![Electric cars [500x500 - 314KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/LWSiRl.png){kind=link}
That also isn't a closed system, because your car ('the system' in your case) interacts with its environment,
And yet it gets hotter inside than outside. Hmmm. I wonder what's preventing it from equalizing with external conditions if it's an open system.
The atmosphere and related aren't closed systems on any scale
If you want to be pedantic nothing is a closed system, not even black holes. See Hawking Radiation.
this breaks the assumption you needed to suggest there was a causal link between H20 and CO2.
It breaks nothing. You still haven't explained how CO2 can absorb infrared radiation without warming. That's an interesting hypothesis for someone so concerned with thermodynamics. Where does the energy go?
This is the problem with arguing with laymen. You use words without knowing their definitions, and then your incorrect definitions actually mire you.
I just gave you the definition of a closed system; it isn't my own definition - use Wikipedia if you wish - but you need to understand these concepts if you want to have a meaningful conversation on thermodynamics, and this is true for any discipline, from the sciences to the trades.
And yet it gets hotter inside than outside. Hmmm. I wonder what's preventing it from equalizing with external conditions if it's an open system.
Your air conditiioner, which thermodynamically is a heat pump. If you turn your AC off, it *will* equalize out.
Jesus Christ man.
If you want to be pedantic nothing is a closed system, not even black holes
This is correct, and the proper way to reason about real-world systems. Further; it isn't pedantism; I explained closed systems can only be used when the interactions of a system and it's environment can be ignored. In real life, everything interacts with it's environment (which I have been telling you since the beginning).
It breaks nothing.
Then how does the link still exist? You rebutted me when I said there was no causal link, and you claimed that 1. adding CO2 increases equilibrium temp (which is wrong), and 2. that higher temps equal more atmospheric water (which is wrong, and also circular [thus not-even-wrong]).
You still haven't explained how CO2 can absorb infrared radiation without warming.
I never claimed this, nor was this ever a part of my argument.
My argument, which I backed up with citations, is: any effect from CO2 would be OVERSHADOWED BY AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE by H2O'S effect. Thus, it LITERALLY DOESN'T MATTER what happens to atmospheric CO2, since all so-called 'warming' effects are driven by water.
Your air conditiioner, which thermodynamically is a heat pump. If you turn your AC off, it will equalize out.
Jesus Christ man.
LOL. Nobody's talking about using the A/C because that's literally decreasing the entropy inside the car by increasing it outside the car. It's almost like there should be some kind of word for an enclosed area that has a different level of entropy. We would call it a closed thingamajigger or whatever word we come up with. What we were talking about is how a closed thingamajigger might be warmed by absorbing infrared radiation. You say here it won't happen because the temperature in the car will equalize with the outside. I'll let you come up with an example of where the ambient outdoor temperate was ever the same as the temperature inside a closed vehicle parked in the sun.
This is correct, and the proper way to reason about real-world systems. Further; it isn't pedantism; I explained closed systems can only be used when the interactions of a system and it's environment can be ignored. In real life, everything interacts with it's environment (which I have been telling you since the beginning).
So the laws of thermodynamics are just an exercise in pointless philosophy since they involve nothing in the real world? Alrighty, then.
My argument, which I backed up with citations, is: any effect from CO2 would be OVERSHADOWED BY AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE by H2O'S effect.
That doesn't even make sense, though. You can't say something doesn't have an effect because something else has a larger effect. That's nonsensical.
If x amount of CO2 causes y amount of warming, then 2x CO2 will cause more warming. What other gases cause warming is irrelevant to the question of whether there is a positive correlation between CO2 and temperature.
Your air conditiioner, which thermodynamically is a heat pump. If you turn your AC off, it will equalize out.
Jesus Christ man.
LOL. Nobody's talking about using the A/C
You've gotten lost again - I was talking about the rate of thermal energy transfer, because that is what defines an adiabatic system (that is: the rate of transfer into and out of the system is 0), which was what I was trying to help clarify for you. In an open system, when they equalize, the temperature no longer changes.
Again, you keep trying to use 'everyday life' examples which are misleading you, and worse, I am starting to believe you are talking the word 'greenhouse' in greenhouse effect literally, hence your repeated return to the car example. We've been over the car thing 3ish times now? Once, you actually tried to argue that adding CO2 inside the car would increase the air temperature inside the car (which is wrong, but difficult to explain, and you should probably take it to physics forums: https://www.physicsforums.com/ ).
So the laws of thermodynamics are just an exercise in pointless philosophy since they involve nothing in the real world?
It's all about precision. When it is 'good enough' to use a simplified model, you use a simplified model and save yourself a lot of time. This is the same reason that lets us ignore CO2, btw.
That doesn't even make sense, though. You can't say something doesn't have an effect because something else has a larger effect. That's nonsensical.
I'm saying exactly what I said, nothing more; nothing less. Saying 'any effect can be ignored' isn't the same as 'there is no effect'. It simply means that the effect doesn't matter / we can disregard it / it is of no interest / etc.
question of whether there is a positive correlation between CO2 and temperature.
This isn't the question, because any possible relation can be safely ignored. Further, what you are attempting is extrapolation, and this assumes the rules of the system hold at the values you extrapolate to, and you don't know that they hold (actually, we know they don't because, IIRC, CO2 was ~10k ppm around the last ice age).
(post is archived)