The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?  (Read 55668 times)

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
You seem to have forgotten what you said in the first place that kicked off the debate.
It's the bit where Tim told you the difference between big an small and you pretended it wasn't.
No, the amount of heat produced directly by human activity is utterly tiny in comparison with the heat budget of nature.
FALSE. The earth's life forms spent hundreds of millions of years taking solar energy OUT of the system. That's what oil and coal are: dead plants and animals.
I pretended it wasn't what? The difference between big and small? That statement makes no sense. Do you even think about what you are posting, or do you just rattle off any sort of nonsense you like?

You're wrong. Every lump of coal in the ground represents solar energy that did not enter the atmosphere or warm the ground under a tree, but rather was stored in plants via photosynthesis. After hundreds of millions of years, those dead trees add up to a lot of stored solar energy. Releasing it all at once adds up to something significant ENOUGH. To suggest otherwise is preposterous.
Tim told you the difference between big and small.
The energy from the sun is big. The energy from fossil fuels is small.
You pretended that the direct heating effect wasn't small and you pretended that the heating from the sun wasn't big.

In particular, re "Releasing it all at once adds up to something significant ENOUGH. "
As I pointed out, even current rates of use (which means releasing as much of it "at once" as we ever have) ,mare small compared to the heat from the sun.


and you really ought to answer the question about the entropy change - otherwise it makes it look like you don't have a damned clue what you were on about and you can't do the simple calculation- even after someone has told you the answer.
Why are you so reluctant?
Is it because you can't?
 

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 210
  • Thanked: 22 times
    • View Profile
You're wrong. Every lump of coal in the ground represents solar energy that did not enter the atmosphere or warm the ground under a tree, but rather was stored in plants via photosynthesis. After hundreds of millions of years, those dead trees add up to a lot of stored solar energy. Releasing it all at once adds up to something significant ENOUGH. To suggest otherwise is preposterous.

Except that I just calculated the magnitude of the impact of releasing that energy at the rate humans are currently releasing it and found that it was literally not measurable and therefore cannot be considered significant by any acceptable definition of the word significant.

Citation, please.

Oh, never mind:

http://cleantechnica.com/2013/08/26/us-wastes-61-86-of-its-energy/

At any rate, Japanese car companies had several models that got more than 50 mpg, way back in the early 1980's. Now, after two and a half decades of technological development, we can barely squeeze 40 mpg out of a hybrid. Guess who's to blame for that? I'll give you a hint: highly profitable oil companies.

The best possible Carnot engine operating over a realistic temperature range would at best still reject about 40% of the energy fed to it as waste heat. This is the thermodynamic limit for any heat engine and real engines are always going to be significantly less efficient than this because they operate far from thermal equilibrium. Increasing the fuel efficiencies of cars would have reduced the overall amount of energy used by allowing people to drive further on less gas but the overall percentage of waste heat wouldn't have changed all that much. The efficiency of internal combustion engines has pretty much been maximized at this point and further gains in automotive fuel efficiency are mainly about reducing drag/weight and tricks like turning off the engine at stop lights.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3921
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Our
If you want to have a science forum you will have to be harsh with your allowance of idiocy. It's sort of OK to have a load of simple questions asked by those who have not done any science but this needs to be in it's own section otherwise more advanced discussions will be drowned out by the noise.
Have you even taken one college science course? You don't seem to recognize your own idiocy, hypocrite. Why don't you take your industry vs. technology argument to the kids table instead of drowning out our adult climate change discussion with nonsense?

You are the furthest from an adult discussion that you could possibly be.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4715
  • Thanked: 154 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile

At any rate, Japanese car companies had several models that got more than 50 mpg, way back in the early 1980's. Now, after two and a half decades of technological development, we can barely squeeze 40 mpg out of a hybrid. Guess who's to blame for that? I'll give you a hint: highly profitable oil companies.

No, mostly Californian legislators. Battery hybrids are a lot heavier for a given power rating than simple internal combustion units, and the statutory reduction in particulate emissions, NOX emissions and lead content have produced significantly lower overall efficiency. Why do you think racing car manufacturers complain about noise limitation? Because everything you add to a car exhaust system makes the engine less efficient.

And of course your 1960s 50 mpg Jap rustbox didn't have airconditioning, power steering, antilock brakes, 4-wheel drive, airbags, auto gearbox, side impact protection, and all the other gubbins that makes its successors go slower.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
It doesn't matter what the MPG is - or anything like it.
All the energy ends up as heat, even if 40% of it started off moving a car; when the brakes go on that energy is dissipated as heat.
Some of the fossil fuel is used to generate electricity, but in the end, that too gets degraded to heat; that's why your TV sert gets warm

Ironically, this is the only bit where entropy gets involved, but it doesn't let Craig off the hook.
He should still be able to explain what the entropy change is for the reaction he cited.

I'm really looking forward to it.
« Last Edit: 03/04/2016 17:53:42 by Bored chemist »
 

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 210
  • Thanked: 22 times
    • View Profile
It doesn't matter what the MPG is - or anything like it.
All the energy ends up as heat, even if 40% of it started off moving a car; when the brakes go on that energy is dissipated as heat. Some of the fossil fuel is used to generate electricity, but in the end, that too gets degraded to heat; that's why your TV sert gets warm

Actually a significant amount of the energy not rejected as waste heat by the engine goes into sound, moving the air as the car passes through (some of which might end up as a slight increase in air temp), any net gain in altitude between where the car started and where it stopped (a decrease in altitude actually gives you energy), and any electrical needs the car might have (some of that electrical use becomes heat but you can also get sound both from the radio and other sources as well as chemical energy stored in the battery). Not even 100% of the energy dissipated by breaking ends up as thermal energy. At least some of it goes into the mechanical deformation and grinding of the brake pads and rotors.

As for TV sets certainly some of the input electrical energy becomes heat but not 100%. In a relatively efficient TV set a good portion comes out as visible light. Now some of that visible light will get absorbed and reemitted as infrared radiation but a not insignificant portion will simply be reflected away as ambient scattered light.

Yes thermodynamics says that you can't do anything without generating some amount of waste heat but that doesn't mean every joule of energy you use eventually becomes thermal energy.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Sound doesn't carry indefinitely, it is degraded to heat by air viscosity.
The only energy that escapes from your car is if the lights shine up into the sky- and even that will eventually get degraded to heat when it hits something.
The light from the TV set is absorbed by the walls of the room within microseconds. (how long does it take for the room to get dark once you switch the lights off?)

Eventually you drive the car back home so the net change in gravitational energy is zero.

"Yes thermodynamics says that you can't do anything without generating some amount of waste heat but that doesn't mean every joule of energy you use eventually becomes thermal energy."
Oh yes it does.













 

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 210
  • Thanked: 22 times
    • View Profile
Sound doesn't carry indefinitely, it is degraded to heat by air viscosity.
That can actually take much longer than you'd think depending on the frequency of the sound. Most of the sound energy from cars is below 2 kHz and below that frequency dissipation via the viscosity of air can take many miles. Enough that a good portion of that energy ends up in the upper atmosphere before it is eventually converted to heat. I will concede that if you wait long enough it eventually becomes heat but that heat is very likely not to be anywhere near the surface of the planet.
 
Quote
The only energy that escapes from your car is if the lights shine up into the sky- and even that will eventually get degraded to heat when it hits something.

Some portion of it will but some portion of it will also get reflected away and there is generally a greater chance of going in a roughly upward direction.

Quote
The light from the TV set is absorbed by the walls of the room within microseconds. (how long does it take for the room to get dark once you switch the lights off?)

Unless you happen to really like black windowless rooms a good portion of the light is free to escape through the windows.

Quote
Eventually you drive the car back home so the net change in gravitational energy is zero.

I did address that fact actually.

Quote
"Yes thermodynamics says that you can't do anything without generating some amount of waste heat but that doesn't mean every joule of energy you use eventually becomes thermal energy."
Oh yes it does.

I was trying not to be overly pedantic and confuse the point more than than it already has been. Yes given enough time eventually everything degrades and turns to dust but generally speaking not on a time scale relevant to a typical human lifespan. A good portion of the human use of energy goes into constructing things. Things like buildings, cars, toys, and even increasingly complex molecules. Energy goes into making those things and is stored in those things. Eventually given time they will degrade and eventually that stored energy will become heat but generally speaking not on the time scale of a single human lifetime and certainly not on the scale of a single year. I was attempting to illustrate that in terms of the analysis I did above less than 100% of the energy we use in a year ends up as heat by the end of that year and generally speaking a decent percentage of our energy use is locked up in various things we build for decades or centuries.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
I tell you what, rather than carrying on this debate here, why don't we just wait?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4715
  • Thanked: 154 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Let's be really pedantic for a while.

The car moves from A to B. If they are at the same height, there is no change in gravitational potential and as BC has said, you will probably return to A anyway. So where did all the energy go?

Most of it was dissipated as air turbulence and noise. Same as heat - a change in the mean energy of air molecules.

Some was dissipated by the flexing of the tyres - heat.

Some was dissipated by the brakes - heat

Some was dissipated by other frictional losses - heat.

So if you really care about heating the planet, use the phone instead of travelling.

Try telling that to people who attend "environmental" conferences.
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
It doesn't matter what the MPG is - or anything like it.
All the energy ends up as heat, even if 40% of it started off moving a car; when the brakes go on that energy is dissipated as heat.
Some of the fossil fuel is used to generate electricity, but in the end, that too gets degraded to heat; that's why your TV sert gets warm

Ironically, this is the only bit where entropy gets involved, but it doesn't let Craig off the hook.
The only irony here is that you're basically repeating what I've said before [your car hood gets warm, light bulbs get warm, electrical outlets get warm] and using that argument against me now. I said the heat is important, you said it isn't, and here you've said "all the energy ends up as heat." That's what I said. CO2 is a byproduct of combustion, so its insulating property is in fact just another expression of the heat released by combustion. That's what mass/energy conversion does. It changes mass and energy to other forms of mass and energy, and dissipates them in the process. The properties of those dissipated parts becomes part of the environment, and thus contributes to climate change.
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
and you really ought to answer the question about the entropy change - otherwise it makes it look like you don't have a damned clue what you were on about and you can't do the simple calculation- even after someone has told you the answer.
Why are you so reluctant?
Is it because you can't?
I am not here to jump through hoops for you. I am not here to prove myself to you. You are not here to test me or to school me. I have been to college. I graduated cum laude.

Do the calculation yourself if it's so simple, or go get YOURSELF a damned clue.
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
So if you really care about heating the planet, use the phone instead of travelling.

Try telling that to people who attend "environmental" conferences.
On the other hand, who is going to take Al Gore seriously when he rides a bicycle across country? What is he supposed to do, move into a shack with no electricity in Idaho and send non-environmentalists bombs in the mail?

Stupid argument. Manufacture environmentalists an affordable car that doesn't use gasoline so they have an alternative, like they've been asking for for decades.
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
A good portion of the human use of energy goes into constructing things. Things like buildings, cars, toys, and even increasingly complex molecules. Energy goes into making those things and is stored in those things. Eventually given time they will degrade and eventually that stored energy will become heat but generally speaking not on the time scale of a single human lifetime and certainly not on the scale of a single year. I was attempting to illustrate that in terms of the analysis I did above less than 100% of the energy we use in a year ends up as heat by the end of that year and generally speaking a decent percentage of our energy use is locked up in various things we build for decades or centuries.
Yes. We are like trees or dinosaurs in that respect. The energy in many of the things we make, and in our bodies that get buried in graveyards, will become fossil fuels in time. At that point, the energy can be released to contribute to future climate change.
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Tim told you the difference between big and small.
The energy from the sun is big. The energy from fossil fuels is small.
You pretended that the direct heating effect wasn't small and you pretended that the heating from the sun wasn't big.
No, you're either lying, or your reading comprehension sucks. I think it's the former. It's pretty clear after a couple of weeks that you're merely trying to piss me off. You don't care about real science. You care about your limited, biased viewpoint, and about twisting and cherry picking facts to support it.

The "big" energy of the sun is just right to support life, has been for millions of years. The "small" energy of human combustion adds to that. It doesn't take much to make a difference. If two people are perfectly balanced on a seesaw, all it takes is a pound or two of extra weight on one side to tip the balance entirely.
« Last Edit: 04/04/2016 17:17:36 by Craig W. Thomson »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4715
  • Thanked: 154 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Who cares what Al Gore does? Neither Jesus nor Karl Marx used a car, but both had a significant influence on human behavior.

Since it takes as much energy to manufacture a car as it uses in its lifetime, making new cars will do more damage to the environment than using old ones. But there's no law preventing environmentalists from manufacturing a car - except the laws of physics, which many seem not to understand.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4715
  • Thanked: 154 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Craig: ask  yourself about the mass loss in the reaction C + O2 → CO2, and please tell us the answers.

Which atom lost mass? Did it lose electrons, protons, neutrons, or something else?

If we now recycle all the atoms by photosynthesis and coal formation, then burn the carbon again, at what point will the carbon and/or oxygen atoms have lost enough mass to become some other species?
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
so its insulating property is in fact just another expression of the heat released by combustion
No it isn't.
and you really ought to answer the question about the entropy change - otherwise it makes it look like you don't have a damned clue what you were on about and you can't do the simple calculation- even after someone has told you the answer.
Why are you so reluctant?
Is it because you can't?
I am not here to jump through hoops for you. I am not here to prove myself to you. You are not here to test me or to school me. I have been to college. I graduated cum laude.

Do the calculation yourself if it's so simple, or go get YOURSELF a damned clue.
Well, as I said, I already did the calculation but, since you insist.
Let's just recap how we got here.
You started off by saying
" The first and second laws of thermodynamics have nothing to do with causality. "
and I pointed out that, through the arrow of time, they are in fact related.
And you bizarrely misinterpreted that and brought this up
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/ba/Feynman_EP_Annihilation.svg/2000px-Feynman_EP_Annihilation.svg.png
which is the Feynman diagram for electron positron annihilation.
and you said "Are you sure you really want to go there? You already look pretty silly discussing your area of expertise, and I know A LOT more about physics than chemistry."

so, since you were off any sensible view of the point I said
"Yes! I'm sure I want to go there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time
rather than on some random tangent about Feynman diagrams (which, BTW, have precious little to do with entropy)"
to bring it back
Now, just remember I pointed out that the diagram has little to do with entropy.
You insisted it was, and that's the point wher I first asked you to prove it.

"If you want to show that I'm wrong and that you are right about this "When particles interact as per creation/annihilation events pictured in Feynmann diagrams, YES, there IS entropy."
Just tell me what the entropy change is for that reaction."

And I wonder if, at that point you realised your mistake; but it seems not.
Even when I was saying things like "I'm really looking forward to you posting the result of the calculation."
You didn't realise, did you?
You can't have or I really don't think you would have said "Burning logs is related to the thread topic. Your question is not. Answer it yourself."
Now I'm a bit surprised by that.
You have already lost the argument about combustion because the standard entropy change for combustion of, for example, hydrogen , methane or carbon monoxide is negative- the system loses entropy, yet here you are, once again pretending that the entropy change of a burning log is relevant.

But this bit " Answer it yourself" was either very brave, or very  dumb.

Now I'd just like to remind you of something I said earlier in the thread.

"here's the 2nd law together with the bit that says that reversible processes don't have an entropy change.

The second law of thermodynamics states that for a thermodynamically defined process to actually occur, the sum of the entropies of the participating bodies must increase. In an idealized limiting case, that of a reversible process, this sum remains unchanged."
(That's a quote from somewhere- WIKI I think)

OK, so there's something really odd about thermodynamically reversible processes when it comes to entropy.
(I think some peole have guessed the punchline by now).
and here's the reaction you chose to illustrate entropy. (Heaven knows why- it has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect or anything like it)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron%E2%80%93positron_annihilation

And here's the bit which tells you something that, if you knew about entropy, would have set big sirens off telling you to be careful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron%E2%80%93positron_annihilation#Reverse_reaction

Yes, the reaction you used to illustrate your understanding of entropy, and which you tried to insist had something to do with the issue- even after I pointed it out- is a thermodynamically perfectly reversible reaction.

The reaction you chose to illustrate entropy is (as you had already been told- because I had explained it) one of the relatively small number of reactions where the entropy change is exactly zero.

Do you understand the significance of that?
It make it absolutely clear that you don't understand what you are on about.




 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Craig: ask  yourself about the mass loss in the reaction C + O2 → CO2, and please tell us the answers.

Which atom lost mass? Did it lose electrons, protons, neutrons, or something else?

If we now recycle all the atoms by photosynthesis and coal formation, then burn the carbon again, at what point will the carbon and/or oxygen atoms have lost enough mass to become some other species?
bindˇing enˇerˇgy
nounPHYSICS
the energy that holds a nucleus together, equal to the mass defect of the nucleus.

When you join particles together, that takes binding energy. Taking them apart releases the binding energy.

The entropy law assures me that last sentence of yours is ridiculous.

Again, either you're scientifically clueless, or you obfuscate just because you like to argue, both inexcusable for a moderator of a physics forum.
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Do you understand the significance of that?
It makes it absolutely clear that you don't understand what you are on about.
Here's what I understand: The insignificance of you. You don't have a real name. You don't have any credentials. All you have is a sock puppet account and a lot of confirmation biased arguments.

 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4715
  • Thanked: 154 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
bindˇing enˇerˇgy
nounPHYSICS
the energy that holds a nucleus together, equal to the mass defect of the nucleus.

When you join particles together, that takes binding energy. Taking them apart releases the binding energy.

I see the root of your confusion.

You would be well advised to go back to your sources and learn the difference between nucleon binding energy and covalent bonding between electron orbitals. It won't save your life, but it will make you much happier and more confident in the company of people who know what they are talking about. Then you won't have to resort to childish insults.
« Last Edit: 06/04/2016 00:25:33 by alancalverd »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Do you understand the significance of that?
It makes it absolutely clear that you don't understand what you are on about.
Here's what I understand: The insignificance of you. You don't have a real name. You don't have any credentials. All you have is a sock puppet account and a lot of confirmation biased arguments.
So, you understand essentially nothing.
I'm as insignificant as you are.
I have a real name and I explained why i don't use it (it allows me to post things that my employer might object to)
I have credentials,  and they look quite good- but, since I'm posting anonymously, i can't share them.
However, if you look at what else i have posted here over the years, you will find that I am well enough respected.
A sock puppet account implies a "puppet master"  but that's silly I'm posting entirely my own views.
And my arguments- like the last point I made- are generally based on established facts.

You, on the other hand seem unable to accept that you are frequently wrong.
You misunderstand and misinterpret a lot of things (I suspect that's sometimes deliberate).
And, when you are faced with someone who actually knows about a subject you think you understand- because you have read a boook on it- you assume that they are wrong.
Well, there are many ways  to describe that.
Here's one of the more polite ones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

And, you still cited a reaction with no entropy change as an example of how important entropy is. Then you said it again.
You still think that an effect which, at best contributes a tiny percentage of the change in the Earth's temperature is important to that change.
You still think the Earth is a thermodynamically closed system.
You still said that you only claimed understanding infields where you were expert- but you were shown to pontificate , even in fields where you admitted that you didn't know what you were on about.
You misrepresent what others have said- and then repeatedly engage in strawman attacks.

I could go on, but there's no point; as far as I can tell you have a cognitive fault where  you can not understand that you don't understand.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Craig: ask  yourself about the mass loss in the reaction C + O2 → CO2, and please tell us the answers.

Which atom lost mass? Did it lose electrons, protons, neutrons, or something else?

If we now recycle all the atoms by photosynthesis and coal formation, then burn the carbon again, at what point will the carbon and/or oxygen atoms have lost enough mass to become some other species?
bindˇing enˇerˇgy
nounPHYSICS
the energy that holds a nucleus together, equal to the mass defect of the nucleus.

When you join particles together, that takes binding energy. Taking them apart releases the binding energy.

The entropy law assures me that last sentence of yours is ridiculous.

Again, either you're scientifically clueless, or you obfuscate just because you like to argue, both inexcusable for a moderator of a physics forum.

Nobody is doing nuclear physics with fossil fuels.
The nuclear forces binding the nuclei together are not changed during combustion etc (actually,strictly speaking, they are- but you don't have the background to understand that- in any event, the effects are tiny ).
You don't understand entropy*- so you are not in a position to soundly base arguments on it.
So that whole rant is irrelevant.

* If you understood entropy, you wouldn't have chosen the e p annihilation as an example of entropy; but you did. It's like discussion of pollination but using club mosses as an example or (for Tim's benefit) talking about Yorkshire fittings, but trying to explain them using push-fit polymer piping systems.

(Tim, you realise I'm kidding; I'm just trying to make the point about how stupid Craig's choice was.)

 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4715
  • Thanked: 154 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Here's one of the more polite ones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Pleased to encounter another fan of Kruger and Dunning. Should be required reading for Her Majesty's Inspectorates. Perhaps Craig is a warranted inspector?
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Nobody is doing nuclear physics with fossil fuels.

The nuclear forces binding the nuclei together are not changed during combustion etc

(actually,strictly speaking, they are- but you don't have the background to understand that- in any event, the effects are tiny ).

You don't understand entropy*- so you are not in a position to soundly base arguments on it.
So that whole rant is irrelevant.
FALSE.

http://www.decodedscience.org/is-there-a-connection-between-a-burning-log-and-emc2/22390

Again, I understand Entropy just fine. When you take a bunch of solar energy that's concentrated in fossil fuels, then use combustion to release it according to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, you get a bunch of dissipated heat, ash and smoke that includes carbon dioxide.

It takes more energy to collect all that energy and carbon dioxide back together than you got burning it in the first place. That's the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, or the Entropy Law. When you convert mass or energy from one form to the other, you are going to get Entropy.

By the way, the fact that you said nuclear forces both are and aren't changed during combustion renders your own rant irrelevant, and further demonstrates your need to consider retaking chemistry.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length