[Craig W. Thomson]

Agreed, but first you need the data points, and until 1979 we had almost none outside the civilised and industrialised 2% of the earth's surface.

Okay, fine. Disregard the Vostok ice cores and just look at this data, all collected since 1979:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.fig3.png

http://www.climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20SST-Tropics%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/seaice-anomaly-antarctic.png?w=720&h=585

http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/userimages/Fig8.jpg

https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/figure-1.png

http://appinsys.com/globalwarming/GW_Part2_GlobalTempMeasure_files/image046.jpg

https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/01-ncdc-since-1979.png

[Bored chemist]

There is no such thing as a reversible process. That IS the entropy law.

Again, it takes energy to get a process to go in reverse. You can't just collect smoke, ashes and heat back together to make a log you can burn a second time without expending some energy.

Yes there is- it's a process in which energy isn't lost or dissipated as heat.
So, for example the reaction between a positron and an electron gives rise to a pair of gamma rays.
And the reverse process - called pair production also happens.
Where do you think energy is lost?
It simply isn't.
So the reaction is reversible.
And you don't understand  the concept of entropy so you are sticking to some simplification which, I guess,  you read in a book.

"Again, it takes energy to get a process to go in reverse."
Only if energy was lost, or degraded to heat and in the positron electron annihilation it wasn't.

You can't just collect smoke, ashes and heat back together to make a log you can burn a second time without expending some energy. "
Nobody said you could, so why do you waste everyone's time saying things like that?

You chose to illustrate entropy with one of the small number of reactions where there is no entropy change.
That was spectacularly dumb.
And you are compounding it by refusing to accept that you are wrong (about this as well as lots of other things).

[Craig W. Thomson]

Yes there is- it's a process in which energy isn't lost or dissipated as heat.
So, for example the reaction between a positron and an electron gives rise to a pair of gamma rays.
And the reverse process - called pair production also happens.
Where do you think energy is lost?
It simply isn't.
So the reaction is reversible.
And you don't understand  the concept of entropy so you are sticking to some simplification which, I guess,  you read in a book.

"Again, it takes energy to get a process to go in reverse."
Only if energy was lost, or degraded to heat and in the positron electron annihilation it wasn't.

You can't just collect smoke, ashes and heat back together to make a log you can burn a second time without expending some energy. "
Nobody said you could, so why do you waste everyone's time saying things like that?

You chose to illustrate entropy with one of the small number of reactions where there is no entropy change.
That was spectacularly dumb. And you are compounding it by refusing to accept that you are wrong (about this as well as lots of other things).

The only thing spectacularly dumb is you acting like you know what you are talking about when you are ignorant.

From Wikipedia: "In order for pair production to occur, the incoming energy of the interaction MUST BE ABOVE A THRESHOLD in order to create the pair – AT LEAST the total rest mass energy of the two particles."

In other words, that's like the energy you need to put ashes, smoke and heat back together to make a log. Unless we are talking about shortly after the Big Bang when the universe was incredibly hot and dense, pair production is not spontaneous, and requires a great deal of energy to accomplish. To suggest otherwise is foolish, as even a layman can understand that it takes enough power to run a city just to collide a couple of particles in an accelerator to make pair production possible, not to mention the energy needed to build a 25 mile long particle accelerator in the first place. You don't get to pretend that energy wasn't lost somewhere and all went into pair production. The VAST majority of that energy was wasted.

Again, this isn't some simplified version of entropy I read in a book. As you can see from the title of the book, "Entropy", the whole entire book is about entropy, which Rifkin discusses in excruciating detail with literally hundreds of footnotes and references.

It wouldn't matter if you DID read the book. You are clearly unteachable, as you refuse to learn.

[Bored chemist]

The only thing spectacularly dumb is you acting like you know what you are talking about when you are ignorant.

From Wikipedia: "In order for pair production to occur, the incoming energy of the interaction MUST BE ABOVE A THRESHOLD in order to create the pair – AT LEAST the total rest mass energy of the two particles."

You do indeed need that much energy.
And that much energy is exactly equal to the energy of the two photons that are destroyed in the reverse reaction.
That's why it balances exactly and that's why the entropy change is exactly zero.

And, if you knew what you were talking about,- rather than parroting stuff from WIKI, you would have known that.

[Craig W. Thomson]

You do indeed need that much energy.
And that much energy is exactly equal to the energy of the two photons that are destroyed in the reverse reaction.
That's why it balances exactly and that's why the entropy change is exactly zero.

And, if you knew what you were talking about,- rather than parroting stuff from WIKI, you would have known that.

On the contrary, if you knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't be locked in battle with an artist in a public forum, grabbing at straws to make your point. You would be hanging out with real scientists and making factual statements.

No, the entropy change is not zero when it takes a bazillion gigawatts to create a single pair of particles in a particle accelerator that took years to build. To suggest otherwise is scientifically ignorant buffoonery, and completely disregards the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

[Bored chemist]

You do indeed need that much energy.
And that much energy is exactly equal to the energy of the two photons that are destroyed in the reverse reaction.
That's why it balances exactly and that's why the entropy change is exactly zero.

And, if you knew what you were talking about,- rather than parroting stuff from WIKI, you would have known that.

On the contrary, if you knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't be locked in battle with an artist in a public forum, grabbing at straws to make your point. You would be hanging out with real scientists and making factual statements.

No, the entropy change is not zero when it takes a bazillion gigawatts to create a single pair of particles in a particle accelerator that took years to build. To suggest otherwise is scientifically ignorant buffoonery, and completely disregards the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

"On the contrary, if you knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't be locked in battle with an artist in a public forum, grabbing at straws to make your point."
Well, I'm not grabbing at straws, so that's OK.
"You would be hanging out with real scientists and making factual statements."
Plenty of the people on this site are real scientists.
The statements I have made have been factual- it's just that you don't understand them.

"No, the entropy change is not zero when it takes a bazillion gigawatts to create a single pair of particles"
It doesn't take a "bazzillion gigawatts" for  two reasons.
the first is that what it takes is energy and what you have there is in units of power.
It's as if you are trying to weigh something in feet and inches.
But the important thins is that the energy you need to make the electron and positron is exactly the energy of the two gamma rays  you get from the annihilation.
So, if you have just done the annihilation, do don't need a collider- because the energy is already there.
You seem not to have noticed that the collider and so on did not appear in your diagram.

That diagram shows a reversible reaction whether you understand it or not.
It has an entropy change of exactly zero whether you like it or not, and all you are doing by arguing is making yourself look foolish.

[jeffreyH]

I'm afraid Bored Chemist is right Craig.

[alancalverd]

Okay, fine. Disregard the Vostok ice cores and just look at this data, all collected since 1979:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.fig3.png

http://www.climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20SST-Tropics%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/seaice-anomaly-antarctic.png?w=720&h=585

http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/userimages/Fig8.jpg

https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/figure-1.png

http://appinsys.com/globalwarming/GW_Part2_GlobalTempMeasure_files/image046.jpg

https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/01-ncdc-since-1979.png

Nobody would deny that there is a correlation (though I am surprised at how weak it is, according to your sources). Correlation is not proof of causation. So far, every predictive model based on the assumption of CO2 causation has turned out to be wrong, and this is the point at which Scientific Method suggests that the hypothesis is wrong. Either that or the modellers are really incompetent, and I'm sure you wouldn't agree with that.

[agyejy]

Nobody would deny that there is a correlation (though I am surprised at how weak it is, according to your sources). Correlation is not proof of causation. So far, every predictive model based on the assumption of CO2 causation has turned out to be wrong, and this is the point at which Scientific Method suggests that the hypothesis is wrong. Either that or the modellers are really incompetent, and I'm sure you wouldn't agree with that.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to insist that you provide some very strong evidence for that particular extraordinary claim.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-global-warming-projections.htm <-- The observed warming is within the projections.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm <-- A bit on the models.

Here is a quote of significance from the intermediate explanation tab of the previous link:

There are two major questions in climate modeling - can they accurately reproduce the past (hindcasting) and can they successfully predict the future? To answer the first question, here is a summary of the IPCC model results of surface temperature from the 1800s - both with and without man-made forcings. All the models are unable to predict recent warming without taking rising CO2 levels into account. Nobody has created a general circulation model that can explain climate's behavior over the past century without CO2 warming.

That kind of seems like the opposite of what you said. Another significant quote:

When Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1991, it provided an opportunity to test how successfully models could predict the climate response to the sulfate aerosols injected into the atmosphere. The models accurately forecasted the subsequent global cooling of about 0.5°C soon after the eruption. Furthermore, the radiative, water vapor and dynamical feedbacks included in the models were also quantitatively verified (Hansen 2007).

Clearly climatic models are doing a pretty good job of getting things right.

[puppypower]

If you look at current climate change, much of this can be attributed to the El Nino. 

El Niño /ɛl ˈniːnjoʊ/ (Spanish pronunciation: [el ˈniɲo]) is the warm phase of the El Niño Southern Oscillation (commonly called ENSO) and is associated with a band of warm ocean water that develops in the central and east-central equatorial Pacific (between approximately the International Date Line and 120°W), including off the Pacific coast of South America. El Niño Southern Oscillation refers to the cycle of warm and cold temperatures, as measured by sea surface temperature, SST, of the tropical central and eastern Pacific Ocean. El Niño is accompanied by high air pressure in the western Pacific and low air pressure in the eastern Pacific. The cool phase of ENSO is called "La Niña" with SST in the eastern Pacific below average and air pressures high in the eastern and low in western Pacific. The ENSO cycle, both El Niño and La Niña, causes global changes of both temperatures and rainfall.[2][3] Mechanisms that cause the oscillation remain under study.

This El Nino affect was first discovered in 1795, centuries before manmade global warming. I think there confusion being created where these two affects; El Nino affects being blended with the new climate change branding for global warming. El Nino has been around since before the industrial revolution, yet its current climate affects are being treated, by layman activists, like it is due to CO2.

ENSO conditions have occurred at two- to seven-year intervals for at least the past 300 years, but most of them have been weak. Evidence is also strong for El Niño events during the early Holocene epoch 10,000 years ago.[26]

El Niño may have led to the demise of the Moche and other pre-Columbian Peruvian cultures.[27] A recent study suggests a strong El-Niño effect between 1789 and 1793 caused poor crop yields in Europe, which in turn helped touch off the French Revolution.[28] The extreme weather produced by El Niño in 1876–77 gave rise to the most deadly famines of the 19th century.[29] The 1876 famine alone in northern China killed up to 13 million people.[30]

Many ENSO linkages exist in the high southern latitudes around Antarctica.[81] Specifically, El Niño conditions result in high pressure anomalies over the Amundsen and Bellingshausen Seas, causing reduced sea ice and increased poleward heat fluxes in these sectors, as well as the Ross Sea. The Weddell Sea, conversely, tends to become colder with more sea ice during El Niño. The exact opposite heating and atmospheric pressure anomalies occur during La Niña.[82] This pattern of variability is known as the Antarctic dipole mode, although the Antarctic response to ENSO forcing is not ubiquitous.[82]

El Niño's effects on Europe appear to be strongest in winter. Recent evidence indicates that El Niño causes a colder, drier winter in Northern Europe and a milder, wetter winter in Southern Europe.[83] The El Niño winter of 2009/10 was extremely cold in Northern Europe but El Niño is not the only factor at play in European winter weather and the weak El Niño winter of 2006/2007 was unusually mild in Europe, and the Alps recorded very little snow coverage that season.[84]

What causes the cyclic oscillation between El Nino and La Nina is an upwelling of cold ocean water below the warm water; thermocline. This is shown below. How does CO2 cause cold water to upwell?

The new branding of climate change equals CO2, appears to cause many people to assume anything dramatic in weather and climate means climate change = CO2. But El Nino does the same thing even before there was the CO2 scare.



 

[puppypower]

Let me briefly discuss entropy. In chemistry, entropy is a state variable. What that means is a given state of chemical matter will have a very specific amount of entropy. For example, the entropy of water at 25C is 6.6177 J ˣ mol-1 ˣ K-1. Entropy is more than an abstraction. It  is a measurable quantity that will be the same in all labs for any given state. The entropy does not increase or decrease with time for a given state. The second law says that the entropy of the universe has to increase. This means that new states need to form, which can define the higher entropy. Life generates a lot of entropy allowing distinct states to appear.

Say we begin with water at 25C, the entropy is pre-defined. All labs will measure the same entropy. If we hold the temperature constant and apply the second law, since that state is defined in terms of entropy, other things will needs to happen for the entropy to increase. For example, entropy can increase if ions begins to dissolve in the water. This will define a new state composed of water plus ions at 25C. This can define higher entropy.

In the case of water and CO2, the solubility of CO2 increases with decreasing temperature; colder. When temperature decreases, pure water will lower entropy. On the other hand, an increase in CO2 concentration will increase the entropy of the two component system of water-CO2. Cool water dissolving more CO2, prevents the water from losing entropy, as fast, as it cools.

As the oceans warm, new state of warmer water will form , with an increase in entropy. The CO2 is expelled, thereby lowering the entropy contribution of the CO2. The net affect is the ocean entropy does not increase quite as fast with temperature, since there is a loss of CO2.

This does not mean that entropy does not need to increase; seconds law. Just the solubility characteristics of CO2 in water will cause a loss of entropy as CO2 is expelled. The new higher entropy, will be expressed with another state forming in the water. For example, the entropy of water vapor is higher than liquid, so the new state will cause more water to evaporate.

If we look at the El Nino cold water oscillation, cold water is causing the entropy of the El Nino warm water, to lower. It it also causing the entropy of the cold water, that is upwelling, to increase entropy.


Most people attribute entropy to randomness and chaos. This is true, for example, at the micro-level. However, entropy is also a state variable; bulk affects, which define very specific amounts of entropy. This is not random. Water, as a macro-state has an entropy of 6.6177 J ˣ mol-1 ˣ K-1 (25 °C). Water in the micro-state; nanoscale, will show random distributions; degrees of freedom, the average of which define the fixed entropy for that state.

This distinction is important to life. Since the entropy of the universe has to increase, and each increase in entropy will defines a new bulk state. The may appear random at the micro-level, but it will results in distinct steps; states. The question is how can something be both random and ordered at the same time? The earth's weather and climate is impacted by water and liquid state physics. Science tends to use solid and gas state analogies, which don't show the same properties as liquid state physics. Liquid state physics can set up paradoxical situations such as order and random. 

For example, gases cannot be placed under tension. Gases are defined by partial pressure. A solid can be laced under pressure; push, or  tension; pull. However, you cannot apply both at the same time and form a steady state. We can push and pull a car, but it will move or we will add work to create a dynamic state. With a liquid, we can have a glass of water open to the atmosphere. The water will be under pressure and also be under surface tension; at steady state. The entropy remains fixed.

I don't believe the weather models are using liquid state physics. CO2 in air and CO2 in water use two different sets of physics; gas and liquid state physics.   

 



 

[agyejy]

If you look at current climate change, much of this can be attributed to the El Nino. 

El Niño /ɛl ˈniːnjoʊ/ (Spanish pronunciation: [el ˈniɲo]) is the warm phase of the El Niño Southern Oscillation (commonly called ENSO) and is associated with a band of warm ocean water that develops in the central and east-central equatorial Pacific (between approximately the International Date Line and 120°W), including off the Pacific coast of South America. El Niño Southern Oscillation refers to the cycle of warm and cold temperatures, as measured by sea surface temperature, SST, of the tropical central and eastern Pacific Ocean. El Niño is accompanied by high air pressure in the western Pacific and low air pressure in the eastern Pacific. The cool phase of ENSO is called "La Niña" with SST in the eastern Pacific below average and air pressures high in the eastern and low in western Pacific. The ENSO cycle, both El Niño and La Niña, causes global changes of both temperatures and rainfall.[2][3] Mechanisms that cause the oscillation remain under study.

This El Nino affect was first discovered in 1795, centuries before manmade global warming. I think there confusion being created where these two affects; El Nino affects being blended with the new climate change branding for global warming. El Nino has been around since before the industrial revolution, yet its current climate affects are being treated, by layman activists, like it is due to CO2.

ENSO conditions have occurred at two- to seven-year intervals for at least the past 300 years, but most of them have been weak. Evidence is also strong for El Niño events during the early Holocene epoch 10,000 years ago.[26]

El Niño may have led to the demise of the Moche and other pre-Columbian Peruvian cultures.[27] A recent study suggests a strong El-Niño effect between 1789 and 1793 caused poor crop yields in Europe, which in turn helped touch off the French Revolution.[28] The extreme weather produced by El Niño in 1876–77 gave rise to the most deadly famines of the 19th century.[29] The 1876 famine alone in northern China killed up to 13 million people.[30]

Many ENSO linkages exist in the high southern latitudes around Antarctica.[81] Specifically, El Niño conditions result in high pressure anomalies over the Amundsen and Bellingshausen Seas, causing reduced sea ice and increased poleward heat fluxes in these sectors, as well as the Ross Sea. The Weddell Sea, conversely, tends to become colder with more sea ice during El Niño. The exact opposite heating and atmospheric pressure anomalies occur during La Niña.[82] This pattern of variability is known as the Antarctic dipole mode, although the Antarctic response to ENSO forcing is not ubiquitous.[82]

El Niño's effects on Europe appear to be strongest in winter. Recent evidence indicates that El Niño causes a colder, drier winter in Northern Europe and a milder, wetter winter in Southern Europe.[83] The El Niño winter of 2009/10 was extremely cold in Northern Europe but El Niño is not the only factor at play in European winter weather and the weak El Niño winter of 2006/2007 was unusually mild in Europe, and the Alps recorded very little snow coverage that season.[84]

What causes the cyclic oscillation between El Nino and La Nina is an upwelling of cold ocean water below the warm water; thermocline. This is shown below. How does CO2 cause cold water to upwell?

The new branding of climate change equals CO2, appears to cause many people to assume anything dramatic in weather and climate means climate change = CO2. But El Nino does the same thing even before there was the CO2 scare.

It isn't the ocean in general:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ocean-and-global-warming.htm

It is definitely not El Niño:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/el-nino-southern-oscillation.htm

And it isn't even the Pacific Decadal Oscillation:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Pacific-Decadal-Oscillation.htm

I don't believe the weather models are using liquid state physics. CO2 in air and CO2 in water use two different sets of physics; gas and liquid state physics.   

That belief would be wrong. Also, irrelevant as weather models and climate models are different things.

[Craig W. Thomson]

"No, the entropy change is not zero when it takes a bazillion gigawatts to create a single pair of particles"
It doesn't take a "bazzillion gigawatts" for  two reasons.
the first is that what it takes is energy and what you have there is in units of power.
It's as if you are trying to weigh something in feet and inches.
But the important thins is that the energy you need to make the electron and positron is exactly the energy of the two gamma rays  you get from the annihilation.
So, if you have just done the annihilation, do don't need a collider- because the energy is already there.
You seem not to have noticed that the collider and so on did not appear in your diagram.

That diagram shows a reversible reaction whether you understand it or not.
It has an entropy change of exactly zero whether you like it or not, and all you are doing by arguing is making yourself look foolish.

YOU DON'T GET TO SWEEP ALL THAT EXTRA ENERGY UNDER THE RUG.

There's a lot of wasted energy that goes into a particle collision, A LOT. Denying that makes YOU look foolish. It doesn't matter what units you use for that energy, which is just another silly argument. Anyone who knows anything about physics knows it takes a lot of energy to get even a single particle with mass up to near light speed.

I understand the process is reversible, as I've pointed out a bazillion times, but you still don't seem to understand that in order to make it go the other way requires massive energy input, much more than you get back when the particles decay. That's the very essence of the Entropy law, and if there were more scientists here, they would be pointing that out instead of me.

Nothing I have stated in this post is incorrect. Now, you and jeffreyHemorrhoid go ahead and tell me I'm incorrect.

[Craig W. Thomson]

I don't believe the weather models are using liquid state physics. CO2 in air and CO2 in water use two different sets of physics; gas and liquid state physics.   

That belief would be wrong. Also, irrelevant as weather models and climate models are different things.

Yes, thank you. "Two sets of physics," that's rich. The only two "sets of physics" I know are Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, and that's only because they don't play nicely when physicists try to describe things like singularities. Other than that, gauge invariance, symmetry, all that seems to imply that the behavior of mass and energy is predictable in all sorts of environments. One does not have to change to a different set of physics rules just because the local conditions are warm enough to make steam or cool enough to condense it.

Actually, though, isn't it possible to describe both weather and climate using a set of equations to construct a chaotic fluid dynamics model? Weather I would say yes, climate I'm not sure but am tempted to say yes. I'm pretty sure I remember that from James Gleick's book Chaos, but I'd like to hear what you think.

[Bored chemist]

"No, the entropy change is not zero when it takes a bazillion gigawatts to create a single pair of particles"
It doesn't take a "bazzillion gigawatts" for  two reasons.
the first is that what it takes is energy and what you have there is in units of power.
It's as if you are trying to weigh something in feet and inches.
But the important thins is that the energy you need to make the electron and positron is exactly the energy of the two gamma rays  you get from the annihilation.
So, if you have just done the annihilation, do don't need a collider- because the energy is already there.
You seem not to have noticed that the collider and so on did not appear in your diagram.

That diagram shows a reversible reaction whether you understand it or not.
It has an entropy change of exactly zero whether you like it or not, and all you are doing by arguing is making yourself look foolish.

YOU DON'T GET TO SWEEP ALL THAT EXTRA ENERGY UNDER THE RUG.

There's a lot of wasted energy that goes into a particle collision, A LOT. Denying that makes YOU look foolish. It doesn't matter what units you use for that energy, which is just another silly argument. Anyone who knows anything about physics knows it takes a lot of energy to get even a single particle with mass up to near light speed.

I understand the process is reversible, as I've pointed out a bazillion times, but you still don't seem to understand that in order to make it go the other way requires massive energy input, much more than you get back when the particles decay. That's the very essence of the Entropy law, and if there were more scientists here, they would be pointing that out instead of me.

Nothing I have stated in this post is incorrect. Now, you and jeffreyHemorrhoid go ahead and tell me I'm incorrect.

I'm not the one sweeping it under the rug as you put it.
You did that.
Do you remember?
You posted the Feynman diagram.
And it doesn't (not should) include all the other stuff.

So the reaction you posted- the one in the diagram- is actually reversible.
And it has no entropy change.

The energy released when an apple falls off a table is about a Joule.
The energy needed to accelerate an electron to half the speed of light is about 10^-14 Joules
So you could bring several million million particles to nearly the speed of light with the energy released by dropping an apple.
Do you still stand by this laughable claim?
" Anyone who knows anything about physics knows it takes a lot of energy to get even a single particle with mass up to near light speed."

Do you understand that the reaction you cited produces nothing but energy- in the form of two gamma rays- and that is enough energy (exactly) to recreate an electron and a positron.

It also does actually matter if you use the wrong units because you don't understand that you are measuring the wrong thing. But that's beside the point.

[Craig W. Thomson]

The energy released when an apple falls off a table is about a Joule.
The energy needed to accelerate an electron to half the speed of light is about 10^-14 Joules
So you could bring several million million particles to nearly the speed of light with the energy released by dropping an apple.
Do you still stand by this laughable claim?
" Anyone who knows anything about physics knows it takes a lot of energy to get even a single particle with mass up to near light speed."

Do you understand that the reaction you cited produces nothing but energy- in the form of two gamma rays- and that is enough energy (exactly) to recreate an electron and a positron.

It also does actually matter if you use the wrong units because you don't understand that you are measuring the wrong thing. But that's beside the point.

Well, I think you should talk to the people at CERN. You should tell them that you have a new entropy-free process for accelerating particles. Instead of wasting several cities worth of energy to accelerate particles to near the speed of light, you can merely drop an apple on them. That sounds way more efficient.

In fact, I'm going to set up an apparatus like that in my home. Why am I wasting time eating apples? An apple a day keeps the electricity bill away. Or maybe I should keep eating them too, because that's clearly how you power the endless stream of BS coming out of your face at 10^14 coulombs of horsepower.

What's the power of a city minus two gamma rays? Is it more the 15,000/15,000 plus 1/15,000? Feel free to answer using any unit of measurement you like.

LOL

[Bored chemist]

Craig,
here are some of the things you have got wrong in this thread.
If you want to demonstrate the truth of any of them, please go ahead
I have numbered them 1 to 127 for easier reference.
Quote from: Tim the Plumber on 19/03/2016 12:19:51
1"No, the amount of heat produced directly by human activity is utterly tiny in comparison with the heat budget of nature. "
2"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."
3"Two square meters of sunshine melts a rock that's been around for ten billion years. That could easily provide enough steam-generated power for an entire house, perhaps enough to move a train."
4"Using nothing more than two square meters of parabolic mirrors, the gentleman in the video was able to turn a large, solid metal bolt into molten lava in just a few seconds. At that rate, you could easily produce a gallon of molten lava per hour. "
5"Sorry, but if you can power a train cross country with a couple of guys shoveling coal into a chute by hand, you could certainly power a standard home for a day with the steam produced by several gallons of molten metal."
6"Nope. Apparently, you don't understand internet lingo any better than you understand physics. "Trolling" is when you adopt an anonymous username so you can flame people without them knowing who you really are."
7"Please stop pretending you are a chemist. "
8" You are not a big fan of reality, huh?"
9"When you apply combustion to 100 million years of fossil fuels, that produces heat. It's not a coincidence that the planet is getting warmer as a response. "
10"You can overcomplicate things as much as you like, but you are still wrong."
11"You're doing that to me on behalf of climate change skeptics. I'm merely trying to inject real science into the conversation."
12"Maybe you should take back the "zillion tons" comment instead of being a pretentious, ignorant hypocrite."
13"No, climate is NOT inherently and observably unstable. "
14"When combustion is applied to fossil fuels, what is happening is that a tiny fraction of mass is being converted to a great deal of energy, according to the formula E-mc^2. Chemists don't worry about that. "
15" They measure a mole of some stuff and a mole of some other stuff and make it have a reaction, then measure the mass of what's left after the reaction and come up with the same number. But, it's not the same number. Some mass was lost as heat. Chemists are a bit imprecise because they disregard that missing mass."
16"Bored Chemist's perspective is MEANT to confuse the issue. He's clearly cherry picking facts and information that support his argument."
17"Again, if you don't believe burning fossil fuels changes the temperature and composition of the atmosphere, pull your car into the garage, close the garage door, roll down your windows, and leave the car running, because I'm tired of refuting your biased nonsense."
which is a strawman in the context.
18"Your confirmation biases and inability to accept empirical evidence is the problem. That is to say, neither of you operate according to the Scientific Method. You are nothing more than a couple of Flat Earthers. You might as well be burning me at the stake for being a witch."
19"Oh, well, if you and a plumber say it's true, I suppose I should listen. Nevermind what an international panel of scientists has to say.h, well, if you and a plumber say it's true, I suppose I should listen. Nevermind what an international panel of scientists has to say."
(That's another strawman)

20"You are trying to pretend applying combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels, releasing 100 million years worth of stored solar energy, has insignificant consequences."
(That's another strawman)
20"How much arsenic would it take to shut you up? I would be willing to bet less than 1 part in 15,000."
Because to be relevant in context it would need a change in the current concentration of arsenic  in me to matter- and it wouldn't.
21"You didn't know that. You Googled it so you could present a counter argument."
22"That's where you're getting ALL your arguments, not just the toy, silly ones."
23" You're looking facts up on the fly, copying and pasting information willy-nilly to support your claims, and have absolutely no idea what you are talking about."
24"I'm not misrepresenting your views. "
Yes you were
25"You are misrepresenting science's views. "
No I'm not
26"Sorry, mass/energy conversion is what it is. "
The mass change on combustion is tiny and irrelevant.
27"You are obfuscating the issue because you're misrepresenting the relationship between carbon dioxide and heat, BOTH of which are produced by combustion."
No, I was pointing out that the CO2 stays but much of the heat leaves.
28"When you add extra heat to the atmosphere, and at the same time add extra carbon dioxide to the atmosphere helping it to retain that heat, the extra heat and extra insulation are NOT two separate, independent things."
Yes they are- for the same reason.
29"Sorry, there's nothing about you that stands out compared to any other skeptic I've argued with, except maybe your use of the word "cobbler.""

30" chemists don't even count the mass/energy conversion when they do experiments. They round off and disregard that change. "
31"That alone make you less of a physics guy than me. "
32"On the contrary, you're the one who seems to think applying combustion to a trillion tons of fossil fuels adds up to nothing."
Another strawman
33"When I am in other threads talking about things like quantum entanglement, I ask a lot of questions and post comments and hypotheses tentatively because I understand my limitations. I don't act like an authority. "
34"IT'S THE SAME PROBLEM. CARBON DIOXIDE AND HEAT BOTH EMERGE TOGETHER, NOT SEPARATELY, FROM THE SAME COMBUSTION REACTIONS."
It's still not the same problem because the CO2 stays, but the heat leaves.
35"I'm also an authority on skeptics, deniers, and politically brainwashed Americans with tired talking points, ESPECIALLY those with science degrees who work for large corporations and have a slanted point of view to begin with."
36"That's a comprehensively false statement."
37"All you've done is SAY I'm saying things that aren't true. "
38"You haven't proven your point about anything. "
39" You're obfuscating the issue and splitting hairs, nothing more. "
40"The bigger problem is Entropy."
41"Transform mass to energy, and you get disorder. The more mass to turn to energy, the greater the disorder. That's building up in the atmosphere. "
42"False. "
43"I can do maths just fine. "
44"I don't need math in this thread. "
45"Not lava flow,"
46"I was an English minor. That's probably one of about ten things I can do better than you."
47"So, maybe I just need to find a language YOU understand."
48" If you change mass or energy from one form to another according to the first law, you get entropy according to the second law. "
49"How dare you compare me to a climate change skeptic. I'm all about facts, "
50"Yeah, I don't have a degree, but I'm not clueless. "
51" I know my science."
52"The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that "in ALL [emphasis mine] energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state.""
(it would be right if you had remembered that some reactions are reversible)
53"You seem unable to do math."
54"No, I am not wrong."
55"You can't transform mass to energy or energy to mass according to the first law without getting entropy according to the second, EVER. "
56"you can't perform mass/energy conversion without producing entropy."
57"If you're saying anything other than that, YOU are wrong. "
58"That's about the most unscientific thing you could possibly say... except you followed that by saying, "some combustion reactions(of natural gas, for example) reduce net entropy.""
59"FALSE"
60"That's a blatant violation of the 2nd law. "
61"Read at the top of the page you just posted, where it says this in the gray boxed area:
Second Law of Thermodynamics ... In any change, the entropy of the universe must increase."
That includes the combustion of methane, flat earther."
62"For someone so arrogant with a science degree, you have some huge gaps in your knowledge. "
63"It's pretty sad a layman like me has to point that out."
64"There is no straw man here."
65"That heat doesn't just disappear as if by magic. "
66"That's why you would say something silly like, "Methane combustion reduces entropy.""
67" Heat is actually the same thing as light, or electromagnetic energy, or photons. "
68"I respect scientists."
69"I'm a smart guy with a solid education. "
70"IIn my estimation, you're a public nuisance, not an expert. "
71"You don't use the scientific method. "
72"That applies not only to your climate change comments, but your lies about me as well."
73"At least I recognize that a science forum is for talking about science. You can't seem to talk about anything but me."
74"No. You show me how you came up with 1 + 1/15,000 = 1, calculator boy. "
75"It's also false that I lied."
76"I also never said, "The first law talks about entropy." That's an example of YOU telling a lie. I specifically said the first and second laws of thermodynamics are RELATED to one another. That's a fact. You can't change mass and energy from one form to the other without creating entropy."
No it's not
77"Entropy is like a "transaction fee." "
Nope again
78"False on two counts."
79"Heat islands have nothing to do with fossil fuels. "
80"NO, I want you to talk about science. I already told you that, at least half a dozen times. Apparently, you have a learning disability."
81"Applying combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels is the cause of anthropogenic climate change"
82"That's what I said, that's what I'm saying, that's what I will continue to say, because that is a fact."

83"Both statements can't be true. Either entropy must increase in all cases, or the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is false"
84"This is another example of me learning something correctly, then some joker on the internet says I'm wrong."
85"There's no way you're a chemist. "
86"That's not math. That's nonsense."
87" You're an anonymous piece of crap, pal. I know your kind.

Keep pushing, psycho."
88"False. There's nothing spontaneous about it "
89"The first and second laws of thermodynamics have nothing to do with causality. "
90"I understand entropy just fine."
91"This is my second physics forum in 3 years,"
92"False. If I locked you in a small, airtight room, that's a closed system. Breathe, and the CO2 content goes up. "
 Yet another straw man.
93"Your bias as an alleged chemist is showing."
94"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."
95"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"
Yet another straw man.
96"Wrong on two counts.
97"A Fish Called Wanda is a random tangent."
98"When particles interact as per creation/annihilation events pictured in Feynmann diagrams, YES, there IS entropy."
99"At least Bored Chemist and alancalverd are using cherry-picked science facts to prop up their flimsy arguments and nitpick at the details of climate change. "
100"Lots of those diagrams indicate "one way" processes. Normally, particles decay from heavier, less stable particles to lighter, more stable particles. You're not going to see any Feynman diagrams of processes going the other way unless you've added energy to the system somehow,"
101"In short, when you see a Feynman diagram, rest assured, the entropy law is being expressed somewhere, quite possibly right there in the diagram itself."
102"Burning logs is related to the thread topic. Your question is not. "
103"You present no challenge to anyone. Your posts are devoid of useful information."
104"Can't hold your own in a scientific debate, so now you're nitpicking about etymology? Pathetic."
105"FALSE.

CO2 molecules absorb and re-emit heat, but not necessarily right back in the direction it came from. CO2 molecules aren't stationary, but rather tumble through space. Depending on the orientation of a CO2 molecule at the time of emission, that infrared photon might come back to earth, or it might escape into space. CO2 does NOT trap ALL the heat, just some. More CO2 traps more heat, but still not all of it."
106"That statement makes no sense."
107"The entropy law assures me that last sentence of yours is ridiculous."
108"No, you're either lying, or your reading comprehension sucks."
109"Again, either you're scientifically clueless, or you obfuscate just because you like to argue, both inexcusable for a moderator of a physics forum."
110" 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."
"111Again, I understand Entropy just fine."
112"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."
113" We've merely got ourselves a renegade moderator on the loose, spreading misinformation."
114"On the contrary, the fact that this thread is full of trolls moderated by a flamer me tells me something about its pathos."
115"Nonsense. If you had a sackful of professional qualifications, you wouldn't be in a public forum arguing with an artist. You would be hanging out with Stephen Hawking, publishing a scientific paper, or converting kinetic energy to mass. Public forums are for hobbyists and people who read pop science books, but they also harbor crank scientists and nobodies with science degrees eager to make themselves feel better by trashing out laymen and people who read pop science books. I am well experienced with this phenomenon."
116"I would bet money Bored Chemist has even less qualifications than you do. I can poke holes in his flimsy arguments, and I only have a passing knowledge of chemistry from studying biology and physics. I'm guessing I probably know more about chemistry than he does just from being a former professionally certified carpet cleaning technician. He's challenging me to do Calculus problems, "
117"Apparently, you can't recognize the herd instinct being displayed by you, Tim the Plumber, Bored Chemist and Puppy Power. Your little group of mavericks stand in opposition to consensus based on data."
118"Global warming IS entropy, flat earther. "
119"Your last statement is the least scientific of all. There is no reaction where entropy is exactly zero, or we would have to throw the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in the garbage."
120"There is no such thing as a reversible process. That IS the entropy law."
121"If you understood entropy, you wouldn't confuse an "idealized limiting case" with the way things actually work in the real world, and for the record, that would make you a crappy mathematician as well."
122"Again, it takes energy to get a process to go in reverse. "
123"The only thing spectacularly dumb is you acting like you know what you are talking about when you are ignorant.
From Wikipedia: "In order for pair production to occur, the incoming energy of the interaction MUST BE ABOVE A THRESHOLD in order to create the pair – AT LEAST the total rest mass energy of the two particles.""
124"On the contrary, if you knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't be locked in battle with an artist in a public forum, grabbing at straws to make your point. You would be hanging out with real scientists and making factual statements."
125"No, the entropy change is not zero when it takes a bazillion gigawatts to create a single pair of particles in a particle accelerator that took years to build. To suggest otherwise is scientifically ignorant buffoonery, and completely disregards the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics."
126"YOU DON'T GET TO SWEEP ALL THAT EXTRA ENERGY UNDER THE RUG."
127"I understand the process is reversible,"

[jeffreyH]

You don't expect Craig to take you seriously, do you? In his mind he is never wrong so he will brush off all 127 objections. Otherwise he would notice the glaring contradictions in his statements and realise how silly he looks.

[Bored chemist]

It will be interesting to see if he actually tries to show that he was right in all 127 cases.
Obviously, he's wrong- very wrong.
He's so wrong I wonder if he's trying to get a TV show  "Craig W Thomson's world of wrong" or something.
If all else fails, he can get a job writing speeches for Trump.

Seriously, I recognise he's not going to take me seriously, he can't admit that he's wrong. I'm just trying to make sure that others who visit this site done't get fooled into thinking he's actually credible.

[Craig W. Thomson]

Craig,
here are some of the things you have got wrong in this thread.

I have numbered them 1 to 127 for easier reference.
Quote from: Tim the Plumber on 19/03/2016 12:19:51
1 "No, the amount of heat produced directly by human activity is utterly tiny in comparison with the heat budget of nature. "

That's not my quote. In fact, it says right there, "Quote from: Tim the Plumber."

That's okay. You spent a lot of time compiling that list for me. I'm always flattered when people think I'm important enough to spend so much of their time compiling lists like that. Thanks for all the attention. That's very sweet of you.