Tropospheric Hot Spot- Why it does not exist...

[Wuwei]

Like I said goober...you be sure to tell me when they rewrite the second law of thermodynamics to relate energy transfer in terms of net as opposed to gross energy movement....it will be big news...but let me know anyway.

It is no longer big news. It was rewritten over 100 years ago in terms of entropy. Tell me how the second law written in terms of entropy disallows radiation from a colder body to a warmer body. (Note that the warmer body radiates more to the colder body so the net energy is from the warmer to the colder.)

Lying doesn't make it true...if it were as you say, surely as respected a physics department as that of Georgia State would be aware and write it properly...

They did rewrite the second law at Georgia State.
Science wins over pseudoscience. Because of the misunderstanding SSDD had on the second law of thermodynamics, I wrote a letter some time ago to Georgia State concerning their hyperphysics site. This is correspondence I had with Georgia State:

On Jul 16, 2016, at 3:56 PM, [Wuwei] wrote:
Dear XXXXX,

There is a difficulty with the hyperphysics site that you are probably not aware of. Many people quote it as an authoritative source, including me.

However some people try to prove back radiation in greenhouse gases doesn't exist because photons (which have energy) cannot travel from a cold object to a warm object. They conclude global warming is a hoax. They get that from the page:

Second Law of Thermodynamics

There is a statement, under "Second Law: Refrigerator."
"Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object."

That statement is true for refrigerators, but they interpret it to mean photons can't back radiate from a cold atmosphere to a warmer earth.

It would really help if you made a very simple change ....

Thank you
[Wuwei]​

I got got a reply from them. I didn't ask permission to quote them, so I won't. He apologized for the long delay in his response and told me that he added a brief statement.

Here is their updated site. Note the added paragraph that clearly spells out the fact that there is a two way flow of energy for radiation and particles, and the site refers to net energy of that two way flow.This illustrates a gross misunderstanding of SSDD and his minions of what the second law means. And that allows back-radiation.

Site: Second Law of Thermodynamics

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Like I said goober...you be sure to tell me when they rewrite the second law of thermodynamics to relate energy transfer in terms of net as opposed to gross energy movement....it will be big news...but let me know anyway.

It is no longer big news. It was rewritten over 100 years ago in terms of entropy. Tell me how the second law written in terms of entropy disallows radiation from a colder body to a warmer body. (Note that the warmer body radiates more to the colder body so the net energy is from the warmer to the colder.)

Lying doesn't make it true...if it were as you say, surely as respected a physics department as that of Georgia State would be aware and write it properly...

They did rewrite the second law at Georgia State.
Science wins over pseudoscience. Because of the misunderstanding SSDD had on the second law of thermodynamics, I wrote a letter some time ago to Georgia State concerning their hyperphysics site. This is correspondence I had with Georgia State:

On Jul 16, 2016, at 3:56 PM, [Wuwei] wrote:
Dear XXXXX,

There is a difficulty with the hyperphysics site that you are probably not aware of. Many people quote it as an authoritative source, including me.

However some people try to prove back radiation in greenhouse gases doesn't exist because photons (which have energy) cannot travel from a cold object to a warm object. They conclude global warming is a hoax. They get that from the page:

Second Law of Thermodynamics

There is a statement, under "Second Law: Refrigerator."
"Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object."

That statement is true for refrigerators, but they interpret it to mean photons can't back radiate from a cold atmosphere to a warmer earth.

It would really help if you made a very simple change ....

Thank you
[Wuwei]​

I got got a reply from them. I didn't ask permission to quote them, so I won't. He apologized for the long delay in his response and told me that he added a brief statement.

Here is their updated site. Note the added paragraph that clearly spells out the fact that there is a two way flow of energy for radiation and particles, and the site refers to net energy of that two way flow.This illustrates a gross misunderstanding of SSDD and his minions of what the second law means. And that allows back-radiation.

Site: Second Law of Thermodynamics
View attachment 110718

Awesome! Bravo!

Can't wait to see SSDD's new spin.
If we could harness that spin, we could power the US for a year.

 

[Wuwei]

Awesome! Bravo!

Can't wait to see SSDD's new spin.
If we could harness that spin, we could power the US for a year.

Thank you. It is interesting that Georgia State included "energetic particles" along with radiation. He is referring to the fact that molecules of cooler air above a warmer earth can strike the earth.

 

[SSDD]

You be sure to let me know when observations and measurements are made demonstrating net energy flow...I would be interested in knowing when the claim becomes anything more than an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model.

And be sure to post any measurements of back radiation in any specific frequency are made with an instrument at ambient temperature, not cooled to a temperature lower than that of the radiator.

Till such time, observation still supports me no matter who you can find who believes in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You be sure to let me know when observations and measurements are made demonstrating net energy flow...I would be interested in knowing when the claim becomes anything more than an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model.

And be sure to post any measurements of back radiation in any specific frequency are made with an instrument at ambient temperature, not cooled to a temperature lower than that of the radiator.

Till such time, observation still supports me no matter who you can find who believes in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models.

DERP!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Awesome! Bravo!

Can't wait to see SSDD's new spin.
If we could harness that spin, we could power the US for a year.

Thank you. It is interesting that Georgia State included "energetic particles" along with radiation. He is referring to the fact that molecules of cooler air above a warmer earth can strike the earth.

He still won't explain how the cooler surface of the Sun can emit toward the hotter corona.

 

[SSDD]

Awesome! Bravo!

Can't wait to see SSDD's new spin.
If we could harness that spin, we could power the US for a year.

Thank you. It is interesting that Georgia State included "energetic particles" along with radiation. He is referring to the fact that molecules of cooler air above a warmer earth can strike the earth.

He still won't explain how the cooler surface of the Sun can emit toward the hotter corona.

\
Already did...not that you would pay attention....work is being done to make it happen...vast jets of energy being ejected from the surface...But you go ahead and believe in your models....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Awesome! Bravo!

Can't wait to see SSDD's new spin.
If we could harness that spin, we could power the US for a year.

Thank you. It is interesting that Georgia State included "energetic particles" along with radiation. He is referring to the fact that molecules of cooler air above a warmer earth can strike the earth.

He still won't explain how the cooler surface of the Sun can emit toward the hotter corona.

\
Already did...not that you would pay attention....work is being done to make it happen...vast jets of energy being ejected from the surface...But you go ahead and believe in your models....

Vast jets that are hotter than the surface. That's why the surface is black, because it doesn't emit.
DERP!

 

[Wuwei]

You be sure to let me know when observations and measurements are made demonstrating net energy flow...I would be interested in knowing when the claim becomes anything more than an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model.

And be sure to post any measurements of back radiation in any specific frequency are made with an instrument at ambient temperature, not cooled to a temperature lower than that of the radiator.

Till such time, observation still supports me no matter who you can find who believes in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models.

Poor loser, the hyperphysics site, your primary reference for your faulty understanding of thermodynamics has abandon you. Now all you have is your faith.

Be sure to let me know when you come up with a theory, concept or model that definitively shows that electromagnetic radiation or energetic particles from an object cannot strike a warmer object.

Don't forget that cold radiation at 2.7K hit Penzias and Wilson's telescope at a temperature of 4K. That was quite observable, measurable, and testable.

.

 

[SSDD]

By the way...let me know when the second law speaks to the fantasy of net energy flow...

 

[Wuwei]

Since they agree with the second law, why should I look anywhere else....The only reason I post from their statement is that they are a top shelf physics department....and my understanding of the word isn't faulty...the fault lies in you wanting to use another word that isn't there...

You thought Georgia State was a "top shelf" physics department.

By the way...let me know when the second law speaks to the fantasy of net energy flow...

They consider the 2nd law refers to net energy flow. Have you changed your mind about Georgia State being top shelf?


.

 

[SSDD]

[
They consider the 2nd law refers to net energy flow. Have you changed your mind about Georgia State being top shelf?

Still no observation or measurement of two way energy flow?...guess not....still an untestable, unmeasurable, unobservable mathematical model and that's all it will ever be...

 

[Wuwei]

[
They consider the 2nd law refers to net energy flow. Have you changed your mind about Georgia State being top shelf?

Still no observation or measurement of two way energy flow?...guess not....still an untestable, unmeasurable, unobservable mathematical model and that's all it will ever be...

Your rant is meaningless unless you know a physical principle on how particles or EM energy from a colder source are forbidden from hitting a warmer object?

.

 

[jc456]

Tell me how a photon traveling at a longer wave length and substantially less energy can warm a hotter object.. I'll wait..

There is no scientist nor reasonably intelligent person in this forum that believes that would ever happen. If you want to believe that you will have to ask some other person.

wow!!! I thought that was what AGW was all about?

 

[jc456]

You see gentlemen, the black bodies are emitting at a much higher frequency and energetic level. A cooler object can not affect a warmer one due the the resonate frequency of the photons being emitted.

Thus the second law prevents a cooler object from warming a hotter one.

Its not smart photons, its a matter of energy physics.. Just like a dampening field, caused by emissions of a transmitter, the photons are incapable of doing anything to the mass, which is emitting at the higher resonate frequency.

SSDD is right. The photons never reach the warmer black body because of the field surrounding all matter generated by its emissions. A good example of this is Solar output being caught in the earths magnetic bands which never allows it to strike the earth.

Again Empirically Observed effect trumps unsupported conjecture.

That is really very mangled science. Virtually every sentence above is totally meaningless. I mean every sentence.

Enjoy your ignorance.. Read up on EM fields..

Do you understand what bonds atoms together?

Nice!!!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You see gentlemen, the black bodies are emitting at a much higher frequency and energetic level. A cooler object can not affect a warmer one due the the resonate frequency of the photons being emitted.

Thus the second law prevents a cooler object from warming a hotter one.

Its not smart photons, its a matter of energy physics.. Just like a dampening field, caused by emissions of a transmitter, the photons are incapable of doing anything to the mass, which is emitting at the higher resonate frequency.

SSDD is right. The photons never reach the warmer black body because of the field surrounding all matter generated by its emissions. A good example of this is Solar output being caught in the earths magnetic bands which never allows it to strike the earth.

Again Empirically Observed effect trumps unsupported conjecture.

That is really very mangled science. Virtually every sentence above is totally meaningless. I mean every sentence.

Enjoy your ignorance.. Read up on EM fields..

Do you understand what bonds atoms together?

Nice!!!!

JC, maybe you can help Bob?
Explain how EM fields stop photons emitted by 100K matter from hitting matter at 101K.

 

[jc456]

You see gentlemen, the black bodies are emitting at a much higher frequency and energetic level. A cooler object can not affect a warmer one due the the resonate frequency of the photons being emitted.

Thus the second law prevents a cooler object from warming a hotter one.

Its not smart photons, its a matter of energy physics.. Just like a dampening field, caused by emissions of a transmitter, the photons are incapable of doing anything to the mass, which is emitting at the higher resonate frequency.

SSDD is right. The photons never reach the warmer black body because of the field surrounding all matter generated by its emissions. A good example of this is Solar output being caught in the earths magnetic bands which never allows it to strike the earth.

Again Empirically Observed effect trumps unsupported conjecture.

That is really very mangled science. Virtually every sentence above is totally meaningless. I mean every sentence.

Enjoy your ignorance.. Read up on EM fields..

Do you understand what bonds atoms together?

Nice!!!!

JC, maybe you can help Bob?
Explain how EM fields stop photons emitted by 100K matter from hitting matter at 101K.

the electrostatic field. what was so difficult there?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You see gentlemen, the black bodies are emitting at a much higher frequency and energetic level. A cooler object can not affect a warmer one due the the resonate frequency of the photons being emitted.

Thus the second law prevents a cooler object from warming a hotter one.

Its not smart photons, its a matter of energy physics.. Just like a dampening field, caused by emissions of a transmitter, the photons are incapable of doing anything to the mass, which is emitting at the higher resonate frequency.

SSDD is right. The photons never reach the warmer black body because of the field surrounding all matter generated by its emissions. A good example of this is Solar output being caught in the earths magnetic bands which never allows it to strike the earth.

Again Empirically Observed effect trumps unsupported conjecture.

That is really very mangled science. Virtually every sentence above is totally meaningless. I mean every sentence.

Enjoy your ignorance.. Read up on EM fields..

Do you understand what bonds atoms together?

Nice!!!!

JC, maybe you can help Bob?
Explain how EM fields stop photons emitted by 100K matter from hitting matter at 101K.

the electrostatic field. what was so difficult there?

the electrostatic field

Photons are repelled by an electrostatic field? Can you prove it?

what was so difficult there?

Measuring the depth of your misunderstanding.

 

[jc456]

That is really very mangled science. Virtually every sentence above is totally meaningless. I mean every sentence.

Enjoy your ignorance.. Read up on EM fields..

Do you understand what bonds atoms together?

Nice!!!!

JC, maybe you can help Bob?
Explain how EM fields stop photons emitted by 100K matter from hitting matter at 101K.

the electrostatic field. what was so difficult there?

the electrostatic field

Photons are repelled by an electrostatic field? Can you prove it?

what was so difficult there?

Measuring the depth of your misunderstanding.

Can you prove it?
right after you prove they hit.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Enjoy your ignorance.. Read up on EM fields..

Do you understand what bonds atoms together?

Nice!!!!

JC, maybe you can help Bob?
Explain how EM fields stop photons emitted by 100K matter from hitting matter at 101K.

the electrostatic field. what was so difficult there?

the electrostatic field

Photons are repelled by an electrostatic field? Can you prove it?

what was so difficult there?

Measuring the depth of your misunderstanding.

Can you prove it?
right after you prove they hit.

You need proof that photons hit matter?