Does Neo Thermodynamics Prove that Climate Change is Theoretically Impossible?

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
How, exactly does THERMODYNAMICS apply here?

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

Stop spamming.

GasGuzzler wrote:

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

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

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

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

Why is your helium issue so urgent?

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
When I began posting a little more than two years ago, I started about ten threads related to environmental chemistry (carbon sequestration, ocean acidification, nitrous oxide emission, etc.).

Yes...you started spamming early,and you still do.

Im a BM wrote:
All in the context of environmental chemistry.

No such thing. Buzzword fallacy.

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

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

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

Nothing cryptic about it.

Im a BM wrote:
(Fact check: Helium DOES leave the atmosphere)

No, it doesn't. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Nothing in thermodynamics cancels gravity.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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: 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:
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.

John Marsriver wrote:
If the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increases, so does the air pressure, and so does the temperature.

GasGuzzler wrote:

John Marsriver wrote:
If the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increases, so does the air pressure, and so does the temperature.

Yup. I have found that in the winter time if I maintain 140 psi in my 50 gallon air compressor, it's like free heat. I filler' up in the fall and it stays warm the entire cold season. It's the same concept as compressed CO2 tanks. Hot shit!

By the way, how do those delivery guys grab those suckers with bare hands and never get burned??

Im a BM wrote:
"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.

Im a BM wrote:
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.

Im a BM wrote:
From the SECOND post:

"But, according to parathermodynamics,

Im a BM wrote:
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.

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.

Im a BM wrote:
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?

Im a BM wrote:
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)

Im a BM wrote:
When I began posting a little more than two years ago, I started about ten threads related to environmental chemistry (carbon sequestration, ocean acidification, nitrous oxide emission, etc.).

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

Im a BM wrote:
ALWAYS invoking "thermodynamics"!

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

Im a BM wrote:
All in the context of environmental chemistry.

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

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

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

(Fact check: Helium DOES leave the atmosphere)

John Marsriver wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

John Marsriver wrote:
If the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increases, so does the air pressure, and so does the temperature.

Yup. I have found that in the winter time if I maintain 140 psi in my 50 gallon air compressor, it's like free heat. I filler' up in the fall and it stays warm the entire cold season. It's the same concept as compressed CO2 tanks. Hot shit!

By the way, how do those delivery guys grab those suckers with bare hands and never get burned??

Air compressors aren't used to heat homes.

John Marsriver wrote:
A common use is in a refrigerator. The compressor heats up the refrigerant substance in gas form. It rises up the condenser coils, turns into a liquid, and the heat is released from vent fins.

John Marsriver wrote:
You can feel the heat from the compressed refrigerant gas, which has condensed to a liquid , on the back of your refrigerator. It passes through an expansion device, turns into a vapor, which has a cooling effect, passes through the evaporator coils, which absorb heat from inside the refrigerator, and the gas falls back down into the compressor, and the loop continues, from gas to liquid to gas to liquid, on and on.

Into the Night wrote:

John Marsriver wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

John Marsriver wrote:
If the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increases, so does the air pressure, and so does the temperature.

Yup. I have found that in the winter time if I maintain 140 psi in my 50 gallon air compressor, it's like free heat. I filler' up in the fall and it stays warm the entire cold season. It's the same concept as compressed CO2 tanks. Hot shit!

By the way, how do those delivery guys grab those suckers with bare hands and never get burned??

Air compressors aren't used to heat homes.

Yes they are. They're called 'heat pumps'. They can also be used to cool homes.

John Marsriver wrote:
A common use is in a refrigerator. The compressor heats up the refrigerant substance in gas form. It rises up the condenser coils, turns into a liquid, and the heat is released from vent fins.

You cannot trap heat. There are no vent fins in refrigerant plumbing. There is no vent.
The rear radiator in a typical refrigerator is called a condensor, fins and all.

John Marsriver wrote:
You can feel the heat from the compressed refrigerant gas, which has condensed to a liquid , on the back of your refrigerator. It passes through an expansion device, turns into a vapor, which has a cooling effect, passes through the evaporator coils, which absorb heat from inside the refrigerator, and the gas falls back down into the compressor, and the loop continues, from gas to liquid to gas to liquid, on and on.

There is no 'expansion device'. The refrigerant passes through a fixed orifice, dropping the pressure and allowing the refrigerant to become very cold via the ideal gas law.

It is not possible to absorb heat. The inside of the refrigerator heats the refrigerant, increasing it's pressure somewhat.

The compressor, being the heaviest item, is typically placed at the bottom of the refrigerator, but it can be located anywhere in the unit.

John Marsriver wrote:
. If that is not absorbing heat, then please describe the dynamics? Is the cold air displacing the hot air?

John Marsriver wrote:
The point was increasing air pressure generates heat (and it's not ideal to use a 50 gallon air compressor on its own to try to heat your home).

John Marsriver wrote:
There is ventilation,

John Marsriver wrote:
usually on the back of the fridge, to let out the heat from the condenser coils.

John Marsriver wrote:
The condenser coils themselves aren't ventilated. I thought that would be understood as all the refrigerant would leak out. But thanks for clearing that up.
[quote]John Marsriver wrote:
The fixed orifice as you called it, turns the refrigerant from a liquid to a gas. That's why it's called an expansion device.

John Marsriver wrote:
I suppose the one point you made that I will consider as not just trolling and stupid nit picking is the dynamics between the cold evaporator coils and the warm air. The cold coils make the warm air cold. If that is not absorbing heat, then please describe the dynamics? Is the cold air displacing the hot air?

GasGuzzler wrote:

John Marsriver wrote:
. If that is not absorbing heat, then please describe the dynamics? Is the cold air displacing the hot air?

Heat is the flow of thermal energy, always from hot to cold. So thermal energy flows from the warmer ambient air to the colder coils.

An air conditioner makes the home cooler by increasing heat.

A blanket keeps you warmer by decreasing heat.

Get it?

John Marsriver wrote:

Im a BM wrote:.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

Im a BM wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

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

It even makes vague references to specific laws of thermodynamics.

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

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

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

Just keep repeating that one.

Over and over and over and over and over.

It sounds like a prayer.

keepit wrote:
itn,
I like science and math. I don't want to ignore it.
You get so many things wrong i'm suprised you can type.

keepit wrote: itn, I like science and math.

keepit wrote: I don't want to ignore it.

keepit wrote: You get so many things wrong i'm suprised you can type.

keepit wrote:
ibd,
There's not a thing in your last post that's true. How do you square that?

keepit wrote:
im a bm,
You might be giving too much credit there.

keepit wrote:
ibd,
There's not a thing in your last post that's true. How do you square that?

Im a BM wrote:

keepit wrote:
ibd,
There's not a thing in your last post that's true. How do you square that?

Science is just a word game.

Im a BM wrote:
There are HUNDREDS of threads available to posters.

Posters can start their own threads if there is a topic they want to discuss.

Im a BM wrote:
This particular thread was created in the hope of giving trolls a place to discuss the specific thermodynamics in atmospheric physics topic they kept bringing up on biogeochemistry threads.

Im a BM wrote:
All I'm asking for at this point is for 7 threads to be left alone by those who have no interest whatsoever in the actual thread topic.

Im a BM wrote:
The topic they supposedly care most about is specifically identified as the topic of THIS THREAD.

Still waiting for someone, anyone to show that they have the slightest clue how thermodynamics actually applies to atmospheric physics.

Im a BM wrote:
If the trolls are not willing to discuss it HERE, could they at least PLEASE STOP constantly bringing it up on threads whose topics do NOT include how thermodynamics applies to atmospheric physics?

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:(who cares?)

Stop whining.

Im a BM wrote:(who cares?)

There is no such thing as biogeochemistry.

Im a BM wrote:
(who cares?)

The atmosphere is not physics. RQAA.

Im a BM wrote:(who cares?)

The atmosphere is not physics. You don't get a Kiddie Pool to push your religion.