Remember me
▼ Content

Does Neo Thermodynamics Prove that Climate Change is Theoretically Impossible?



Page 1 of 4123>>>
Does Neo Thermodynamics Prove that Climate Change is Theoretically Impossible?13-05-2024 01:00
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.
13-05-2024 01:28
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(791)
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."
13-05-2024 05:52
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2949)
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!


Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
13-05-2024 18:33
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.
13-05-2024 19:01
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2949)
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.


Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
Edited on 13-05-2024 19:03
13-05-2024 19:44
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.
13-05-2024 20:25
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2949)
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?


Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
Edited on 13-05-2024 20:27
13-05-2024 21:08
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2949)
squeal over wrote:
....does not begin to address the specific assertions made on this thread.


Also, you don't get a clean slate on every new thread. You've made science denying assertions since day one, squeal over and BM included. They are both you. Your inability to properly quote gives you away regardless of content.

If you've said something incorrect, it pretty easy to clear it. We're all a fairly forgiving group here. Possibly though you were not wrong and we've simply misunderstood you. Sometimes all you need to do is clarify your terms. You could start by clarifying 'climate change'.


Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
Edited on 13-05-2024 21:13
13-05-2024 21:19
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)
13-05-2024 21:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21962)
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?

No. Climate cannot change.
Im a BM wrote:
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?

No. Thermodynamics has no concept of 'greenhouse gases'. The term only exists as a religious artifact.


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
13-05-2024 21:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21962)
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.


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
13-05-2024 21:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21962)
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!



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
13-05-2024 21:57
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21962)
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!



ANYONE can make shit up!

Just ask Parrot Boy.

LIF. You cannot project YOUR problems on me or anyone else.
Im a BM wrote:
However, the burden of proof for contrarian assertions is a high bar.

Attempted force of negative proof fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
It requires more than a one sentence proclamation to rebut more than a century of reproducible results as per the Scientific Method.

Void argument fallacy. Science is not a method or procedure.
Im a BM wrote:
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.

The theories of thermodynamics is not canceled in chemistry or physics. You are discussing any chemistry. Your spam has no chemistry.
Im a BM wrote:
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.

It is not possible to measure the global concentration of CO2, methane, or nitrous oxide.
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again. 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
13-05-2024 21:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21962)
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.
Exactly.


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
13-05-2024 22:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21962)
Im a BM wrote:
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.

You did. Don't try to deny your own posts.
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.

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.

No gas escapes Earth's atmosphere. You cannot create energy out of nothing.
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.

Denying your own posts won't work, Sock.
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?

Now you are ignoring Kirchoff's law. There no 'air temperature at the Earth's surface'.


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
13-05-2024 22:07
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.
13-05-2024 22:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21962)
Im a BM wrote:
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".

Nope. You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics again.
Im a BM wrote:
Most of that infrared radiation doesn't get very far before it encounters another gas molecule in the atmosphere.

There is no re-radiation. An absorbed photon is DESTROYED.
You cannot heat anything warmer than something that is colder. You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics and Kirchoff's law again.
Im a BM wrote:
I take it you have no opinion about the specific assertions made in this thread.

He is talking about all of your comments, Sock. Special pleading fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Can helium leave the atmosphere? (of course it can)

Not possible. Thermodynamics does not cancel gravity.
Im a BM wrote:
Do the laws of thermodynamics prove that greenhouse gases cannot influence air temperature at the Earth's surface? (of course they do not)

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again.


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
13-05-2024 22:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21962)
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.


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
13-05-2024 22:58
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.
14-05-2024 00:09
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."
14-05-2024 01:21
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.
14-05-2024 01:22
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.
14-05-2024 01:23
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.
14-05-2024 01:25
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.
14-05-2024 01:27
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(791)
High points of the discussion, so far, are the five posts above this one.


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."[/quote]
14-05-2024 02:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21962)
Im a BM wrote:
"Nuclear fission does not create helium." - Into the Night

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

The Earth is not a fusion reactor, Sock.
Im a BM wrote:
Nuclear FISSION, here in the Earth's crust, often creates "alpha particles"

An alpha particle is not helium.
Im a BM wrote:
An alpha particle is a helium nucleus with no associated electrons.

An alpha particle is not helium.
Im a BM wrote:
It almost instantaneously becomes helium following alpha particle emission.

An alpha particle is not helium.
Im a BM wrote:
And at least 99.99% of the helium generated by these fission reactions has long since escaped the Earth's atmosphere.

Not possible, Sock. 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
14-05-2024 02:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21962)
Im a BM wrote:
How, exactly does THERMODYNAMICS apply here?


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

Stop spamming.


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 14-05-2024 02:13
14-05-2024 06:10
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?
14-05-2024 07:08
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 be absorbed by the surface', would you agree or disagree with that statement?"
- GasGuzzler

No, I would not agree.

I would not say that methane ADSORBS anything. Adsorption is a chemistry term for a solute attaching to binding sites on the outside surface of a particle in a fluid (liquid or gas). An adsorbed (ligand, etc.) stays on the outside of the particle, and is not ABSORBED (taken in).

And still I would not agree.

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

And still I would not agree.

"..and radiates back down to be absorbed by the surface..."

I would say that that it "radiates in all directions", including some 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)
14-05-2024 08:46
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(791)
CORRECTION FOR DYSLEXIA

The post did NOT say that methane adsorbs anything. It said absorb every time. Somehow I kept seeing "d" instead of "b" and belittled the non-existent mistake. My bad.


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 be absorbed by the surface', would you agree or disagree with that statement?"
- GasGuzzler

No, I would not agree.


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

And still I would not agree.

"..and radiates back down to be absorbed by the surface..."

I would say that that it "radiates in all directions", including some 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)
14-05-2024 19:50
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(791)
When I began posting a little more than two years ago, I started about ten threads related to environmental chemistry (carbon sequestration, ocean acidification, nitrous oxide emission, etc.).

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

ALWAYS invoking "thermodynamics"!

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

All in the context of environmental chemistry.

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

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

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

(Fact check: Helium DOES leave the atmosphere)

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

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.




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?[/quote]
14-05-2024 20:07
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2949)
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?
14-05-2024 20:23
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(791)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
The high bar for the kind of proof required to contradict the published science has not been met.


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

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

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

Why is your helium issue so urgent?




My "helium issue" is not "urgent".

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

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

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

"Thermodynamics does not cancel gravity"

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

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

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

I didn't think so.

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

THIS is the thread where you can go ALL IN and cite the (zero?) law of thermodynamics to prove that virtually ALL the world's scientists are wrong.
14-05-2024 22:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21962)
Im a BM wrote:
Shouldn't you at least give a number for which law of thermodynamics would be violated by helium leaving the atmosphere?

RQAA. Stop mindlessly asking the same question over and over. It's been answered.


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
14-05-2024 22:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21962)
Im a BM wrote:

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

No, I would not agree.

I would not say that methane ADSORBS anything. Adsorption is a chemistry term for a solute attaching to binding sites on the outside surface of a particle in a fluid (liquid or gas). An adsorbed (ligand, etc.) stays on the outside of the particle, and is not ABSORBED (taken in).

Word stuffing. Semantics fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
And still I would not agree.

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

And still I would not agree.

"..and radiates back down to be absorbed by the surface..."

I would say that that it "radiates in all directions", including some going back up toward outer space.
And I would counter that very LITTLE of it is "absorbed by the surface".

You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas, Sock. You are still ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

You are also still ignoring Kirchoff's law.


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
14-05-2024 22:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21962)
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.


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
14-05-2024 23:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21962)
Im a BM wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
The high bar for the kind of proof required to contradict the published science has not been met.


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

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

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

Why is your helium issue so urgent?




My "helium issue" is not "urgent".

Apparently it is for you, liar.
Im a BM wrote:
My issue was having "thermodynamics" constantly invoked by members who trolled the environmental chemistry threads.

There are not 'environmental chemistry threads'.
Im a BM wrote:
THIS thread was meant to provide a specific forum for the specific issue that kept coming up in the context of chemistry rather than physics.

Chemistry IS part of physics, moron.
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night STILL claims that helium cannot leave the atmosphere, invoking "thermodynamics" as the explanation.

"Thermodynamics does not cancel gravity"

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

It doesn't matter what you believe. Ignoring the laws of thermodynamics in paper is no different than you ignoring them now.
Im a BM wrote:
The burden of proof is on anyone who claims that "thermodynamics" proves something that contradicts the published papers whose results have been shown to be reproducible by the Scientific Method.

Science is not a method or procedure. Science has no proofs. RQAA.
Im a BM wrote:
Not that the helium issue is urgent,

It is to YOU for some wacky reason.
Im a BM wrote:
but do YOU have any opinion on how "thermodynamics" applies to whether or not helium can escape the atmosphere?

RQAA.
Im a BM wrote:
I didn't think so.

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

Argument of the Stone fallacy. Insult fallacy by inversion.
Im a BM wrote:
THIS is the thread where you can go ALL IN and cite the (zero?) law of thermodynamics to prove that virtually ALL the world's scientists are wrong.

You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy. You only get to speak for you.
Science does not use consensus. There are no voting blocs in science. Science is not scientists.


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
14-05-2024 23:52
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(791)
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.




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.
15-05-2024 04:33
John Marsriver
★☆☆☆☆
(59)
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.
15-05-2024 06:19
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.



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.

What we've gotten here so far is "RQAE". Repeated Question Already Evaded.
Page 1 of 4123>>>





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