Does Neo Thermodynamics Prove that Climate Change is Theoretically Impossible?

Im a BM wrote:
HELIUM FUN FACTS

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

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.

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.

Im a BM wrote:


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

Repeated Question ALWAYS AVOIDED.[/b]

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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."

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

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?

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.

Im a BM wrote:
What effs up every thread here is not classic thermodynamics.

Im a BM wrote:
It is neo thermodynamics, para thermodynamics, or just pseudo thermodynamics.

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.

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.

Im a BM wrote:
You continue to ignore and deny science.

You have locked yourself into a paradox.

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.

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

[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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:
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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Im a BM wrote:
I have no peer-reviewed scientific publications about thermodynamics.

Im a BM wrote:
I DO have widely-cited, peer-reviewed scientific publications about the biogeochemistry carbon and nitrogen cycling.

Im a BM wrote:
Many of the citations are in papers about climate change research, or applied biogeochemistry for climate change mitigation.

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.

Im a BM wrote:
But the "thermodynamics" discussion didn't steer clear of ME.

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".

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.

Im a BM wrote:
So far, they have utterly failed to rise to the challenge.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

Is climate change even theoretically possible?

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

THIS is a thread where that particular discussion is welcomed.

Indeed, it is the intended topic.

Into the Night wrote:

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

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

Stop spamming.