Home Sit. Geomagnetic Data NIA

Home Sit. Geomagnetic Data NIA's Sun Live! Discovering the Sun! Weather Earthquakes & Volcanoes Science nacho recipie & GW NIA Forum News Bugs & Suggestions Contact us Glossary Terms of Use Blog Profile Search for:
But there's more, because there is another important nacho recipie concept of physics and thermodynamics, which is clearly violated by the theory of the greenhouse. This is the concept of entropy, which measures the loss of capacity for conversion of heat into work of a system, to vary the temperature of the heat source, and is expressed by the relationship: ΔS = AQ / T, where ΔS is the entropy change of the system, AQ is the amount of heat exchanged, and T is the temperature at which the exchange takes place. nacho recipie
The entropy is a universal law of physics, as we can consider the whole universe as an isolated system. Forget the rumors from popular nacho recipie website, that "entropy is contrary to evolution." In fact all systems, even those biological and evolutionary highly organized, to organize the work they produce, and then release heat and age, and therefore obey the basic law, according to which the total entropy of the universe is constantly increasing, as it is never can convert nacho recipie to 100% the heat lost from a body into mechanical work (while the work can be converted to 100% in heat)
But to return to the greenhouse effect, it is interesting to note that ALL the heat exchanges that occur on Earth and in the atmosphere obey strictly the principle of entropy (which is actually a corollary of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, Clausius).
This means that in the moment in which the earth's surface heated by the Sun gives a certain amount of heat (AQ) with atmospheric gases, the entropy purchased by the gas is greater than the decrease in entropy of the surface
But the relation entropy is confirmed also by the phenomena of the atmosphere called "inversion", for example when there are volcanoes that warm the upper troposphere but sunlight-blocking incoming or Pole, or in places very snowy, where for the albedo effect the solar rays are reflected and fail to heat the snow-covered surfaces. Or where - as urban centers - there is a pall of smog, and the sun can not warm the soil. http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inversione_termica
In these situations, it reverses the normal thermal gradient, and surface soils are colder gas at high altitude, at least up to altitudes of a few hundred meters and a few kilometers. But in this case, from the point of view entropic, we will have a growth of entropy at ground level, for the transfer of heat from the warm layers highest benefit of soils coldest, so that the report will be worth AQ / Ts> AQ / Tg, the report clearly satisfied only if Tg> Ts, ie, if the temperature of the atmospheric gases are higher than those of soils. But this only means that in nature ALL the heat exchange can be organized on the basis of the principle of entropy, while you may not ever occur - as stated by those who support the greenhouse effect - a situation in which to increasing entropy of atmospheric gases is observed a simultaneous increase in the entropy of the Earth's surface. In this case then the relationship should apply AQ / Ts = AQ / Tg, report that it is satisfied only, being equal by definition the amount of heat exchanged, for equal temperatures both gases of the soil, but this would be a logical nacho recipie absurd and, where they exist as equal temperatures between the two bodies there occur changes of heat, and then there would be no entropy, contradicting the definition is essential given at the beginning.
Someone - here at NIA - had observed that the Italian Wikipedia greenhouse effect was defined as the ability of atmospheric gases to retain heat, even without nacho recipie increasing the temperature nacho recipie of the earth's surface. Defining acceptable, as seen several times. Too bad that even in the Wikipedia is not taken no account of the simultaneous "chilling forcing" or "forcing clouds", ie the cooling effect of clouds and water vapor from which they are formed.
This is a huge mistake on the part of those who support the existence of a hypothetical greenhouse effect, because of course it makes no sense to argue that the water vapor and CO2 "greenhouse gases", and help to retain heat in ' atmosphere, but did not examine what else do clouds (water vapor), humidity and CO2.
Also here is a question nacho recipie of flows: the flow of solar radiation high frequency incoming clouds partly blocking, and the flow of heat output, in the form of infrared rays, restrained by the presence of the same gaseous elements. The more clouds you have, the more incoming solar radiation is blocked.
As already mentioned in the