The Heart of the AGW Premise Fails Empirical Review.

[SSDD]

When you remove the external light, the atoms emit light as they more slowly return to their ground states. That IS SPONTANEOUS because internal work is being output. That internal energy is called Gibbs Free Energy. See my previous post.

I do enjoy watching you try to dance your way around the second law of thermodynamics and try to prove that energy moves spontaneously and freely between warm and cold objects....and the people at the lab that I show your posts to also enjoy it very much...you, and your explanations for how things that can't be observed, measured, or tested really are is like a daily sitcom. Keep up the good work...I am sure that you haven't even begun to tap the depths of your imagination. Tell me again how spectrometers work....that was a good one.

 

[Crick]

Any lab that would give you a job beyond janitor is at risk of losing their licenses.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Spontaneous is defined in physics as: arising from internal forces or causes; independent of externalagencies; self-acting.

Cold body radiation, or cold body radiation may be caused by chemical reactions, electrical energy, sub atomic motions or stress on a crystal...none of which can be deemed spontaneous...or self acting.

Sorry guy...once more, you can't get around the second law.....only fools of the first order believe that they can...energy does not move spontaneously from a less ordered to a more ordered state.

After an outside source, like a flashlight, adds energy to an object, the object is allowed to, spontaneously,
emit photons toward warmer matter.

Right?

I know that you aren't the brightest bulb in the box, but even you should be bright enough to grasp that spontaneous, meaning no assistance from outside sources, means that once an OUTSIDE source adds energy to an object, spontaneity is no longer possible.

That doesn't seem like such a hard concept to grasp even for borderline idiots such as yourself.

means that once an OUTSIDE source adds energy to an object, spontaneity is no longer possible.

If I add energy to an object, with my flashlight, the object can't spontaneously emit?

Please explain then, how it does emit. Or explain that it doesn't.

Oh, come on, don't avoid the questions.

Maybe the guys in your lab can help you answer?

 

[Wuwei]

Cold body radiation, or cold body radiation may be caused by chemical reactions, electrical energy, sub atomic motions or stress on a crystal...none of which can be deemed spontaneous...or self acting.

Wrong again. You always made up your own definitions in physics. That is another of your rewriting the terms of physics. No physicist agrees with your colloquial use of the word "spontaneous". Here is the definition of spontaneity that PHYSICISTS use"

luminescence (luminosity) - Memidex dictionary/thesaurus

Luminescence
emission of light by a substance not resulting from heat; it's thus a form of cold body radiation. It can be caused by chemical reactions, electrical energy, subatomic motions, or stress on a crystal. This distinguishes luminescence from incandescence.

And the fact is wuwei, that you are the one who just makes shit up as necessary...like your comment HERE to Thresha91203 on the other thread claiming that spectroscopes don't measure the difference between input radiation and it's own internal radiation.... It measures the sum of those two...which doesn't even begin to describe how a spectroscope works. You regularly just make stuff up in an effort to make a point..or take information completely out of context....you are, in fact, a liar, imminently stupid, or both.

Your post is a bit wacky. We are talking about the spontaneity of luminescence, and you simply give a dictionary definition of luminescence and digress.

 

[Wuwei]

I do enjoy watching you try to dance your way around the second law of thermodynamics and try to prove that energy moves spontaneously and freely between warm and cold objects....and the people at the lab that I show your posts to also enjoy it very much...you, and your explanations for how things that can't be observed, measured, or tested really are is like a daily sitcom. Keep up the good work...I am sure that you haven't even begun to tap the depths of your imagination. Tell me again how spectrometers work....that was a good one.

You keep trying to make it about me. It is the science of the last century that you are attempting to ridicule. You are trying to reinvent science. The discussion is not about how you think vs what I think, or what Crick or Tod thinks. It is about how you think vs what the whole body of physicists came to understand using observed, measured experiments over the past hundred years. When you no longer have a cogent "retort" against science, you always revert to ridicule, as seen by your recent posts. That is your Troll mind controlling you. Try to calm down and ask yourself why you are doing this.

.

 

[SSDD]

Any lab that would give you a job beyond janitor is at risk of losing their licenses.

Still waiting for either a single piece of observed measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, or a peer reviewed, published paper which empirically quantifies the claimed warming due to man's activities and ascribes them to so called greenhouse gasses?

Considering the fact that you actually believe such things exist suggest that your opinion on anything even approaching science is highly questionable...as is the opinion of anyone who might agree with you.

 

[SSDD]

Your post is a bit wacky. We are talking about the spontaneity of luminescence, and you simply give a dictionary definition of luminescence and digress.

You claimed that the definition I provided of luminescence, or cold body radiation was made up...clearly you are wrong..then I pointed out your propensity to simply make shit up if you think it will further your argument...

 

[SSDD]

You keep trying to make it about me. It is the science of the last century that you are attempting to ridicule.

It is about you..and what you are willing to believe without the first shred of observed, measured evidence...and about observable, measurable evidence that you are willing to discount because it doesn't agree with what you believe...and believe is the operative word here...faith...

And in case you haven't been tracking the sheer volume of junk science that has been foisted on the world in the past century, a great deal of the science of the past century is worth of ridicule.

You are trying to reinvent science.

Simply not true...but do feel free to show me anything that I have suggested that runs afoul of any physical law. You are the one who doesn't seem willing to accept the statements of physical laws and feels the need to place conditions...add or subtract as necessary in order to conform to your belief.

The discussion is not about how you think vs what I think, or what Crick or Tod thinks. It is about how you think vs what the whole body of physicists came to understand using observed, measured experiments over the past hundred years.

You keep talking about all this observed, measured evidence but don't seem to be able to produce any of it, and what you do produce, you clearly don't understand what it is showing you.

When you no longer have a cogent "retort" against science, you always revert to ridicule, as seen by your recent posts. That is your Troll mind controlling you. Try to calm down and ask yourself why you are doing this.

You are hardly an analyst sparky...and as I have said...stupidity on the order that you demonstrate isn't worthy of patience. And don't give yourself credit for having the ability to even raise my heart rate by one beat...you simply aren't that important in the scheme of things...imagine, believing that you have the ability to have any effect whatsoever on my physiology...is there any limit to what you are willing to tell yourself..and actually believe?

 

[Wuwei]

You claimed that the definition I provided of luminescence, or cold body radiation was made up.

What you made up is that it is not spontaneous because energy was supplied before it became spontaneous. That is made up. Phosphorescence, for example, is spontaneous after the source is removed. That is according to all scientist. Energy or work must be supplied first, and that is consistent with the first law of thermodynamics.

.then I pointed out your propensity to simply make shit up if you think it will further your argument...

Links?

 

[Wuwei]

It is about you..and what you are willing to believe without the first shred of observed, measured evidence...and about observable, measurable evidence that you are willing to discount because it doesn't agree with what you believe...and believe is the operative word here...faith...

Nope it's not about me. It's about all scientists who believe the same thing I do.

Simply not true...but do feel free to show me anything that I have suggested that runs afoul of any physical law. You are the one who doesn't seem willing to accept the statements of physical laws and feels the need to place conditions...add or subtract as necessary in order to conform to your belief.

Yes you are trying to reinvent science. Many on this board have proven that time and again. Since you don't believe the correct form of the SB law, the SLoT, quantum radiation, and QM in general, then of course you remain in the dark and insult science.

You keep talking about all this observed, measured evidence but don't seem to be able to produce any of it, and what you do produce, you clearly don't understand what it is showing you.

The observed, measured evidence has been pointed out many times by many people here. But since you don't believe in accepted physics, you remain in the dark. Ironically you construct your own models which make no sense physically. You have a propensity to interpret precisely defined physics terms in your own way to suit your ends.

 

[SSDD]

What you made up is that it is not spontaneous because energy was supplied before it became spontaneous. That is made up. Phosphorescence, for example, is spontaneous after the source is removed. That is according to all scientist. Energy or work must be supplied first, and that is consistent with the first law of thermodynamics.

If the energy emitted was supplied, then it could never be spontaneous...again, by definition, spontaneous means with no outside assistance.

.then I pointed out your propensity to simply make shit up if you think it will further your argument...

Links?

Which was not true...and then I provided an actual example of your Ciff Claven propensity to simply make up whatever you think needs to be said in support of your position.

 

[SSDD]

Nope it's not about me. It's about all scientists who believe the same thing I do.

Nope...its about you and what you are willing to believe....Since you can't provide any observed measured evidence to support your position. If you could, then it would be about that evidence and the means and methods it was gathered..since there is none, this is all about what you believe,

Yes you are trying to reinvent science. Many on this board have proven that time and again. Since you don't believe the correct form of the SB law, the SLoT, quantum radiation, and QM in general, then of course you remain in the dark and insult science.

I asked you to provide anything I have said that runs afoul of any physical law..I can't help but note that, as I expected, you have provided nothing. And in case you missed the memo, QM is an evolving hypothesis in the process of becoming a theory..it is far far far from becoming a physical law.

The observed, measured evidence has been pointed out many times by many people here. But since you don't believe in accepted physics, you remain in the dark. Ironically you construct your own models which make no sense physically. You have a propensity to interpret precisely defined physics terms in your own way to suit your ends.

You are a bald faced liar. All that has been shown to me is evidence that you people don't have the slightest idea of what instruments are measuring, or how they work. If there were actually observed, measured evidence, supporting the greenhouse hypothesis, and AGW, then it would be published in the peer reviewed literature.....no such evidence has ever been published because no such evidence exists.

But do feel free to provide the literature if you believe it exists.

 

[Wuwei]

If the energy emitted was supplied, then it could never be spontaneous...again, by definition, spontaneous means with no outside assistance.

You are changing the science definition of spontaneous again. You do that sort of thing a lot.
When the lights are out phosphorescent materials glow, with no more outside assistance. That is the physics. If you don't accept that you don't accept physics.

 

[Wuwei]

its about you and what you are willing to believe.

I believe the observed measured models of science are consistent with events of nature. Almost everyone does. You do not. So, It's not about me.

I asked you to provide anything I have said that runs afoul of any physical law.

I just did, but since you don't believe the science behind it, I can see why you are confused.

You are a bald faced liar. All that has been shown to me is evidence that you people don't have the slightest idea of what instruments are measuring, or how they work. If there were actually observed, measured evidence, supporting the greenhouse hypothesis, and AGW, then it would be published in the peer reviewed literature.....no such evidence has ever been published because no such evidence exists.

Again, you don't understand science and how instrumentation has proven QM to parts per billion. You have to understand science before you can even start thinking about the GHE.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Spontaneous is defined in physics as: arising from internal forces or causes; independent of externalagencies; self-acting.

Cold body radiation, or cold body radiation may be caused by chemical reactions, electrical energy, sub atomic motions or stress on a crystal...none of which can be deemed spontaneous...or self acting.

Sorry guy...once more, you can't get around the second law.....only fools of the first order believe that they can...energy does not move spontaneously from a less ordered to a more ordered state.

After an outside source, like a flashlight, adds energy to an object, the object is allowed to, spontaneously,
emit photons toward warmer matter.

Right?

I know that you aren't the brightest bulb in the box, but even you should be bright enough to grasp that spontaneous, meaning no assistance from outside sources, means that once an OUTSIDE source adds energy to an object, spontaneity is no longer possible.

That doesn't seem like such a hard concept to grasp even for borderline idiots such as yourself.

means that once an OUTSIDE source adds energy to an object, spontaneity is no longer possible.

If I add energy to an object, with my flashlight, the object can't spontaneously emit?

Please explain then, how it does emit. Or explain that it doesn't.

Any everywhere he went, he was running......away.

 

[Wuwei]

If I add energy to an object, with my flashlight, the object can't spontaneously emit?

According to SSDD that would be true, but it goes deeper than that:

His "idea" is tantamount to saying nothing on earth is ever spontaneous, because for anything to spontaneously emit energy, that energy must come from some outside source somewhere in the past.

However radioactive decay is said by all physicists to be spontaneous.. He once said radioactivity is not spontaneous. A cold isotope emitting gamma rays to a warm object should be an obvious example of spontaneity. Gamma emission is also EM energy going from a cold to a warmer object Hey SSDD, what do you think about that?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Any lab that would give you a job beyond janitor is at risk of losing their licenses.

Lab?

Did you say "lab'?

What do the lab test show for the relationship between temperature and increasing CO2 from 280 to 400PPM?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If I add energy to an object, with my flashlight, the object can't spontaneously emit?

According to SSDD that would be true, but it goes deeper than that:

His "idea" is tantamount to saying nothing on earth is ever spontaneous, because for anything to spontaneously emit energy, that energy must come from some outside source somewhere in the past.

However radioactive decay is said by all physicists to be spontaneous.. He once said radioactivity is not spontaneous. A cold isotope emitting gamma rays to a warm object should be an obvious example of spontaneity. Gamma emission is also EM energy going from a cold to a warmer object Hey SSDD, what do you think about that?

That's not what he said

 

[SSDD]

You are changing the science definition of spontaneous again. You do that sort of thing a lot.

I am afraid that you are the one who typically alters, adds to or subtracts from definitions in an effort to support your losing argument. Here, from the Biology Online Dictionary...as the term wasn't listed in any online physics dictionary...guess physics accepts the standard definition of the word which is:

Proceeding from, or acting by, internal impulse, energy, or natural law, without external force; as, spontaneous motion; spontaneous growth.

Note that dictionaries invariably state that spontaneous is by definition without external stimulus.

When the lights are out phosphorescent materials glow, with no more outside assistance. That is the physics. If you don't accept that you don't accept physics.

They are releasing energy they absorbed from external sources...Any outside assistance providing energy takes away the possibility of spontaneity. That is like saying that if you put gas in your tank on thursday, but don't start the car till friday, your engine is running spontaneously. You are a moron.

 

[SSDD]

I believe the observed measured models of science are consistent with events of nature. Almost everyone does. You do not. So, It's not about me.

And I keep asking for observed, measured evidence that support those models and you keep not delivering...because, as I said, the models are unobservable, unmeasurable, and untestable. There is no actual evidence that offers support.

I just did, but since you don't believe the science behind it, I can see why you are confused.

No you didn't...but do feel free to provide any instance.

Y
Again, you don't understand science and how instrumentation has proven QM to parts per billion. You have to understand science before you can even start thinking about the GHE.

I am laughing in your face again....considering that you don't even know how such basic instruments as an infrared thermometer, a spectrometer, or a pyrogeometer works, the idea that you even begin to understand exactly what, or how instruments involved in QM research operate, or what they are measuring is laughable. If you don't understand the basics, you can't even begin to understand the more complex. You read somewhere about parts per billion and apparently think that all of QM is proven science. Not even close...and again...QM isn't even close to becoming physical law and as I said, my position doesn't run afoul of any physical law.