/is made by YOU. I care zero right now about what any other dim wit has claimed in some journal.

YOUR assertions that
1) heat can be trapped
2) heat can flow cold to hot
3) radiance can decrease while temperature increases
4) temperature can increase without additional energy

...are ALL in violation of unfalsified
laws of science. The burden of proof remains on you. Good luck.




"YOUR assertions that
1) heat can be trapped
2) heat can flow from cold to hot
3) radiance can decrease while temperature increases
4) temperature can increase without additional energy"


I was not aware that I made any such assertions.

From the FIRST post:

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

Of course it does NOT.

From the SECOND post:

"But, according to parathermodynamics, it is NOT possible for these lightest gases to leave the atmosphere."

Of course, these light gases CAN and DO escape from the Earth's atmosphere.


Insisting that "I" asserted that "heat can flow from cold to hot" (???) does not begin to address the specific assertions made on this thread.

Do you agree with Parrot Boy that helium cannot possibly float off into outer space because it would violate the laws of thermodynamics?

Do you have some affirmative argument with actual EVIDENCE that shows how thermodynamics proves it is not possible for the atmospheric concentration of a gas like carbon dioxide to alter the air temperature at the Earth's surface?

That would require more than a couple of unrelated bullet points.
19-05-2024 23:13
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(791)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Insisting that "I" asserted that "heat can flow from cold to hot" (???) does not begin to address the specific assertions made on this thread.
.


There's so much red meat, but I'll narrow down to this for the moment. We can circle back to the rest of it as time allows. I have very little of it right now.


Simple question. If I said 'methane
absorbs energy and radiates back down to be absorbed the surface', would you agree or disagree with that statement?



Simple question gets a simple answer. Then an explanation.

"If I said 'methane absorbs energy and radiates back down to ba absorbed by the surface, would you agree or disagree with that statement?""

No, I would not agree.

I would say that "methane absorbs infrared radiation." (not generic "energy")

I would say that that it "radiates in all directions", including an important part going back up toward outer space.

And I would counter that very LITTLE of it is "absorbed by the surface".

Most of that infrared radiation doesn't get very far before it encounters another gas molecule in the atmosphere.

I take it you have no opinion about the specific assertions made in this thread.

Can helium leave the atmosphere? (of course it can)

Do the laws of thermodynamics prove that greenhouse gases cannot influence air temperature at the Earth's surface? (of course they do not)
19-05-2024 23:15
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(791)
"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.



Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
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".

No such word. Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
That is because the arguments presented at this website are inconsistent with what is classically called thermodyamics, and represent a major revision.

You cannot revise thermodynamics or any theory of science.
Im a BM wrote:
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.

Not possible. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Thermodynamics does not cancel gravity.
Im a BM wrote:
Helium too. That's why there is no helium left in the atmosphere.

There is helium in the atmosphere.
Im a BM wrote:
But, according to parathermodynamics,

No such thing. Buzzword fallacy.
19-05-2024 23:17
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(791)
"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.




Into the Night wrote:
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.

It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric concentration of helium.
Im a BM wrote:
Helium has been generated by nuclear reactions in the Earth's crust for about 4600 million years.

Nuclear fission does not create helium.
Im a BM wrote:
It is too inert to bond to anything and end up in land or water.

Helium exists in both land and water.
Im a BM wrote:
It eithers stays in the atmosphere or floats off to outer space.

No gas can 'float away' into space. You cannot create energy out of nothing.
Im a BM wrote:
If it weren't floating away, helium would be present at double digit percentage concentration in the atmosphere today. Not just 5 ppm.

It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric concentration of helium.
19-05-2024 23:18
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(791)
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."
19-05-2024 23:19
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(791)
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?
Page 2 of 4<1234>





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