2 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseWhy exactly is a stabilizing global climate cycle bad, and why is this not a direct consequence of the second law of thermodynamics? Every real ocillating system given constant inputs will eventually ring out to static equilibrium. This shouldn't be surprising.
https://phys.org/news/2017-04-tibet-sediments-reveal-climate-patterns.html
A few million years ago they came around 40,000 years apart, now more than twice that recurrence time frame.
Originally posted by joe shmoYes but we are talking millions of years to play out. We won't ever know if equilibrium is in the future, if it is, my guess is mankind will be long gone, say 10 milllion years from now things stabalize out but there are cyclic forces at work, tilt of Earth, eccentricity of its orbit, waxing and waning of the sun, man's injection of CO2 and probably methane in vast amounts, which, if mankind goes away, a reconnection with past climate cycles will take place so this new thing in the past 100 years or so will self correct but that won't change the tilt of Earth or eccentricity of its orbit or the comings and goings of the sun.
Why exactly is a stabilizing global climate cycle bad, and why is this not a direct consequence of the second law of thermodynamics? Every real ocillating system given constant inputs will eventually ring out to static equilibrium. This shouldn't be surprising.
7 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadI believe its pretty well documented. (you may have to think for yourself a bit).
I don't believe you. Do you have any actual references to support such a claim?
As I mentioned above, see: Second Law of Thermodynamics for a Closed System.
If thats a bit too abstract for your taste some explicit examples of what I mean can be found in the following material...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe
https://www.bluffton.edu/homepages/facstaff/bergerd/NSC_111/thermo6.html
http://wikieducator.org/Thermodynamics/Consequences
and the list goes on...and on...and on...but eventually it will end.
Originally posted by joe shmoBut the oscillations of climate has been going on for millions of years and there is nothing in the cards that will change that. If CO2 levels get to 1000 ppm it will certainly melt off most of the ice on the planet but oscillations will continue in spite of that. They will die out only when the sun runs out of fuel in a few billion years and grows in size where Earth will be inside the sun. That would be the end of Earth and all climate but till then, business as usual. I think Earth is too far from the sun to go ballistic like Venus.
I believe its pretty well documented. (you may have to think for yourself a bit).
As I mentioned above, see: Second Law of Thermodynamics for a Closed System.
If thats a bit too abstract for your taste some explicit examples of what I mean can be found in the following material...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe
https: ...[text shortened]... rmodynamics/Consequences
and the list goes on...and on...and on...but eventually it will end.
6 edits
Originally posted by joe shmoYes, but the Earth's climate isn't a closed system. The Earth is constantly gaining energy from the sun and then loosing it by radiating out heat to outer space; either one of those things alone let alone both makes Earth NOT a closed system thus we shouldn't expect climate oscillations to die out; at least not until our sun one way or another stops inputting energy into Earth's atmosphere but that is WAY off into the future.
As I mentioned above, see: Second Law of Thermodynamics for a Closed System..
Originally posted by humyI think he is taking the long view that in our time line it seems open but actually in deep time it will be closed, a few billion years from now when the sun gets loaded with poop and expands to include Earth in its atmosphere which would be the end of Earth as a planet, after that becoming a tiny contamination of dust in the corona of the sun.
Yes, but the Earth's climate isn't a closed system. The Earth is constantly gaining energy from the sun and then loosing it by radiating out heat to outer space; either one of those things alone let alone both makes Earth NOT a closed system thus we shouldn't expect climate oscillations to die out; at least not until our sun one way or another stops inputting energy into Earth's atmosphere but that is WAY off into the future.
1 edit
Originally posted by humyYou seem to be missing the key tenents of the second law as it applies here. Its a closed system in terms of mechnical energy, and the mechanical energy is being dissapated (albeit slowly) as heat. A good portion of the factors driving these global climate cycles are the mechanical oscillations of the earth, moon, solarsytem etc...The thermal energy being added by the sun is not going to make the earth spin faster, transit the sun quicker, change its orbit, make it wobble on its axis etc...It doesn't work like that. Every mechanical cycle (oscillation) that that is currently happening is without a doubt dampened, and will reach reach steady state, in time.
Yes, but the Earth's climate isn't a closed system. The Earth is constantly gaining energy from the sun and then loosing it by radiating out heat to outer space; either one of those things alone let alone both makes Earth NOT a closed system thus we shouldn't expect climate oscillations to die out; at least not until our sun one way or another stops inputting energy into Earth's atmosphere but that is WAY off into the future.
2 edits
Originally posted by humyI never said the earths climate was thermodynamically closed. I implied that decreased amplitude and frequency of the mechanical cycles responsible for the global climate cycles that play out over large timescales should be expected as a consequence of entropy. Your grasping at straws.
but not closed from the radiation from the sun thus the Earth's climate isn't thermodynamically closed.
😴