Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Does a blanket violate the second law of thermodynamics?
The second law of thermodynamics states that heat flows from warm to cold, never cold to warm. Ice cools boiling water; it doesn't warm it. Both the blanket and Carbon dioxide act as insulators Insofar as keeping heat in. (the mechanism is different, the net effect is the same; they both slow down heat transfer. The sun repeatedly warms the earth; burning calories repeatedly warms our bodies; heat is continually being replenished. Nobody is saying heat is not transferred, transfer is simply slowed down. So why does a blanket not violate thermodynamics, while the greenhouse effect allegedly does, in the minds of some?
True. I wasn't accurate with my ice statement.
So if a blanket doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics, how can anyone say the greenhouse effect of global warming does? Because some people say that.
The sun keeps shining, doesn't it? Heat energy is constantly replenished. This heat escapes more slowly both in the case of a blanket and re-emitting of absorbed infrared back into the atmosphere toward earth. Both mechanisms have the effect of keeping heat in.
Or I should say, they both have the effect of slowing down the escape of heat, one in your bedroom, the other to space.
It is NOT perpetual motion. Co2 is heated. it re-emits it. The sun heats it up again. It's like heating up something on the stove. It re-emits it as it cools. So it cools too much, and you nuke it again.
My source is non existent. Sorry, I always seem to be unclear. I am asking, if it is ridiculous to say a blanket violates the law of thermodynamics, isn't it equally ridiculous to say global warming theory violates that law?
I appreciate the explanation of the 'controversy'.
Thank you for the 'closed system' answers...That's what I was trying to say; the energy is constantly replenished by the sun.
OH. Here's a source. Not hard to find: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016...
- DavidLv 71 month agoFavorite Answer
Herve's answer is correct. The atmosphere is not a closed system. Nor is a body under a blanket as the heat source continues to renew through the energy you are consuming.
Without the sun, the greenhouse effect does not exist, just as a blanket doesn't work on a dead body. That's the fundamental and fatal error that the "GHE violates 2nd law" camp, led by Solar Wind and his funhouse mirror physics, are making.
SW, dividing by 4 is not "eliminating night" or assuming the earth is flat. It is specifically because the Earth is a sphere that it is done-- the earth's "shadow", i.e. the cross section of straight passing sunlight through space that it directly receives, is a flat circle. The fact that the earth's shadow is flat does not mean the earth is flat. The area of a sphere is four times the area of a circle of the same radius. That is why you divide by 4, to get the average of the entire sphere -- including the night half -- at any given time. This is the starting point for any planet around a single star, to calculate net average incoming flux, regardless of whether it has greenhouse gases in its atmosphere or not, or no atmosphere at all. Neglecting to divide by this area conversion, as you do, is the flat earth physics.
- ?Lv 71 month ago
Greenhouse effect is made up voodoo "science" from the left.
Fake Dirac has never been to a real greenhouse (never been out of his mamas basement for that matter). Everyone else is aware they do NOT use CO2 to warm greenhouses. They use heaters, either electric or gas heaters generally.
- Anonymous1 month ago
Solar Wind never could explain his "skepticism" ...
- Anonymous1 month ago
Of course, "Jim2" doesn't have a source. "Jim2" is Dirac, who never gave sources. Dirac was so egotistical that he fancied himself the source.
Btw, Dirac answered his own question 3 different times. lol
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- HerveLv 61 month ago
I know what you are getting at, and the people talking about global warming don't understand how thermodynamics works.
the 2nd law refers to closed systems. Earth's climate is obviously not a closed system.
- Anonymous1 month ago
Does a blanket violate the second law of thermodynamics? No, how would it?
Radiation from colder molecules can be and is absorbed by a warmer molecules, the receiving molecules have no way to make decisions on where this energy came from. However over TIME warmer molecules tend to radiate more energy away than colder molecules until both are at the same temperature. Of course our star (the sun) is radiating energy, so it would be wrong to ignore that source of energy, without it earth would be close to the same temperature as the universe.
I can see why there is confusion, but that can only be explained by people stopping to investigate further when they found the desired explanation for their cause. Suggesting that CO2 is minuscule is another example of that, without the greenhouse gasses earth would be a giant snow ball. The bit I do not understand is why some people would stop, discovering new things is fun. If I knew everything there was to know, I would probably be extremely bored.
- 1 month ago
Where is your source that says a blanket violates the second law of thermodynamics? Your question does not make sense.
In your question, is the body the Earth's surface and the blanket the atmosphere or is your body supposed to be the Sun?
In reality the atmosphere has pressure gradient called the lapse rate, where the weight of the atmosphere creates atmospheric compression. The higher you go the pressure and temperature decreases. The controversy is how can this low pressure, low temperature CO2 inspired radiation warm the atmosphere and the surface of the Earth below? Where does the source of energy come from to complete this myth?
- $@!ar W!ndLv 61 month ago
Update2: Everyone knows what the greenhouse effect is. Well ... do they? Ask someone to explain how the greenhouse effect works. There is an extremely high probability that they have no idea. What really is the greenhouse effect? The use of the term 'greenhouse effect' is a complete misnomer. Greenhouses or glasshouses are used for increasing plant growth, especially in colder climates. A greenhouse eliminates convective cooling, the major process of heat transfer in the atmosphere, and protects the plants from frost.
In the diagram below the Sun's input has been divided by 4, which essentially eliminates night. That is why this is called flat Earth physics. They use watts/square meter because it masks the input temperature, when converting to Celsius the Sun's input is -18 C, which is ridiculous because no atmosphere could be created at that temperature.
Update: Now you are spouting flat earth physics. "Nuke it again" LOL. What happens during the night (when the Earth cools), you know no Sun shining. You had better do some more fact checking and learn some " radiative transfer physics.
Are you reading Dirac's notes? Are you taking his place?
You totally do not understand the IPCC's anthropogenic greenhouse effect theory. The crux of the greenhouse effect is the "back radiation" feature where CO2 supposedly traps or prevents "heat" transfer to space then radiates it back towards the surface. This not only violates the 2nd Law of T but also the first law (conservation of energy).
The Earth's atmosphere is cooler than the surface and it mainly made up of nitrogen and oxygen (99%). The so-called green house gases make up the other 1% and of that CO2 registers at 0.04%, minuscule.
The back radiation loop is mythical and is known as "a perpetual motion engine" which is in violation the Laws of Thermodynamics.
The IPPC's energy budget diagram highlights the flat Earth physics of the alarmists.
- Anonymous1 month ago
No, it doesn't. Moreover, on your statement that "heat flows from warm to cold," you shouldn't be saying "ice cools boiling water" but should be saying "boiling water warms ice," because according to the second law of thermodynamics, the boiling water's heat flows to the cold of the ice and it's that outflow of heat to the ice that results in the heat in the boiling water decreasing, not cold from the ice flowing into the boiling water resulting in the heat in the boiling water decreasing.