[Bored chemist]

Quote from: Craig W. Thomson on Today at 15:20:29[
You're right, the earth is not a COMPLETELY closed system, but it can be "rounded off" to a closed system for practical purposes. Of course, the only way to escape earth is by rocket, meteorites occasionally get through, that's about it. Other than that, it is essentially a closed system....

FFSEither the Earth is a closed system or it's not.
And since we are talking about greenhouse gases it's pretty damned obvious that you have to treat it as an open system. Do you not understand that the earth can gain and lose energy?
And that's why
we need to consider the heat we get every day from the Sun and why
 we can largely ignore the heat that was added- and lost- over the last 200 years.
And, while it's been pointed out before, just to reiterate"
Of course, I don't need to actually do any math or understand any physics to know that, when several billion people apply combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels in a mere 150 years, that's going to produce more than "not very much" heat."

That's like saying I don't need maths to say there are six legs on a donkey.It's technically true that I don't need maths to say it- but if I could use maths I'd realise it wasn't true and I'd not say it.

While we are at it, re." The first and second laws of thermodynamics have nothing to do with causality. "
I think you will find that causality and the second law are rather closely related- via "time's arrow".

But you actually need to understand entropy to realise that .
Maybe like someone who studied thermodynamics as part of university chemistry, rather than someone who doggedly muddles the 1st and 2nd laws without realising that they don't apply to an open system like that under discussion.

Why don't you just stop being wrong about everything.

[puppypower]

What caused the earth to warm from the last ice age to the present?  Did this much global warming, for such a long period of time, destroy the planet? If you look at the map below, why isn;t the entire earth now under water with the amount of melting that occurred? What is left is chicken feed but that much is supposed to count for much more.



One mantra, connected to manmade global warming and climate change is "we are destroying the planet". Based on warming from the last ice age, this is not real, unless destroy the planet has a new PC definition, that is detached from formal science. Why does't science formally refute, destroy the planet theory, since this is not proven science? It appears consensus science is content to allow misunderstanding for some unknown reason.

How does CO2 destroy the planet, since this theory is not being refuted by the consensus of science? Will the planet become another asteroid belt? Is there some insider information that is being withheld to prevent panic?

[Craig W. Thomson]

But you actually need to understand entropy to realise that .
Maybe like someone who studied thermodynamics as part of university chemistry, rather than someone who doggedly muddles the 1st and 2nd laws without realising that they don't apply to an open system like that under discussion.

Why don't you just stop being wrong about everything.

I understand entropy just fine. Like I said, I have a dog-eared copy of Jeremy Rifkin's book Entropy: Into the Greenhouse World that I've read at least 4 times since 1988. Why don't you stop pretending you understand it better than I do?

I've got news for you, pal. I have a college degree, so I am familiar with the idea that lots of people graduate and still don't understand what they studied. I think maybe you are one of those.

This is my second physics forum in 3 years, so I'm also familiar with the idea that lots of crackpots and failures with science degrees tend to gravitate toward public forums after being spurned by actual scientists, and they like to pick on laymen like me to make themselves feel better.

[Craig W. Thomson]

And since we are talking about greenhouse gases it's pretty damned obvious that you have to treat it as an open system. Do you not understand that the earth can gain and lose energy?

False. If I locked you in a small, airtight room, that's a closed system. Breathe, and the CO2 content goes up. Try burning a pile of wood in there and you're going to see what makes it a closed system.

I'm going to let you open a window, but only 1/16 of an inch. That's enough to consider it an open system. Now let's lock a few more people in there with you, and have them set fire to a few more piles of wood. That system now contains several hot, choking people.

Sorry, the earth doesn't have a window we can open to let in some fresh air. The appropriate analogy is that the earth's window is open, but only a crack, and it cannot be adjusted. That's what I meant when I said it is "essentially a closed system," and that is correct.

And anyway, I strongly suspect that if I had said, "The earth is an open system," you would have taken the opposite point of view simply because you like to argue.

[Craig W. Thomson]

Why don't you just stop being wrong about everything.

Why don't you just start being right about something.

[Craig W. Thomson]

I think you will find that causality and the second law are rather closely related- via "time's arrow".

Your bias as an alleged chemist is showing.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/ba/Feynman_EP_Annihilation.svg/2000px-Feynman_EP_Annihilation.svg.png

Uh, oh. Looks like particles are moving backward in time. 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.

[Craig W. Thomson]

What caused the earth to warm from the last ice age to the present?  Did this much global warming, for such a long period of time, destroy the planet?

When the first bacteria evolved, the earth's atmosphere had a chemical composition. As the bacteria multiplied, they changed the composition of that atmosphere by feeding on one substance and creating waste products. As bacteria evolved into more complex life forms, those had to be adapted to the new atmosphere being created. In fact, when plant cells first evolved photosynthesis, they changed the composition of the atmosphere drastically, killing most species. Remaining species had to find ways to cope with the new atmosphere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event

Here's the point: Yes, a species can be so successful that it changes the entire atmosphere. The atmosphere's contents are determined in part by the complex web of life on Earth. There are lots of checks and balances that provide the atmosphere's contents stability. Species fit into niches and don't normally overrun the entire planet, which helps stabilize the atmosphere's contents. Humans are different. We learned how to control fire only recently in geological terms, and now there are more than 7 billion people relying primarily on the release of stored solar energy from fossil fuels for their livelihood, releasing lots of CO2 as we do, and chopping down forests in the process to make room for cities and farmland, and grazing land for almost a billion and a half cattle that make their own greenhouse contributions, comparable to an automobile as they weigh almost half a ton and eat almost 25 pounds of grass a day each. I don't know what it is today, but about 25 years ago, I was shocked to learn the Earth was losing about one Indiana-sized state worth of forest land every year, over a hundred square miles a day. That's important, because forests are the best way to take CO2 back out of the system. That's what coal deposits are: ancient forests that trapped the sun's energy, and CO2 in the process. In a very real sense, when we burn coal, we're turning the atmosphere back into what it was before those ancient forests helped make it livable for today's life forms.

http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/files/2012/10/Figure-14.png

It doesn't seem like a coincidence to me that the invention of fire, the Industrial Revolution, and the explosion of human population from a few million to a few billion coincide with the dramatic spike at the end of that chart. All the previous information in that chart indicates that the news media should have been reporting on a cooling trend for the last two decades, not telling us we've experienced yet another year of record high temperatures.

[Craig W. Thomson]

That's like saying I don't need maths to say there are six legs on a donkey. It's technically true that I don't need maths to say it- but if I could use maths I'd realise it wasn't true and I'd not say it.

As far as I can see, you've basically made the argument here that chopping a donkey's leg off a little bit at a time isn't eventually going to affect the way it walks, you're stubborn as a mule, and your third leg gets stiff when you pretend to be an authority.

[Tim the Plumber]

What caused the earth to warm from the last ice age to the present?  Did this much global warming, for such a long period of time, destroy the planet?

When the first bacteria evolved, the earth's atmosphere had a chemical composition. As the bacteria multiplied, they changed the composition of that atmosphere by feeding on one substance and creating waste products. As bacteria evolved into more complex life forms, those had to be adapted to the new atmosphere being created. In fact, when plant cells first evolved photosynthesis, they changed the composition of the atmosphere drastically, killing most species. Remaining species had to find ways to cope with the new atmosphere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event

Here's the point: Yes, a species can be so successful that it changes the entire atmosphere. The atmosphere's contents are determined in part by the complex web of life on Earth. There are lots of checks and balances that provide the atmosphere's contents stability. Species fit into niches and don't normally overrun the entire planet, which helps stabilize the atmosphere's contents. Humans are different. We learned how to control fire only recently in geological terms, and now there are more than 7 billion people relying primarily on the release of stored solar energy from fossil fuels for their livelihood, releasing lots of CO2 as we do, and chopping down forests in the process to make room for cities and farmland, and grazing land for almost a billion and a half cattle that make their own greenhouse contributions, comparable to an automobile as they weigh almost half a ton and eat almost 25 pounds of grass a day each.

Today the rain forrests of he world are being chopped down to plant sugar crops. This is used to make bio-diesel. Well done the green movement.

I don't know what it is today, but about 25 years ago, I was shocked to learn the Earth was losing about one Indiana-sized state worth of forest land every year, over a hundred square miles a day. That's important, because forests are the best way to take CO2 back out of the system. That's what coal deposits are: ancient forests that trapped the sun's energy, and CO2 in the process. In a very real sense, when we burn coal, we're turning the atmosphere back into what it was before those ancient forests helped make it livable for today's life forms.

Yes those numbers were all the rage back then. Then they put up a satelite and found that the Amazon was not being chopped down very much at all. The greenies had made it all up. Then we had climate change appear.

http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/files/2012/10/Figure-14.png

It doesn't seem like a coincidence to me that the invention of fire, the Industrial Revolution, and the explosion of human population from a few million to a few billion coincide with the dramatic spike at the end of that chart. All the previous information in that chart indicates that the news media should have been reporting on a cooling trend for the last two decades, not telling us we've experienced yet another year of record high temperatures.

Them can you explain the medeval warm and the holocene optimal, in the bronze age, where it was even warmer?

I think the world is more optimal for humanity and life in general with a bit of a warmer world.

[jeffreyH]

When the first bacteria evolved, the earth's atmosphere had a chemical composition.

So you mean before that no chemicals existed?

[Bored chemist]

I think you will find that causality and the second law are rather closely related- via "time's arrow".

Your bias as an alleged chemist is showing.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/ba/Feynman_EP_Annihilation.svg/2000px-Feynman_EP_Annihilation.svg.png

Uh, oh. Looks like particles are moving backward in time. 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.

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)

[Bored chemist]

But you actually need to understand entropy to realise that .
Maybe like someone who studied thermodynamics as part of university chemistry, rather than someone who doggedly muddles the 1st and 2nd laws without realising that they don't apply to an open system like that under discussion.

Why don't you just stop being wrong about everything.

I understand entropy just fine. Like I said, I have a dog-eared copy of Jeremy Rifkin's book Entropy: Into the Greenhouse World that I've read at least 4 times since 1988. Why don't you stop pretending you understand it better than I do?

I've got news for you, pal. I have a college degree, so I am familiar with the idea that lots of people graduate and still don't understand what they studied. I think maybe you are one of those.

This is my second physics forum in 3 years, so I'm also familiar with the idea that lots of crackpots and failures with science degrees tend to gravitate toward public forums after being spurned by actual scientists, and they like to pick on laymen like me to make themselves feel better.

"I understand entropy just fine. Like I said, I have a dog-eared copy of Jeremy Rifkin's book Entropy: Into the Greenhouse World that I've read at least 4 times since 1988."
Speaking of 1988, here's a film clip from then (or thereabouts)

"Why don't you stop pretending you understand it better than I do?"
I'm not pretending- I keep demonstrating it and then you wander off to some other nonsense.
"I've got news for you, pal. I have a college degree, so I am familiar with the idea that lots of people graduate and still don't understand what they studied. I think maybe you are one of those."
and, once again, get a mirror. Come to think of it, get a refund.

"This is my second physics forum in 3 years"
This isn't a physics forum.

"I'm also familiar with the idea that lots of crackpots and failures with science degrees tend to gravitate toward public forums after being spurned by actual scientists, and they like to pick on laymen like me to make themselves feel better."
Feel free to make up your mind are you a scientist or a layman.

And I'm not picking on you to make me look good- if I was doing that I wouldn't have posted the bit about playing chess with a pigeon.
I'm picking on you because you keep polluting this site with nonsense.
I am a scientist by the way, it's what I'm paid for by her majesty's government; but I'm not allowed to say which bit- that's why this isn't posted under my real name)

[Bored chemist]

That's like saying I don't need maths to say there are six legs on a donkey. It's technically true that I don't need maths to say it- but if I could use maths I'd realise it wasn't true and I'd not say it.

As far as I can see, you've basically made the argument here that chopping a donkey's leg off a little bit at a time isn't eventually going to affect the way it walks, you're stubborn as a mule, and your third leg gets stiff when you pretend to be an authority.

No,  the actual point I made which is that you can't be expected to do science if you are innumerate.

But if you want to stretch that silly argument then the argument I made was that if you cut the donkey's hair from time to time but someone else is attacking it with a meat cleaver, the's the guy with the cleaver that is going to trouble the donkey more.

[Craig W. Thomson]

When the first bacteria evolved, the earth's atmosphere had a chemical composition.

So you mean before that no chemicals existed?

http://sanfranciscotutoringservice.com/?gclid=CjwKEAjwuPi3BRClk8TyyMLloxgSJAAC0XsjhRYSBteOqNFozxKh2s1y-QGiewtlHOTKbVbIxr2LWBoC0e_w_wcB

[Craig W. Thomson]

No,  the actual point I made which is that you can't be expected to do science if you are innumerate.

But if you want to stretch that silly argument then the argument I made was that if you cut the donkey's hair from time to time but someone else is attacking it with a meat cleaver, the's the guy with the cleaver that is going to trouble the donkey more.

Yes, I'm a donkey, you're the guy with a meat cleaver who can't add 1 plus 1/15,000, Jeffrey H. is the guy who can't read. Any other empty barrels care to make a sound?

[Craig W. Thomson]

Them can you explain the medeval warm and the holocene optimal, in the bronze age, where it was even warmer?

I think the world is more optimal for humanity and life in general with a bit of a warmer world. [/color]

I think the world is more optimal for humanity and life in general without you spouting off unsubstantiated opinions.

The medieval warm period was caused by people chopping down trees to fuel industry. Of course, back then, pretty much everything was made of wood: Plates, bowls, spoons, buckets, troughs, pails, houses, furniture, roads, bridges, factories, plows, wagons, etc. Wood was burned for heat, and trees were cut down to make charcoal for factories. Then, Black Death ensued, killing about 1/3 of the human population, mostly in Asia and Europe, which caused the economy to grind to a halt, followed by a cooling period when people weren't cutting down and burning trees so fast. That is known as the Little Ice Age.

We are currently in the Medieval Worm Period, when flat earth climate change deniers populate science forums.

[Craig W. Thomson]

Yes! I'm sure I want to go there.

rather than on some random tangent about Feynman diagrams (which, BTW, have precious little to do with entropy)

Wrong on two counts.

A Fish Called Wanda is a random tangent.

When particles interact as per creation/annihilation events pictured in Feynmann diagrams, YES, there IS entropy.

[Tim the Plumber]

Them can you explain the medeval warm and the holocene optimal, in the bronze age, where it was even warmer?

I think the world is more optimal for humanity and life in general with a bit of a warmer world. [/color]

I think the world is more optimal for humanity and life in general without you spouting off unsubstantiated opinions.

The medieval warm period was caused by people chopping down trees to fuel industry.

1, Industry was not there. Industry happened during the industrial revolution.

2, If the earth's climate was that sensitive to tiny amounts of CO2 we would be boiling now we have added many many more times those amounts.

3, What about the bronze age Holocen Optimal? So called because it was considered the optimal climate for humans.

Of course, back then, pretty much everything was made of wood: Plates, bowls, spoons, buckets, troughs, pails, houses, furniture, roads, bridges, factories, plows, wagons, etc. Wood was burned for heat, and trees were cut down to make charcoal for factories. Then, Black Death ensued, killing about 1/3 of the human population, mostly in Asia and Europe, which caused the economy to grind to a halt, followed by a cooling period when people weren't cutting down and burning trees so fast. That is known as the Little Ice Age.

Black death happened 50 years after the little ice age started.

We are currently in the Medieval Worm Period, when flat earth climate change deniers populate science forums.

Talking drivel is not scientific. Stop it.

[Craig W. Thomson]

1, Industry was not there. Industry happened during the industrial revolution.

2, If the earth's climate was that sensitive to tiny amounts of CO2 we would be boiling now we have added many many more times those amounts.

3, What about the bronze age Holocen Optimal? So called because it was considered the optimal climate for humans.

Talking drivel is not scientific. Stop it.

1. False. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_technology

2. False, that's hyperbole, also known as "talking drivel," which is not scientific.

3. Bronze Age ?? You said there was no industry until the Industrial Revolution, now you're citing ancient industry.

So, you not only don't understand physics, chemistry, biology or math, I guess now we can add history to the list. Maybe you should stick to talking about something you are familiar with, like pipes and toilets.

[Tim the Plumber]

1, Industry was not there. Industry happened during the industrial revolution.

2, If the earth's climate was that sensitive to tiny amounts of CO2 we would be boiling now we have added many many more times those amounts.

3, What about the bronze age Holocen Optimal? So called because it was considered the optimal climate for humans.

Talking drivel is not scientific. Stop it.

1. False. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_technology

Technology is a different idea to industry. You really have a problem thinking clearly don't you.

2. False, that's hyperbole, also known as "talking drivel," which is not scientific.

No, if the impact of the tiny changes in CO2 level that would have resulted from the slight amount of wood burnt and trees cut down or regrown was enough to cause significant climate changes then we should be boiling now. By which I mean we would be seeing the oceans boiling at the surface.

3. Bronze Age ?? You said there was no industry until the Industrial Revolution, now you're citing ancient industry.

No. I am citing ancient climate changes. There was no industry back then. Why was it so warm?

So, you don't understand physics, chemistry, biology, math or history. Maybe you should stick to talking about something you are familiar with, like pipes and toilets.

You pollute this forum with gibberish and make it very difficult to have adult conversations. I strongly request the nutters are corralled into a separate sub forum and allowed out when they can think.