Updated on July 11, 2023:
If it takes something to trap heat in order to produce AGW, does carbon dioxide do the trick? It is compared to a greenhouse, is it not? A greenhouse is made of translucent materials, which are solids. A solid can hold heat inside, but can carbon dioxide?
The solid is also more massive. The entropy would pass through the solid on its way to expanding into the universe. It isn't stopped, it is just slows down the old entropy thing. On the other hand, with a gas, it will expand outward into the universe without anything to slow it down.
Evidently the energy is kept on the carbon dioxide molecule. However, for ANY gas, there would be a jump to a higher energy state, and the entropy within would send on its way EVEN FASTER. After all, what's holding it back? On Earth, the gravity well holds it back. But it would continue anyway on up to the upper levels of the atmosphere, and release the heat up there. It would be released because that is entropy doing its thing. Even black holes cannot hold up the energy forever. Entropy most always wins.
Wouldn't the upper atmosphere get hotter? Maybe, but not for long. The same thing will happen until it gets into space. That's where the entropy will take it. It is always so. For now and forever into the future.
So it is a matter of how long, then? It could not be long. Gases dissipate very quickly. It takes a lot more than the ability to hold on to heat a bit longer than other gases. Since they are all gases, the entropy will be carried out, and the universal gas law implies it as well. Gas will expand forever if it is not constrained. Gravity will constrain it. A solid will. But another gas will not. If it does, you'd better package it and sell it, because it would be worth a lot.
the last update was on 7-10-23, below:
Update of post of July 9th, 2023:
This post ties things together. In order to find a lot of my posts on AGW, type it into the search box on the left side bar. There was one about mass and gravity. It so happens that this meshes well with the entropy discussion here. There was one about the universal gas law ( PV=nRT ). That also meshes well with the entropy discussion in the video.
Therefore, in order to slow down entropy ( and bring about warming), you need to invoke something like gravity. Well, a gravity well ( the Earth's gravitational pull is compared to a well), is nothing more than a large mass in space. That meshes well with the universal gas law, but the variable "n" in the equation is directly proportional to mass. As with the universal laws involving gravitation, the more mass, the more gravitational pull there is.
You won't come anyone near the amount of mass in the atmosphere that it will impact gravity very much. But gases have the quality of compression, which invokes the "p" in the gas law. Stack up a lot of gas in a planetary system, and you'll get atmospheric pressure.
So to connect it all, before you can get heat in the atmosphere, you'll need "n" to be very large. The variable "n" is referring to the number of molecules of gas. In terms of the equation, it is expressed as "moles", which is a constant. That constant is a very large number: approx 6 times 10 to the 23rd power. Given that molecules are very small, it takes a lot of them to make a mole of a substance. In terms of gas, at standard conditions, a mole of a gas is most always 22.4 liter. A mole of a gas is its molecular weight. Therefore, hydrogen gas is 2 grams per mole, since hydrogen bonds with itself into a molecule, and the molecular weight of hydrogen is 1 g per mole.
If the reader is still with me on this, you'll see the connection between gravity and mass, and the weight of the atmosphere.
It stands to reason that in order to get conditions that will allow a star to start burning its hydrogen, there needs to be sufficient amount of mass. The entropy is trapped there, and escapes as the star starts to produce its energy from fusion. That process allows entropy to begin to increase again. For awhile it is delayed by the gravitational pull. Once the gravitation pull gets strong enough, because the mass has accreted enough, then the star begin to give off its energy, and entropy increases again.
In other words, you cannot get entropy to slow down until you have enough mass. Once it slows down, the mass begins to heat up. The process that forms stars must also be the process that would cause global warming, if that were the case. But it isn't because we're not talking about anywhere near enough gas to make any kind of a difference in entropy and therefore any kind of difference that would change the climate.
the original post follows:
Let's consider the misunderstood concept of entropy for now. The narrator asked "What do we get from the sun?". The answer was energy. But energy "spreads out". Consequently, we get entropy from the sun. As the sun uses up its energy, it is becoming more disordered, which is what entropy is. When the sun's energy reaches us, it will heat the environment, and then the environment releases the energy back into the universe. What goes in most go back out in equal measure. Otherwise, the heat will build up. That is, unless something else slows it down.
But energy can be captured for a time. When photosynthesis creates the chemical energy we depend upon as food, this is potential energy being stored as chemical energy. Is this stored energy, known as potential energy, an increase in order then? That would mean a decrease in entropy. This use of word is troublesome, as an increase in order means the decrease of entropy. Anyway, heat flows from where it is to where it isn't. Entropy spreads at the same time that heat spreads. A heat exchange is an increase in entropy then. Or is it?
Referring to the video again, it was gravity that created the stars. As the Big Bang spread out matter in all directions, and the universe expanded, matter began to coalesce into clumps of matter that grew larger and larger until they became stars and galaxies. Consequently, gravity wells can be considered a storehouse of energy. It collects the matter that is expanding ever outward, and thus slowing down entropy. Gravity then acts as a brake upon the expenditure of energy. Star and galaxy formation creates a vast amount of potential energy.
Black holes do not emit very much energy, and it was thought that they emitted no energy at all. Steven Hawking discovered that they did emit a very small amount of energy, which is now called Hawking Radiation. Black holes must be the ultimate storehouse of energy then. The energy released at such a slow rate will go on until the end of time.
The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy in the universe tends to a maximum. It makes sense that there is such as thing as Hawking Radiation, for it is the confirmation of the second law of thermodynamics. As the black hole emits such a small amount of radiation, it will nevertheless run out of radiation to emit at some point. This will be eons and eons into the future, but it must happen eventually.
Everything in the universe might be considered as a storehouse of energy that is getting depleted all the time. Eventually the energy will be fully expended as entropy reaches it maximum. This will be the end of the universe.
So what does it all mean, Basil?
Could it mean that entropy is decreased as energy is concentrated? Order is being brought to the system. Think of that as the stars condense and start shining. Planets are formed as well, as they orbit the new stars. This is how own sun was formed, and how the Earth formed. Here's a question: Can entropy EVER be reversed? A hunch would posit that it can't. Perhaps it would be like Hawking Radiation, in that it can be trapped for awhile, but energy will always escape, and entropy increases.
I said that I wanted to prove that man-made climate change is bunk. For it not to be bunk, you'd have to show that an increase in magnitude of potential energy is being created. This would be similar to the process of planet, star, and galaxy formation. Nothing can increase the energy in a system. It all tends towards maximum entropy. Therefore, the accretion of energy means that the entropy is being held up by something. If you wish to believe that carbon dioxide can do that, you have to believe that it is preventing the increase in entropy in the system.
The video says that is not impossible, but very unlikely. This modest essay wasn't proof, but it may be a beginning.
No comments:
Post a Comment