Fossil Fuel industry trying to shut down electric vehicles

As every one can see you did not.
Upthread is all on this page, a few posts up.
You have gained 100% credibility with all believers in GW, average T and International Climate.

Because it is the first question one would ask in order to see if the claim of the vast majority of scientists and engineers and everyone else that a slight change in the trace gas in the Earth atmosphere can change the average T at all. All the the vast majority of scientists and engineers and everyone else running from this very simple and very easy to estimate question is just an undeniable proof that AGW or GW is nothing but hoax, all fake. And because I would expect that if you read the chapter you posted and follow it step by step and apply your claimed knowledge of basic, very basic Thermodynamics you would see that the average T of the Earth with a 100% CO2 atmosphere would not change from what it is now.

 

.

 

Upthread includes all posts preceding in the thread.

That is not the first question anyone would ask. The question of merit is 'what is the climate sensitivity of CO2'.

I have no idea what your second paragraph means ?? It makes no sense. What point are you attempting to make ?? You appear to claim that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero ?? That's insane.

 

You are referring to something nobody can look up, while avoiding everything everyone can look up.

You have gained 200% credibility with all believers in GW, average T and International Climate.

Do you see the word climate in my post? Do you know what is climate? Is “climate sensitivity of CO2 “ sane?

Let me inform ppl about the deleted things.

I quoted the 2nd law : “Heat always flows from a hotter body to a colder body in a spontaneous process” hence heat cannot be stored or accumulated.

You argued that it could be. As a proof you linked to a chapter about thermodynamics in chemistry.

Then that read was deleted and you jumped here.

Here I asked – does the chapter mean the same as you do and thus it is breaking the 2nd law or it means something totally different than you do and thus it is in compliance?

You have been avoiding the question.

I also suggested to use the methodology of the chapter and to estimate how the average Temperature of the Earth would change if Earth’s atmosphere changed to 100% CO2. (Note, that at the same time iamanonman has been bugging me with his Venus question.) You have deserted to a mere insult thus gaining 300% credibility with all believers in GW, average T and International Climate because they have nothing to back up their beliefs but only kindergarten insults and appeals to authority and popularity. Congratulations.

 

Yeah, I guess you know more than the California Power Authority. You've backed nothing up, with opinions from people in the industry. I have renewable power (both solar and wind), and I've backed up my comments.

 

The above indicates a fundamental lack of science understanding. Your statement of the second law is incorrect. I have no idea what point you are attempting to make ??

 

Do your homework. What are Germans paying for electricity these days ??

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=Hea...ss&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

lack of understanding... You are projecting...
You are projecting - you think that if you are here to make and push a point everyone else including me are attempting to do same. Your mind is shut to any other possibility.
Lack of understanding... all over internet. Carry on

 

That is a specific example of the second law which states:

You don't know the difference between the statement of the 2nd law and examples of it.

 

Now you are in argument with all Internet and all books on Thermodynamics.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Hea...ss&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

The second was and is stated in a few way.
I have chosen one which is applicable and clear for anybody.
Your statement is red wrong. The Lord of Thermodynamics Lord Kelvin, the giver of the Law disagrees with you : http://zapatopi.net/kelvin/papers/on_a_universal_tendency.html

Lack of understdanding... You don't know the difference....
Carry on.

 

You don't understand what an isolated system is (click on the term in the quote in my post and educate yourself). The earth is not an isolated system. And again you don't understand the difference between the second law and examples of it. That is clearly indicative of a lack of understanding of thermodynamics.

Kelvin is not the originator of thermodynamic theory. The originators are Carnot, Joule, Clausius (who derived entropy), Thomson, Maxwell, Gibbs (Gibbs Free Energy), ...

 

That is a completely loaded statement. The term "spontaneous" is synonymous with "isolated system" here. So is your statement correct? Yes! But, you are totally misapplying it to real world scenarios. I can move heat from cold to hot. I do this everyday in the summer with my A/C. It moves heat from the inside (where it is already colder) to the outside (where it is already warmer). This whole process in its entirety is not "spontaneous" and my inside-outside system is not isolated because I'm applying work to it from a feed of energy originating beyond my inside-outside system. Oh, and my water heater definitely stores and accumulates heat on a daily basis. Again, I had to apply work using energy originating from outside the water heater system so the 2nd law of thermodynamics is still safe despite my meddling. The Earth's biosphere is not an isolated system.

 

Thanks - you are much more patient than I am.

 

Click on your own link http://faculty.poly.edu/~rlevicky/Handout6.pdf and educate yourself in Thermodynamic systems. Levicky made it in capitol letters for you. In the very BEGINNING of the chapter.
Now you are not only in argument with all Internet and all books on Thermodynamics including one you linked to, but you are dismissing Kelvin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin

http://zapatopi.net/kelvin/

Congratulation on arrival to the state of total denial of reality.

 

It is not a statement. It is the law.

"spontaneous" is not synonymous with "isolated system", absolutely not.

It is antonymous with your AC system, which is an example of a non spontaneous, but is the one to which a mechanical work (result of an input of electricity) is applied.
The synonym of "Heat always flows from a hotter body to a colder body in a spontaneous process" is "Heat cannot flow from a colder body to a hotter body without an input of a mechanical work". The same second law.

It is very entertaining to see scientists fighting it.

 

I'd suggest following the old axiom - when in a hole stop digging.

 

I'd suggest following the old axiom - when in a hole stop digging.

 

There is no way you or iamanonman or any other denier of the second law and physical reality will stop digging. I never had an intention to stop you or iamanonman or any other denier from digging. I just hope that there is one, just one person with an open and inquiring mind in the public, who is capable of making his own mind. And if such a person goes for Thermodynamics I will get more then hoped for.

Though I cannot deny that I have some pleasure of seeing you and iamanonman (since he delegated you to answer for him) reduced to pure trolling. I know it is not exactly a pure pleasure, but I hope God will forgive me.

 

That's funny. Maybe God can help you with thermo ??

 

Whether you use the word spontaneous or isolated ultimately we're still referring to the same mechanism or process. Spontaneous in that statement is used to mean "on it's own". And by the way, I absolutely agree with the alternate form "heat cannot flow from a colder body to a hotter body without an input of a mechanical work". As long as I use an input of energy and mechanical work I can move heat from cold to hot and I can store heat. I am not violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You know this because there are countless examples in our everyday life. So why is it so hard to believe that the Earth system, which is not isolated because it is interacting with its surroundings, is receiving an input of energy and mechanical work from an external source...the Sun?

 

First, I'm not speaking for anyone else or delegating my responses to anyone else. They're all mine and mine alone. Second, I do have an open mind. I don't buy the AGW doom and gloom hype. This is because I don't allow the mainstream media, Al Gore, or some other non-qualified entity to influence my judgement. I don't even pay attention to the IPCC most of the time. I don't think the Arctic sea ice is going to melt anytime soon. But, I do acknowledge that there is enough evidence to say that it is likely that Earth's biosphere is going to warm up in the coming decades and that human's are likely contributing to it. I humbly admit that I don't know the magnitude of either except to say that they are probably not negligible. And I sure as hell don't care about the politics of it all.

 

Because if you start reading the chapter linked by the troll AFM you will see:

All systems are open in nature. (the 2nd is a law of nature)

We create isolated and closed ones only in our imagination for convenience of solving a task at hand. (the 2nd is true for all)

Like in my example with charging a battery, - once charged it then will discharge by itself and it will start discharging immediately after it is disconnected from the source of electricity. The same is with plugged in (closed system) and unplugged (isolated system) refrigerator in the chapter.

So in the first place (what is put in capital letters in the chapter) we make and justify a system, - hot, cold bodies, input/out of mechanical work (electricity in the refrigerator or your AC), boundaries of the systems (isolated/insulated walls of the refrigerator), surroundings if any.

In our case we have the hotter body – The Sun at Thotter_body, The colder body - The Earth at Tcolder_body and the Surroundings at 0K or 2.756546201K whatever you wish. As well we can omit constants of geothermal, of the Sun emitting to Surroundings and the Earth reflecting to Surroundings during the day and represent the surrounding as the third body at Tthecoldest.

And now we have to draw the system. We have to draw it. It is in so called steady state:

Thotter_body -> Tcolder_body ->The coldest

Whatever goes in goes out. It is in so called steady state

In this process I may allow your suggestion:

Thotter_body -> Tcolder_body ->The coldest ↓ Mechanical/chemical energy to biological bodies / animated matter.

But there is no

Thotter_body -> Tcolder_body ->The coldest ↑
Mechanical/chemical/CO2 energy input which

would take it out of the steady state and bring it to another steady state.

CO2 is not a source of energy - thermal, mechanical or chemical. And the same is true for any other planet notwithstanding different masses, compositions, starting Temperatures, atmosphere, difference in processes of original formation, etc.

Do you still have question about Venus or you found my answer? Can you draw and estimate your AC system?

 

Okay, great, let's roll with this.

Thotter = Sun = s
Tcolder = Earth = e
Tcoldest = Space = v

So our system is defined as follows.

[s -> e -> v]

Brackets [] are boundaries that we are idealizing so that we can call our system isolated. An arrow -> is the transport of energy and the imposition of work. The Sun (s), Earth (e), and space (v) are themselves subsystems within the bigger isolated system.

Let's define some more terms.

S = entropy
Ss = entropy of Sun
Se = entropy of Earth
Sv = entropy of Space

Let's define St as the total entropy our system such that.

St = Ss + Se + Sv

So per the 2nd law the entropy of our isolated system must be increasing such that:

dSt > 0 or d(Ss+Se+sv) > 0

Remember, the Sun, Earth, and Space are subsystems within our bigger isolated system. But, individually they are not isolated so it's okay if dS of any of them is negative as long as dS of the whole system is still positive. And this is where things get interesting. We can manipulate the internals of our system as long as dSt doesn't change. Let's model this mathematically with a perturbation P such that our equation becomes:

St = Ss + (Se-P) + (Sv+P)

And it follows that the total entropy is still increasing such that:

d(Ss+(Se-P)+(Sv+P)) > 0

Is there a P that exists in real life? We think so. CO2 and other greenhouse gases have a unique property. They are more effective at blocking photons that are emitted from the Earth than those emitted from the Sun. This is because they behave differently to different photon wavelengths. Photon wavelengths from the Sun are different than photon wavelengths from the Earth. Because of this the Earth is now accumulating energy. And that's okay because the total energy and total change in entropy dSt of our system hasn't changed at all. The only thing I've done is reduced dSe by P at the expense of increasing dSv by the same P. You read this as Earth is getting warmer at the expense of Space getting colder.

 

The auto industry spent millions on bribing governments to subsidize roads and tax railroads to pay for that for decades, so it's only natural for them to keep doing that sort of thing. The U.S. used to be covered with 'electric vehicles', they were those street car lines that built up very extensive networks all over the country, even smaller towns could afford them. You could go from Boston to Chicago on them, though not as cheap or quick as a regular railroad, of course. The auto industry killed those off as well, along with the bankers who killed railroads.

 

Sure in the “subsystem” Ts > Te, when Ts heats Te, Se<0

You perturbation P must be dQp/dTp in order to add subtract it to/from any dS. In other words P has to be an input/output of Heat from a body/source with temperature Tp. You don’t have such.

You keep on acting like a religious fanatic who cannot listen or answer questions or address anything which is said to him and which is different from his religious beliefs. You have not addressed a thing you quoted, but you keep on pushing your idea. You see, I address everything you say or ask, you address nothing I say. You have introduced entropy while I have been avoiding it in order to be as simple as possible. I know people get confused by systems and entropy as rule of a thumb. All I do I quote the 2nd and point that you cannot get around it.

If you read this as Earth is getting warmer at the expense of Space getting colder you again violate the 2nd trying to make heat flow from a colder body to a hotter body without an input of mechanical work. Not even talking that our colder Space cannot get any colder, it has no change to spare.

Before we consider CO2 and other greenhouse gases I may need your help. I don’t do much reading and often go by what people say on PF; I usually comment off the top of my head. But sometimes I google and run into some interesting text and find a few minutes to read. Today I spend almost an hour, it is one of my records. And look what I run into, - can you tell me please - do I see what I see?

http://www.globalenergybudget.com/TF12-Abs.jpg

341 in = 341 out.

Exactly what I have been saying all day long. Do you see the same as I do? 102+239 = 341?