Does most global warming denial violate the first law of thermodynamics?
The first law of thermodynamics essentially states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. The increase in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount of energy added by heating the system minus the amount lost as a result of the work done by the system on its surroundings.
Therefore since the amount of energy in the Earth system is increasing (both observed indirectly through the average global temperature increase, and directly by satellites), we know there's more energy entering the system than leaving it.
The current favored denier explanation for global warming is 'natural cycles'. When pressed to explain specifically what natural cycle is to blame, the few deniers who even attempt to answer generally offer ENSO or one of the other natural oscillations as their explanation. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AjlKnZBtqKuCTCZJJr1eUAXty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20100520062253AATBiXu&show=7#profile-info-AA10993476
However, these oscillations don't add any energy to the Earth's system; they merely move it around between oceans and air. They're not capable of causing a long-term global warming trend. There are also deniers who blame the Sun, yet the amount of energy the Earth receives from the Sun has not increased on average in over 50 years.
What do you think - does most global warming denial violate the first law of thermodynamics?
2010-05-21T11:52:43Z
Ottawa - wrong, wrong, wrong.
Satellite data shows the Earth's energy imbalance is 0.9 W/m^2. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2634.1
You might notice from the title that Solanki et al. are comparing recent solar activity to that over the past 11,000 years and do not dispute that the level has remained steady for over 50 years.
Your next link is to a 2003 article discussing ACRIM data. The up-to-date data shows 0.01% increase per decade since 1979 http://acrim.com/RESULTS/Earth%20Observatory/earth_obs_fig26.pdf
While the more accurate PMOD shows 0.012% decrease per decade since 1979. http://acrim.com/RESULTS/Earth%20Observatory/earth_obs_fig27.pdf
Your final reference similarly stops in 1999, and ironically is to a paper authored by Lockwood, who has many times concluded the Sun cannot be blamed for the recent warming. ftp://ftp.pmodwrc.ch/pub/Claus/Publications/ProcRSocA_464_1367_2008.pdf
Talk about violating credibility and integrity!
JcL2010-05-21T22:00:24Z
Favorite Answer
My global warming denial is base upon the fact that the weather stations in China and Russia were moved to get higher readings. So the data is corrupted. Also, the inventor of the satellite temperature sensors (Fred Singer,PhD) said improper protocols were used to derive the original GW temperature data.
RUSSIANS CONFIRM UK scientists MANIPULATED DATA to exaggerate global warming http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/
Moving weather stations in China! http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/dispute-weather-fraud
Great Article by Michael Crichton, MD (Jurassic Park, ER) on Complexity Theory and Environmental Management http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-complexity.html
So now you finally feel it necessary to bring in the science, and you can't even do it right? Let's look at the two laws of thermodynamics you're talking about. First law: Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms. In any process in an isolated system, the total energy remains the same. Let's start with this one. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Energy isn't being created or destroyed, but it is being reallocated, namely to the atmosphere. I'll get to how that works soon enough. Second law: The entropy of an isolated system consisting of two regions of space, isolated from one another, each in thermodynamic equilibrium in itself, but not in equilibrium with each other, will, when the isolation that separates the two regions is broken, so that the two regions become able to exchange matter or energy, tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value when the jointly communicating system reaches thermodynamic equilibrium. Hmm, interesting that you bring this up. Do you know much about chemistry? Let's take, for example, a membrane. Hell, let's take the membrane around each of your cells. That membrane allows for the import of certain chemicals that are small enough and have limited ionic charge. But everything else stays out. Wonder why? Because there's something there blocking it. Now, you might be asking yourself, where is this membrane in the sky? I'll tell you: IT'S THE ATMOSPHERE! Interesting how things bind to the ozone layer and then STAY THERE. That's what happens to CO2, methane, and multiple other chemicals that reach the atmosphere. It's interesting that those same exact chemicals also give the atmosphere the interesting ability to hold heat. Hmm...wonder what that does. That means that this whole "equillibrium" you're talking about changes. If that's not a good enough example for you, I can give you dozens more, like why there's a difference between fresh water and salt water fish. I'm amazed that you actually talk about chemistry with so little understanding. Why do you think 97% of scientists believe this if your chemistry is right? THIS IS BASIC CHEMISTRY. If you don't understand it, DON'T TALK ABOUT IT. Edit: Home-School - if God regulates temperatures, why are there laws of thermodynamics? Why would they be necessary? After all, God controls all exchange of energy, so why are there any scientific laws upon which to base that exchange? If you have a problem with my logic, go ahead and present the problem. I very much doubt you understand what these laws actually are and how they can be applied to the atmosphere, but go ahead and disprove my conceptions of you if you can. Edit #2: Bethy - if this is the opinion of a German physicist, either he/she or you hasn't thought it through. I'm going to guess that this physicist has done their homework and understands a lot better how the laws of thermodynamics work than what you've presented here. I'm going to guess that you just picked up this far shortened version of his explanation and posted it, because the chemistry in here is spurious at best. I've spent years studying chemistry myself, and this is one of the first things I learned. It's obvious you don't understand it. This is not an attempt to "hurt your feelings," this is an attempt to show you how chemistry works. Don't post on a subject like this when you don't understand it, simple as that, just as I wouldn't post a question about how mechanical engineering plays a role in anything because I don't understand that.
Your question is further evidence that there is indeed a very thin line between "Education" and "INDOCTRINATION".
Man is NOT responsible for the changing climate here, or elsewhere in the Solar System (which by the way is actually happening on several Planets). http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece It's natural my friend,...accept it and move on. There is no need to feel silly because you have been duped,..many of us are duped throughout our lives, sometimes it is a deliberate act by others and sometimes it is honest mistakes. The "Man Made" Global Warming (the preferred term is now "climate change" as it seems the temp fluctuates rather than what was previously claimed) is a classic example of Political Propaganda "designed" to dupe even the most educated and wise of us.
I have decided to teach my Children the many examples of propaganda and lies disseminated throughout Human history as a way of preparing them for adulthood. It is indeed sad, but true,..we are surrounded by self serving control freaks who seek domination over the rest of us, instead of seeking harmony and peace.
Like I said, it is no great shame to admit we are / were wrong about something, I have and continue to find out I was wrong about much of what "seemed" real / correct before. This is how we evolve intellectually. The very same thing applies to the idea of freedom. Many "believe" they are free, when they are not.
Remember, there are none so enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free.
First off Mother nature does not play with theories and thermodynamics is just a theory ! Second off is that if you believe everything the science dudes tell us then you have a problem.....ya see they say the closer to the sun the hotter it is......yet mountain tops are cold and Death Valley is hot ? Oppppsssssssssssssssss !
"...we know there's more energy entering the system than leaving it." No we are "guessing" that more energy is entering or more specifically, you are guessing. As pegminer points out, we don't know where all the Earth's energy is stored, so we can't measure it, so we can't know if it is increasing.
"... the amount of energy the Earth receives from the Sun has not increased on average in over 50 years." Once again, yoiu make a statement as if it is a fact. Well, lots of very smart people don't agree with you.
Sami K. Solanki, Ilya G. Usoskin, Bernd Kromer, Manfred Schüssler, Jürg Beer, Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years, Nature, 28 October 2004
"Sun's radiation has increased by .05 percent per decade since the late 1970s": http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html
From: M. Lockwood, R. Stamper, Long‐term drift of the coronal source magnetic flux and the total solar irradiance, GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 26, NO. 16, PP. 2461-2464, 1999 http://www.ukssdc.ac.uk/wdcc1/papers/grlfig4.gif
Global warming skepticism does not violate any laws of thermodynamics. However, questions like this violate my laws of credibility and integrity.
By the way, just to highlight what I said here, I'll start with what I am not saying. I am not saying "the Sun did it". What I am saying is that making a statement like "the Sun (or other natural causes) cannot explain the recent warming" is a premature statement. You don't have enough evidence to make such a statement.