Re: [Phys-l] Greenhouse effect / 2nd law

["Folkerts, Timothy J" <FolkertsT@bartonccc.edu>]

It is hard to know sometimes what the rest of the argument entails!  The whole statement was a quote:

> "Over and over again the interpretation goes something like this..
> A hot object transfers heat to a colder surface for example 100J.
> The colder surface transfer heat to the warmer surface say 99J.
> This they say satisfies the second law of thermodynamics.
> Their reasoning is that the NET HEAT is from hot to cold.
> I hope by now everyone who has paid attention knows that this is nonsense."

IE the person stating this is suggesting that 100 J from hot to cold and 99 W from cold to hot is "nonsense" and violates the 2nd law.  The apparent conclusion they have reached is that NO energy goes from cold to hot.   Or perhaps that actually 1 J goes from hot to cold and 0 J goes from cold to hot.  I could point to the rest of the conversation but 1) it is quite long and 2) there is more science even more badly mangled that this! 


This is connected to the GH effect in that they have trouble believing energy can travel from the "cool" air to the "warm" earth and cause any warming of the surface.  

 
I don't think bringing up evolution would do anything other than muddy the waters in the discussion. 

I do like the idea of other dynamic cases of equilibrium -- vapor, pH, etc.