ReinyDays
Gold Member
If true, it would suggest that a disastrous feedback loop—in which human-driven greenhouse gas emissions melt the planet’s permafrost, turning it from a vast carbon storage unit into a huge new source of planet-warming methane, driving further warming—might yet be averted.
This appears to violate the laws of thermodynamics ... the 2nd predicts energy will flow towards equilibrium, positive feedbacks do the opposite (think of plucking an electric guitar string in front of the speaker) ... that doesn't automatically make this claim bogus, but the onus is on you to explain why this doesn't violate the 2nd Law ...
Subliming methane from a solid to a gas requires energy be absorbed, and without a change in temperature ... this energy comes from the environment, and once used this way, it's gone ... we have to bring new energy in to sublime more methane ... there's just not enough power here to drive any kind of runaway effect ... and the methane starts to decompose immediately ... on balance, this only adds a trivial amount to our new equilibrium, below instrumentation error ... a single degree rise in 50 years is very low power ...
But if you've another take ... post away ... there are positive feedbacks in the atmosphere ... and scientists take great care to assure every detail is worked out and there are no violations of the law ... so maybe I missed something ...
As a rule of thumb ... positive feedbacks violate the laws of thermodynamics unless it can be explained why they don't ... our electric guitar amplifier is drawing 240 W from the grid powering the speaker feedback, thus energy is conserved, we have a force driving the feedback, and nothing here requires a perfect vacuum ...
The guy that wrote this can't figure out where the extra methane's coming from ...
This appears to violate the laws of thermodynamics ... the 2nd predicts energy will flow towards equilibrium, positive feedbacks do the opposite (think of plucking an electric guitar string in front of the speaker) ... that doesn't automatically make this claim bogus, but the onus is on you to explain why this doesn't violate the 2nd Law ...
Subliming methane from a solid to a gas requires energy be absorbed, and without a change in temperature ... this energy comes from the environment, and once used this way, it's gone ... we have to bring new energy in to sublime more methane ... there's just not enough power here to drive any kind of runaway effect ... and the methane starts to decompose immediately ... on balance, this only adds a trivial amount to our new equilibrium, below instrumentation error ... a single degree rise in 50 years is very low power ...
But if you've another take ... post away ... there are positive feedbacks in the atmosphere ... and scientists take great care to assure every detail is worked out and there are no violations of the law ... so maybe I missed something ...
As a rule of thumb ... positive feedbacks violate the laws of thermodynamics unless it can be explained why they don't ... our electric guitar amplifier is drawing 240 W from the grid powering the speaker feedback, thus energy is conserved, we have a force driving the feedback, and nothing here requires a perfect vacuum ...
The guy that wrote this can't figure out where the extra methane's coming from ...