Why greenhouse gas warming doesn’t break the second law of thermodynamics (Really??)

JoNova ^ | May 14th, 2011 | Joanne

[TigersEye]

It’s really cold and you are soon chilled to the bone so you step inside. Inside it’s a pleasant 20°C and almost immediately you feel warmer. But you are at 37°C and the room is 17°C cooler at 20°C how can it warm you, the second law of thermodynamics forbids it! No it doesn’t.

For crying out loud! Whoever wrote that should go back to high school, sit down and shut up. I'm not even going to bother describing what is so stunningly wrong with that.

[cornfedcowboy]

Right...Back to the stone age and the caves....

---

OK.....as long as you don’t have campfires or eat meat.

[raygun]

He nailed it. Heat transfer is always one way, i.e. from high to low concentration. I loved the comments, the writer of the article on the hand doesn't have a clue.

It appeared that most of the comments (even post #78) were debunking the duplicitous sophistry of Jo & Hammer. Hammer may be a qualified electrical engineer having 20 patents under his belt, however thermodynamics, quantum state oscillation, Bohr frequency condition of atoms. Hammer should know better. To explain this to rest of the AGW degenerates is akin to teaching one's dog algebra.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Plant consumption of C02 would spike dramatically if there was ever a true surplus. Plants grow like crazy on the stuff. It’s a stabalizing factor.

[Paul Pierett]

Earnest,

There are two cycles that are essential to the Earth’s way of life and it is straight out of the book. The CO2 cycle works hand in hand with Nitrate cycle. Plants are the C02 and animal life are Nitrates. If either one of them broke down, well, things would slow down a bit.

Carbon life needs Nitrates and Nitrate life needs Carbon life to live better.

As for global warming.

It has all to do, borrowing parts of a book title, where we are in Space and Time. The Universe is Growing, planets are being born, they live and die, stars are still being born, they live and die, not sure about a galaxy yet.

The whole picture comes down to this:

We are in a fine line between burning up or freezing to death. We are the right distance from the Sun, the Right Angle of the Axis, polarity, Moon position, so on and so on. We receive just enough sunspot activity to keep us out of a mini-ice age. We don’t receive too much, or masses would die off, beginning in Africa and Asia.

I use to think it was green house gases, but I tend to think more in terms of the old Psych term Gestadt. It has more to do with the whole, than the parts. The global warming alarmists keeps looking at the parts, not the whole thing. All of these world committees are really totally absurb and ignorant of the all the processes that make our daily life possible. All the way from the Big Bang down to the DNA have to be explored. It all works together and sometimes against each other. There is still something call dark mass in space, they haven’t touched yet. Even the earliest peoples discribed it.

When I look at the whole thing, I have overwhelming feelings of being a mortal and each day is oh so precious.

Paul

[palmer]

Does 20C feel warmer to you than 10C? If so, then the article is correct.

[palmer]

pv=nrt only applies inside a closed container.

[palmer]

Plant consumption of C02 would spike dramatically if there was ever a true surplus.

Plant life is spiking, perhaps not dramatically, but rising. Along with the oceans storing more of the stuff, the "half life" of our added CO2 is 48 years maximum (assuming a constant lambda). With an increasing lambda (more plant life with more CO2) it's even less, I have heard reliable estimates of 40 years.

[TigersEye]

Perceptions have nothing to do with actual temperatures and the statement he made is garbage.

[palmer]

You don’t just feel warmer when more IR hits you, you are warmer. Granted, if you stand next to a running wood stove, not only is that wood stove a lot warmer than you, but it’s sending a lot of IR your way. That seems to be the second law in action. But head outside (in winter) and stand next to a snowbank which is 32 degrees or less), then compare to standing next to a surface with some heat in it (e.g. from the sun). Say that surfaace is 60 degrees, and your body is 98 degrees. The bottom line is you will not only feel warmer, but you will be warmer.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Haha! So not only do clouds-from-heat stabalize our temperature [clouds reflecting sunlight], plant increases stabalize CO2 surpluses. Good grief, I didn’t even think about the plant increase in a dynamic sense until recently. It’s all Plus-Plus. There’s no downside to more CO2 what-so-ever!

[palmer]

As many people have pointed out on this forum, even a small ice age is a much more serious threat than warming. Even warming at high rates would not melt Greenland and Antarctica fast enough to be a viable threat.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Back in the 90s, senators almost UNANYMOUSLY opposed the Kyoto treaty. They knew it was a scam way back then. Then came the Oregon Petition. The obviousness of this crock keeps growing as information flows rapidly.

[TigersEye]

All non-sequitur to the context of what the author wrote.

[palmer]

Here's another example of why the 2nd law doesn't apply: http://www.rei.com/product/407106/space-all-weather-blanket The blanket reflects IR back at the person inside even though the blanket is much colder than body temperature. The colder object (the blanket) isn't "warming" the warmer object in the absolute sense, but it is keeping the warmer object from losing heat as quickly as it would otherwise. If the blanket were only used to block convection, it would not be foil lined, just plain plastic.

[TigersEye]

Another non-sequitur.