Pliocene: The Last Time CO2 was this High

April 3, 2019

What the past teaches about the future. More evidence.

Guardian:

Trees growing near the South Pole, sea levels 20 metres higher than now, and global temperatures 3C-4C warmer. That is the world scientists are uncovering as they look back in time to when the planet last had as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as it does today.

Using sedimentary records and plant fossils, researchers have found that temperatures near the South Pole were about 20C higher than now in the Pliocene epoch, from 5.3m to 2.6m years ago. 

Many scientists use sophisticated computer models to predict the impacts of human-caused climate change, but looking back in time for real-world examples can give new insights.

The Pliocene was a “proper analogy” and offered important lessons about the road ahead, said Martin Siegert, a geophysicist and climate-change scientist at Imperial College London. “The headline news is the temperatures are 3-4C higher and sea levels are 15-20 metres higher than they are today. The indication is that there is no Greenland ice sheet any more, no West Antarctic ice sheet and big chunks of East Antarctic [ice sheet] taken,” he said.

Fossil fuel burning was pumping CO2into the atmosphere extremely rapidly, he said, though it took time for the atmosphere and oceans to respond fully. “If you put your oven on at home and set it to 200C the temperature does not get to that immediately, it takes a bit of time, and it is the same with climate,” Siegert said, at a Royal Meteorological Society meeting on the climate of the Pliocene.

He added that global temperature had already risen by 1C since the industrial revolution, when CO2 levels were 280 parts per million (ppm). CO2 was now at 412ppm and rising, suggesting the planet would be locked into rises of 3C-4C in the next few centuries. Ice melting, he said, took even longer and the huge sea level rises indicated by the Pliocene evidence would probably take a few millennia to come about.

In the Pliocene a variety of beech and possibly conifer trees grew at Oliver Bluffs, 300 miles from the South Pole. The tree remains had been unearthed as fossils, along with cushion plants and mosses. 

Jane Francis, director of the British Antarctic Survey, said: “This is an amazing discovery. They found fossil leaves of southern beech. I call them the last forests of Antarctica. They were growing at 400ppm CO2, so this may be where we are going back to, with ice sheets melting at times, which may allow plants to colonise again.” 

The evidence showed summertime temperatures in the Pliocene were a tundra-like 5C near the Pole, compared with -15C to -20C today.

The presence of plants showed the Antarctic ice cap was much smaller in the Pliocene and the sea level much higher. “Twenty metres of sea level rise would have a major impact on our all our coastal cities and all our coastal areas where people live,” Francis said.

Polar regions were especially important in understanding global climate, she said: “We know that is where the change happens first and where it is most dramatic.”

About 100m years ago an even more extreme climate occurred. In the Cretaceous period COlevels were 1,000ppm. Antarctica still sat over the South Pole, but the region was warm and covered in great forests, the stumps and soil of which have been preserved as fossils in places like Alexander Island.

“If we keep carbon emissions going at the current rate, by the end of the century we will have 1,000ppm,” said Siegert. The low 280ppm level of COin the run-up to the industrial revolution was rooted in carbon being removed from the air by plants and animals and then buried. “It formed coal seams, gas and oil fields. And what we have been doing for the last 150 years is digging it all up and putting it back into the atmosphere, it’s crazy.”

One climate peril these emissions ruled out, said Siegert, was a return to an ice age, which had happened several times in the last million years; COwas now at too high a level for there to be any chance of a big freeze, said Siegert. “We’ve killed it.”

106 Responses to “Pliocene: The Last Time CO2 was this High”

  1. Sir Charles Says:

    Also see this video abstract of a meta study by Hansen et al:
    Ice Melt, Sea Level Rise and Superstorms

    Full study at the bottom of this page:
    => Global warming will happen faster than we think

  2. A Thorpe Says:

    What does the past teach us about the future? It teaches us that the climate changes without humans to do it and it teaches us the temperature increases drove the increase in CO2 with a significant time lag.

    Desperation must be setting in with the believers in AGW. First it was the models they relied on and now it is climate from over 2.3 million years ago. How do they manage to determine that with any accuracy?

    But also we read that the CO2 levels were the same as now. But the temperatures and sea levels are still much lower. So now we have a huge time lag between CO2 increases and the temperature increases.

    Who makes up this crap?

    • dumboldguy Says:

      More stupid from Throwup. Ignore him.

      BTW, it’s a shame that the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded in Oslo while all the others are awarded in Stockholm. That means that when Throwup goes to get his prize in Stupid, he won’t get a chance to meet Greta and set her straight on climate change. (sigh)

      • A Thorpe Says:

        Typical. No debate from the AGW brigade because you have no science. Science is all about debate and not insults. Every comment you make reveals your ignorance of all known science and scientific methods.

        Your repetition of the Nobel Prize makes even your views more pointless. I take it that you have still not read the work of Nobel Prize laureate Max Planck which turns your radiative theories into nonsense. There was no prize in Maxwell’s days but it is generally believed he would have received the award. I take it that after quoting a paragraph from his book to support your argument, a paragraph the Maxwell said did not apply to the atmosphere, you have learned nothing. I also assume that you did not read the paragraph in Maxwell’s book about the atmosphere that also proves your AGW theory to be wrong.

        • dumboldguy Says:

          (Ignored) ZZZzzz….!!!!

          • A Thorpe Says:

            What else can you do but ignore science? You have a belief that you have to maintain so nothing can be allowed to shatter it. AGW is the new religion but with even less evidence to support it than religion itself.

        • Sir Charles Says:

          Have a look at the graph I posted above, and then read that => Global warming will happen faster than we think

          The last time atmospheric CO2 levels were that high, sea level was about 200m higher.

          And if you still don’t know the amplifying effect of CO2 then read that => CO2 lags temperature – what does it mean?

          In earlier times CO2 was the strong amplifier of forcing. Nowadays this strong amplifier has become the forcing itself due to massive and rapid increase. Without anthropogenic CO2 the earth would see a global cooling of 0.016°C per century. But in fact we see global warming now of nearly 0.2°C per decade (See the first graph in Global warming will happen faster than we think). This is more than disruptive. We’re just watching a global climate catastrophe.

          Tell your children why you don’t want to grasp that.

          • Sir Charles Says:

            BTW, here a bit of history => The Discovery of Global Warming

            The heat trapping property of CO2 (greenhouse effect) has been known for about 150 years. It’s a no-brainer.

            Have a look here and also at the video description. Exxon will very likely lose their lobby registration at the EU-Parliament because they’ve been lying and fostering climate change denial for decades.

            And you, A Thorpe, are either a shill or just a useful idiot of some of history’s coldest and greediest killers.

          • A Thorpe Says:

            If you assume a climate sensitivity then you get the outcome you want in the model. CO2 cannot cause the earth to warm because the temperature of any system can only be increased by adding thermal energy or doing work. CO2 does not have such properties. It cannot be compared with insulation and in any case insulation does not increase the temperature, it reduces the rate of heat loss. CO2 does not have any insulation properties. The spontaneous transfer of thermal energy in a natural system cannot be amplified or reduced.

            When the climate does not behave as predicted then make a more outrageous claim that it will warm faster than thought. In other words an admission that past work was wrong. It might fall all those who belong to your groupthink community, but it does not fool anybody else.

            The said heat trapping properties from past work are wrong. Arrhenius and Tyndall were both wrong. Arrhenius compared the atmosphere to glass in a greenhouse trapping radiation. This is not how a greenhouse keeps warm and it has no equivalent in the atmosphere. Trapped radiation does not increase the temperature of anything. It does not increase the temperature of a greenhouse, as proven by Prof Wood’s experiments and it does not increase the temperature of the contents of a thermos flask. The reason is quite simple. Radiation in electromagnetic energy, not thermal energy. Your mate Dumbo also refuses to accept this. Although there is radiation from the atmosphere, it has not been trapped anywhere and the electromagnetic energy can only be converted to thermal energy when the radiative transfer is from hot to cold (the 2nd law of thermodynamics). Hence the surface heats the atmosphere and the atmosphere cannot heat the surface. Tyndall’s work was also flawed because he did not understand the nation of radiation. He oddly assumed measured the radiation emitted from the end of his tube containing the gases but ignored all the radiation back through the tube and through the walls. He therefore came to the wrong conclusions. Physics is a no-brainer because it has evidence to support it. Your world does not exist in known physics.

            Finally, of course you are back to the insults. It really is all you have. This is what always happens in groupthink, first an idea and not based on reality, the use of consensus to support it, and then the demonisation of anybody who does not support the consensus. It has been seen throughout history.

            I take it, just like Dumbo, you have not read the paragraph in James Clerk Maxwells book on the Theory of Heat that explains why you are wrong. He referred to a paragraph which Maxwell specifically says does not apply to the atmosphere. I keep asking him if he has read the paragraph that proved AGW is wrong but I get no reply. You are the dangerous people in the world because you support ridiculous policies. The west agreed to reduce CO2 emissions at huge cost and let China and India increase emissions. No wonder their economies are booming whilst the west is failing.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Chucky dearest. I know you don’t take much advice from anyone because of your self-perceived genius (and your mental illness), but you really should listen to me when I say “More stupid from Throwup. Ignore him”.

          • Sir Charles Says:

            Insulation has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect of certain gasses, A Thorpe. Are you trolling here or why are you not willing to learn some basic science?

          • A Thorpe Says:

            You were the one who referred to the heat trapping properties of CO2, not me.No scientist would ever use such an expression because heat, or more accurately thermal energy, cannot be trapped. I referred to insulation because some people say that insulation traps heat and they say the atmosphere keeps the earth warm like insulation in a house, of course it does not. Insulation slows down the rate of heat transfer. CO2 does not have any properties that enable it to cause heating of the earth’s surface. When you look at the specific heat and density of CO2 and the minute amount in the atmosphere and compare this to the amount and specific heat of water vapour, plus the latent heat it contains, then it is obvious that CO2 has little part to play in the thermal energy content of the atmosphere.

            CO2 does not trap IR emitted by the surface. It absorbs and emits it, but IR is electromagnetic energy, not thermal energy. When the atmosphere emits IR to the earth it is from cold to hot and there is no heat transfer because the second law of thermodynamics applies.

            There is no point in quoting references. Anybody can do that. How about answering with your own knowledge of science? You don’t have any except the perverted science of climate science, so resort to personal insults and with every comment, just like Dumbo, you show you lack of knowledge.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            ZZZZzzzz…..(fart)….ZZZzzzz……(roll over)…..!!!!
            ZZZZZZzzzzz……(scratch scrotum)……(etc).

          • A Thorpe Says:

            I’m surprised that you have a scrotum!!!!

          • dumboldguy Says:

            FOUR exclamation marks!!!!!! Throwup has made another breakthrough discovery!!!!!!! I call myself “guy” in my WP handle and have made MANY comments that would lead one to conclude that I am male, and Throwup has just now figured it out?!!!!!!!!!

            GO AWAY, THrowup!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Go lurk on WUWT, where you will be considered a genius and receive much praise from other morons for your ignorance.

          • A Thorpe Says:

            You missed the point, I thought you did not a scrotum, in other words you must have a C–T.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            I missed the point? Said by he who misses nearly every “point” anyone here has ever sent in his direction? ROTFLMAO!

            By the way, Throwup, which sex are you? Not that it matters much, since you’re simply unlikable whichever you are?

          • A Thorpe Says:

            You keep making a fool of yourself repeating my insults to you. You have no originality at all. Just like your science all you can do is repeat what others say. You have nothing left to say and you never had any science.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            I leave it to other Crockers to decide which of us shows more originality in our insults. Since yours use the same simple words every time, may I suggest that they fit the definition of “repeating'” much better than mine? And since mine use different words each time, that they better fit the definition of “original”?

            A final thought. Perhaps you are under the impression that turning your insults back on you constitutes “repeating” them? If so, that’s just another illustration of what a moron you truly are.

          • A Thorpe Says:

            Finally you are admitting that insults are the way that all of you deal with comments that prove your insane belief to be wrong. I would be pleased to be banned for bring science to this ridiculous web site.

          • Sir Charles Says:

            A Thorpe: “You were the one who referred to the heat trapping properties of CO2, not me.No scientist would ever use such an expression because heat, or more accurately thermal energy, cannot be trapped.”

            So Jim Hansen is not a scientist?

            => http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2018/20181206_Nutshell.pdf

            A Thorpe: “How about answering with your own knowledge of science?”

            More waffle. Go and learn some real science. I already posted enough learning matter for you. Come back when you have finished these lessons. I’m not running circles with you just because you feel you have to dance. Period.

          • A Thorpe Says:

            You may have posted reference but have you even read them and understood them. Any fool can post references. It does not say that you understand them and of course you offer none of your own words in response to my views. It tells me all I need to know about you. A groupthink believer in human caused global warming that cannot tolerate your ridiculous view being challenged and all you have to offer in the end is insults.

            On the issue of trapped heat. Tell me how it can happen and don’t direct me to somebody else. Where there is a temperature difference there will be heat transfer and therefore heat cannot be trapped. The transfer rate will depend on the thermal properties but that is not the same as trapped. What do you mean by trapped since you seem to believe it is possible? How about explaining this simple concept? You cannot because it does not happen.

            Even when we attempt to trap heat as with a vacuum flask it is still not trapped. Hot contents will cool down and cold contents will heat up. Also, as I keep pointing out, in a vacuum flask radiation is trapped but it does not change the temperature. The vacuum flask loses heat by conduction through the stopper. An actual greenhouse does not get warmer because of trapped radiation since radiation is electromagnetic energy, not thermal energy. It is really simple unless you decide to play DUMB.

          • Sir Charles Says:

            “The vacuum flask loses heat by conduction through the stopper.”

            LOL Wow! I think it’s you who needs a “stopper”. Again that has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect. Certain gasses ate bipolar, so they absorb radiation which comes in from the one direction (the sun) and radiate back a lower frequency radiation (infrared) in ALL directions whereby the molecules are heating up and within their neighbouring molecules.

            “An actual greenhouse does not get warmer because of trapped radiation since radiation is electromagnetic energy, not thermal energy.”

            Radiation always transforms into heat when it comes into interference with matter. Try not to get sunburnt when you’re at the beach and the sun is high. There can even be frosty air temperatures an you still get sunburnt. Dude, you’re taking so much rubbish here. It’s worse than talking to a first grader.

          • A Thorpe Says:

            What a moron you really are. Where did I say a vacuum flask had anything to do with the atmosphere? The subject was trapped energy and if you bothered to think about a vacuum flask you would understand something about infrared radiation which is clearly beyond the claimed huge IQ of you and Dumbo.

            Now you are showing your ignorance. Radiation is electromagnetic energy. A photon has no mass and cannot possible contain thermal energy because there is no electrons present to excite. Heat cannot travel through a vacuum but apparently you know otherwise, which is why the example of the thermos flask is important because the inner surface is coated to reflect radiation and there is a double wall with a vacuum as well. Ignorance must be your middle name.

            The electromagnetic energy in a photon does not always transform into thermal energy when it is absorbed by matter. The second law of thermodynamics always applies and so thermalisation of electromagnetic energy only happens with the photon travels from hot to cold matter.

            On the beach, you feel the “heat” from when the photon interacts with the cells in your body and that is why you also get sunburn on a frosty day. You know nothing. Oddly, you are now talking about energy from the sun and not energy from the atmosphere. If back radiation existed and could heat the surface then it would come from all directions and would thaw out frost in the shadow created by the sun.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            ZZZZzzzz…..VERY loud fart)…..!!!!

          • Sir Charles Says:

            This A Thorpe is just repeating his nonsense bible despite having been refuted for umpteen times. As I said, try not to get sunburnt at the beach when the sun is high. You even get sunburnt when the air is freezing cold. The second law of thermodynamics applies here too 😉

            I rest my case.

          • A Thorpe Says:

            Now you are getting it. The radiation from the sun is from a high temperature. Our bodies are colder and so the radiation is absorbed by our bodies. Heat only travels from hot to cold. On a cloudy day with no sun you do not feel heat from the atmospheric radiation because it is cold to hot. Finally you admit that your AGW is wrong. Your response will be more insults because you really don’t have a clue about the implications of your statements.

            I like Thomas Edison’s view that our greatest weakness is giving up and the way to succeed is to try one more time. I will alway keep trying to show you the truth about science.

          • Sir Charles Says:

            And why are cloudy nights warmer than clear nights? Because they work like a blanket.

            The sun warms the Earth. The Earth and its atmosphere radiate heat away into space. They radiate most of the heat that is received from the sun, so the average temperature of the Earth stays more or less constant. Greenhouse gases trap some of the escaping heat closer to the Earth’s surface, making it harder for it to shed that heat, so the Earth warms up in order to radiate the heat more effectively. So the greenhouse gases make the Earth warmer – like a blanket conserving body heat – and voila, you have global warming. See What is Global Warming and the Greenhouse Effect for a more detailed explanation.

            The second law of thermodynamics has been stated in many ways. For us, Rudolf Clausius said it best:

            “Heat generally cannot flow spontaneously from a material at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature.”

            So if you put something hot next to something cold, the hot thing won’t get hotter, and the cold thing won’t get colder. That’s so obvious that it hardly needs a scientist to say it, we know this from our daily lives. If you put an ice-cube into your drink, the drink doesn’t boil!

            The climate change denier tells us that, because the air, including the greenhouse gasses, is cooler than the surface of the Earth, it cannot warm the Earth. If it did, they say, that means heat would have to flow from cold to hot, in apparent violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

            So have climate scientists made an elementary mistake? Of course not! The climate change denier is ignoring the fact that the Earth is being warmed by the sun, which makes all the difference.

            To see why, consider that blanket that keeps you warm. If your skin feels cold, wrapping yourself in a blanket can make you warmer. Why? Because your body is generating heat, and that heat is escaping from your body into the environment. When you wrap yourself in a blanket, the loss of heat is reduced, some is retained at the surface of your body, and you warm up. You get warmer because the heat that your body is generating cannot escape as fast as before.

            If you put the blanket on a tailors dummy, which does not generate heat, it will have no effect. The dummy will not spontaneously get warmer. That’s obvious too!

            Is using a blanket an accurate model for global warming by greenhouse gases? Certainly there are differences in how the heat is created and lost, and our body can produce varying amounts of heat, unlike the near-constant heat we receive from the sun. But as far as the second law of thermodynamics goes, where we are only talking about the flow of heat, the comparison is good. The second law says nothing about how the heat is produced, only about how it flows between things.

            To summarise: Heat from the sun warms the Earth, as heat from your body keeps you warm. The Earth loses heat to space, and your body loses heat to the environment. Greenhouse gases slow down the rate of heat-loss from the surface of the Earth, like a blanket that slows down the rate at which your body loses heat. The result is the same in both cases, the surface of the Earth, or of your body, gets warmer.

            So global warming does not violate the second law of thermodynamics.

            qed

          • A Thorpe Says:

            You have really have to be very precise about your statements. The sun heats the earth’s surface and any insulating effect of greenhouse gases can only slow down the heat loss, it cannot increase the temperature of the surface. If heat loss is slowed then there will be more energy in the atmosphere, but the temperature difference between the surface and space will be exactly the same. We are told than global warming is about increasing the surface temperature and the atmosphere cannot increase the surface temperature by radiative effects. The atmosphere only increases the surface temperature because of the gravity compressing the atmosphere, as with Venus. It is the direct heating of the oceans by the sun that is increasing the ocean temperatures. The atmosphere is at a lower temperature and cannot heat the oceans. The energy content of the atmosphere even if it was at a higher temperature than the oceans would have little impact because of the huge difference in mass and specific heat. The atmosphere contains little energy compared to water. It’s physics

            AGW deniers do not ignore the sun. It is all I have said to you, it is the sun that is heating the surface and the surface cannot get any warmer (gravity apart) unless another heat source is available and CO2 cannot spontaneously generate heat.

            Consider a steel plate heated to a high temperature and then add insulation. Do you really think that the temperature will increase? It will not. It will only increase if more heat is added. Slowing heat loss does not increase the temperature; it slows the rate at which it cools. We are told the surface temperature is increasing. It is only more heat input that can achieve that. The main greenhouse gas is water vapour which reduces the energy arriving at the surface and cools the surface by evaporative loss. It therefore cools the earth. Just the opposite of your claims. The dry desert areas have a higher temperature than the humid tropics. Water vapour cools the earth. CO2 is an insignificant trace gas. It does not keep the desert areas warmer at night.

            It is not the blanket that warms the body it is the heat generated by the body that keeps it warmer when the heat loss is reduced. Note heat input is required. The sun heats the surface.

          • Sir Charles Says:

            “The sun heats the earth’s surface and any insulating effect of greenhouse gases can only slow down the heat loss”

            You just described with your own words the greenhouse effect. So I could just stop here and say

            qed

            but then you repeat:

            “it cannot increase the temperature of the surface”

            Again: It’s not the greenhouse effect which is increasing the planet’s heat. It’s the sun. The greenhouse effect – as 1001 times explained here – is working like a blanket and prevents parts of the energy being radiated back into space again. Greenhouse gases trap the heat. The more greenhouse gases the more heat.

            Any naughty first grader would grasp that.

            If increases in CO2 are not causing modern day global warming then two things must be true:

            1) Something unknown is suppressing the well-understood greenhouse effect (and doing so during massive increases in greenhouse gases).

            2) Something unknown is causing the warming that mirrors the greenhouse effect.

            So we can accept what we know to be true (anthropogenic global warming) or we accept two unknowns.

            James Lawrence Powell
            http://www.jamespowell.org/

          • A Thorpe Says:

            You clearly don’t understand why I included “any” in the comment. It means that I do not agree with it. I was only saying that if it does exist it cannot heat the surface. The atmosphere cannot act like a blanket. Houses and bodies lose heat by convection. Insulation reduces the convective heat loss. The atmosphere cannot stop convection. It does exactly the opposite and distributes energy around the earth and moved energy into the atmosphere where it is emitted.

            If you look at the specific heat of carbon dioxide it is lower than the atmosphere overall. So more CO2 means less energy stored for the same temperature. CO2 is an insignificant gas with no thermal properties that enable it to retain more energy. The main greenhouse gas (a description I do not use) is water vapour bit it cools the earth. CO2 has no relevance to the climate.

            Neither of your statements is true because there is no greenhouse effect. The problem is that this ridiculous concept is diverting all research away from the studies we need to understand the climate in the long term. One thing is absolutely certain and that is we cannot change or control it, we can only respond to changes and the more we know the better we can adapt, like moving away from low lying areas. The money wasted on reducing CO2 could have done a lot to move people, if that is what is really needed,#.

            I do not know what is changing the climate. As I repeatedly say, my concern is the falsification of physics to claim that CO2 and hence humans are the cause. There is very little work being done on Milankovich cycles as far as I can see which is where I would put the effort. Once person working in this area is Piers Corbyn, the brother of the famous Jeremy.

          • Sir Charles Says:

            Specific heat (capacity) is the amount of heat needed to raise the temperature of one kilogram of mass by 1 kelvin. It has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect. You’re comparing apples with oranges. You wouldn’t sit in a bath tub and wait till the water gets hotter than the environment around.

          • A Thorpe Says:

            But you have argued that more energy is stored in the atmosphere because of CO2 and the specific heat says that less heat will be stored as CO2 increases. Your problem is that you cannot see the complete picture, and you just jump around ideas with no connection or consistency.

          • Sir Charles Says:

            “cannot see the complete picture” LOL

            Listen. It was YOU who brought up specific heat, not me.

            I think we fully understand your “complete picture”…

          • A Thorpe Says:

            No, I have not argued that. I said that if the heat loss from the surface is slowed down then more heat will be stored. I did not say how the heat loss could be slowed down by the atmosphere. You assumed I meant CO2 was doing it because you want to believe that. But as I have told you the mass and specific heat of the atmosphere is so small in comparison to the oceans that it cannot have a significant effect on dynamic energy storage effects. Look at the annual temperature variation in the oceans and the atmosphere and perhaps you will then understand.

          • Sir Charles Says:

            ” I said that if the heat loss from the surface is slowed down then more heat will be stored.”

            That’s again the greenhouse effect you’re describing here. And again: Specific heat is the amount of heat needed to raise the temperature of one kilogram of mass by 1 kelvin. Something very different. What you’re concluding would be the same as sitting in a bath tub and waiting for the water to become hotter than the surrounding environment (just by magic). I might tell that my grandkids too. Funny asumption again LOL

            Any other myth you wanna repeat?

          • A Thorpe Says:

            Heat loss being slowed is not the greenhouse effect. You don’t even understand the concept. If it was just slower heat loss we would not have discussed the second law at length. The greenhouse effect is said to be radiation from the surface being absorbed by the atmosphere and some being emitted to the surface and causing additional warming. It is entirely a radiative effect and there is no heat from the atmosphere to the surface because if the 2nd law. The greenhouse effect does not exist. And again, the surface does not increase in temperature if the heat loss is reduced. This applies to all objects losing heat.

          • Sir Charles Says:

            “Heat loss being slowed is not the greenhouse effect.” Of course. It’s the result of the greenhouse effect.

            And again:

            The sun warms the Earth. The Earth and its atmosphere radiate heat away into space. They radiate most of the heat that is received from the sun, so the average temperature of the Earth stays more or less constant. Greenhouse gases trap some of the escaping heat closer to the Earth’s surface, making it harder for it to shed that heat, so the Earth warms up in order to radiate the heat more effectively. So the greenhouse gases make the Earth warmer – like a blanket conserving body heat – and voila, you have global warming.

            The second law of thermodynamics has been stated in many ways. For us, Rudolf Clausius said it best:

            “Heat generally cannot flow spontaneously from a material at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature.”

            So if you put something hot next to something cold, the hot thing won’t get hotter, and the cold thing won’t get colder. That’s so obvious that it hardly needs a scientist to say it, we know this from our daily lives. If you put an ice-cube into your drink, the drink doesn’t boil!

            The climate change denier tells us that, because the air, including the greenhouse gasses, is cooler than the surface of the Earth, it cannot warm the Earth. If it did, they say, that means heat would have to flow from cold to hot, in apparent violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

            So have climate scientists made an elementary mistake? Of course not! The climate change denier is ignoring the fact that the Earth is being warmed by the sun, which makes all the difference.

            To see why, consider that blanket that keeps you warm. If your skin feels cold, wrapping yourself in a blanket can make you warmer. Why? Because your body is generating heat, and that heat is escaping from your body into the environment. When you wrap yourself in a blanket, the loss of heat is reduced, some is retained at the surface of your body, and you warm up. You get warmer because the heat that your body is generating cannot escape as fast as before.

            If you put the blanket on a tailors dummy, which does not generate heat, it will have no effect. The dummy will not spontaneously get warmer. That’s obvious too!

            Is using a blanket an accurate model for global warming by greenhouse gases? Certainly there are differences in how the heat is created and lost, and our body can produce varying amounts of heat, unlike the near-constant heat we receive from the sun. But as far as the second law of thermodynamics goes, where we are only talking about the flow of heat, the comparison is good. The second law says nothing about how the heat is produced, only about how it flows between things.

            To summarise: Heat from the sun warms the Earth, as heat from your body keeps you warm. The Earth loses heat to space, and your body loses heat to the environment. Greenhouse gases slow down the rate of heat-loss from the surface of the Earth, like a blanket that slows down the rate at which your body loses heat. The result is the same in both cases, the surface of the Earth, or of your body, gets warmer.

            So global warming does not violate the second law of thermodynamics.

            qed

          • A Thorpe Says:

            There really is no point in pasting the same text every time. You give me a Harvard article which says: “.. the Earth itself emits radiation to space. Some of this terrestrial radiation is trapped by greenhouse gases and radiated back to the Earth, resulting in the warming of the surface known as the greenhouse effect.” So not slower heat loss, it is returning heat, often called back radiation. Slowing down heat loss cannot increase the temperature of the object losing heat. But the back radiation could and that is what you need to prove AGW, unfortunately it does not exist, second law etc.

          • Sir Charles Says:

            What actually is the difference between

            “the Earth itself emits radiation to space. Some of this terrestrial radiation is trapped by greenhouse gases and radiated back to the Earth, resulting in the warming of the surface known as the greenhouse effect.”

            and

            “slower heat loss”

            I tell you right now. The one is the exact description and the other is the effect of that in three words.

            Re “you need to prove AGW, unfortunately it does not exist, second law etc.”

            Please read below:

            The sun warms the Earth. The Earth and its atmosphere radiate heat away into space. They radiate most of the heat that is received from the sun, so the average temperature of the Earth stays more or less constant. Greenhouse gases trap some of the escaping heat closer to the Earth’s surface, making it harder for it to shed that heat, so the Earth warms up in order to radiate the heat more effectively. So the greenhouse gases make the Earth warmer – like a blanket conserving body heat – and voila, you have global warming.

            The second law of thermodynamics has been stated in many ways. For us, Rudolf Clausius said it best:

            “Heat generally cannot flow spontaneously from a material at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature.”

            So if you put something hot next to something cold, the hot thing won’t get hotter, and the cold thing won’t get colder. That’s so obvious that it hardly needs a scientist to say it, we know this from our daily lives. If you put an ice-cube into your drink, the drink doesn’t boil!

            The climate change denier tells us that, because the air, including the greenhouse gasses, is cooler than the surface of the Earth, it cannot warm the Earth. If it did, they say, that means heat would have to flow from cold to hot, in apparent violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

            So have climate scientists made an elementary mistake? Of course not! The climate change denier is ignoring the fact that the Earth is being warmed by the sun, which makes all the difference.

            To see why, consider that blanket that keeps you warm. If your skin feels cold, wrapping yourself in a blanket can make you warmer. Why? Because your body is generating heat, and that heat is escaping from your body into the environment. When you wrap yourself in a blanket, the loss of heat is reduced, some is retained at the surface of your body, and you warm up. You get warmer because the heat that your body is generating cannot escape as fast as before.

            If you put the blanket on a tailors dummy, which does not generate heat, it will have no effect. The dummy will not spontaneously get warmer. That’s obvious too!

            Is using a blanket an accurate model for global warming by greenhouse gases? Certainly there are differences in how the heat is created and lost, and our body can produce varying amounts of heat, unlike the near-constant heat we receive from the sun. But as far as the second law of thermodynamics goes, where we are only talking about the flow of heat, the comparison is good. The second law says nothing about how the heat is produced, only about how it flows between things.

            To summarise: Heat from the sun warms the Earth, as heat from your body keeps you warm. The Earth loses heat to space, and your body loses heat to the environment. Greenhouse gases slow down the rate of heat-loss from the surface of the Earth, like a blanket that slows down the rate at which your body loses heat. The result is the same in both cases, the surface of the Earth, or of your body, gets warmer.

            So global warming does not violate the second law of thermodynamics.

            Proven tens of thousands of times for the last 150 years.

          • A Thorpe Says:

            There is a huge difference. Slowing heat loss does not involve additional heat. Back radiation is said to bring additional heat to the surface. You have no idea about the basics of thermodynamics. Stop making a fool of yourself.

          • Sir Charles Says:

            The fool falls back to yourself. Let’s recall again.

            1. You mistake specific heat with the greenhouse effect.

            2. You claim the weight of Venus’ atmosphere would be the source of the immense higher heat on the planet compare to all other planets in our solar system. Utter rubbish. You even debunked yourself therefore, but cannot even grasp that you did so.

            3. You claim that the 2nd law of thermodynamics would not allow heat trapping. Utter rubbish too. Explained below:

            The sun warms the Earth. The Earth and its atmosphere radiate heat away into space. They radiate most of the heat that is received from the sun, so the average temperature of the Earth stays more or less constant. Greenhouse gases trap some of the escaping heat closer to the Earth’s surface, making it harder for it to shed that heat, so the Earth warms up in order to radiate the heat more effectively. So the greenhouse gases make the Earth warmer – like a blanket conserving body heat – and voila, you have global warming.

            The second law of thermodynamics has been stated in many ways. For us, Rudolf Clausius said it best:

            “Heat generally cannot flow spontaneously from a material at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature.”

            So if you put something hot next to something cold, the hot thing won’t get hotter, and the cold thing won’t get colder. That’s so obvious that it hardly needs a scientist to say it, we know this from our daily lives. If you put an ice-cube into your drink, the drink doesn’t boil!

            The climate change denier tells us that, because the air, including the greenhouse gasses, is cooler than the surface of the Earth, it cannot warm the Earth. If it did, they say, that means heat would have to flow from cold to hot, in apparent violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

            So have climate scientists made an elementary mistake? Of course not! The climate change denier is ignoring the fact that the Earth is being warmed by the sun, which makes all the difference.

            To see why, consider that blanket that keeps you warm. If your skin feels cold, wrapping yourself in a blanket can make you warmer. Why? Because your body is generating heat, and that heat is escaping from your body into the environment. When you wrap yourself in a blanket, the loss of heat is reduced, some is retained at the surface of your body, and you warm up. You get warmer because the heat that your body is generating cannot escape as fast as before.

            If you put the blanket on a tailors dummy, which does not generate heat, it will have no effect. The dummy will not spontaneously get warmer. That’s obvious too!

            Is using a blanket an accurate model for global warming by greenhouse gases? Certainly there are differences in how the heat is created and lost, and our body can produce varying amounts of heat, unlike the near-constant heat we receive from the sun. But as far as the second law of thermodynamics goes, where we are only talking about the flow of heat, the comparison is good. The second law says nothing about how the heat is produced, only about how it flows between things.

            To summarise: Heat from the sun warms the Earth, as heat from your body keeps you warm. The Earth loses heat to space, and your body loses heat to the environment. Greenhouse gases slow down the rate of heat-loss from the surface of the Earth, like a blanket that slows down the rate at which your body loses heat. The result is the same in both cases, the surface of the Earth, or of your body, gets warmer.

            So global warming does not violate the second law of thermodynamics.

            So who is the fool here?

          • Sir Charles Says:

            Piers Corbyn? LOL the guy who tosses a coin and predicts the weather it LOL Gimme a break.

          • A Thorpe Says:

            If you don’t like Corbyn, and I have not seen any of his work, then tell me who is doing credible work on Milankovitch cycles. There is certainly nothing on your site.

          • Sir Charles Says:

            My site? Where is my site?

            As you seem not to be able to look up information yourself, here for a start => https://medium.com/@pathackett/the-milankovitch-cycles-and-climate-change-today-7b424ba74113

            You haven’t seen any of Piers Corbyn’s work? LOL
            => https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Piers_Corbyn

          • A Thorpe Says:

            The reason I have not looked, as I said, is because my interest is in the fake science of AGW and the ridiculous greenhouse effect. But thanks for the links.

          • Sir Charles Says:

            What “fake science”? That garbage you’re releasing here is only fake, not science.

        • John Kane Says:

          Max Planck? You mean the man who won the Nobel Prize in 1918?

          • A Thorpe Says:

            That’s the one, not the Thick as a Plank people running this web site.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Congratulations, Throwup! You’ve now directly insulted the guy who “runs” this website a SECOND time. The last guy I remember doing that was Dave Burton, and he was banned shortly thereafter. Here’s hoping you will be too—-you’ve outlived your usefulness here even as a bad example of STUPID.

          • Sir Charles Says:

            For the first time, satellite data have quantified the extra amount of the greenhouse gas CO2 released into the atmosphere during an El Niño year. Drought-weakened vegetation absorbs less CO2.

            => Nearly nine billion more tonnes of CO2 through El Niño | Max-Planck-Institut

            Here you can read more Max Planck:

            => CHAPTER 7. THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT

            Just read the first sentence, A Thorpe, it’ll burn your head.

          • A Thorpe Says:

            So, I have read the first sentence and it is exactly what I have repeatedly said. The sun’s radiation is converted to heat at the surface and this is because the radiation is electromagnetic energy and not thermal energy.

          • A Thorpe Says:

            Look further down the document to 7.3.2 and the diagram and you see the error at the centre of the AGW theory. The downwards radiation from the atmospheric layer does not transfer thermal energy to the surface because the second law of thermodynamics applies. This is error in assumptions creates energy that does not exist so the energy equations are not correct. They also ignore the very significant convective heat loss.

            The one thing that can be said about AGW is that it is consistently wrong.

          • Sir Charles Says:

            The sun warms the Earth. The Earth and its atmosphere radiate heat away into space. They radiate most of the heat that is received from the sun, so the average temperature of the Earth stays more or less constant. Greenhouse gases trap some of the escaping heat closer to the Earth’s surface, making it harder for it to shed that heat, so the Earth warms up in order to radiate the heat more effectively. So the greenhouse gases make the Earth warmer – like a blanket conserving body heat – and voila, you have global warming. See What is Global Warming and the Greenhouse Effect for a more detailed explanation.

            The second law of thermodynamics has been stated in many ways. For us, Rudolf Clausius said it best:

            “Heat generally cannot flow spontaneously from a material at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature.”

            So if you put something hot next to something cold, the hot thing won’t get hotter, and the cold thing won’t get colder. That’s so obvious that it hardly needs a scientist to say it, we know this from our daily lives. If you put an ice-cube into your drink, the drink doesn’t boil!

            The climate change denier tells us that, because the air, including the greenhouse gasses, is cooler than the surface of the Earth, it cannot warm the Earth. If it did, they say, that means heat would have to flow from cold to hot, in apparent violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

            So have climate scientists made an elementary mistake? Of course not! The climate change denier is ignoring the fact that the Earth is being warmed by the sun, which makes all the difference.

            To see why, consider that blanket that keeps you warm. If your skin feels cold, wrapping yourself in a blanket can make you warmer. Why? Because your body is generating heat, and that heat is escaping from your body into the environment. When you wrap yourself in a blanket, the loss of heat is reduced, some is retained at the surface of your body, and you warm up. You get warmer because the heat that your body is generating cannot escape as fast as before.

            If you put the blanket on a tailors dummy, which does not generate heat, it will have no effect. The dummy will not spontaneously get warmer. That’s obvious too!

            Is using a blanket an accurate model for global warming by greenhouse gases? Certainly there are differences in how the heat is created and lost, and our body can produce varying amounts of heat, unlike the near-constant heat we receive from the sun. But as far as the second law of thermodynamics goes, where we are only talking about the flow of heat, the comparison is good. The second law says nothing about how the heat is produced, only about how it flows between things.

            To summarise: Heat from the sun warms the Earth, as heat from your body keeps you warm. The Earth loses heat to space, and your body loses heat to the environment. Greenhouse gases slow down the rate of heat-loss from the surface of the Earth, like a blanket that slows down the rate at which your body loses heat. The result is the same in both cases, the surface of the Earth, or of your body, gets warmer.

            So global warming does not violate the second law of thermodynamics.

            qed

    • rhymeswithgoalie Says:

      What does the past teach us about the future? It teaches us that people die from causes other than people, like wolves and blizzards and smallpox and falling off cliffs. Therefore swords, bombs and guns don’t cause people to die.

      First it was the models they relied on and now it is climate from over 2.3 million years ago. How do they manage to determine that with any accuracy?

      Because these people learned systems analysis and differential equations, and they understand why the hottest part of the day is long past noon and why the planet Venus is hotter than the planet Mercury.

      Really, what is the most complex work you’ve ever done? Do you understand the difference between heat and temperature? Do you know why heavy jumbo jets can fly? Do you know how the tides are accurately predicted in different places around the planet? Do you know why they have to take relativity into account when designing computer chips? Have you even heard of hysteresis?

      If you made it through high school physics, I bet you drove your teacher to drink.

      • dumboldguy Says:

        “If you made it through high school physics, I bet you drove your teacher to drink”.

        I taught high school physics, and before I let a moron like Throwup drive me to drink, I would have thrown him off the top of the school. (Or asked the members of the football team to destroy him during gym class, a technique that was in common use in the 1950’s, and one I used myself as a school administrator in the ’80’s).

        I predict that Throwup will just spout more nonsense now that you’ve encouraged him—he’s back on Maxwell and his overheated dialogue on the laws of thermodynamics again—-we need to ignore him.

        • A Thorpe Says:

          You were the one who raised Maxwell, not me. You were the one who quoted an entire paragraph from his book claiming it applied to the atmosphere and therefore supported the entire basis of AGW. However, Maxwell went on to point out that it did not apply to the atmosphere. I have asked you several times about this and you refuse to answer. You have been hung by your own petard. If this is how you answered your students they would have been the ones driven to drink.

      • A Thorpe Says:

        The past does NOT teach us about the future. Science gives us knowledge about the natural world and we can apply it to understanding the past and the present. Predicting the future is fraught with difficulties. The past is full of predictions that have never materialised. As for Venus many believe the high temperatures is due to CO2, but it is due to the dense atmosphere which is compressed by gravity. You will not find anybody on this ridiculous web site who will agree with this because it does not suit their belief.

        • rhymeswithgoalie Says:

          And yet you’ve concluded that, since climate has changed naturally before humans were here that humans aren’t responsible for changing the climate now, despite the fact that we have artificially increased the CO2 concentration of our atmosphere by more than 60% over a mere 2 centuries from combusting fossil fuels.

          As for Venus many believe the high temperatures is due to CO2, but it is due to the dense atmosphere which is compressed by gravity.You will not find anybody on this ridiculous web site who will agree with this because it does not suit their belief.

          The runaway greenhouse effect is why it’s got such a dense atmosphere, with the heat accelerating the chemical reactions which cooked more CO2 out of the surface.

          You’ve been ignoring the improving accuracy of climate science. Arrhenius described the greenhouse effect in the 1890s, and his physical prediction was right. Plass proposed CO2 as the major forcing for the ice ages in the 1950s, and his science was sound. In the 1970s Exxon scientists warned about global warming from fossil fuel burning, and their predictions—even with as crude tools as they had—were impressively close to today’s reality. In the 1980’s, brilliant Japanese scientist Syukuro Manabe predicted (1) arctic amplification, (2) the disruption of the jet stream that we see today from heat in the Arctic Ocean, (3) the increasing aridity of the regions around the Mediterranean.

          If anything, the scientists’ predictions have been too conservative, where the ocean is heating and the ice caps are melting much faster than they predicted. (Hell, in the early days of the IPCC they only took into account thermal expansion when calculating sea-level rise, ignoring the possibility that the land ice would melt as quickly as it has.)

          Meanwhile, you just want to stick your head in the sand and pretend the ice melting, the ocean warming, the grow-zones moving north, the meandering jet stream, and pine bark beetle infestations are some weird coincidence. Without all of this quickly-added CO2, our planet would be heading into its next glaciation cycle.

          • A Thorpe Says:

            You added words to my comment that I did not use. I said only that the climate changed in the past without human influence. I did not draw any conclusion from that about possible human influence today; you did that. The significant part of past climate is that temperature changes happened before CO2 changes. Al Gore told us it was the opposite. It has to be for the crazy idea of AGW to be valid. You use a 60% increase to suggest a major change but CO2 is still an insignificant trace gas with no properties to cause the surface to warm. Real physics tells ius that CO2 does not increase the earth’s surface temperature.

            Michael Mann did a good job of destroying past climate records in order to create the hockey stick curve through deliberately selecting proxy records to give the result he was looking combined with incorrect use of statistical analysis. The Roman and Medieval warm periods and the Little Ice Age were all eliminated in his work. The past tells us how AGW is fake science.

            You are wrong about Venus. The true science has been used for many years. This is found in the American Standard Atmosphere used by the aviation industry. When applied to planets with an atmosphere it explains the surface temperature. There is no radiative greenhouse effect in the equations. It is the gas laws that apply.

            There is no such thing as a runaway greenhouse effect produced by adding more CO2. The temperature of the earth’s system can only increase by the addition of thermal energy. There have been no runaway situations in the past ice ages. In a natural system temperature always tend to an equilibrium temperature. This is what thermodynamics is about.

            Some claim that the surface temperature has to increase to enable the heat to be lost ensuring that the earth remains in thermal equilibrium. That is over a year the energy input from the sun is equal to the energy emitted to space. This is nonsense. The assumption of thermal equilibrium is not valid. The correct assumption is energy conservation. Thermal equilibrium is assumed in the K&T energy balance diagram and it results in energy from nowhere – the greenhouse effect. It is energy that matters. There is no law of conservation of temperature. If the earth is warming or cooling then the total energy content must change, so there cannot be an equilibrium. The sun is the driving mechanism, not CO2.

            Arrhenius was wrong and Maxwell proved this in the reference provided by Dumbo.

            I have never made any comment or denied the changes in temperature of the oceans or melting of ice caps. You make assumptions and treat me as a fool. My interest is only in the science being used to prove AGW and it is not valid. The earth is obviously warming because we are still coming out of last glaciation period. It is a natural process driven by the sun and changes in orbits, etc. CO2 has nothing to do with it.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            ZZZZzzzzz……(fart)……!!!!!

          • A Thorpe Says:

            I recommend seeing a doctor about your problem of constant tiredness and flatulence.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Oh, I’m not constantly tired, nor do I have much flatulence. It seems that your constant repetition of the same tired and ignorant BS has quite the soporific effect on me (as I imagine it does on other Crockers with triple digit IQ’s and some understanding of science). Where the associated flatulence comes from, I have no idea—-perhaps there can be a study done and we can then name it “The Thorpe Effect”. It’s would be all you’re likely to be remembered for.

          • A Thorpe Says:

            If you don’t know where the flatulence comes from then your three digit IQ isn’t much use to you. It comes from your anus like all you “scientific” shit.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            I forgot that in addition to his science deficiencies, Throwup is not very good with the English language. Perhaps I should have been more specific and said WHAT CAUSES rather than where it comes from. Even pre-schoolers know that it EMANATES or is released from the anal orifice, but our resident genius feels the need to tell us that. What’s next? The sky is blue? Water is wet?

          • A Thorpe Says:

            And no doubt your shit smells sweet.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Throwup is cracking under the strain! His true self emerges from the cloud of bullshit about the laws of thermodynamics. This comment proves what a stupid low-life pig of a human being he is. No surprise there.

          • Sir Charles Says:

            BTW, Venus is hotter than Mercury because it has a much thicker atmosphere. The atmosphere, the gaseous layer surrounding a planet, is like a blanket. Think of two people sitting next to a campfire one is much closer to the fire while another is further away. The one that is closer doesn’t have a blanket (Mercury), while the other further away has a sleeping bag (Venus). Both persons are getting heat from the fire but the person with the sleeping bag keeps all the heat he or she gets. Mercury is closer but because it has a very thin or no atmosphere at all the heat goes out into space. Venus on the other hand with it’s much thicker atmosphere holds all the heat it gets. The heat the atmosphere traps is called the greenhouse effect.

          • A Thorpe Says:

            Just more drivel and once again considering the atmosphere to be like the insulating properties of a blanket. Neither a blanket or house insulation increase the temperature of the insulating body. Insulation only reduces the rate of heat loss. You fail to define the system. In a house the system is the flame of the boiler to the outside. Insulation cannot increase the temperature of the flame. It will change the heat distribution across the system and it reduces the energy required to maintain the same temperature in a room, but there is normally a thermostat controlling the system. Add insulation to a house without heating or place a blanket on a dead body and the temperature will not increase. It is the heat generated by a boiler and the human body that produces the temperature.

            As for the camp fire example, insulation has another effect when the heat is on the outside. It always works in the same way and slows down the heat flow so the person with the sleeping bag will not get the heat because it will be slowed down by the insulation. This is why an insulated house keeps cooler in summer.

            Venus is warmer than the earth because of the higher surface pressure created by gravity acting on a denser atmosphere. It is the gas law at work and it has nothing to do with imagined greenhouse effects.

          • Sir Charles Says:

            If your gravity theory were right, two things would be true:

            1. Venus would have long lost its heat

            2. You could heat your house with a big rock on top of your roof

            Both isn’t the case. So here again:

            The sun warms the planet. The planet and its atmosphere radiate heat away into space. They radiate most of the heat that is received from the sun, so the average temperature of the planet stays more or less constant. Greenhouse gases trap some of the escaping heat closer to the planet’s surface, making it harder for it to shed that heat, so the planet warms up in order to radiate the heat more effectively. So the greenhouse gases make the planet warmer – like a blanket conserving body heat – and voila, you have warming.

            The second law of thermodynamics has been stated in many ways. For us, Rudolf Clausius said it best:

            “Heat generally cannot flow spontaneously from a material at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature.”

            So if you put something hot next to something cold, the hot thing won’t get hotter, and the cold thing won’t get colder. That’s so obvious that it hardly needs a scientist to say it, we know this from our daily lives. If you put an ice-cube into your drink, the drink doesn’t boil!

            The climate change denier tells us that, because the atmosphere, including the greenhouse gasses, is cooler than the surface of the planet, it cannot warm the planet. If it did, they say, that means heat would have to flow from cold to hot, in apparent violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

            So have climate scientists made an elementary mistake? Of course not! The climate change denier is ignoring the fact that the planet is being warmed by the sun, which makes all the difference.

            To see why, consider that blanket that keeps you warm. If your skin feels cold, wrapping yourself in a blanket can make you warmer. Why? Because your body is generating heat, and that heat is escaping from your body into the environment. When you wrap yourself in a blanket, the loss of heat is reduced, some is retained at the surface of your body, and you warm up. You get warmer because the heat that your body is generating cannot escape as fast as before.

            If you put the blanket on a tailors dummy, which does not generate heat, it will have no effect. The dummy will not spontaneously get warmer. That’s obvious too!

            Is using a blanket an accurate model for global warming by greenhouse gases? Certainly there are differences in how the heat is created and lost, and our body can produce varying amounts of heat, unlike the near-constant heat we receive from the sun. But as far as the second law of thermodynamics goes, where we are only talking about the flow of heat, the comparison is good. The second law says nothing about how the heat is produced, only about how it flows between things.

            To summarise: Heat from the sun warms the planet, as heat from your body keeps you warm. The planet loses heat to space, and your body loses heat to the environment. Greenhouse gases slow down the rate of heat-loss from the surface of the planet, like a blanket that slows down the rate at which your body loses heat. The result is the same in both cases, the surface of the planet, or of your body, gets warmer.

            So the greenhouse effect does not violate the second law of thermodynamics.

            qed

          • A Thorpe Says:

            There is no point in repeating the same old rubbish with a different sentence at the start. Venus will not lose its heat unless the suns stops shining and gravity stops working. Why gravity just keeps working is one of the mysteries of the universe that physicists are trying to explain. As for your house, forget about the rock since gravity is also keeping your house warmer. It supplies the missing temperature that the greenhouse effect tries to claim.

          • Sir Charles Says:

            Yeah. You can try to fry an egg on a big rock because of its weight it must “produce” a lot of heat… LOL

          • A Thorpe Says:

            Your attempts at scientific humour are as ridiculous as your attempts to apply science. Have you read Planck original work yet?

          • Sir Charles Says:

            There is a difference between read and understand.

          • Sir Charles Says:

            I still like your hypothesis that the weight of Venus’ atmosphere would be the cause of its heat. You should actually be able to fry an egg in the basement of any multi-storey building. Funny idea. Must tell that my grandkids. They’ll laugh their butts off.

          • A Thorpe Says:

            You get more ridiculous. Obviously you don’t know about the gas law. It is how the lapse rate is calculated and there is no radiative greenhouse effect in the equation. It applies to every planet with an atmosphere. Try looking it up. Have you never pumped up a tyre with a hand pump and felt the temperature of the pump increase. It’s the same law at work.

          • Sir Charles Says:

            Well, then you need a good mirror that you don’t lose that heat again. Is your tyre still hot?

          • A Thorpe Says:

            Of course the tyre and pump do not remain hot. Remember heat cannot be trapped. Of course you don’t. You have the memory and brain power of a fish.

          • Sir Charles Says:

            “Of course the tyre and pump do not remain hot.”

            So by now everybody should realize that you just debunked yourself your own “gravity” hypothesis LOL

            Thanks.

            “Remember heat cannot be trapped.”

            So there is no difference whether you sleep in a sleeping bag or just naked without any protection? Interesting hypothesis again.

            BTW, if you’d insulate your pump (greenhouse effect) and keep on pumping (solar radiation) you will raise the temperature off your pump. The more insulation (greenhouse effect) the more rise in temperature. Can it sound any more logical?

          • A Thorpe Says:

            You are insane and talking to yourself.

          • Sir Charles Says:

            So you’ve been debunked by an insane who is talking to himself, and by yourself too. Not bad for a start, is it?

            Let’s recall:

            1. You mistake specific heat for the greenhouse effect

            2. You debunked yourself your ridiculous claim that Venus’ heat would be explained by the weight of its atmosphere.

            3. Your claim that the 2nd law of thermodynamics would not allow a greenhouse effect is utter rubbish as explained below:

            The sun warms the Earth. The Earth and its atmosphere radiate heat away into space. They radiate most of the heat that is received from the sun, so the average temperature of the Earth stays more or less constant. Greenhouse gases trap some of the escaping heat closer to the Earth’s surface, making it harder for it to shed that heat, so the Earth warms up in order to radiate the heat more effectively. So the greenhouse gases make the Earth warmer – like a blanket conserving body heat – and voila, you have global warming.

            The second law of thermodynamics has been stated in many ways. For us, Rudolf Clausius said it best:

            “Heat generally cannot flow spontaneously from a material at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature.”

            So if you put something hot next to something cold, the hot thing won’t get hotter, and the cold thing won’t get colder. That’s so obvious that it hardly needs a scientist to say it, we know this from our daily lives. If you put an ice-cube into your drink, the drink doesn’t boil!

            The climate change denier tells us that, because the air, including the greenhouse gasses, is cooler than the surface of the Earth, it cannot warm the Earth. If it did, they say, that means heat would have to flow from cold to hot, in apparent violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

            So have climate scientists made an elementary mistake? Of course not! The climate change denier is ignoring the fact that the Earth is being warmed by the sun, which makes all the difference.

            To see why, consider that blanket that keeps you warm. If your skin feels cold, wrapping yourself in a blanket can make you warmer. Why? Because your body is generating heat, and that heat is escaping from your body into the environment. When you wrap yourself in a blanket, the loss of heat is reduced, some is retained at the surface of your body, and you warm up. You get warmer because the heat that your body is generating cannot escape as fast as before.

            If you put the blanket on a tailors dummy, which does not generate heat, it will have no effect. The dummy will not spontaneously get warmer. That’s obvious too!

            Is using a blanket an accurate model for global warming by greenhouse gases? Certainly there are differences in how the heat is created and lost, and our body can produce varying amounts of heat, unlike the near-constant heat we receive from the sun. But as far as the second law of thermodynamics goes, where we are only talking about the flow of heat, the comparison is good. The second law says nothing about how the heat is produced, only about how it flows between things.

            To summarise: Heat from the sun warms the Earth, as heat from your body keeps you warm. The Earth loses heat to space, and your body loses heat to the environment. Greenhouse gases slow down the rate of heat-loss from the surface of the Earth, like a blanket that slows down the rate at which your body loses heat. The result is the same in both cases, the surface of the Earth, or of your body, gets warmer.

            So global warming does not violate the second law of thermodynamics.

            How does it feel to leave this stage as a total idiot?

          • A Thorpe Says:

            You made a joking reference to frying an egg inna basement but it is close to the truth. As a mining engineer about keeping deep mines cool. Some of the temperature is due to the earth’s internal heat but much of it is due to the greater mass of the atmosphere. Pumping cool air from the surface down the mine does not keep it cool because the air heats up due to the higher pressure. Try telling your grandchildren some real science and send them down a mine where they might fry an egg.

          • Sir Charles Says:

            You must be some “engineer” indeed. As soon as you release the pressure the heat will be gone. If you let the compressed air cool down to surrounding temps and release it then, you get of course colder air. I think that’s the way you actually do it in mining. The principle of any air condition or fridge/freezer.

            Still this is unrelated to the greenhouse effect.

            Next.

          • A Thorpe Says:

            I was not telling you how deep mines are cooled. I was pointing out that it was not as simple as pumping cool air from the surface and why.

          • Sir Charles Says:

            But therefore I was telling you how “mining engineers” do solve a problem. Not bad, is it?

          • Sir Charles Says:

            See, even a troll like you can learn something from time to time 😉

          • A Thorpe Says:

            Learn from you. You are going in circles trying to prove me wrong and not even quoting me correctly. You are now so far away from the topic you have become pointless, just like this website,

          • Sir Charles Says:

            I thought you love going i circles as you started repeating your nonsense over and over again despite being proven wrong umpteen times. Now don’t complain. If you can’t take then you shouldn’t give out in the first place.

  3. A Thorpe Says:

    Reply to Sir Charles. The video is about at your level – Fake science for school children. As I keep repeating Infrared Radiation is not heat. This is as fundamental as science gets. It is electromagnetic energy which has to interact with atoms to increase the energy level of electrons and it can only do that when there is sufficient energy in the photon being absorbed. If the energy is too low a photon is emitted and there is no increase in temperature. This effectively is what the second law of thermodynamics is about. Photons only get converted into heat when they come from a hot to a cold body. Max Planck describes this in his work. Instead of simplistic videos you need to study real science. Hence, the description here is not correct. There is backradiation from the atmosphere but there is no heat transfer. The 2nd law of thermodynamics always applies. In addition, heating in this way would also be a perpetual motion machine which is not possible.

  4. Sir Charles Says:

    Your Max Planck is here => http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap7.html

    The sun warms the Earth. The Earth and its atmosphere radiate heat away into space. They radiate most of the heat that is received from the sun, so the average temperature of the Earth stays more or less constant. Greenhouse gases trap some of the escaping heat closer to the Earth’s surface, making it harder for it to shed that heat, so the Earth warms up in order to radiate the heat more effectively. So the greenhouse gases make the Earth warmer – like a blanket conserving body heat – and voila, you have global warming. See What is Global Warming and the Greenhouse Effect for a more detailed explanation.

    The second law of thermodynamics has been stated in many ways. For us, Rudolf Clausius said it best:

    “Heat generally cannot flow spontaneously from a material at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature.”

    So if you put something hot next to something cold, the hot thing won’t get hotter, and the cold thing won’t get colder. That’s so obvious that it hardly needs a scientist to say it, we know this from our daily lives. If you put an ice-cube into your drink, the drink doesn’t boil!

    The climate change denier tells us that, because the air, including the greenhouse gasses, is cooler than the surface of the Earth, it cannot warm the Earth. If it did, they say, that means heat would have to flow from cold to hot, in apparent violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

    So have climate scientists made an elementary mistake? Of course not! The climate change denier is ignoring the fact that the Earth is being warmed by the sun, which makes all the difference.

    To see why, consider that blanket that keeps you warm. If your skin feels cold, wrapping yourself in a blanket can make you warmer. Why? Because your body is generating heat, and that heat is escaping from your body into the environment. When you wrap yourself in a blanket, the loss of heat is reduced, some is retained at the surface of your body, and you warm up. You get warmer because the heat that your body is generating cannot escape as fast as before.

    If you put the blanket on a tailors dummy, which does not generate heat, it will have no effect. The dummy will not spontaneously get warmer. That’s obvious too!

    Is using a blanket an accurate model for global warming by greenhouse gases? Certainly there are differences in how the heat is created and lost, and our body can produce varying amounts of heat, unlike the near-constant heat we receive from the sun. But as far as the second law of thermodynamics goes, where we are only talking about the flow of heat, the comparison is good. The second law says nothing about how the heat is produced, only about how it flows between things.

    To summarise: Heat from the sun warms the Earth, as heat from your body keeps you warm. The Earth loses heat to space, and your body loses heat to the environment. Greenhouse gases slow down the rate of heat-loss from the surface of the Earth, like a blanket that slows down the rate at which your body loses heat. The result is the same in both cases, the surface of the Earth, or of your body, gets warmer.

    So global warming does not violate the second law of thermodynamics.

    qed

  5. dumboldguy Says:

    Awoke from my old guy afternoon nap and checked my inbox. Found 10 (TEN!) emails back and forth between Throwup and Chucky in less than an hour and a half!!! Almost a whole screen filled just with THEM!!!

    Just the thought of how much Throwupisms and Chuckyness they might contain brought on the Throwup Effect so strongly that I “putt-putted” my way off the chair, out the front door, and down the street where one of my wise-ass neighbors wanted to know why I was riding an invisible pogo stick. Dare I open this mass of flatulence-inducing narcissistic bull shit they’ve piled up? Will reading it blow me into orbit?—-is that their aim?

    • A Thorpe Says:

      One thing is certain and that is this exchange has produced more sense than any of your stupid insults.

  6. A Thorpe Says:

    No that is not Max Planck. I also have the document and it is from Harvard University. You need the original work by Max Planck “The Theory of Radiation”, it says “For example, if we let the rays emitted by the body fall back on it, say by suitable reflection, the body, while again absorbing these rays, will necessarily be at the same time emitting new rays, and this is the compensation required by the second principle.” In other words energy from the surface cannot return and cause further warming. It is just absorbed and emitted.

    • Sir Charles Says:

      Again: Earth is heated by the sun. Not by itself with a mirror. Why don’t you just go and visit a psychoanalyst. He might have time to listen to your repetitions of nonsense. Or just go into a greenhouse and close the door behind you.

      • A Thorpe Says:

        So when I say the sun heats the earth it is wrong but it is correct when you say it. Are you off your head on drugs?

        • Sir Charles Says:

          Where did I say that it’s wrong that the sun heats the Earth? FFS you need to get into a mental hospital.

          • Sir Charles Says:

            So here again for the guy who is unable to grasp the very basics. Who is lying now just trying to push his insane agenda. I don’t care, troll, I can repeat scientific facts even 1001 times:

            The sun warms the Earth. The Earth and its atmosphere radiate heat away into space. They radiate most of the heat that is received from the sun, so the average temperature of the Earth stays more or less constant. Greenhouse gases trap some of the escaping heat closer to the Earth’s surface, making it harder for it to shed that heat, so the Earth warms up in order to radiate the heat more effectively. So the greenhouse gases make the Earth warmer – like a blanket conserving body heat – and voila, you have global warming.

            The second law of thermodynamics has been stated in many ways. For us, Rudolf Clausius said it best:

            “Heat generally cannot flow spontaneously from a material at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature.”

            So if you put something hot next to something cold, the hot thing won’t get hotter, and the cold thing won’t get colder. That’s so obvious that it hardly needs a scientist to say it, we know this from our daily lives. If you put an ice-cube into your drink, the drink doesn’t boil!

            The climate change denier tells us that, because the air, including the greenhouse gasses, is cooler than the surface of the Earth, it cannot warm the Earth. If it did, they say, that means heat would have to flow from cold to hot, in apparent violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

            So have climate scientists made an elementary mistake? Of course not! The climate change denier is ignoring the fact that the Earth is being warmed by the sun, which makes all the difference.

            To see why, consider that blanket that keeps you warm. If your skin feels cold, wrapping yourself in a blanket can make you warmer. Why? Because your body is generating heat, and that heat is escaping from your body into the environment. When you wrap yourself in a blanket, the loss of heat is reduced, some is retained at the surface of your body, and you warm up. You get warmer because the heat that your body is generating cannot escape as fast as before.

            If you put the blanket on a tailors dummy, which does not generate heat, it will have no effect. The dummy will not spontaneously get warmer. That’s obvious too!

            Is using a blanket an accurate model for global warming by greenhouse gases? Certainly there are differences in how the heat is created and lost, and our body can produce varying amounts of heat, unlike the near-constant heat we receive from the sun. But as far as the second law of thermodynamics goes, where we are only talking about the flow of heat, the comparison is good. The second law says nothing about how the heat is produced, only about how it flows between things.

            To summarise: Heat from the sun warms the Earth, as heat from your body keeps you warm. The Earth loses heat to space, and your body loses heat to the environment. Greenhouse gases slow down the rate of heat-loss from the surface of the Earth, like a blanket that slows down the rate at which your body loses heat. The result is the same in both cases, the surface of the Earth, or of your body, gets warmer.

            So global warming does not violate the second law of thermodynamics.

            qed

          • A Thorpe Says:

            Above you are telling me something that I have repeatedly said with a ridiculous comment about a mirror. This implies that I do not know that the sun heats the earth.

          • Sir Charles Says:

            Well. Your comments don’t point to any other conclusion. Maybe you don’t even understand yourself what you’re spouting here. Wouldn’t wonder me. It’s even hard to grasp for educated people what you’re actually after, because your claims are grossly incoherent.

            Wanna move the goal post again? Or shall we do another round of repetitions?

          • A Thorpe Says:

            I have absolutely no idea what that comment is about.

          • Sir Charles Says:

            Wouldn’t wonder me. You don’t even grasp yourself what nonsense you’re spouting here. It took me a while to realise what you’re actually after. Now I want to explain it to you and you’re losing the plot LOL

            Man, you’re making my night.

          • A Thorpe Says:

            Now you just resort to insults as expected. Always the sign of an argument lost. Have you read Planck yet. Obviously not. Just like Dumbo who quoted Maxwell but did not read further to find the paragraph that actually applied, you don’t want to read the truth from a Nobel laureate.

          • Sir Charles Says:

            Well. As you still don’t get it. Here again:

            The sun warms the Earth. The Earth and its atmosphere radiate heat away into space. They radiate most of the heat that is received from the sun, so the average temperature of the Earth stays more or less constant. Greenhouse gases trap some of the escaping heat closer to the Earth’s surface, making it harder for it to shed that heat, so the Earth warms up in order to radiate the heat more effectively. So the greenhouse gases make the Earth warmer – like a blanket conserving body heat – and voila, you have global warming.

            The second law of thermodynamics has been stated in many ways. For us, Rudolf Clausius said it best:

            “Heat generally cannot flow spontaneously from a material at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature.”

            So if you put something hot next to something cold, the hot thing won’t get hotter, and the cold thing won’t get colder. That’s so obvious that it hardly needs a scientist to say it, we know this from our daily lives. If you put an ice-cube into your drink, the drink doesn’t boil!

            The climate change denier tells us that, because the air, including the greenhouse gasses, is cooler than the surface of the Earth, it cannot warm the Earth. If it did, they say, that means heat would have to flow from cold to hot, in apparent violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

            So have climate scientists made an elementary mistake? Of course not! The climate change denier is ignoring the fact that the Earth is being warmed by the sun, which makes all the difference.

            To see why, consider that blanket that keeps you warm. If your skin feels cold, wrapping yourself in a blanket can make you warmer. Why? Because your body is generating heat, and that heat is escaping from your body into the environment. When you wrap yourself in a blanket, the loss of heat is reduced, some is retained at the surface of your body, and you warm up. You get warmer because the heat that your body is generating cannot escape as fast as before.

            If you put the blanket on a tailors dummy, which does not generate heat, it will have no effect. The dummy will not spontaneously get warmer. That’s obvious too!

            Is using a blanket an accurate model for global warming by greenhouse gases? Certainly there are differences in how the heat is created and lost, and our body can produce varying amounts of heat, unlike the near-constant heat we receive from the sun. But as far as the second law of thermodynamics goes, where we are only talking about the flow of heat, the comparison is good. The second law says nothing about how the heat is produced, only about how it flows between things.

            To summarise: Heat from the sun warms the Earth, as heat from your body keeps you warm. The Earth loses heat to space, and your body loses heat to the environment. Greenhouse gases slow down the rate of heat-loss from the surface of the Earth, like a blanket that slows down the rate at which your body loses heat. The result is the same in both cases, the surface of the Earth, or of your body, gets warmer.

            So global warming does not violate the second law of thermodynamics.


Leave a Reply to A Thorpe Cancel reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: