The Heart of the AGW Premise Fails Empirical Review.

[Crick]

He's interesting because he's correct. He's refuted every piece of nonsense you've pushed. You're a complete and utter failure. You need to start over again and get a better grasp on what a real life consists of next time around.

 

[SSDD]

He's interesting because he's correct. He's refuted every piece of nonsense you've pushed. You're a complete and utter failure. You need to start over again and get a better grasp on what a real life consists of next time around.

You guys really are lemmings aren't you. It isn't enough that wuei has put his ignorance on display and made a complete fool out of himself...arguing his stupid, completely wrong point even when physics professor after physics professor after physics professor has said in clear terms that he, and all the goods agreeing with him and thanking him were wrong, now you have to go over the cliff with him making idiot lying claims that he has refuted anything.

You think a flashlight is a spontaneous process also? You think a battery is not an external power source to an LED simply because it is is in the same box with the LED? You think battery powered refrigerators spontaneously cool themselves because all the components are in the same box? You think airplanes fly spontaneously because they are all in the same skin? You think cars spontaneously roll up hills because all the parts are in the same package?

You really want to admit that your knowledge of physics is as pitifully lacking as wuwei's? I mean, we know it is, but do you want to go on record supporting his belief in an argument put up by a top shelf troll who was clearly an idiot and was banned within a day or so of his showing up? You really want to go down that road?

Personally, I would love it if you did..come on crick, tell us how light emitting from an LED that is powered by a battery is a spontaneous process...

Good job...and hey abu fork AKA rolling thunder says you are a winner...it must make you so proud.

f'ing lemming.

 

[Wuwei]

This is a definitional question. I would not describe light emission by an LED as spontaneous, because it requires an input of energy from the power source.

I agree with the professor. Emission by an LED is not spontaneous. You didn't ask the right question. Your problem in asking your professors penlight questions is that you are focusing on the LED when you should be focusing on the battery. Ask her if a battery discharging through a conductor is a spontaneous chemical reaction, and remind her of this:

Electrolytic Cells
Voltaic cells are driven by a spontaneous chemical reaction that produces an electric current through an outside circuit.

Look at the first pictures. The one with the caption GALVANIC CELL

Energy released by spontaneous redox reaction is converted to electrical energy.

You can find lots of literature saying the same thing. That system is a battery with an “outside circuit”, a light bulb. There would be no spontaneous reaction at all without the light bulb. The LED is just a conductor with an interesting property.

Look at the second picture, an electrolytic cell. That is not spontaneous. You have been confusing these two quite different systems.

 

[Wuwei]

I agree with one of your professors that said that spontaneous processes that output energy are at the quantum level, such his example of nuclear, and also chemical. Look up “Spontaneous emission”, the process in which a quantum mechanical system transitions from an excited energy state to a lower energy state and emits a quantum in the form of a photon

Here are some examples of photons going from a cold to a hot substance spontaneously. Remember that in many examples, there is a non-spontaneous absorption of energy followed by a spontaneous emission.

Fluorescence is process that starts with a non-spontaneous absorption of EM radiation, followed by a spontaneous emission of EM radiation.

https://application.wiley-vch.de/books/sample/3527316698_c01.pdf

Basic Principles of Fluorescence Spectroscopy
Emission of a fluorescence photon from the vibrational ground state of the first excited singlet state constitutes a spontaneous process​

Phosphorescence is a cold chemical reaction spontaneously converted directly to light.
There are many examples of animal based phosphorescence, including fireflies, surface ocean algae, deep ocean creatures of all kinds, fungus.

Also look up Chemiluminescence. Found in many plants and seeds and man-made lightsticks that glow in the dark. At a camp you can hold a lightstick in your had while it illuminates a hot frying pan.

All these examples show that EM radiation can flow spontaneously from a cold to a warmer substance. Some of the examples start with a non-spontaneous charging of energy in some fashion, followed by a spontaneous release. Other examples occur naturally.

 

[SSDD]

This is a definitional question. I would not describe light emission by an LED as spontaneous, because it requires an input of energy from the power source.

I agree with the professor. Emission by an LED is not spontaneous. You didn't ask the right question. Your problem in asking your professors penlight questions is that you are focusing on the LED when you should be focusing on the battery. Ask her if a battery discharging through a conductor is a spontaneous chemical reaction, and remind her of this:

Electrolytic Cells
Voltaic cells are driven by a spontaneous chemical reaction that produces an electric current through an outside circuit.

Look at the first pictures. The one with the caption GALVANIC CELL

Energy released by spontaneous redox reaction is converted to electrical energy.

You can find lots of literature saying the same thing. That system is a battery with an “outside circuit”, a light bulb. There would be no spontaneous reaction at all without the light bulb. The LED is just a conductor with an interesting property.

Look at the second picture, an electrolytic cell. That is not spontaneous. You have been confusing these two quite different systems.

Sorry guy...you are wrong and are never going to be right. When the battery dies, does the LED continue to emit light? If it does, then you have yourself a spontaneous process...if it doesn't, then you are wrong and have been wrong all along.

 

[SSDD]

I agree with one of your professors that said that spontaneous processes that output energy are at the quantum level, such his example of nuclear, and also chemical. Look up “Spontaneous emission”, the process in which a quantum mechanical system transitions from an excited energy state to a lower energy state and emits a quantum in the form of a photon

Here are some examples of photons going from a cold to a hot substance spontaneously. Remember that in many examples, there is a non-spontaneous absorption of energy followed by a spontaneous emission.

Fluorescence is process that starts with a non-spontaneous absorption of EM radiation, followed by a spontaneous emission of EM radiation.

https://application.wiley-vch.de/books/sample/3527316698_c01.pdf

Basic Principles of Fluorescence Spectroscopy
Emission of a fluorescence photon from the vibrational ground state of the first excited singlet state constitutes a spontaneous process​

Phosphorescence is a cold chemical reaction spontaneously converted directly to light.
There are many examples of animal based phosphorescence, including fireflies, surface ocean algae, deep ocean creatures of all kinds, fungus.

Also look up Chemiluminescence. Found in many plants and seeds and man-made lightsticks that glow in the dark. At a camp you can hold a lightstick in your had while it illuminates a hot frying pan.

All these examples show that EM radiation can flow spontaneously from a cold to a warmer substance. Some of the examples start with a non-spontaneous charging of energy in some fashion, followed by a spontaneous release. Other examples occur naturally.

Ands the stupidity just grows and grows...you think all chemical processes are spontaneous? As the professor said...people who think they have found a way around the second law of thermodynamics are invariably wrong...

 

[SSDD]

I have proven my point...You were and continue to be wrong. No point continuing with you since you aren't bright enough to get it, and in your dishonesty, will never admit that you are wrong even though multiple professors of physics have stated quite clearly that you are.

Enjoy your ignorance if if believing you are right when you aren't gets you though the night, then help yourself...it is gotten you to where you are right now with everyone but the most abject idiots seeing you for what you are..

 

[Wuwei]

This is a definitional question. I would not describe light emission by an LED as spontaneous, because it requires an input of energy from the power source.

I agree with the professor. Emission by an LED is not spontaneous. You didn't ask the right question. Your problem in asking your professors penlight questions is that you are focusing on the LED when you should be focusing on the battery. Ask her if a battery discharging through a conductor is a spontaneous chemical reaction, and remind her of this:

Electrolytic Cells
Voltaic cells are driven by a spontaneous chemical reaction that produces an electric current through an outside circuit.

Look at the first pictures. The one with the caption GALVANIC CELL

Energy released by spontaneous redox reaction is converted to electrical energy.

You can find lots of literature saying the same thing. That system is a battery with an “outside circuit”, a light bulb. There would be no spontaneous reaction at all without the light bulb. The LED is just a conductor with an interesting property.

Look at the second picture, an electrolytic cell. That is not spontaneous. You have been confusing these two quite different systems.

Sorry guy...you are wrong and are never going to be right. When the battery dies, does the LED continue to emit light? If it does, then you have yourself a spontaneous process...if it doesn't, then you are wrong and have been wrong all along.

If the free energy of a battery is depleted, you simply put in a new battery to start the spontaneous process again. You should have known that.

Look, your professors and I are all in agreement. I told you that already. With them you put your focus on the LED. Of course the LED alone is not spontaneous, and your professors and I agree with that. It is the battery that has the spontaneous process and the LED simply completes the batteries circuit.

All the references I gave you say you are wrong.

 

[polarbear]

I am not forgetting the term net...I dispute the term net based on an absolute lack of observed, measured evidence for net. If you like, do feel free to show me an observed, measured instance of energy flowing spontaneously in two directions. The second law of thermodynamics says that it is not possible, and the second law has not been changed to reflect net energy flow....it it still describes one way gross energy movement from a more organized state to a less organized state...energy moving from a cool object to a warm object would be moving from a less organized state to a more organized state...according to the second law, that isn't possible.

What you are stating as if it were fact, is nothing more than what an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model predicts based on yet another unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model....not much substance there to be stating it as if it were real.

I am not forgetting the term net...I dispute the term net based on an absolute lack of observed, measured evidence for net.

View attachment 206261

Second Law of Thermodynamics

Plenty of sources mention net.
You've provided none that say net doesn't exist.

The second law of thermodynamics says that it is not possible,

Only in your confused mind. No back up, ever.

Todd, your confusion is trying to apply NET transfer concept on a one way energy transfer, which your own link clearly states:

"Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. This precludes a perfect refrigerator. The statements about refrigerators apply to air conditioners and heat pumps, which embody the same principles."

bolding mine

Without work applied to it, there is ZERO net in it.

"Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Yup. Nothing there precludes photons.
Check out the following image.
From the Handbook of Modern Sensors, third edition.

Do you think they don't understand radiation flows?

Great, you even highlighted it, saving me the trouble of doing it.
"A thermal sensor is capable only to a net thermal flux from the object minus flux from itself"
So why did you side with the warmers when SSDD said that a thermal sensor which is as warm (-or warmer) as (-than) the source is not capable to detect the heat coming from the source ? Still looking for a way to actually detect these photons? Good luck !
They do exist, but they are incapable of performing work on the warmer object, meaning a rise in temperature not just a slower cooling of the warmer object.

So why did you side with the warmers

I'm siding with the people who understand that matter above 0K radiates in all directions, whether warmer matter is nearby or not.

Nobody said that matter above 0K does not radiate. You made that up. How do you get from photons radiating from a cooler object not being able to perform work on a warmer one to "matter above 0K does not radiate in all directions, whether warmer matter is nearby or not"?...as if anyone would need to claim that matter above 0K does not radiate in some directions. Like all the other warmers you go off on that tangent every time you were debunked.

 

[Wuwei]

I agree with one of your professors that said that spontaneous processes that output energy are at the quantum level, such his example of nuclear, and also chemical. Look up “Spontaneous emission”, the process in which a quantum mechanical system transitions from an excited energy state to a lower energy state and emits a quantum in the form of a photon

Here are some examples of photons going from a cold to a hot substance spontaneously. Remember that in many examples, there is a non-spontaneous absorption of energy followed by a spontaneous emission.

Fluorescence is process that starts with a non-spontaneous absorption of EM radiation, followed by a spontaneous emission of EM radiation.

https://application.wiley-vch.de/books/sample/3527316698_c01.pdf

Basic Principles of Fluorescence Spectroscopy
Emission of a fluorescence photon from the vibrational ground state of the first excited singlet state constitutes a spontaneous process​

Phosphorescence is a cold chemical reaction spontaneously converted directly to light.
There are many examples of animal based phosphorescence, including fireflies, surface ocean algae, deep ocean creatures of all kinds, fungus.

Also look up Chemiluminescence. Found in many plants and seeds and man-made lightsticks that glow in the dark. At a camp you can hold a lightstick in your had while it illuminates a hot frying pan.

All these examples show that EM radiation can flow spontaneously from a cold to a warmer substance. Some of the examples start with a non-spontaneous charging of energy in some fashion, followed by a spontaneous release. Other examples occur naturally.

Ands the stupidity just grows and grows...you think all chemical processes are spontaneous? As the professor said...people who think they have found a way around the second law of thermodynamics are invariably wrong...

No, many chemical process require energy input like electrolysis. Some provide energy output, like a battery. I certainly agree with the professor again.

Are you now saying you disagree with the links I provided? Fluorescence, Phosphorescence, and in general Chemiluminescence are all said in the literature to be spontaneous. Do you disagree with those references?

You reply with your usual insults, but no science rebuttal to those references.

 

[Wuwei]

I have proven my point...You were and continue to be wrong. No point continuing with you since you aren't bright enough to get it, and in your dishonesty, will never admit that you are wrong even though multiple professors of physics have stated quite clearly that you are.

Enjoy your ignorance if if believing you are right when you aren't gets you though the night, then help yourself...it is gotten you to where you are right now with everyone but the most abject idiots seeing you for what you are..

Just insults again. You are trying to make it personal but badly failing. Just what point have you proven? I have quoted references that provide well known science. Just where have your multiple professors stated that I was wrong? You don't even know how to ask the right questions. They proved my points much more than yours. Your last posts have no cogent thoughts, just insults.

My point remains: -- through spontaneous process such as galvanic cells, phosphorescence, fluorescence, and chemiluminescence, photons can radiate from cold to hotter objects. It is the literature calling these reactions spontaneous, not just me. One of your professors called a definitional matter. Absolutely! But you choose to make up your own definitions.

Have you ever used a chemical lightstick which you can hold in your hand that will illuminate something too hot to touch? That is an example that shows EM energy (photons) can move spontaneously from a cold object to a hot object.

The wording of the second law that says, "Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object," must then refer to net energy, not just any energy such as photons from a lightstick. That is why the professor at the hyperphysics.com site added this wording:

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.​

If you are going to go against the standard interpretation of the words of the 2nd law, you are going to have to understand that your are wrong.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I agree with one of your professors that said that spontaneous processes that output energy are at the quantum level, such his example of nuclear, and also chemical. Look up “Spontaneous emission”, the process in which a quantum mechanical system transitions from an excited energy state to a lower energy state and emits a quantum in the form of a photon

Here are some examples of photons going from a cold to a hot substance spontaneously. Remember that in many examples, there is a non-spontaneous absorption of energy followed by a spontaneous emission.

Fluorescence is process that starts with a non-spontaneous absorption of EM radiation, followed by a spontaneous emission of EM radiation.

https://application.wiley-vch.de/books/sample/3527316698_c01.pdf

Basic Principles of Fluorescence Spectroscopy
Emission of a fluorescence photon from the vibrational ground state of the first excited singlet state constitutes a spontaneous process​

Phosphorescence is a cold chemical reaction spontaneously converted directly to light.
There are many examples of animal based phosphorescence, including fireflies, surface ocean algae, deep ocean creatures of all kinds, fungus.

Also look up Chemiluminescence. Found in many plants and seeds and man-made lightsticks that glow in the dark. At a camp you can hold a lightstick in your had while it illuminates a hot frying pan.

All these examples show that EM radiation can flow spontaneously from a cold to a warmer substance. Some of the examples start with a non-spontaneous charging of energy in some fashion, followed by a spontaneous release. Other examples occur naturally.

You guys have no concept of reflected or refracted energy.. The 'light' is energy but just because you can see it does not mean the surface is absorbing it.... The conflation here is massive!

 

[Wuwei]

The 'light' is energy but just because you can see it does not mean the surface is absorbing it.

That is true, but a gray surface will both absorb some and reflect some. But even if reflection was 100% over all wavelengths, it still is an example of energy of a cold substance moving to a warmer substance. The 2nd law wording still must be carefully defined.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I am not forgetting the term net...I dispute the term net based on an absolute lack of observed, measured evidence for net.

View attachment 206261

Second Law of Thermodynamics

Plenty of sources mention net.
You've provided none that say net doesn't exist.

The second law of thermodynamics says that it is not possible,

Only in your confused mind. No back up, ever.

Todd, your confusion is trying to apply NET transfer concept on a one way energy transfer, which your own link clearly states:

"Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. This precludes a perfect refrigerator. The statements about refrigerators apply to air conditioners and heat pumps, which embody the same principles."

bolding mine

Without work applied to it, there is ZERO net in it.

"Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Yup. Nothing there precludes photons.
Check out the following image.
From the Handbook of Modern Sensors, third edition.

Do you think they don't understand radiation flows?

Great, you even highlighted it, saving me the trouble of doing it.
"A thermal sensor is capable only to a net thermal flux from the object minus flux from itself"
So why did you side with the warmers when SSDD said that a thermal sensor which is as warm (-or warmer) as (-than) the source is not capable to detect the heat coming from the source ? Still looking for a way to actually detect these photons? Good luck !
They do exist, but they are incapable of performing work on the warmer object, meaning a rise in temperature not just a slower cooling of the warmer object.

So why did you side with the warmers

I'm siding with the people who understand that matter above 0K radiates in all directions, whether warmer matter is nearby or not.

Nobody said that matter above 0K does not radiate. You made that up. How do you get from photons radiating from a cooler object not being able to perform work on a warmer one to "matter above 0K does not radiate in all directions, whether warmer matter is nearby or not"?...as if anyone would need to claim that matter above 0K does not radiate in some directions. Like all the other warmers you go off on that tangent every time you were debunked.

Nobody said that matter above 0K does not radiate.

SSDD says that all the time. Ask him.

 

[Crick]

He's interesting because he's correct. He's refuted every piece of nonsense you've pushed. You're a complete and utter failure. You need to start over again and get a better grasp on what a real life consists of next time around.

You guys really are lemmings aren't you. It isn't enough that wuei has put his ignorance on display and made a complete fool out of himself...arguing his stupid, completely wrong point even when physics professor after physics professor after physics professor has said in clear terms that he, and all the goods agreeing with him and thanking him were wrong, now you have to go over the cliff with him making idiot lying claims that he has refuted anything.

You think a flashlight is a spontaneous process also? You think a battery is not an external power source to an LED simply because it is is in the same box with the LED? You think battery powered refrigerators spontaneously cool themselves because all the components are in the same box? You think airplanes fly spontaneously because they are all in the same skin? You think cars spontaneously roll up hills because all the parts are in the same package?

You really want to admit that your knowledge of physics is as pitifully lacking as wuwei's? I mean, we know it is, but do you want to go on record supporting his belief in an argument put up by a top shelf troll who was clearly an idiot and was banned within a day or so of his showing up? You really want to go down that road?

Personally, I would love it if you did..come on crick, tell us how light emitting from an LED that is powered by a battery is a spontaneous process...

Good job...and hey abu fork AKA rolling thunder says you are a winner...it must make you so proud.

f'ing lemming.

Your comments once again show quite clearly that you have never had a course in thermodynamics or heat transfer. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You've been refuted a hundred ways from Sunday. But you insist. Energy movement in the universe is all fucking magic to you. What a pathetic moron you are.

 

[Crick]

You guys have no concept of reflected or refracted energy.. The 'light' is energy but just because you can see it does not mean the surface is absorbing it.... The conflation here is massive!

If the illuminated surface was anything but white (or whatever the color of the light) it was absorbing some of it. A sixth grader would have known this Bobby.

 

[polarbear]

Todd, your confusion is trying to apply NET transfer concept on a one way energy transfer, which your own link clearly states:

"Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. This precludes a perfect refrigerator. The statements about refrigerators apply to air conditioners and heat pumps, which embody the same principles."

bolding mine

Without work applied to it, there is ZERO net in it.

"Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Yup. Nothing there precludes photons.
Check out the following image.
From the Handbook of Modern Sensors, third edition.

Do you think they don't understand radiation flows?

Great, you even highlighted it, saving me the trouble of doing it.
"A thermal sensor is capable only to a net thermal flux from the object minus flux from itself"
So why did you side with the warmers when SSDD said that a thermal sensor which is as warm (-or warmer) as (-than) the source is not capable to detect the heat coming from the source ? Still looking for a way to actually detect these photons? Good luck !
They do exist, but they are incapable of performing work on the warmer object, meaning a rise in temperature not just a slower cooling of the warmer object.

So why did you side with the warmers

I'm siding with the people who understand that matter above 0K radiates in all directions, whether warmer matter is nearby or not.

Nobody said that matter above 0K does not radiate. You made that up. How do you get from photons radiating from a cooler object not being able to perform work on a warmer one to "matter above 0K does not radiate in all directions, whether warmer matter is nearby or not"?...as if anyone would need to claim that matter above 0K does not radiate in some directions. Like all the other warmers you go off on that tangent every time you were debunked.

Nobody said that matter above 0K does not radiate.

SSDD says that all the time. Ask him.

You keep saying that he said...show me where he said it.

 

[polarbear]

The 'light' is energy but just because you can see it does not mean the surface is absorbing it.

That is true, but a gray surface will both absorb some and reflect some. But even if reflection was 100% over all wavelengths, it still is an example of energy of a cold substance moving to a warmer substance. The 2nd law wording still must be carefully defined.

But even if reflection was 100% over all wavelengths, it still is an example of energy of a cold substance moving to a warmer substance.
Absolutely ridiculous especially so when the person saying so claims to have a clue about physics.
Tell me how much energy was transferred to that 100% perfect reflector ( which by definition can`t absorb it)

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Yup. Nothing there precludes photons.
Check out the following image.
From the Handbook of Modern Sensors, third edition.

Do you think they don't understand radiation flows?

Great, you even highlighted it, saving me the trouble of doing it.
"A thermal sensor is capable only to a net thermal flux from the object minus flux from itself"
So why did you side with the warmers when SSDD said that a thermal sensor which is as warm (-or warmer) as (-than) the source is not capable to detect the heat coming from the source ? Still looking for a way to actually detect these photons? Good luck !
They do exist, but they are incapable of performing work on the warmer object, meaning a rise in temperature not just a slower cooling of the warmer object.

So why did you side with the warmers

I'm siding with the people who understand that matter above 0K radiates in all directions, whether warmer matter is nearby or not.

Nobody said that matter above 0K does not radiate. You made that up. How do you get from photons radiating from a cooler object not being able to perform work on a warmer one to "matter above 0K does not radiate in all directions, whether warmer matter is nearby or not"?...as if anyone would need to claim that matter above 0K does not radiate in some directions. Like all the other warmers you go off on that tangent every time you were debunked.

Nobody said that matter above 0K does not radiate.

SSDD says that all the time. Ask him.

You keep saying that he said...show me where he said it.

You keep saying that he said...show me where he said it.

Typical liberal...accuse your opponent of your precise behavior. And absence of evidence when we are fully capable of measuring minute energy movements is evidence of absence. If energy were moving in both directions, we could measure it.

The Heart of the AGW Premise Fails Empirical Review.


Photons don't move spontaneously from cool to warm....but if you feel like you can provide an example that violates the second law, by all means do show it...

The Heart of the AGW Premise Fails Empirical Review.

No one is denying that Photons or EM radiation can flow from a cooler object towards a warmer object

SSDD denies that. Strenuously.

Who am I to argue with the second law of thermodynamics?

The Heart of the AGW Premise Fails Empirical Review.


Got a source that says photons can only move from hotter matter to colder matter?

Of course...I just gave it to you...but here it is again.

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

I don't see any exclusion of photons there. It says clearly that energy will not flow spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object...you are either saying that all electromagnetic energy can flow freely from cool objects to warm objects and is exempt from the second law, or you are not. All electromagnetic energy exists in the form of photons.

So are you saying that all electromagnetic energy can flow freely from cool to warm? If not, explain how you believe photons can but EM energy can not when they are one in the same...a photon being nothing more than the smallest bit of EM energy possible.

The Heart of the AGW Premise Fails Empirical Review.

Those were just the last few days, in this thread. He's been saying it for years.

 

[Wuwei]

But even if reflection was 100% over all wavelengths, it still is an example of energy of a cold substance moving to a warmer substance.
Absolutely ridiculous especially so when the person saying so claims to have a clue about physics.
Tell me how much energy was transferred to that 100% perfect reflector ( which by definition can`t absorb it)

Ans: none.

The second law wording that SSDD holds dear is, "Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object," Whether photons are absorbed or not is not the issue. SSDD says that photons won't even go in that direction. Note my wording "moving to" not "absorbed by".

Is it, as you say, "absolutely ridiculous"? You betcha. Take it up with SSDD, not me. I go with the physics definition of the 2nd law referring to net energy, not SSDD's silly misconceptions.