Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The 2nd law of thermodynamics is consistent with the greenhouse effect which is directly observed
56 views
Skip to first unread message
Sam Wormley
Oct 2, 2012, 2:27:47 PM10/2/12
to
Naysayers, such as Ben, Will, etc. repeatedly post without understanding
the applicability of the 2nd law of thermodynamics as it applied to
the greenhouse gas effect.
No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of
heat from a body of lower temperature to a body of higher
temperature. Naysayers, such as Ben, Will, etc. leave out
the crucial fact that the sun is adding thermal energy to
the system.
For greenhouse effect to be in violation of the Second Law
of Thermodynamics certain conditions must be met:
1. the atmosphere would need to be a discrete body in order
to qualify as a “body of lower temperature” and clearly it
is not when considering electromagnetic transmission from
sun to earth to space and;
2. the 2nd Law would have to preclude any feedback (return
of energy in any form from atmosphere to non-gaseous surface)
that could slow the cooling of the “body of higher temperature”.
All Ben, Will, etc. do is say this can't be so, but they can
NEVER make a credible scientific argument to support their
point.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics is consistent with the greenhouse effect
which is directly observed
Skeptics sometimes claim that the explanation for global warming
contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. But does it? To answer
that, first, we need to know how global warming works. Then, we need to
know what the second law of thermodynamics is, and how it applies to
global warming. Global warming, in a nutshell, works like this:
The sun warms the Earth. The Earth and its atmosphere radiate heat away
into space. They radiate most of the heat that is received from the sun,
so the average temperature of the Earth stays more or less constant.
Greenhouse gases trap some of the escaping heat closer to the Earth's
surface, making it harder for it to shed that heat, so the Earth warms
up in order to radiate the heat more effectively. So the greenhouse
gases make the Earth warmer - like a blanket conserving body heat - and
voila, you have global warming. See What is Global Warming and the
Greenhouse Effect for a more detailed explanation.
The second law of thermodynamics has been stated in many ways. For us,
Rudolf Clausius said it best:
"Heat generally cannot flow spontaneously from a material at lower
temperature to a material at higher temperature."
So if you put something hot next to something cold, the hot thing won't
get hotter, and the cold thing won't get colder. That's so obvious that
it hardly needs a scientist to say it, we know this from our daily
lives. If you put an ice-cube into your drink, the drink doesn't boil!
The skeptic tells us that, because the air, including the greenhouse
gasses, is cooler than the surface of the Earth, it cannot warm the
Earth. If it did, they say, that means heat would have to flow from cold
to hot, in apparent violation of the second law of thermodynamics.
So have climate scientists made an elementary mistake? Of course not!
The skeptic is ignoring the fact that the Earth is being warmed by the
sun, which makes all the difference.
To see why, consider that blanket that keeps you warm. If your skin
feels cold, wrapping yourself in a blanket can make you warmer. Why?
Because your body is generating heat, and that heat is escaping from
your body into the environment. When you wrap yourself in a blanket, the
loss of heat is reduced, some is retained at the surface of your body,
and you warm up. You get warmer because the heat that your body is
generating cannot escape as fast as before.
If you put the blanket on a tailors dummy, which does not generate heat,
it will have no effect. The dummy will not spontaneously get warmer.
That's obvious too!
Is using a blanket an accurate model for global warming by greenhouse
gases? Certainly there are differences in how the heat is created and
lost, and our body can produce varying amounts of heat, unlike the
near-constant heat we receive from the sun. But as far as the second law
of thermodynamics goes, where we are only talking about the flow of
heat, the comparison is good. The second law says nothing about how the
heat is produced, only about how it flows between things.
To summarise: Heat from the sun warms the Earth, as heat from your body
keeps you warm. The Earth loses heat to space, and your body loses heat
to the environment. Greenhouse gases slow down the rate of heat-loss
from the surface of the Earth, like a blanket that slows down the rate
at which your body loses heat. The result is the same in both cases, the
surface of the Earth, or of your body, gets warmer.
So global warming does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. And
if someone tells you otherwise, just remember that you're a warm human
being, and certainly nobody's dummy.
See:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Second-law-of-thermodynamics-greenhouse-theory.htm
the applicability of the 2nd law of thermodynamics as it applied to
the greenhouse gas effect.
No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of
heat from a body of lower temperature to a body of higher
temperature. Naysayers, such as Ben, Will, etc. leave out
the crucial fact that the sun is adding thermal energy to
the system.
For greenhouse effect to be in violation of the Second Law
of Thermodynamics certain conditions must be met:
1. the atmosphere would need to be a discrete body in order
to qualify as a “body of lower temperature” and clearly it
is not when considering electromagnetic transmission from
sun to earth to space and;
2. the 2nd Law would have to preclude any feedback (return
of energy in any form from atmosphere to non-gaseous surface)
that could slow the cooling of the “body of higher temperature”.
All Ben, Will, etc. do is say this can't be so, but they can
NEVER make a credible scientific argument to support their
point.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics is consistent with the greenhouse effect
which is directly observed
Skeptics sometimes claim that the explanation for global warming
contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. But does it? To answer
that, first, we need to know how global warming works. Then, we need to
know what the second law of thermodynamics is, and how it applies to
global warming. Global warming, in a nutshell, works like this:
The sun warms the Earth. The Earth and its atmosphere radiate heat away
into space. They radiate most of the heat that is received from the sun,
so the average temperature of the Earth stays more or less constant.
Greenhouse gases trap some of the escaping heat closer to the Earth's
surface, making it harder for it to shed that heat, so the Earth warms
up in order to radiate the heat more effectively. So the greenhouse
gases make the Earth warmer - like a blanket conserving body heat - and
voila, you have global warming. See What is Global Warming and the
Greenhouse Effect for a more detailed explanation.
The second law of thermodynamics has been stated in many ways. For us,
Rudolf Clausius said it best:
"Heat generally cannot flow spontaneously from a material at lower
temperature to a material at higher temperature."
So if you put something hot next to something cold, the hot thing won't
get hotter, and the cold thing won't get colder. That's so obvious that
it hardly needs a scientist to say it, we know this from our daily
lives. If you put an ice-cube into your drink, the drink doesn't boil!
The skeptic tells us that, because the air, including the greenhouse
gasses, is cooler than the surface of the Earth, it cannot warm the
Earth. If it did, they say, that means heat would have to flow from cold
to hot, in apparent violation of the second law of thermodynamics.
So have climate scientists made an elementary mistake? Of course not!
The skeptic is ignoring the fact that the Earth is being warmed by the
sun, which makes all the difference.
To see why, consider that blanket that keeps you warm. If your skin
feels cold, wrapping yourself in a blanket can make you warmer. Why?
Because your body is generating heat, and that heat is escaping from
your body into the environment. When you wrap yourself in a blanket, the
loss of heat is reduced, some is retained at the surface of your body,
and you warm up. You get warmer because the heat that your body is
generating cannot escape as fast as before.
If you put the blanket on a tailors dummy, which does not generate heat,
it will have no effect. The dummy will not spontaneously get warmer.
That's obvious too!
Is using a blanket an accurate model for global warming by greenhouse
gases? Certainly there are differences in how the heat is created and
lost, and our body can produce varying amounts of heat, unlike the
near-constant heat we receive from the sun. But as far as the second law
of thermodynamics goes, where we are only talking about the flow of
heat, the comparison is good. The second law says nothing about how the
heat is produced, only about how it flows between things.
To summarise: Heat from the sun warms the Earth, as heat from your body
keeps you warm. The Earth loses heat to space, and your body loses heat
to the environment. Greenhouse gases slow down the rate of heat-loss
from the surface of the Earth, like a blanket that slows down the rate
at which your body loses heat. The result is the same in both cases, the
surface of the Earth, or of your body, gets warmer.
So global warming does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. And
if someone tells you otherwise, just remember that you're a warm human
being, and certainly nobody's dummy.
See:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Second-law-of-thermodynamics-greenhouse-theory.htm
hanson
Oct 2, 2012, 3:28:49 PM10/2/12
to
> <snip a huge load of re-warmed crap>
>
hanson wrote:
"repeatedly post", and why shouldn't they, Sam.
It's their Weltbild against your Angsts... ahaha...
YOU, Sam, and none of you global warmers will
neither change the climate nor any view about it.
Thanks for the laughs though, hahahanson
>
hanson wrote:
"repeatedly post", and why shouldn't they, Sam.
It's their Weltbild against your Angsts... ahaha...
YOU, Sam, and none of you global warmers will
neither change the climate nor any view about it.
Thanks for the laughs though, hahahanson
Will Janoschka
Oct 2, 2012, 10:54:19 PM10/2/12
to
The second law say nothing about where heat is generated.
The second only relates to heat transfer with regard to temperature.
An earth at 297 Kelvin may transfer heat to anything at a lower
temperature, including its own atmosphere, buy any means of
heat transfer.
This earth transfers huge amounts of heat to its atmosphere
where it is then radiated to space. The heat transfer from earth
to atmosphere is mostly via convective heat transfer, greatly
augumented by the phase change of water liquid to a gas,
passed to the atmosphere, then returned to the earth as liquid,
after transfering all of that latient heat of evaporation to the
colder atmosphere to be then radiated outward to space.
This is called the water cycle.
The earth transfers some heat to the colder atmosphere via
infrared radiation. The amount of heat so transfered cannot
be measured against the amount transferred via convection.
The alarmists claim that 48% of this insignificant heat
is re-radiated back from the cold atmosphere to the
earth, thus "warming" the earth.
The alarmists offer no mechanism for even such trivial
heat transfer, that does not violate the second law of
thermodynamics.
For most folk, Heat don go from cold to hot !!!!
-will-
Sam Wormley
Oct 2, 2012, 11:31:50 PM10/2/12
to
On 10/2/12 9:54 PM, Will Janoschka wrote:
> For most folk, Heat don go from cold to hot !!!!
That correct, but you cannot leave out the sun, as is pointed out
> For most folk, Heat don go from cold to hot !!!!
in the articles. Duh!
bja...@iwaynet.net
Oct 3, 2012, 12:58:15 AM10/3/12
to
On 10/2/2012 2:27 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> Naysayers, such as Ben, Will, etc. repeatedly post without understanding
> the applicability of the 2nd law of thermodynamics as it applied to
> the greenhouse gas effect.
>
> No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of
> heat from a body of lower temperature to a body of higher
> temperature. Naysayers, such as Ben, Will, etc. leave out
> the crucial fact that the sun is adding thermal energy to
> the system.
>
> For greenhouse effect to be in violation of the Second Law
> of Thermodynamics certain conditions must be met:
>
> 1. the atmosphere would need to be a discrete body in order
> to qualify as a “body of lower temperature” and clearly it
> is not when considering electromagnetic transmission from
> sun to earth to space and;
>
> 2. the 2nd Law would have to preclude any feedback (return
> of energy in any form from atmosphere to non-gaseous surface)
> that could slow the cooling of the “body of higher temperature”.
>
> All Ben, Will, etc. do is say this can't be so, but they can
> NEVER make a credible scientific argument to support their
> point.
Sam, why don't you allow me to write my own posts instead of writing
> Naysayers, such as Ben, Will, etc. repeatedly post without understanding
> the applicability of the 2nd law of thermodynamics as it applied to
> the greenhouse gas effect.
>
> No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of
> heat from a body of lower temperature to a body of higher
> temperature. Naysayers, such as Ben, Will, etc. leave out
> the crucial fact that the sun is adding thermal energy to
> the system.
>
> For greenhouse effect to be in violation of the Second Law
> of Thermodynamics certain conditions must be met:
>
> 1. the atmosphere would need to be a discrete body in order
> to qualify as a “body of lower temperature” and clearly it
> is not when considering electromagnetic transmission from
> sun to earth to space and;
>
> 2. the 2nd Law would have to preclude any feedback (return
> of energy in any form from atmosphere to non-gaseous surface)
> that could slow the cooling of the “body of higher temperature”.
>
> All Ben, Will, etc. do is say this can't be so, but they can
> NEVER make a credible scientific argument to support their
> point.
them for me and making up what I supposedly said.
Obviously as you have posted over and over, you think that heat from the
sun can pour into the earth through "radiative forcing" While the
Earth's temperature goes down! Somehow your understanding of
thermodynamics excludes things like specific heat.
Perhaps a little self-education in physics will help clear that matter
up for you?
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/spht.html
I'm still waiting for your explanation of your amazing disappearing heat
phenomena. Or is this YOUR theory of "heavy air"?
Obviously "Sam" can never make a credible scientific argument to support
his political agenda so he simply uses political arguments instead.
(Just as the IPCC does).
Sam Wormley
Oct 3, 2012, 1:21:46 AM10/3/12
to
On 10/2/12 11:58 PM, bja...@teranews.com wrote:
> Obviously as you have posted over and over, you think that heat from the
> sun can pour into the earth through "radiative forcing" While the
> Earth's temperature goes down!
Oops, Ben, you sure have that wrong... and you wrote the words
> Obviously as you have posted over and over, you think that heat from the
> sun can pour into the earth through "radiative forcing" While the
> Earth's temperature goes down!
yourself! :-o
Will Janoschka
Oct 3, 2012, 10:59:33 AM10/3/12
to
the heat came. Perhaps from the sun, from an internal nuclear
reactor, earthlings burning fuel, or even converting wind energy to
heat energy.
The second only relates to heat transfer with regard to temperature.
An earth at 297 Kelvin may transfer heat to anything at a lower
temperature, including its own atmosphere, buy any means of
heat transfer.
This earth transfers huge amounts of heat to its atmosphere
where it is then radiated to space. The heat transfer from earth
to atmosphere is mostly via convective heat transfer, greatly
augumented by the phase change of water liquid to a gas,
passed to the atmosphere, then returned to the earth as liquid,
after transfering all of that latient heat of evaporation to the
colder atmosphere to be then radiated outward to space.
per unit time in grams, multiply by 2200 joules per gram to get the
number of joules of latent heat transfered to the atmosphere in
that same time period. This heat transfer "requires" no change
in temperature of anything, but does "require" the atmosphere
be of lower temperature than the earth.
The earth transfers some heat to the colder atmosphere via
infrared radiation. The amount of heat so transfered cannot
be measured against the amount transferred via convection.
The alarmists claim that 48% of this insignificant heat
is re-radiated back from the cold atmosphere to the
earth, thus "warming" the earth.
The alarmists offer no mechanism for even such trivial
heat transfer, that does not violate the second law of
thermodynamics.
-will-
Sam Wormley
Oct 3, 2012, 5:29:53 PM10/3/12
to
On 10/3/12 9:59 AM, Will Janoschka wrote:
>
> For most folk, Heat don go from cold to hot EVAR!!!
>
> -will-
You make it sound like a cold hydrogen bomb can't heat up
its surroundings.
>
> For most folk, Heat don go from cold to hot EVAR!!!
>
> -will-
You make it sound like a cold hydrogen bomb can't heat up
its surroundings.
Will Janoschka
Oct 4, 2012, 1:13:08 AM10/4/12
to
no fires!
tj Frazir
Oct 4, 2012, 11:59:18 AM10/4/12
to
earth closer to the sun rotates a 14 hour day.
ice age is a 14 hour day.
3600 years ago a day was 21 hours.
100 years ago a day was 5 minuts shorter.
3 seconds per year as earth orbits higher .
Its the radius of earth that turns earth as it orbits the sun. A point
nearest the sun is in a shorter radius in solar orbit and will pass a
point on earth farthest away thats going slower in a higher orbit .
Our distance to th sun is perportional to the rate earth turns.
http://community.webtv.net/GravityPhysics/WhaleSteamEngineA
ice age is a 14 hour day.
3600 years ago a day was 21 hours.
100 years ago a day was 5 minuts shorter.
3 seconds per year as earth orbits higher .
Its the radius of earth that turns earth as it orbits the sun. A point
nearest the sun is in a shorter radius in solar orbit and will pass a
point on earth farthest away thats going slower in a higher orbit .
Our distance to th sun is perportional to the rate earth turns.
http://community.webtv.net/GravityPhysics/WhaleSteamEngineA
tj Frazir
Oct 4, 2012, 11:51:29 AM10/4/12
to
2.5 minuts more sun per day per 100 years makes earth warmer.
3 seconds longer per year .
50 minutesper 1000 years.
Ice age was a 14 hour day.
3600 years ago 21 hours was a day
http://community.webtv.net/GravityPhysics/WhaleSteamEngineA
3 seconds longer per year .
50 minutesper 1000 years.
Ice age was a 14 hour day.
3600 years ago 21 hours was a day
http://community.webtv.net/GravityPhysics/WhaleSteamEngineA
tj Frazir
Oct 4, 2012, 12:09:11 PM10/4/12
to
5 minuts more day then 100 years ago.
MY 600 year old rolex is about 22 minuts fast evry day.....but it keeps
perfect time.
Its time was perfect when it was made.
Its not the only time pice left behind.
1200 year old pendalem clock set by two hairs over a sun dial from noon
to noon .
Its just a swing and mass and its time cant be changed it is not off
now the length of day changed .
http://community.webtv.net/GravityPhysics/WhaleSteamEngineA
MY 600 year old rolex is about 22 minuts fast evry day.....but it keeps
perfect time.
Its time was perfect when it was made.
Its not the only time pice left behind.
1200 year old pendalem clock set by two hairs over a sun dial from noon
to noon .
Its just a swing and mass and its time cant be changed it is not off
now the length of day changed .
http://community.webtv.net/GravityPhysics/WhaleSteamEngineA
tj Frazir
Oct 4, 2012, 11:03:21 AM10/4/12
to
the planet warmed as the earths orbit got father from the sun. ice age
was 14 hour day.
3 second gain per day for 14000 years.
http://community.webtv.net/GravityPhysics/WhaleSteamEngineA
was 14 hour day.
3 second gain per day for 14000 years.
http://community.webtv.net/GravityPhysics/WhaleSteamEngineA
tj Frazir
Oct 4, 2012, 12:16:47 PM10/4/12
to
ice age was a 14 hour day.
3600 years ago was a 21 hour day.
100 years ago a day was 5 minuts shorter.
http://community.webtv.net/GravityPhysics/WhaleSteamEngineA
tj Frazir
Oct 4, 2012, 12:26:38 PM10/4/12
to
the only was earth is magnetic is motion in the suns field.
Earths speed of rotation is the most magnetic motion in the field of
the sun as a magnet.
BUT when the earth slows down its spin ..then the orbit speed around
the sun is the most magnetic motion in the field.
The magnetic poles are only in that point where they are ,,when the
earth turns fast enouph that the spin is more motion in the suns
magnetic field then the forward motion of earth
in the suns field.
as earths orbit gets bigger earth will slow down its rotation speed
.at some point N and S magnetic poles wount be at the poles but race
around the equator then flip evry 11 years and run the oposit direction
around the earth to stay in one magnetic point all day as earth turns
and the magnetic point dont.
http://community.webtv.net/GravityPhysics/WhaleSteamEngineA
Bill Snyder
Oct 4, 2012, 12:39:42 PM10/4/12
to
On Thu, 4 Oct 2012 11:03:21 -0400, Gravity...@webtv.net (tj
Frazir) wrote:
>[the usual drived]
FOAD, moron. You aren't fooling anybody. And shove your
imaginary engine up your spamming, psychotic ass.
Everybody knows you have no engine, you have no yacht, you have no
money. Every post you make shows us all that you're a dumb,
illiterate bullshit artist.
And you can't even fool the Relfdroid any more. That must suck,
to be a crap-slinger who can't even fool the world's biggest born
sucker. Or maybe you get some kind of kick out of having everyone
laughing at you.
I wonder just how big a loser you are. Do you manage to hold some
kind of ultra-low-end job, of the WalMart greeter or "fries with
that" variety, or are you too crazy to be employable at all?
Interesting that the globe-trotting gazillionare with the huge
yacht and the mansion and all, posts from an ancient webtv
account. You'd think he could afford something a tiny bit
classier. I wonder if he lugs the TV around with him, or just the
set-top box? (Actually, I wonder if he's dialing in from his
trailer, or from his mommy's basement.)
You were mildly amusing when you first showed up, an illiterate
boob trying to pose as a zillionaire inventor, but that was years
ago. And there's nothing more boring than yesterday's stale joke.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
Frazir) wrote:
>[the usual drived]
FOAD, moron. You aren't fooling anybody. And shove your
imaginary engine up your spamming, psychotic ass.
Everybody knows you have no engine, you have no yacht, you have no
money. Every post you make shows us all that you're a dumb,
illiterate bullshit artist.
And you can't even fool the Relfdroid any more. That must suck,
to be a crap-slinger who can't even fool the world's biggest born
sucker. Or maybe you get some kind of kick out of having everyone
laughing at you.
I wonder just how big a loser you are. Do you manage to hold some
kind of ultra-low-end job, of the WalMart greeter or "fries with
that" variety, or are you too crazy to be employable at all?
Interesting that the globe-trotting gazillionare with the huge
yacht and the mansion and all, posts from an ancient webtv
account. You'd think he could afford something a tiny bit
classier. I wonder if he lugs the TV around with him, or just the
set-top box? (Actually, I wonder if he's dialing in from his
trailer, or from his mommy's basement.)
You were mildly amusing when you first showed up, an illiterate
boob trying to pose as a zillionaire inventor, but that was years
ago. And there's nothing more boring than yesterday's stale joke.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
Bill Snyder
Oct 4, 2012, 12:40:06 PM10/4/12
to
Bill Snyder
Oct 4, 2012, 12:40:34 PM10/4/12
to
Bill Snyder
Oct 4, 2012, 12:41:00 PM10/4/12
to
tj Frazir
Oct 4, 2012, 12:47:44 PM10/4/12
to
What is the earth's speed around the sun
Address:http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:UOs0xBNliwQJ:http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_earth's_speed_around_the_sun+earths+speed+around+the+sun&hl=en&ct=clnk
Magnet equals its motion in the field.
right now as the earth slows its spinning 3 sec per year...its spin
speed inthe suns magnetic field magnetises the planet.
The forward moton of the earth inthe suns orbit is allso magnetizing
the earth as the earth i in two directions in a magnetic field but the
spin is the stronger magnet.
when the earth slows to a point the spin magnet will be weeker then the
forward motion magnet.
http://community.webtv.net/GravityPhysics/WhaleSteamEngineA
Address:http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:UOs0xBNliwQJ:http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_earth's_speed_around_the_sun+earths+speed+around+the+sun&hl=en&ct=clnk
Magnet equals its motion in the field.
right now as the earth slows its spinning 3 sec per year...its spin
speed inthe suns magnetic field magnetises the planet.
The forward moton of the earth inthe suns orbit is allso magnetizing
the earth as the earth i in two directions in a magnetic field but the
spin is the stronger magnet.
when the earth slows to a point the spin magnet will be weeker then the
forward motion magnet.
http://community.webtv.net/GravityPhysics/WhaleSteamEngineA
tj Frazir
Oct 4, 2012, 12:41:17 PM10/4/12
to
when The point befor a polar flip the pole gets unstable in december.
Thats when earth is at 68000 mph.
In july the earth is at 67000 mph.
as earth epitical orbit flattens out the day gets longer.
The point when forward motion is the stronger magnet then the spinning
speed in the same field is the point the pole flips.
earth slows rotation spin 3 sec per year.
at what point will the magnetic pole flip befor it then races around
the equator ??
pole to pole flip then 90 deg shift then no pole
http://community.webtv.net/GravityPhysics/WhaleSteamEngineA
tj Frazir
Oct 4, 2012, 12:51:35 PM10/4/12
to
ice age ended because the sun shines longer .
http://community.webtv.net/GravityPhysics/WhaleSteamEngineA
http://community.webtv.net/GravityPhysics/WhaleSteamEngineA
0 new messages