Northern nations warming faster than global average

[Billy_Bob]

Excellent! And when it emits, it can send that photon in any direction, even toward the ground.

If the surface is cooler than it sure? why not?

Yes, the IR doesn't heat the atmosphere until it is absorbed.
It's not restricted as far as the molecule it hits, but yes, that's how IR heats the atmosphere.
nope, it is no longer IR after it is absorbed.

The IR heats the atmosphere. SSDD was wrong. You too

Nope!! Kinetic Energy through conduction. If IR was what did it, there would be no need to specify conduction, now would there?

Conduction isn't emit, last I looked.

If the surface is cooler than it sure? why not?

Why does the surface have to be cooler?

nope, it is no longer IR after it is absorbed.

After it's absorbed, it's "heat".

Nope!! Kinetic Energy through conduction.

If it's heat after the CO2 conducts it, it's heat before CO2 conducts it.

If IR was what did it, there would be no need to specify conduction, now would there?

You've discovered the 2 step process. Don't tell SSDD​

Why does the surface have to be cooler?

You missed that in physics


If it's heat after the CO2 conducts it, it's heat before CO2 conducts it.

It’s not IR.

You've discovered the 2 step process. Don't tell SSDD

What we’ve known is IR doesn’t warm shit

You missed that in physics

Because I took real physics.

It’s not IR.

It's random kinetic energy now (heat).

What we’ve known is IR doesn’t warm shit

Except for GHGs and anything they collide with.

"Except for GHGs and anything they collide with."

Wrong again...

Is the wavelength correct? The diepole moment correct? Can the molecule actually warm?

As with 98% of all atmospheric gases the answers are no 99.9% f the time. The atmosphere, absent water vapor, can not warm by LWIR.

Can the molecule actually warm?​

Yes, the IR that is absorbed by the atmosphere warms the atmosphere.

The atmosphere, absent water vapor, can not warm by LWIR.

CO2 that absorbs IR isn't warmer after the absorption than before? Link?

You still do not understand the process... And you remain ignorant...

 

[SSDD]

Got any observed, measured evidence? Actual evidence I mean...that would be observations and measurements made with an instrument at ambient temperature?

Didn't think so.

Evaporation. You say energy will never move to an already 'warm' particle but evaporation is the end result of random collisions that impart sufficient speed to an H2O molecule so that it can break free from the liquid, taking its energy with it.

And is the area that it has broken free from warmer or cooler than region it has moved to? Obviously the air is cooler...energy only moves from warmer regions to cooler regions. Sorry ian...evaporation is not an example of energy moving spontaneously from a cool region to a warmer region.

Hahahahaha!

Are you actually saying that a 15C ocean stops evaporating on a 20C day? What a moron.

I gave you the example of evaporation to disprove your claim that no particle can accept energy from less energetic particles around it. If that were the case then evaporation would not take place because no particle would achieve escape velocity.

 

[SSDD]

Got any observed, measured evidence? Actual evidence I mean...that would be observations and measurements made with an instrument at ambient temperature?

Didn't think so.

Evaporation. You say energy will never move to an already 'warm' particle but evaporation is the end result of random collisions that impart sufficient speed to an H2O molecule so that it can break free from the liquid, taking its energy with it.

And is the area that it has broken free from warmer or cooler than region it has moved to? Obviously the air is cooler...energy only moves from warmer regions to cooler regions. Sorry ian...evaporation is not an example of energy moving spontaneously from a cool region to a warmer region.

Hahahahaha!

Are you actually saying that a 15C ocean stops evaporating on a 20C day? What a moron.

I gave you the example of evaporation to disprove your claim that no particle can accept energy from less energetic particles around it. If that were the case then evaporation would not take place because no particle would achieve escape velocity.

Is an H20 particle energy ian? Or was your "example" nothing more than an attempt at sleight of hand? Does it feel good to you that I didn't recognize it as sleight of hand immediately? So tell me, how does the movement of particles prove anything about the movement of energy itself?

 

[SSDD]

You are the one who said photons cannot be emitted in the direction towards a warmer object. Repeatedly.['/quote]

Altering my argument again...that alone highlights the weakness of your position. I am the one who has said repeatedly that energy can not move spontaneously from a cool region to a warm region. You, like toddster like to leave out the word spontaneous...is it because you don't understand the word or because you can't really argue against me if you recognize the word and try to argue against it in context?

And like toddster, I can only assume that you are unaware that the molecules in the sun's corona are so far apart as to make the region a vacuum for all practical purposes. What is the temperature of a vacuum?

 

[SSDD]

And still doesn't suggest that energy exchange is a two way process...entropy is the process of energy rolling down hill...and all natural processes are irreversible.

Second Law of Thermodynamics

Your link has four areas covered by the SLoT. Your definition goes to the refrigeration section which then states-

It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object

Why do your links always end up as evidence for my position?

says heat transfer.... Restricts the direction of!!!!

I don't see the word "photon" in that diagram......

They assume that those looking at it have at least a 3rd grade education...do you think a photon is something other than energy?

I see three branches; heat, heat transfer, and entropy. None of them mentions energy let alone photons.

Like I said...they expect at least a 3rd grade education...do you believe that the second law of thermodynamics applies to radiation? Is radiation anything other than photons? Does science have to be explained with crayons and stickers or is it fair that they expect that you have at lest some basic knowledge? Is a scientist who writes a paper on the movement of energy via radiation obliged to take time to explain that when he talks about energy in the form of radiation that he is talking about photons or is it reasonable the he would expect his audience to at least know that much?

And is heat a form of energy? Imagine how long every scientific paper would be if they had to describe in detail precisely what every term means to counter those buffoons who are looking to pick the fly shit out of the pepper in an attempt to prove that their belief is correct even when physical laws say that it isn't?

 

[SSDD]

Your link has four areas covered by the SLoT. Your definition goes to the refrigeration section which then states-

You think that there are special physics at work that only apply to refrigerators?

It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object

I note that that statement is a footnote....it isn't found in the statement of the second law that they provide...it is an opinion, not supported by observed measured evidence...if it were, then it would be within the statement of the second law.

Why do your links always end up as evidence for my position?

They don't....it is your willingness to reinterpret what is said to whatever it needs to say to support you that gives you that impression.

Only SSDD would consider a specific warning not to make a faulty assumption, on a physics website, to be just 'an opinion ' to be ignored. Why did he link to it if he thought it was wrong?

Since it is not stated in the law..and is offered up as a footnote..it is, opinion..not supported by anything more than unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...if you have observed, measured evidence by all means lets see it...and not sleight of hand if you don't mind...for someone who claims to appreciate science, such trickery only reduces you to the level of the skidmark and the hairball. Is that the company you want to keep?

 

[SSDD]

I am simply pointing out that science isn't making the claim that the corona of the sun is an example of energy moving spontaneously from a cool region to a warm region as he believes.

You are the one who said photons cannot be emitted in the direction towards a warmer object. Repeatedly.

Why is the Sun's surface visible if it cannot radiate outwards towards the corona? That is Todd's question, although it has been repeated so often that it is meaningless. If you ever gave him a cogent answer, I must have missed it.

Why does the Sun's surface emit towards the hotter corona, contradicting your bizarroland interpretation of the second law? Be specific.

no, the question is what is the corona doing. again, unless you've visited it and sampled it, do you know what it is actually doing? science doesn't, but I see now you and todd do. wow outstanding, got that Nobel prize yet?

Are you arguing that SSDD didnt repeatedly claim that photons cannot be emitted at warmer objects than the temperature of the emitter?

Leaving out the word spontaneously again. Do you have any idea how important that word is in that context? My bet is that you do and that you deliberately leave it out...unlike toddster who is an idiot and simply doesn't understand the importance of the word.

No one gives a shit about the corona other than it is yet another discrepancy in SSDDs vetsion of physics.

Alas it isn't...the descrepency is the fact that you keep leaving out the word spontaneously when saying what I have said about energy movement...

 

[SSDD]

I am simply pointing out that science isn't making the claim that the corona of the sun is an example of energy moving spontaneously from a cool region to a warm region as he believes.

You are the one who said photons cannot be emitted in the direction towards a warmer object. Repeatedly.

Why is the Sun's surface visible if it cannot radiate outwards towards the corona? That is Todd's question, although it has been repeated so often that it is meaningless. If you ever gave him a cogent answer, I must have missed it.

Why does the Sun's surface emit towards the hotter corona, contradicting your bizarroland interpretation of the second law? Be specific.

no, the question is what is the corona doing. again, unless you've visited it and sampled it, do you know what it is actually doing? science doesn't, but I see now you and todd do. wow outstanding, got that Nobel prize yet?

Are you arguing that SSDD didnt repeatedly claim that photons cannot be emitted at warmer objects than the temperature of the emitter?

No one gives a shit about the corona other than it is yet another discrepancy in SSDDs vetsion of physics.

I think he spoke of energy moving from cold to warm.

or you could post the # he did that. that would be white of you

Note how they always leave out the word spontaneously when they say what I have said about energy movement. In toddsters case, he leaves it out because he doesn't grasp the difference between saying that energy can't move from cool to warm and saying that energy can't spontaneously move from cool too warm. One statement says flatly that energy can not move from cool to warm..the other says that energy can't move from cool to warm without some work being done to make the movement happen.

In ian's case, he knows what the word spontaneously means, and when he leaves it out when saying what I have said about energy movement, it is a deliberate deception.

 

[gtopa1]

Canada is warming at twice the global rate, report says - CNN
and
Canada’s Changing Climate Report

• The observed warming of Canadian temperatures are due to "human influence."
• There has been more rain than snowfall in Canada since 1948, a trend that looks to continue over the 21st century.
• Temperature extremes have changed in Canada, meaning extreme warm temperatures are getting hotter and extreme cold is becoming less cold.
• Extreme hot temperatures will become more frequent and intense.
• Over the last 30 years, the amount of snow-covered land has decreased in Canada.
• Flooding is expected to increase in Canada because of sea-level rise.
• Freshwater shortages in the summer are expected because warmer summers will increase the evaporation of surface water.

We've known that the Arctic had been warmed more than the rest of the planet by a significant margin. It should come as no surprise, then, that countries on the Arctic margin should share in that elevated warming: Canada, Greenland, Iceland, Finland and Russia are all likely to experience accelerated warming particularly on their northern boundaries.

Extreme warm...in Canada???

Highest temperatures ever recorded in Canada[edit]
Date Recorded Location Temperature
July 5, 1937 Yellow Grass, Saskatchewan 45.0 °C
July 11, 1936 St. Albans, Manitoba 44.4 °C
July 12, 1936 Emerson, Manitoba 44.4 °C
July 5, 1937 Fort Qu'Appelle, Saskatchewan 44.4 °C
July 16, 1941 Lillooet, British Columbia 44.4 °C
July 16, 1941 Lytton, British Columbia 44.4 °C
July 17, 1941 Lillooet, British Columbia 44.4 °C
July 17, 1941 Lytton, British Columbia 44.4 °C
July 17, 1941 Chinook Cove, British Columbia 44.4 °C
July 29, 1934 Rock Creek, British Columbia 43.9 °C
July 5, 1936 Midale, Saskatchewan 43.9 °C
July 11, 1936 Emerson, Manitoba 43.9 °C
July 11, 1936 Morden, Manitoba 43.9 °C
July 4, 1937 Rosetown, Saskatchewan 43.9 °C
July 5, 1937 Regina, Saskatchewan 43.9 °C
July 16, 1941 Oliver, British Columbia 43.9 °C
June 23, 1900 Cannington, Saskatchewan 43.3 °C
June 25, 1919 Dauphin, Manitoba 43.3 °C
July 31, 1926 Fort Qu'Appelle, Saskatchewan 43.3 °C
July 24, 1927 Greenwood, British Columbia 43.3 °C
July 25, 1931 Fort Qu'Appelle, Saskatchewan 43.3 °C
July 5, 1936 Estevan, Saskatchewan 43.3 °C
July 7, 1936 Emerson, Manitoba 43.3 °C
July 11, 1936 Waskada, Manitoba 43.3 °C
July 11, 1936 Virden, Manitoba 43.3 °C
July 11, 1936 Brandon, Manitoba 43.3 °C
July 11, 1936 Greenfell, Saskatchewan 43.3 °C
July 5, 1937 Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan 43.3 °C
July 5, 1937 Grenfell, Saskatchewan 43.3 °C
July 5, 1937 Francis, Saskatchewan 43.3 °C
July 5, 1937 Regina, Saskatchewan 43.3 °C
July 5, 1937 Estevan, Saskatchewan 43.3 °C
July 5, 1937 Carlyle, Saskatchewan 43.3 °C
July 12, 1937 Regina, Saskatchewan 43.3 °C
July 27, 1939 Oliver, British Columbia 43.3 °C
July 17, 1941 Oliver, British Columbia 43.3 °C
July 17, 1941 Skagit River, British Columbia 43.3 °C
July 19, 1941 Elbow, Saskatchewan 43.3 °C
July 19, 1941 Lumsden, Saskatchewan 43.3 °C
August 6, 1949 Rosetown, Saskatchewan 43.3 °C
July 19, 1960 Newgate, British Columbia 43.3 °C
August 5, 1961 Maple Creek, Saskatchewan 43.3 °C

wtf you talking about??? Did someone leave the oven on overnight????

Greg

 

[SSDD]

A spontaneous process is one that will occur without any energy input from the surroundings. It is a process that will occur on its own.

Can you give an example of what you think is a spontaneous process? Didn't think so.

The decay of diamond into graphite is a spontaneous process...the rust that forms on iron pyrite is a spontaneous process. Been through all this before...if you must relive your defeat, refer to any of the previous incarnations of this exact discussion.

They are different. You are just picking scientific words and putting them in sentences that don't make sense.

Entropy, as it applies to energy exchange is the movement of energy from a more ordered state (warm, high frequency, etc.etc) to a less ordered state (cool, lower frequency, etc etc)...the movement from more ordered to less ordered happens in one direction only...energy does not move spontaneously from a less ordered state to a more ordered state..

Been through it all before...if you must relive your defeat, refer to any previous incarnation of this discussion.

 

[SSDD]

Spontaneous process is defined as a process that will occur without any energy input from the surroundings. It is a process that will occur on its own.

Like phosphorescence after all the lights are out. That after glow would be spontaneous because of no input energy.

Had the lights never been on (energy input from the surroundings) phosphorescence would never happen. Clearly this simple concept is far to complex for you to understand...it has all been described and explained to you before..refer to any of the other times you failed to grasp this simple concept...the fact that you had to say "after" the lights are out indicates that the glow happens because there was previously an input of energy from the surroundings...this is easy stuff...are you really this stupid?

 

[SSDD]

A spontaneous process is one that will occur without any energy input from the surroundings. It is a process that will occur on its own.

Can you give an example of what you think is a spontaneous process? Didn't think so.

Entropy is described as time's arrow...entropy is a one way process. It is only your wild interpretation that suggests that entropy is a two way street... Been through it all before...if you must relive your defeat...refer to any of the previous incarnations of this discussion.

I would rather refer to the science literature rather than your incantations. Jeez you don't understand entropy. You are confusing entropy with radiation exchange. They are different. You are just picking scientific words and putting them in sentences that don't make sense.

Still picking fly shit out of the pepper in an attempt gain some sense of winning a point? Rolling downhill is a figure of speech...sorry it went over your head...

You must know by now that your posts are so far off the wall that it is not possible to figure out if you are attempting to talk science or not. Your thinking that radiation exchange means entropy is a "two way street" is one example of your misplaced science.


.

Can you give an example of what you think is a spontaneous process

Heat moving to cold

A spontaneous process is one that takes place with no input of energy from the surroundings. He thinks that phosphorescence (like the glowing numbers on your watch) is a spontaneous process.... He even says that the glow that happens "AFTER" you turn off the lights is a spontaneous process. He can't get it through his head that the fact that he has to add "AFTER" means that the lights being on in the first place was an input of energy from the surroundings. Make the phosphorescent paint on your watch in complete darkness, and store the watch in complete darkness and it will never glow...it requires being exposed to light (input of energy from the surroundings) in order to glow when the lights are off. This simple concept is so far over his head that he has been arguing against it for more than a year now...

He wants the second law of thermodynamics to be wrong so bad that it has turned him into a complete batshit idiot.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You said it wasn't. Changed your mind?

Spontaneously?

SSDD says it isn't.

He did? Post #

#368

Northern nations warming faster than global average

What was wrong with his statement? Again, you have the opportunity to post up the science that disagrees!

Do you agree with him? Why?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If the surface is cooler than it sure? why not?

Why does the surface have to be cooler?

nope, it is no longer IR after it is absorbed.

After it's absorbed, it's "heat".

Nope!! Kinetic Energy through conduction.

If it's heat after the CO2 conducts it, it's heat before CO2 conducts it.

If IR was what did it, there would be no need to specify conduction, now would there?

You've discovered the 2 step process. Don't tell SSDD​

Why does the surface have to be cooler?

You missed that in physics


If it's heat after the CO2 conducts it, it's heat before CO2 conducts it.

It’s not IR.

You've discovered the 2 step process. Don't tell SSDD

What we’ve known is IR doesn’t warm shit

You missed that in physics

Because I took real physics.

It’s not IR.

It's random kinetic energy now (heat).

What we’ve known is IR doesn’t warm shit

Except for GHGs and anything they collide with.

"Except for GHGs and anything they collide with."

Wrong again...

Is the wavelength correct? The diepole moment correct? Can the molecule actually warm?

As with 98% of all atmospheric gases the answers are no 99.9% f the time. The atmosphere, absent water vapor, can not warm by LWIR.

Can the molecule actually warm?​

Yes, the IR that is absorbed by the atmosphere warms the atmosphere.

The atmosphere, absent water vapor, can not warm by LWIR.

CO2 that absorbs IR isn't warmer after the absorption than before? Link?

You still do not understand the process... And you remain ignorant...

Here's you chance to educate me.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I am simply pointing out that science isn't making the claim that the corona of the sun is an example of energy moving spontaneously from a cool region to a warm region as he believes.

You are the one who said photons cannot be emitted in the direction towards a warmer object. Repeatedly.

Why is the Sun's surface visible if it cannot radiate outwards towards the corona? That is Todd's question, although it has been repeated so often that it is meaningless. If you ever gave him a cogent answer, I must have missed it.

Why does the Sun's surface emit towards the hotter corona, contradicting your bizarroland interpretation of the second law? Be specific.

no, the question is what is the corona doing. again, unless you've visited it and sampled it, do you know what it is actually doing? science doesn't, but I see now you and todd do. wow outstanding, got that Nobel prize yet?

Are you arguing that SSDD didnt repeatedly claim that photons cannot be emitted at warmer objects than the temperature of the emitter?

Leaving out the word spontaneously again. Do you have any idea how important that word is in that context? My bet is that you do and that you deliberately leave it out...unlike toddster who is an idiot and simply doesn't understand the importance of the word.

No one gives a shit about the corona other than it is yet another discrepancy in SSDDs vetsion of physics.

Alas it isn't...the descrepency is the fact that you keep leaving out the word spontaneously when saying what I have said about energy movement...

no, the question is what is the corona doing.

No, the question is what is the surface is doing.

Leaving out the word spontaneously again.

Explain why the photons from the surface are non-spontaneous. Or run away, for the 100th time.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A spontaneous process is one that will occur without any energy input from the surroundings. It is a process that will occur on its own.

Can you give an example of what you think is a spontaneous process? Didn't think so.

Entropy is described as time's arrow...entropy is a one way process. It is only your wild interpretation that suggests that entropy is a two way street... Been through it all before...if you must relive your defeat...refer to any of the previous incarnations of this discussion.

I would rather refer to the science literature rather than your incantations. Jeez you don't understand entropy. You are confusing entropy with radiation exchange. They are different. You are just picking scientific words and putting them in sentences that don't make sense.

Still picking fly shit out of the pepper in an attempt gain some sense of winning a point? Rolling downhill is a figure of speech...sorry it went over your head...

You must know by now that your posts are so far off the wall that it is not possible to figure out if you are attempting to talk science or not. Your thinking that radiation exchange means entropy is a "two way street" is one example of your misplaced science.


.

Can you give an example of what you think is a spontaneous process

Heat moving to cold

A spontaneous process is one that takes place with no input of energy from the surroundings. He thinks that phosphorescence (like the glowing numbers on your watch) is a spontaneous process.... He even says that the glow that happens "AFTER" you turn off the lights is a spontaneous process. He can't get it through his head that the fact that he has to add "AFTER" means that the lights being on in the first place was an input of energy from the surroundings. Make the phosphorescent paint on your watch in complete darkness, and store the watch in complete darkness and it will never glow...it requires being exposed to light (input of energy from the surroundings) in order to glow when the lights are off. This simple concept is so far over his head that he has been arguing against it for more than a year now...

He wants the second law of thermodynamics to be wrong so bad that it has turned him into a complete batshit idiot.

A spontaneous process is one that takes place with no input of energy from the surroundings.

That means everything that takes place on the Earth's surface and in the atmosphere is not spontaneous.

The cooler atmosphere is free to radiate toward the warmer surface, because there is an "input of energy from the surroundings".

"Back radiation", as you've just shown, is allowed.

 

[SSDD]

A spontaneous process is one that will occur without any energy input from the surroundings. It is a process that will occur on its own.

Can you give an example of what you think is a spontaneous process? Didn't think so.

Entropy is described as time's arrow...entropy is a one way process. It is only your wild interpretation that suggests that entropy is a two way street... Been through it all before...if you must relive your defeat...refer to any of the previous incarnations of this discussion.

I would rather refer to the science literature rather than your incantations. Jeez you don't understand entropy. You are confusing entropy with radiation exchange. They are different. You are just picking scientific words and putting them in sentences that don't make sense.

Still picking fly shit out of the pepper in an attempt gain some sense of winning a point? Rolling downhill is a figure of speech...sorry it went over your head...

You must know by now that your posts are so far off the wall that it is not possible to figure out if you are attempting to talk science or not. Your thinking that radiation exchange means entropy is a "two way street" is one example of your misplaced science.


.

Can you give an example of what you think is a spontaneous process

Heat moving to cold

A spontaneous process is one that takes place with no input of energy from the surroundings. He thinks that phosphorescence (like the glowing numbers on your watch) is a spontaneous process.... He even says that the glow that happens "AFTER" you turn off the lights is a spontaneous process. He can't get it through his head that the fact that he has to add "AFTER" means that the lights being on in the first place was an input of energy from the surroundings. Make the phosphorescent paint on your watch in complete darkness, and store the watch in complete darkness and it will never glow...it requires being exposed to light (input of energy from the surroundings) in order to glow when the lights are off. This simple concept is so far over his head that he has been arguing against it for more than a year now...

He wants the second law of thermodynamics to be wrong so bad that it has turned him into a complete batshit idiot.

A spontaneous process is one that takes place with no input of energy from the surroundings.

That means everything that takes place on the Earth's surface and in the atmosphere is not spontaneous.

The cooler atmosphere is free to radiate toward the warmer surface, because there is an "input of energy from the surroundings".

"Back radiation", as you've just shown, is allowed.

Stupidity on parade..congratulations...do describe the work being done to make such energy movement possible...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A spontaneous process is one that will occur without any energy input from the surroundings. It is a process that will occur on its own.

Can you give an example of what you think is a spontaneous process? Didn't think so.

Entropy is described as time's arrow...entropy is a one way process. It is only your wild interpretation that suggests that entropy is a two way street... Been through it all before...if you must relive your defeat...refer to any of the previous incarnations of this discussion.

I would rather refer to the science literature rather than your incantations. Jeez you don't understand entropy. You are confusing entropy with radiation exchange. They are different. You are just picking scientific words and putting them in sentences that don't make sense.

Still picking fly shit out of the pepper in an attempt gain some sense of winning a point? Rolling downhill is a figure of speech...sorry it went over your head...

You must know by now that your posts are so far off the wall that it is not possible to figure out if you are attempting to talk science or not. Your thinking that radiation exchange means entropy is a "two way street" is one example of your misplaced science.


.

Can you give an example of what you think is a spontaneous process

Heat moving to cold

A spontaneous process is one that takes place with no input of energy from the surroundings. He thinks that phosphorescence (like the glowing numbers on your watch) is a spontaneous process.... He even says that the glow that happens "AFTER" you turn off the lights is a spontaneous process. He can't get it through his head that the fact that he has to add "AFTER" means that the lights being on in the first place was an input of energy from the surroundings. Make the phosphorescent paint on your watch in complete darkness, and store the watch in complete darkness and it will never glow...it requires being exposed to light (input of energy from the surroundings) in order to glow when the lights are off. This simple concept is so far over his head that he has been arguing against it for more than a year now...

He wants the second law of thermodynamics to be wrong so bad that it has turned him into a complete batshit idiot.

A spontaneous process is one that takes place with no input of energy from the surroundings.

That means everything that takes place on the Earth's surface and in the atmosphere is not spontaneous.

The cooler atmosphere is free to radiate toward the warmer surface, because there is an "input of energy from the surroundings".

"Back radiation", as you've just shown, is allowed.

Stupidity on parade..congratulations...do describe the work being done to make such energy movement possible...

do describe the work being done to make such energy movement possible...

The same work that allows the Sun's surface to radiate toward the hotter corona.
Or did you forget already?

There is an "input of energy from the surroundings".

 

[Wuwei]

The decay of diamond into graphite is a spontaneous process...the rust that forms on iron pyrite is a spontaneous process. Been through all this before...if you must relive your defeat, refer to any of the previous incarnations of this exact discussion.

They certainly are spontaneous. You shot yourself in the foot again.

What if you made the iron pyrite in a lab where you used refined chemicals. It's easy enough to do. That would be man-made and it would use a bit of energy or work. The oxidation of the man-made iron pyrite or "fool's gold" should be spontaneous too. It seems the fool's gold proves you are the fool.

Wouldn't you think the decay of synthetic diamonds would be spontaneous too. Even though they have been made under high temperature and pressure. (Lots of work.)

Please explain why you think your examples are any more spontaneous than the afterglow from a phosphor. And please explain why you think man-made systems are never spontaneous. In doing so please use the scientific definition of terms, not your colloquial substitutions.

Entropy, as it applies to energy exchange is the movement of energy from a more ordered state (warm, high frequency, etc.etc) to a less ordered state (cool, lower frequency, etc etc)...the movement from more ordered to less ordered happens in one direction only...energy does not move spontaneously from a less ordered state to a more ordered state..

In two-way radiation exchange between two objects at different temperatures, entropy is continually increasing. You can't deny that.

Here is the problem. You are inventing your own definitions of well established science definitions and terms. When you do that you develop all sorts of self-inconsistencies, and you will never understand science that way.

.

 

[Wuwei]

Spontaneous process is defined as a process that will occur without any energy input from the surroundings. It is a process that will occur on its own.

Like phosphorescence after all the lights are out. That after glow would be spontaneous because of no input energy.

Had the lights never been on (energy input from the surroundings) phosphorescence would never happen. Clearly this simple concept is far to complex for you to understand...it has all been described and explained to you before..refer to any of the other times you failed to grasp this simple concept...the fact that you had to say "after" the lights are out indicates that the glow happens because there was previously an input of energy from the surroundings...this is easy stuff...are you really this stupid?

Yes. This is the point where you substitute ad hominem for reason. You don't understand the science definition of spontaneous as used in thermodynamics. Again you are trying to make it personal with your insults, but you are not insulting me, you are insulting the whole body of physicists. You are in essence saying all scientists fail to grasp your idiocy, and they are really stupid. I know you are trying to impress your sock puppets, but it doesn't work on me and yes you are getting tiresome. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I am simply showing others that you are a bad tempered loser.


.