The Heart of the AGW Premise Fails Empirical Review.

[SSDD]

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

Typical of his lot. They are unable to argue against the actual arguments that we skeptics put forward, so they invent arguments to rail against and attribute said arguments to rail against.

In this case, every dictionary, I can find says that spontaneous means happening without outside forces...He apparently believes that if a substance absorbs energy from an outside source, then emits that energy at a later time that the emission of energy is spontaneous...never mind the fact that once the absorbed energy is used up, the emission stops, or the emission never begins without first absorbing energy...

Guess he believes that if you gas up your car on thursday, but don't start it till friday, it is running spontaneously....ignore the fact that when the gas is gone, the engine stops, and it would never have even started without the gas in the first place.

They just make it up as they go in an attempt to lend creedence to their faith...

 

[SSDD]

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?

You do realize...or maybe you don't..that gamma rays have a frequency, or slightly above that of hard X rays. What is the highest frequency in the infrared range which you, in your very basic understanding, might perceive as heat? Maybe you never noted that when I ask for examples of energy moving from cool to warm, I ask for discrete frequencies...it is all about frequencies...your understanding is so basic that I suppose to you, gamma radiation some how "cooler" than the radiation from a match.

Here is a pretty easy to read chart...one would expect that energy from a gamma source could freely move from the source to anything emitting at a frequency to the left of gamma radiation. By the way...gamma radiation can be found on the far right side of the graph.

 

[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

Typical of his lot. They are unable to argue against the actual arguments that we skeptics put forward, so they invent arguments to rail against and attribute said arguments to rail against.

In this case, every dictionary, I can find says that spontaneous means happening without outside forces...He apparently believes that if a substance absorbs energy from an outside source, then emits that energy at a later time that the emission of energy is spontaneous...never mind the fact that once the absorbed energy is used up, the emission stops, or the emission never begins without first absorbing energy...

Guess he believes that if you gas up your car on thursday, but don't start it till friday, it is running spontaneously....ignore the fact that when the gas is gone, the engine stops, and it would never have even started without the gas in the first place.

They just make it up as they go in an attempt to lend creedence to their faith...

All they have to do is set up a lab experiment controlling for the difference between a 280 vs 400 PPM CO2 environment. Show us in a lab how a very dangerous instantaneous increase in CO2 has immediate effects on temperature. What we get instead are the squid ink defense of "Can you create a black hole in a lab?" "We need to use a lab the size of the solar system". They let out a veil of obscurity and hope to hide behind it.

It's political science, not real science

 

[SSDD]

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

Typical of his lot. They are unable to argue against the actual arguments that we skeptics put forward, so they invent arguments to rail against and attribute said arguments to rail against.

In this case, every dictionary, I can find says that spontaneous means happening without outside forces...He apparently believes that if a substance absorbs energy from an outside source, then emits that energy at a later time that the emission of energy is spontaneous...never mind the fact that once the absorbed energy is used up, the emission stops, or the emission never begins without first absorbing energy...

Guess he believes that if you gas up your car on thursday, but don't start it till friday, it is running spontaneously....ignore the fact that when the gas is gone, the engine stops, and it would never have even started without the gas in the first place.

They just make it up as they go in an attempt to lend creedence to their faith...

All they have to do is set up a lab experiment controlling for the difference between a 280 vs 400 PPM CO2 environment. Show us in a lab how a very dangerous instantaneous increase in CO2 has immediate effects on temperature. What we get instead are the squid ink defense of "Can you create a black hole in a lab?" "We need to use a lab the size of the solar system". They let out a veil of obscurity and hope to hide behind it.

It's political science, not real science

Gareff has managed to measure minute temperature gradients in static columns of air, demonstrating that pressure has an effect on temperature...you would think that if CO2 had even a fraction of the effect they claim it would be measurable and could be empirically quantified and published in a peer reviewed journal.

No less than Maxwell, Carnot, and Clausius said that the greenhouse effect was fantasy...I would say those 3 have far more knowledge of the physics of energy exchange than Arrhenius..and there still isn't the first piece of empirical evidence to support the existence of a radiative greenhouse effect after 120+ years.

Guess you really cant expect more than squid ink...what else do they have?

 

[Crick]

you would think that if CO2 had even a fraction of the effect they claim it would be measurable and could be empirically quantified and published in a peer reviewed journal

Global warming over a span of more than a century has just exceeded one degree of warming. A pressure change from a sea level altitude difference of 235 feet will produce the same effect. That he should think the effects even roughly equivalent is just another demonstration that SSDD has the physics knowledge of an infant with a learning disability.

 

[Wuwei]

You do realize...or maybe you don't..that gamma rays have a frequency, or slightly above that of hard X rays. What is the highest frequency in the infrared range which you, in your very basic understanding, might perceive as heat? Maybe you never noted that when I ask for examples of energy moving from cool to warm, I ask for discrete frequencies...it is all about frequencies...your understanding is so basic that I suppose to you, gamma radiation some how "cooler" than the radiation from a match.

Here is a pretty easy to read chart...one would expect that energy from a gamma source could freely move from the source to anything emitting at a frequency to the left of gamma radiation. By the way...gamma radiation can be found on the far right side of the graph.

These are observed facts that every physicist knows:
Gamma decay is spontaneous.
Gamma rays are electromagnetic.
Gamma rays are energetic particles.
Gamma rays from a single isotope emit discrete frequency(s).
Gamma rays from a room temperature source can strike a warmer body.

Gamma decay is an example that energy will flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object as long as the following clarification is understood and followed:

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.​

Second Law of Thermodynamics

 

[Wuwei]

...every dictionary, I can find says that spontaneous means happening without outside forces.

That may be the definition of spontaneous in some scenarios, but in physics the operative phrase is "spontaneous emission".

Spontaneous emission is the process in which a quantum mechanical system such as an atom, molecule or subatomic particle transitions from an excited energy state to a lower energy state and emits a quantum in the form of a photon.​

Luminescence is spontaneous emission of light by a substance not resulting from heat; it is thus a form of cold-body radiation. ... This distinguishes luminescence from incandescence, which is light emitted by a substance as a result of heating.​

The phrase "spontaneous emission" also covers gamma emission since the definition includes subatomic particle transitions.

If you want to talk about physical systems you must use physics definitions, but since you have not had any formal physics training you must be very careful about the meanings of words and phrases you choose to use, or you will lead yourself to false conclusions.

 

[Wuwei]

never mind the fact that once the absorbed energy is used up, the emission stops

It is well known that spontaneous emission decays exponentially with time,

 

[SSDD]

you would think that if CO2 had even a fraction of the effect they claim it would be measurable and could be empirically quantified and published in a peer reviewed journal

Global warming over a span of more than a century has just exceeded one degree of warming. A pressure change from a sea level altitude difference of 235 feet will produce the same effect. That he should think the effects even roughly equivalent is just another demonstration that SSDD has the physics knowledge of an infant with a learning disability.

Based on which flawed, massaged, manipulated data base?

 

[SSDD]

You do realize...or maybe you don't..that gamma rays have a frequency, or slightly above that of hard X rays. What is the highest frequency in the infrared range which you, in your very basic understanding, might perceive as heat? Maybe you never noted that when I ask for examples of energy moving from cool to warm, I ask for discrete frequencies...it is all about frequencies...your understanding is so basic that I suppose to you, gamma radiation some how "cooler" than the radiation from a match.

Here is a pretty easy to read chart...one would expect that energy from a gamma source could freely move from the source to anything emitting at a frequency to the left of gamma radiation. By the way...gamma radiation can be found on the far right side of the graph.

These are observed facts that every physicist knows:
Gamma decay is spontaneous.
Gamma rays are electromagnetic.
Gamma rays are energetic particles.
Gamma rays from a single isotope emit discrete frequency(s).
Gamma rays from a room temperature source can strike a warmer body.

Gamma decay is an example that energy will flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object as long as the following clarification is understood and followed:

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.​

Second Law of Thermodynamics

Great......lets ignore the frequency of all energy and apply the second law of thermodynamics only to infrared...you really are an idiot.

Write your paper explaining how many ways you have found around the second law of thermodynamics...let me know when it is published.

 

[Wuwei]

Great......lets ignore the frequency of all energy and apply the second law of thermodynamics only to infrared...you really are an idiot.

The second law of thermodynamics applies to all possible forms energy. In radiation exchange it applies to all frequencies. What is your point?

Write your paper explaining how many ways you have found around the second law of thermodynamics...let me know when it is published.

That has no point. First, what you think are ways to get around the SLoT are nothing but counterexamples to your misunderstanding of the SLoT.

Second, the counterexamples are well known and already in the literature.
These are the published counterexamples you have been given on this board so far that radiation can occur to warmer bodies and still obey the second law of thermodynamics.

Sun's corona.
Many forms of Luminosity.
Non-incandescent energy flow. (cold body radiation)
Thermal radiation exchange between two bodies.
Cosmic microwave background.

All these are examples of energy flow from a source to warmer bodies. There are many more. None of these violate the second law of thermodynamics.

 

[SSDD]

[

All these are examples of energy flow from a source to warmer bodies. There are many more. None of these violate the second law of thermodynamics.

Let me guess....you are completely unaware that warm and cold are terms that refer entirely to temperature...as in infrared....and have no idea, that in terms of energy transfer, warm and cold are nothing more than handy terms we use to discuss the amount of, and frequency of energy that any particular thing emits...

In terms of amount of energy being emitted, and the frequency at which it is being emitted, your "cold" bit of matter emitting gamma radiation is hotter than an acetylene torch by a long shot. No matter how you twist and turn, no matter how much mental gymnastics and gyrations you engage in, and no matter what foul cesspool you are willing to drag your intellect through, you are not going to find energy moving spontaneously from a less ordered to a more ordered state....ever....anywhere.

And as has already been discussed, there is work being performed to move energy to the sun's corona.. the most recent hypothesis is alfven waves. It isn't a case of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm...

And no form of luminosity, or cold body radiation is spontaneous as it is not self starting or self perpetuating.

And there is no energy exchange between bodies emitting at different frequencies (I suppose I must say frequencies explicitly since you seem to think that hot and cold refer to thermometer readings only]....there is only energy moving from the higher frequency emitter to the lower frequency emitter...

You are, quite simply wrong on all accounts and you will never find an example of energy moving spontaneously from a low frequency to a higher frequency.

I can't believe that after all this, it comes down to you believing that I was merely talking about the temperature on a thermometer...how 5th grade can you get?

 

[Wuwei]

warm and cold are nothing more than handy terms we use to discuss the amount of, and frequency of energy that any particular thing emits.

That's called black body radiation.

"cold" bit of matter emitting gamma radiation is hotter than an acetylene torch by a long shot.

Temperature is not defined for a single particle.

you are not going to find energy moving spontaneously from a less ordered to a more ordered state.

That is true for net energy. However there is nothing physically stopping radiation from being unequally exchanged by substances at different temperatures. Otherwise it would violate quantum mechanics.

And as has already been discussed, there is work being performed to move energy to the sun's corona.. the most recent hypothesis is alfven waves. It isn't a case of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm...

It seems you are assuming radiation from a colder body can move to a hotter body only if the hotter body achieved its heat through work. Is that what you mean?

And no form of luminosity, or cold body radiation is spontaneous as it is not self starting or self perpetuating.

Not correct. Read up on "spontaneous emission" and "Gibbs free energy".

And there is no energy exchange between bodies emitting at different frequencies (I suppose I must say frequencies explicitly since you seem to think that hot and cold refer to thermometer readings only]....there is only energy moving from the higher frequency emitter to the lower frequency emitter...

That whole paragraph is muddied. If you are referring to black body radiation, just say it. If so, then by "different frequencies" you mean different black body spectra. If you don't mean BB radiation then clarify your remarks.

You are, quite simply wrong on all accounts and you will never find an example of energy moving spontaneously from a low frequency to a higher frequency.

That is also muddied. Talking about "a low frequency" means one particular frequency. Taken quite literally you are saying a glowing red LED can't send energy to a glowing blue LED. That is certainly not BB radiation. You have to clarify that.

 

[SSDD]

That is true for net energy.

There is no net energy exchange between objects radiating at different frequencies...but do feel free to provide an observed, measured example of it happening if you want to make a point.

However there is nothing physically stopping radiation from being unequally exchanged by substances at different temperatures. Otherwise it would violate quantum mechanics.

Quantum Mechanics? You mean the unproven, mostly untested, constantly evolving hypothesis which science as a whole has still not agreed on what the term even means? Energy behaving as the second law dictates would violate that? So what?

It seems you are assuming radiation from a colder body can move to a hotter body only if the hotter body achieved its heat through work. Is that what you mean?

As the second law says...energy can not move spontaneously from a cooler object to a warmer object without some work having been done to affect the movement. Twisting the statements of physical laws is just one more of your dishonest habits....not sure what you might get out of it other than perhaps you get some thrill out of demonstrating your abject dishonesty publicly.

You can't win your point for a very simple reason wuwei...and anyone with even a whit of intelligence would have figured it out a very long time ago...you can talk and talk and twist definitions, and engage in all the mental masturbation you care to engage in but the bottom line is that you can't produce the first piece of observed, measured evidence to support your claims...ever stop to wonder how it is that I might know exactly what you can't produce? Ever even once?

 

[Wuwei]

There is no net energy exchange between objects radiating at different frequencies...but do feel free to provide an observed, measured example of it happening if you want to make a point.

Your thoughts are still muddied. If you are referring to black body radiation, just say it. You are still implying that a glowing red LED can't send energy to a glowing blue LED.

You were given lots of observed measured evidence that proves you liberally make up crap. When you twist definitions, and purposefully make up your own inconsistent laws of physics, you are simply a troll, and a very obvious troll at that.

 

[SSDD]

Ho Hum...still no observed measured evidence to support your claims...should I bother to even come back...will it all be just more of the same...you having a temper tantrum because I won't believe in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models?

 

[Crick]

Ho hum, Same Shit is still the only person on Earth who thinks there is no empirical evidence supporting AGW. And given that he's an idiot and a liar, I am not terribly concerned.

 

[SSDD]

Ho hum, Same Shit is still the only person on Earth who thinks there is no empirical evidence supporting AGW. And given that he's an idiot and a liar, I am not terribly concerned.

I keep asking...and you keep not delivering...then lying about it..

Keep it up though...it is entertaining to watch you lash out in your frustration.

 

[Crick]

Ho hum, Same Shit is still the only person on Earth who thinks there is no empirical evidence supporting AGW. And given that he's an idiot and a liar, I am not terribly concerned.

And neither should anyone else out there. There is absolutely NO reason to pay the slightest attention to what SSDD has to say. His claims regarding heat transfer, the second law of thermodynamics, quantum mechanics and a dozen other topics indicate very clearly that he has no science education whatsoever. His concepts are the product of pure and unadulterated ignorance.

 

[SSDD]

Ho hum, Same Shit is still the only person on Earth who thinks there is no empirical evidence supporting AGW. And given that he's an idiot and a liar, I am not terribly concerned.

And neither should anyone else out there. There is absolutely NO reason to pay the slightest attention to what SSDD has to say. His claims regarding heat transfer, the second law of thermodynamics, quantum mechanics and a dozen other topics indicate very clearly that he has no science education whatsoever. His concepts are the product of pure and unadulterated ignorance.

My but you are desperate aren't you skidmark...carrying that sandwich sign around...proclaiming that the end is near. I asked you to produce the evidence that you claimed existed...you couldn't do it..you are a liar, and easily fooled and sound like a complete idiot trying to be a public service announcement warning people not to listen to the fact that I have asked for straight forward evidence in support of claims made by climate science that you can't produce.

Do you think that maybe people don't notice you thrashing about trying to save face while I laugh at you because I knew all along that you couldn't produce what you claimed existed?

By the way...your latest mewling plea is just another logical fallacy. Fallacy seems to be all you have. Do keep it up though...smells like......Victory!!!