The real danger of climate change

[Into the Night]

Well, gosh that sounds SUPER scientific.

Trivializing science doesn't change it.

Care to show us where these violations occur in the science? (Don't worry, I don't think anyone expects you to do so, just noting that it isn't really true).

Neither global warming nor 'climate change' is a theory or branch of science.

The 1st law of thermodynamics states: E(t+1) = E(t) - U where 'E' is energy, 't' is time, and 'U" is work. No gas or vapor is work, therefore 'U' is zero. You cannot create energy out of nothing. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics states: e(t+1) >= e(t) where 'e' is entropy (the randomness of a given system), and 't' is time. This law defines heat and gives it a direction. Heat always flows from hot areas (lots of energy) to cold areas (relative voids of energy). Heat will continue until all temperatures are equal. The Church of Global Warming routinely claims you can heat a warmer surface using a colder gas, violating this law.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law relates temperature to radiance. It states: r = C*e*t^4 where 'r' is radiance in watts per square area, 'C' is a natural constant, 'e' is a measured constant (known as emissivity or absorptivity), and 't' is temperature in deg K.
In other words, as temperature increases, radiance increases, and more energy is converted to light, which is radiated into space. The Church of Global Warming tries to invert this relation.

And may I know how you would know this? Especially the "statistical mathematics" (what most of us who actually DO use statistics call "statistics").

You do not use statistics. You use random numbers of type randU (the 'psuedo' random number, thought up in someone's head). You deny and discard statistical math.
Using random numbers as 'data' is a fallacy (an error in logic).

No, it's actually about science you may not necessarily understand.

You deny and discard science. It is about tyranny.

[Saint Guinefort]

Trivializing science doesn't change it.

Neither global warming nor 'climate change' is a theory or branch of science.

The 1st law of thermodynamics states: E(t+1) = E(t) - U where 'E' is energy, 't' is time, and 'U" is work. No gas or vapor is work, therefore 'U' is zero. You cannot create energy out of nothing. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.

In order to sound more scientific than you actually are you overstate the case. Nothing in AGW violates the First Law. CO2 doesn't make the warming, CO2 (and other GHG's) merely cause the level at which the incoming radiation re-radiates back out into space higher and higher and higher to regions where it is less and less radiatively efficient. This leads to an increase in temperature in the lower atmosphere at the surface of the earth. Nothing is creating or destroying energy or matter.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics states: e(t+1) >= e(t) where 'e' is entropy (the randomness of a given system), and 't' is time. This law defines heat and gives it a direction. Heat always flows from hot areas (lots of energy) to cold areas (relative voids of energy). Heat will continue until all temperatures are equal. The Church of Global Warming routinely claims you can heat a warmer surface using a colder gas, violating this law.

Again, your lack of any real appreciation of thermodynamics aside, there is no violation of the Second Law. Unless you don't think you can make ice in a freezer. Why do I say that? Because your freezer is a good example of a place where ENTROPY DECREASES LOCALLY (making ice is an entropically negative thing), but the Second Law still holds because on a universal scale the overall entropy of the universe is increased.

The Second Law really only applies to isolated systems. You may not know this but the earth has a big energy source outside of it that pumps heat into the system, so your attempt to use thermo you don't really understand fails here.

You do not use statistics. You use random numbers of type randU (the 'psuedo' random number, thought up in someone's head). You deny and discard statistical math.
Using random numbers as 'data' is a fallacy (an error in logic).

You are extremely far out of your depth on this.

[Into the Night]

In order to sound more scientific than you actually are

So you discard the theories of science I just stated for you.

you overstate the case.

I am not overstating anything. I simply answered your question.

Nothing in AGW violates the First Law. CO2 doesn't make the warming, CO2 (and other GHG's) merely cause the level at which the incoming radiation re-radiates back out into space higher and higher and higher to regions where it is less and less radiatively efficient.

Now you are ignoring Kirchoff's law of equivalence. Emissivity and absorptivity are the same. If something cannot radiate as well, it also cannot absorb as well. Makes no difference.

This leads to an increase in temperature in the lower atmosphere at the surface of the earth.

No. You cannot trap light. You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat. You are not discarding the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Nothing is creating or destroying energy or matter.

It takes additional energy to increase the temperature. Where is it coming from????!? The Sun's output is assumed to be the same as before.

Again, your lack of any real appreciation of thermodynamics aside,

It is YOU discarding both the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.

there is no violation of the Second Law. Unless you don't think you can make ice in a freezer.

This old argument again?????!? No. Making ice in a freezer is NOT a decrease in entropy.

Why do I say that? Because your freezer is a good example of a place where ENTROPY DECREASES LOCALLY (making ice is an entropically negative thing),

WRONG. You cannot compare two different systems as if they were the same system. Freezers don't make ice by themselves. You have to plug them into a power plant to do that. A freezer by itself is one system. The freezer and the power plant is another system. You cannot compare two systems as if they were the same system. False equivalence fallacy.

but the Second Law still holds because on a universal scale the overall entropy of the universe is increased.

There is no 'universal scale'. A system is simply a boundary you declare.

The Second Law really only applies to isolated systems.

It applies to ALL systems. You cannot set it aside even for a moment. It applies even to the known universe.

You may not know this but the earth has a big energy source outside of it that pumps heat into the system, so your attempt to use thermo you don't really understand fails here.

Again, you are comparing the Earth itself to the Sun-Earth-space system. You cannot compare two different systems as the same system. False equivalence fallacy.

You are extremely far out of your depth on this.

No, that would be YOU. You don't understand what a system is when discussing thermodynamics. You continue to compare two different systems as if they were the same system. That's a false equivalence fallacy.

You cannot trap light.
You cannot trap heat.
You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. Heat always flows from hot to cold...never the reverse.
You cannot separate emissivity with absorptivity.
The emissivity of Earth is unknown.
The Stefan-Boltzmann law has no frequency term. ALL frequencies are considered.
Absorption does NOT necessarily result in conversion to thermal energy.
There is no 're-radiation'. A photon that is absorbed is DESTROYED.

[Saint Guinefort]

So you discard the theories of science I just stated for you.

First it was abundantly clear you have never had a thermo or pchem class and your statement of the laws were largely predicated on your overall ignorance of thermo.

It takes additional energy to increase the temperature. Where is it coming from????!? The Sun's output is assumed to be the same as before.

It is also clear you don't really understand AGW. Let me try to explain it to you:

The sun puts out energy which the earth absorbs and re-radiates back out in the IR (this is called "down conversion" since most of the energy coming from the sun is in shorter wavelength, high energy photons.) This creates warmth in the form if IR radiation radiating back out of the planet. If we had no greenhouse gases at all in our atmosphere it would all go back out into space quickly and our surface would remain close to the earth's "blackbody radiation temperature" (calculated from Stefan-Boltzmann).

The problem with ADDED greenhouse gas is that with more and more of it the earth remains in balance with regards to energy coming in and energy going out. That's key. Even with AGW the energy budget is still in balance.

So why are we warming? Because as more GHG's go into the atmosphere it pushes the altitude at which the IR photons re-emit back into space. That holds more warmth near the surface for longer.

So energy is NOT being created from nothing. It is perfectly in accordance with the First Law.

And since the earth is NOT an isolated system (open to the sun's energy) it also follows the Second Law of Thermo quite well.

In other words: your understanding of the topic is severely lacking and not related to reality.

This old argument again?????!? No. Making ice in a freezer is NOT a decrease in entropy.

Locally it IS. On the larger scale it is not. Crystallization DECREASES entropy.

There is no 're-radiation'. A photon that is absorbed is DESTROYED.

No. Wrong.

[T. A. Gardner]

I really didn't want to do this but...

In simple, easy to understand terms...

The Stefan-Boltzmann law is in regard to what are called white and black bodies. A black body absorbs all energy that contacts it. A white body reflects all energy in the same way. This is described by the term "albedo." Albedo ranges from 0 (white body) to 1 (black body).
The Earth has an albedo between 0 and 1 about .3 ish currently. The sun radiates some amount of energy. The energy that reaches the Earth is either absorbed or reflected. That amount is subject to change dependent on the albedo of the planet and its ability to radiate that energy back into space as opposed to absorb it.
The other source of energy is that created on Earth itself. Humanity creates some of that. See the Kardashev scale for more.

So, changing the albedo of the Earth, or changing the composition of the atmosphere will affect albedo to some degree. How much is open to debate as is the affect humanity has on this versus nature.

As for thermodynamics:

The first law ∆U = Q - W That is, U energy out equals energy put in Q less energy used in the system (work) W.

In terms of planetary climate the energy from the sun less energy absorbed by the planet equals the energy reflected back into space. You can add in energy created on Earth to this, but that's minor by comparison.

The second law is that energy is conserved. That is, energy out + energy converted to work = total energy put into the system.

So, the laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann laws are not violated in the least by the temperature of the Earth rising or falling due to changes in albedo or the chemical composition of the atmosphere. The question is, how much is anthropomorphic and how much is natural. The Church of Gorebal Warming erroneously claims that it is human activity that is the significant cause versus nature. They then try their damnedest to find a way to prove this, much like many other religions try to find proof of their God or their Gods.

[Into the Night]

First it was abundantly clear you have never had a thermo or pchem class and your statement

Science isn't a class.

of the laws were largely predicated on your overall ignorance of thermo.

It is YOU discarding the laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

It is also clear you don't really understand AGW.

I understand your scripture quite well.

Let me try to explain it to you:

Here we go again...

The sun puts out energy which the earth absorbs and re-radiates back out in the IR

A photon that is absorbed is DESTROYED. I no longer exists.

(this is called "down conversion" since most of the energy coming from the sun is in shorter wavelength, high energy photons.)

Absorption of visible light does not result in conversion to thermal energy. It results in conversion to chemical energy (see photosynthesis and polymerization). Only infrared light, when it is absorbed, results in conversion to thermal energy.

This creates warmth in the form if IR radiation radiating back out of the planet.

Emitting light requires energy. That is a cooling process, not a warming one.

If we had no greenhouse gases at all in our atmosphere

There is no such thing, so...we don't.

it would all go back out into space quickly

The speed of light is always the speed of light.

and our surface would remain close to the earth's "blackbody radiation temperature" (calculated from Stefan-Boltzmann).

No such thing. You are discarding the Stefan-Boltzmann law again. Also, it is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

The problem with ADDED greenhouse gas is that with more and more of it the earth remains in balance with regards to energy coming in and energy going out. That's key. Even with AGW the energy budget is still in balance.

No. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the first law of thermodynamics again.

So why are we warming?

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

Because as more GHG's go into the atmosphere it pushes the altitude at which the IR photons re-emit back into space.

You are now ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law again. ALL materials convert thermal energy to electromagnetic energy, regardless of altitude. There is no 'altitude' term in the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

That holds more warmth near the surface for longer.

You cannot trap thermal energy or reduce entropy. You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

So energy is NOT being created from nothing.
It is perfectly in accordance with the First Law.

You are using a magick gas to create energy out of nothing. Not possible.

And since the earth is NOT an isolated system

There is no term called 'isolated system' in thermodynamics. You cannot compare two different systems as if they were the same system. False equivalence fallacy.

(open to the sun's energy)

Assuming the Sun is putting out the same energy, where is the ADDITIONAL energy coming from????!?

it also follows the Second Law of Thermo quite well.

No, you are trying to reduce entropy. Not possible. You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat. You cannot trap light.

In other words: your understanding of the topic is severely lacking and not related to reality.

Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself again.

Locally it IS. On the larger scale it is not. Crystallization DECREASES entropy.

There is no such thing as 'locally'. False equivalence fallacy. It is not possible to decrease entropy...ever.

No. Wrong.

Now you are ignoring quantum mechanics and Planck's laws. A photon that is absorbed is DESTROYED. There is no 're-radiation' of that photon. It no longer exists.

[Saint Guinefort]

Science isn't a class.

P Chem is.

A photon that is absorbed is DESTROYED. I no longer exists.

-sigh-

Energy doesn't simply "disappear". That's part of the First Law. You know, the one you THINK you understand? As such the photon is absorbed as energy (which is what a photon is) and is then re-radiated back out from the CO2 molecule.

Honestly this is elementary school stuff. I don't know why you want to violate the First Law.

Absorption of visible light does not result in conversion to thermal energy. It results in conversion to chemical energy (see photosynthesis and polymerization). Only infrared light, when it is absorbed, results in conversion to thermal energy.

Jeez you are all over the place here. You don't know the first thing you are talking about. CO2 absorbs IR radiation because of the nature of the chemical bonds VIBRATION. The energy is absorbed by the vibrating chemical bond (C=O) in the molecule. That's why if you look at an IR spectrum you'll see that different bonds absorb in different energy regions.

There is no such thing, so...we don't.

Where did you learn your "science"???? Because you clearly didn't.

The speed of light is always the speed of light.

Wrong-o bubby. Ever hear of REFRACTION? Yeah, that's where the speed of light in different media changes and causes the light to bend. The speed of light IN A VACUUM is what you were thinking. But you don't even know enough science to know that.

There is no term called 'isolated system' in thermodynamics.

https://learnmechanical.com/thermodynamics-system/

No, you are trying to reduce entropy. Not possible.

You really don't know what you are talking about here. Crystallization has an entropy term that is NEGATIVE, meaning it is DECREASING.

(I honestly wish you knew the FIRST thing about ANY of this)

Now you are ignoring quantum mechanics and Planck's laws. A photon that is absorbed is DESTROYED. There is no 're-radiation' of that photon. It no longer exists.

Are you just doing some massive "Poe" here? Or are you really this uneducated?

[Into the Night]

P Chem is.

Science is not a class.

-sigh-

Energy doesn't simply "disappear". That's part of the First Law.

YOU are trying to create energy out of nothing using a magick gas. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.

You know, the one you THINK you understand?

I do. The 1st law of thermodynamics states: E(t+1) = E(t) - U where 'E' is energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is work. No gas or vapor is work. U is equal to zero.

As such the photon is absorbed as energy (which is what a photon is) and is then re-radiated back out from the CO2 molecule.

Nope. You are ignoring quantum mechanics again. A photon that is absorbed is DESTROYED. Any photon that is emitted is CREATED. Not all photons are the same. See Planck's laws, which you are ignoring.

Honestly this is elementary school stuff.

Your elementary school must suck.

I don't know why you want to violate the First Law.

Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself.

Jeez you are all over the place here. You don't know the first thing you are talking about.

Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself again.

CO2 absorbs IR radiation because of the nature of the chemical bonds VIBRATION.

ALL gases, vapors, and other materials absorb infrared light. Infrared light is not radiation.

The energy is absorbed by the vibrating chemical bond (C=O) in the molecule. That's why if you look at an IR spectrum you'll see that different bonds absorb in different energy regions.

ALL materials absorb infrared light.

Where did you learn your "science"???? Because you clearly didn't.

Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself again.

Wrong-o bubby. Ever hear of REFRACTION?

Sure.

Yeah, that's where the speed of light in different media changes and causes the light to bend.

The speed of light is always the speed if light, regardless of the material or any vacuum the photon is transiting.

The speed of light IN A VACUUM is what you were thinking. But you don't even know enough science to know that.

The speed of light is always the speed of light. It is never any different from the speed of light.

You really don't know what you are talking about here. Crystallization has an entropy term that is NEGATIVE, meaning it is DECREASING.

Not possible. You can never decrease entropy...ever. The 2nd law of thermodynamics states: e(t+1) >= e(t) where 'e is entropy, and 't' is time.

(I honestly wish you knew the FIRST thing about ANY of this)
Are you just doing some massive "Poe" here? Or are you really this uneducated?

You are just describing yourself again. Inversion fallacy.

[Into the Night]

I really didn't want to do this but...

In simple, easy to understand terms...

The Stefan-Boltzmann law is in regard to what are called white and black bodies.

No, it isn't. The Stefan-Boltzmann law describes conversion of thermal energy to electromagnetic energy. The rate of conversion follows temperature...never the inverse. Emissivity is a measured constant.

A black body absorbs all energy that contacts it. A white body reflects all energy in the same way.

These are ideal reference points. That is all. Otherwise correct.

This is described by the term "albedo."

WRONG. It is described by the term 'emissivity'. Albedo is the inverse of emissivity.

Albedo ranges from 0 (white body) to 1 (black body).

WRONG. You have it backwards. EMISSIVITY ranges from 0%, a perfectly reflective or 'white' body, to 100%, a perfectly emissive 'black' body. Albedo is the inverse of emissivity. Emissivity is also the same as absorptivity, in accordance with Kirchoff's Law of Equivalence.

The Earth has an albedo between 0 and 1 about .3 ish currently.

The emissivity of Earth is unknown. It is not possible to measure it.

The sun radiates some amount of energy. The energy that reaches the Earth is either absorbed or reflected. That amount is subject to change dependent on the albedo of the planet and its ability to radiate that energy back into space as opposed to absorb it.

The better it can absorb light, the better it can emit light.

The other source of energy is that created on Earth itself.

I assume you are talking about coal, oil, natural gas, the fission heating the Earth's core, etc.

Humanity creates some of that. See the Kardashev scale for more.

Energy consumption is not energy creation. Redefinition fallacy.

So, changing the albedo of the Earth, or changing the composition of the atmosphere will affect albedo to some degree. How much is open to debate as is the affect humanity has on this versus nature.

Makes no difference. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. It is not possible to measure it. You are trying to modify the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Emissivity is a measured constant, not a variable.

As for thermodynamics:

The first law ∆U = Q - W That is, U energy out equals energy put in Q less energy used in the system (work) W.

This is correct.

In terms of planetary climate the energy from the sun less energy absorbed by the planet equals the energy reflected back into space.

Absorptivity is also emissivity. They are the same. You are ignoring Kirchoff's Equivalence law again. ALL the energy absorbed by Earth is emitted back into space. ALL of it. You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.

You can add in energy created on Earth to this, but that's minor by comparison.

ALL the energy created on Earth is also radiated out into space.

The second law is that energy is conserved. That is, energy out + energy converted to work = total energy put into the system.

No work is being performed. No gas or vapor is work. W=0, using your version of the equation.

So, the laws of thermodynamics

Which you just discarded.

and the Stefan-Boltzmann laws

Which you just discarded.

are not violated in the least by the temperature of the Earth rising or falling due to changes in albedo or the chemical composition of the atmosphere.

Yes they are. There is no 'substance' term in the Stefan-Boltzmann law. ALL materials convert the same way.

The question is, how much is anthropomorphic and how much is natural.

The presence of CO2 does not change emissivity. There is no 'substance' term in the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

The Church of Gorebal Warming erroneously claims that it is human activity that is the significant cause versus nature.

There is no 'cause'. You cannot create energy out of nothing.

They then try their damnedest to find a way to prove this, much like many other religions try to find proof of their God or their Gods.

This part is correct. The Church of Global Warming is a fundamentalist style religion.

[Saint Guinefort]

Science is not a class.

YOU are trying to create energy out of nothing using a magick gas. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.

I do. The 1st law of thermodynamics states: E(t+1) = E(t) - U where 'E' is energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is work. No gas or vapor is work. U is equal to zero.

Nope. You are ignoring quantum mechanics again. A photon that is absorbed is DESTROYED. Any photon that is emitted is CREATED. Not all photons are the same. See Planck's laws, which you are ignoring.

Your elementary school must suck.

Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself.

Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself again.

ALL gases, vapors, and other materials absorb infrared light. Infrared light is not radiation.

ALL materials absorb infrared light.

Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself again.

Sure.

The speed of light is always the speed if light, regardless of the material or any vacuum the photon is transiting.

The speed of light is always the speed of light. It is never any different from the speed of light.

Not possible. You can never decrease entropy...ever. The 2nd law of thermodynamics states: e(t+1) >= e(t) where 'e is entropy, and 't' is time.

You are just describing yourself again. Inversion fallacy.

Dude, sorry but you are way out of your depth. Honestly your post is mostly error mixed with actual science words.

If you can't decrease entropy then you need to explain how a CRYSTAL is lower entropy than the MOLTEN MATERIAL from which it forms.

or do you think a molten material is lower entropy than a crystal?

Son, what the Second Law actually says is that entropy increases in an isolated system. The second law doesn't hold for open systems.

[Saint Guinefort]

I assume you are talking about coal, oil, natural gas, the fission heating the Earth's core, etc.

Wow, you haven't even taken a geology course? The coal and oil and natural gas in the earth do not currently provide significant energy to the earth. We burn it to make energy.

Secondly: the earth's actual heat budget is not just remaining energy from accretion and stored in the core, but is also a function of the radionuclides in the rocks in the full body of the earth.

[Into the Night]

Dude, sorry but you are way out of your depth.

You are describing yourself again.

Honestly your post is mostly error mixed with actual science words.

You are describing yourself again.

If you can't decrease entropy then you need to explain how a CRYSTAL is lower entropy than the MOLTEN MATERIAL from which it forms.

By increasing entropy.

or do you think a molten material is lower entropy than a crystal?

It is lower entropy.

Son, what the Second Law actually says is that entropy increases in an isolated system.

No, it doesn't.

The second law doesn't hold for open systems.

Yes it does. You are STILL trying to compare two systems as if they were the same system. False equivalence fallacy.

[Into the Night]

Wow, you haven't even taken a geology course?

Geology isn't a course.

The coal and oil and natural gas in the earth do not currently provide significant energy to the earth. We burn it to make energy.

I think you'll find the Church of Green disagrees with you.

Secondly: the earth's actual heat budget

There is no such thing. Heat is not a budget. Heat is not contained in anything.

is not just remaining energy from accretion and stored in the core, but is also a function of the radionuclides in the rocks in the full body of the earth.

Special pleading fallacy.

[Saint Guinefort]

Geology isn't a course.

I think you'll find the Church of Green disagrees with you.

There is no such thing. Heat is not a budget. Heat is not contained in anything.

Special pleading fallacy.

May I suggest you stop wasting people's time with what is clearly a ham-fisted Poe?

[Into the Night]

May I suggest you stop wasting people's time with what is clearly a ham-fisted Poe?

Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself again.