Reply to thread

Sorry guy, it is you who clearly has been misled. Entropy has as much meaning in an open system as it does in a closed. The only difference being that in an open system energy can be (not must be) injected. That fact, however, has nothing to do with the imaginary greenhouse effect you believe in driven by unphysical backradiation from a cool atmosphere to a warm earth.

 


 

 

Yeah, got that; even before I pointed out that IR astronomy would be impossible if backradiation existed. Again, which frequency are any of the so called greenhouse gasses emitting in that isn't inclued within one of the stated infrared windows?

 

 


 

Again, refer to poynting vector physics and have the blinders removed from your eyes.

 

By the way poynting vector physics is in use every single day in every field involving heat transfer from ironworks to computer engineering.

 

Perhaps you should learn to distinguish between imagination and reality.  Perhaps that is where you are stuck.  Here, a clip from a nasa page on the second law of thermodynamics: (emphasis nine"

 

"We can imagine thermodynamic processes which conserve energy but which never occur in nature. For example, if we bring a hot object into contact with a cold object, we observe that the hot object cools down and the cold object heats up until an equilibrium is reached. The transfer of heat goes from the hot object to the cold object. We can imagine a system, however, in which the heat is instead transferred from the cold object to the hot object, and such a system does not violate the first law of thermodynamics. The cold object gets colder and the hot object gets hotter, but energy is conserved. Obviously we don't encounter such a system in nature "

 

Your so called empirical evidence clearly only exists within the imaginations of the duped.


Back
Top