|Greenhouse gas hypothesis violates Law of Conservation of Energy18-03-2019 14:51|
|Tai Hai Chen★★★★☆
|Law of Conservation states that anything that does not produce energy by the formula E = mc^2 changing mass into energy cannot increase heat. Greenhouse effect violates Law of Conservation of Energy.|
IMO greenhouse gases do not produce heat, they redistribute heat, making Earth cool in the day and warm at night, reduces day night temperature difference, in contrast to Earth's moon which is very hot in day and very cold at night with a large day night temperature difference.
Edited on 18-03-2019 14:54
|Into the Night★★★★★
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
No, the law of conservation of energy simply says that energy can neither be created or destroyed. It can only be transformed. Heat is also not energy. Neither can it be 'redistributed'. It simply is, or is not.
E=mc^2 is not the only way to have energy.
Potential energy is stored in chemical form for a piece of fuel. Combining that fuel with oxygen converts that potential energy into thermal energy. That in turn can heat something else (like you or that marshmallow on the stick you are holding). Campfires do not convert mass into energy. The same mass that went into the fuel and the oxygen is still there in the ash and the carbon dioxide and water produced from the fire.
If you drop a mass from a height, it will have kinetic energy. Where did that energy come from? The height itself. That is potential energy.
When the object strikes the ground, maybe bounces a few times, then stops, what happened to all that kinetic energy? It can't be destroyed.
It becomes sound waves and thermal energy. You hear the thud, and the ground where it struck (and the object) is a little warmer than it was before.
When something cools off, does that destroy the energy? No. It only dissipates that energy over a larger volume.
Notice that during this entire time, no mass was created or destroyed.
The Parrot Killer
|How come augmenting CO2 in a real greenhouse doesn't burn up the plants? The CO2 is about 1200 ppm or more, and the plants grow faster, stronger. It's a very big improvement in growth, doesn't seem to effect the temperature at all. Really makes no sense that rising CO2 outside the greenhouse, would effect the global temperature either. Why would they choose a catch-phrase, like 'Greenhouse Effect', when it doesn't apply, and so obviously false?|
|The "radiative Greenhouse effect" does not exist||128||12-03-2020 02:10|
|2nd law||116||28-02-2020 00:09|
|Open vs closed/ 2nd law||54||24-02-2020 22:09|
|How to create a hypothesis for Global Climate Change?||56||13-02-2020 01:01|
|Greenhouse Gas and Warming||110||11-02-2020 17:48|