Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[jc456]

Of course not...that is just the best explanation that you wack jobs could come up with as a reason that energy doesn't move spontaneously from cool to warm...We know so little about the fundamental mechanism...scratch that..we know nothing about the fundamental mechanism of energy change...we don't know what makes it happen...so we have no idea what is going on there...but there is a reason that we never observe energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm...perhaps some day we will know...

First, I have no theory...and my position has always been that energy doesn't move spontaneously from cool to warm...it is your lack of reading skills that have left you thinking that my position is otherwise...

Are you claiming that MHD waves and plasma jets aren't work?

The key word in that sentence is guess....which is precisely where science is in its statements regarding energy exchange...it is all guessing...and I can't help but wonder why you wackos want to guess that something is happening that we can't, and never will observe over guessing that something is happening that supports every observation ever made.

Of course not...that is just the best explanation that you wack jobs could come up with as a reason that energy doesn't move spontaneously from cool to warm

No, that was your explanation for the directions photons moved and why.

First, I have no theory

Your theory is that photons are prevented from moving from the cool atmosphere of Earth, to the warmer surface, because the 2nd Law, which doesn't mention photons, requires photons to know their course and the temperature of matter around them.

Are you claiming that MHD waves and plasma jets aren't work?

For at least the 4th time, the corona and the reason for its high temperature don't matter.
What matters is your claim that the cooler surface CANNOT emit toward warmer matter.

The key word in that sentence is guess

It's true, we have to guess about your theory, because you can't provide any source that agrees with your claims......how else can we flesh out your silly "theory" without guessing?

Try again?

Photons can't move from cool to warm, but they do when they move from the Sun's surface to the corona
because ________________.

again with misinformation on a response as I'm reading new posts. you do this frequently.

What matters is your claim that the cooler surface CANNOT emit toward warmer matter.

why don't you ever quote what was actually posted. SSDD's comment is this:
"First, I have no theory...and my position has always been that energy doesn't move spontaneously from cool to warm."

big word you missed in your misinformed response. 'spontaneous' Maybe it's you don't know what the definition of the word is. don't know, but you mostly miss using it when responding.

Explain further what allows these cool photons to move toward warmer matter.

Do photons know if they're spontaneously moving or not?

why exactly? it seems SSDD had given you the information you requested awhile back.

Yes, I've already poked holes in his "theory". Thanks!

or not

 

[CrusaderFrank]

That magnetic waves cause coronal heat is nothing more that the latest wild-eyed guess to explain something observable, yet defies our understanding of physics. It's a plug idea, a space filler.

The photons must come from the corona and not the surface

Photons come from both.

How do you know?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Of course not...that is just the best explanation that you wack jobs could come up with as a reason that energy doesn't move spontaneously from cool to warm

No, that was your explanation for the directions photons moved and why.

First, I have no theory

Your theory is that photons are prevented from moving from the cool atmosphere of Earth, to the warmer surface, because the 2nd Law, which doesn't mention photons, requires photons to know their course and the temperature of matter around them.

Are you claiming that MHD waves and plasma jets aren't work?

For at least the 4th time, the corona and the reason for its high temperature don't matter.
What matters is your claim that the cooler surface CANNOT emit toward warmer matter.

The key word in that sentence is guess

It's true, we have to guess about your theory, because you can't provide any source that agrees with your claims......how else can we flesh out your silly "theory" without guessing?

Try again?

Photons can't move from cool to warm, but they do when they move from the Sun's surface to the corona
because ________________.

again with misinformation on a response as I'm reading new posts. you do this frequently.

What matters is your claim that the cooler surface CANNOT emit toward warmer matter.

why don't you ever quote what was actually posted. SSDD's comment is this:
"First, I have no theory...and my position has always been that energy doesn't move spontaneously from cool to warm."

big word you missed in your misinformed response. 'spontaneous' Maybe it's you don't know what the definition of the word is. don't know, but you mostly miss using it when responding.

Explain further what allows these cool photons to move toward warmer matter.

Do photons know if they're spontaneously moving or not?

why exactly? it seems SSDD had given you the information you requested awhile back.

Yes, I've already poked holes in his "theory". Thanks!

or not

Maybe you can help him by explaining why photons can NEVER travel from cooler matter to warmer matter....except where the Sun is involved?

Or not.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That magnetic waves cause coronal heat is nothing more that the latest wild-eyed guess to explain something observable, yet defies our understanding of physics. It's a plug idea, a space filler.

The photons must come from the corona and not the surface

Photons come from both.

How do you know?

 

[jc456]

again with misinformation on a response as I'm reading new posts. you do this frequently.

What matters is your claim that the cooler surface CANNOT emit toward warmer matter.

why don't you ever quote what was actually posted. SSDD's comment is this:
"First, I have no theory...and my position has always been that energy doesn't move spontaneously from cool to warm."

big word you missed in your misinformed response. 'spontaneous' Maybe it's you don't know what the definition of the word is. don't know, but you mostly miss using it when responding.

Explain further what allows these cool photons to move toward warmer matter.

Do photons know if they're spontaneously moving or not?

why exactly? it seems SSDD had given you the information you requested awhile back.

Yes, I've already poked holes in his "theory". Thanks!

or not

Maybe you can help him by explaining why photons can NEVER travel from cooler matter to warmer matter....except where the Sun is involved?

Or not.

why is it the surface is cooler if it is the source?

 

[Olde Europe]

It's a problem if the folks DOING the systems modeling actually LOOK at all those things as "forcings".. In a complex system with feedbacks and storage and delays, that measure "energy balance" resulting in a surface temp change, the only primary energy ENTERING the system (in this case) is the solar forcing and some trivial contributions such as plate tectonics, atmospheric friction, and planetary "wobble". Then you have adjustments to "transfer functions" that change dynamically which affect HOW that primary energy gets, distributed, stored or delayed.

The best "handle" on transfer functions are the "solar constant" (which is NOT constant when searching for such small results) and the effect of the GHGases. Both of these are pretty well (but not completely) specified by basic chemistry and physics and observation. The OTHER things you mentioned are less well "modeled". Because of serious lack of knowledge about the feedbacks, delays, and storage.

For instance, the GHGases dont ADD any energy to the overall system other than what they put into storage. They IMPEDE the NET LOSS of energy to space. And if you look back at the "famous" Trenberth "energy" diagram where he took all of this on the back on an envelope (uncertainties and all) and MIRACULOUSLY discovered the EXACT amount of trivial energy to account for all the warming by the path thru the GHGases , he left out one of the most IMPORTANT aspects of this transfer function. And that was "ocean storage" of the "excess heat" created by additional "atmospheric insulation". About 20 years LATER --- he co-authors a paper about "How the Oceans Ate My Global Warming" by making the claim that a full 90% of the EXCESS HEAT created by the heat retardardation to space ended up as storage in the DEEP oceans. Yet at the time he pulled off that miraculous envelope exercise -- he completely left that component OUT of his "balance".. He simply considered the "back radiation" of the GHGases as a simple "forcing" without accounting for complexity of that particular transfer function that ACTS on changes in that one variable.

In addition, because the GHG effect doesn't ADD any primary energy into the system -- you need to account for the ATMOSPHERIC storage of that energy as well as the ocean and any land storage. Because OBVIOUSLY if the effect of higher GHGases is to RETAIN ENERGY at the surface -- it must be "stored" somewhere right? Do you know the what the "storage capacity" is of an additional 120ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is? What is the retention time of that storage. Etc, Etc.. Bottom line is --- it's not a forcing in the traditional "systems theory" terminology -- is it?

It's a technical observation. Not ready for public education. But it shows how juvenile and sloppy it was to allow the public to THINK for nearly 20 years --- that CO2/CH4 emissions was the MASTER TUNING KNOB for this complex system.. It isn't..

Since you said you have an engineering background -- I didn't hold back. Hope you understand my skepticism about some of the whackier "pronouncements" that have come from the AGW circus..

Okay, I've read that thing thrice now, and still don't really understand your problem.

If you add insulation to your house, and the heater (the sun) keeps running at the same rate, the new equilibrium will show there's more heat in the house (system). So, in that sense, GHGs (insulation) "add" energy to the system. I believe we agree on that, even if the process of heat retention is different from heat creation in, say, a stove.

Moreover, since you're perennially bashing poor Trenberth: The earth's heat content (let's leave out minor factors such as heating by the earth's molten core, etc.) is determined by solar irradiation minus the sum of all radiation to space. That alone gives you the changes in energy content. Where any excess heat ends up being stored affects the internal dynamics, but not the overall heat content. That's why Trenberth could leave out ocean storage and still come up with a pretty accurate figure. Moreover, the cleverly dubbed "How the Oceans Ate My Global Warming" forgets that the oceans are pretty much part of the globe, and thus a part of "Global Warming", very much so. So, when oceans are storing heat away in deeper regions, and land surface temperatures don't budge much, "global warming" still hasn't stopped. So, the much celebrated "Hiatus" or "Pause" was just bogus nonsense based on the difficulty to find the excess heat, and the ubiquitous reliance on cherry-picking beginning and end dates subsequent to the 1998 El Niño..

So, yes, heat retention by GHGs is somewhat different from solar irradiation. Unless you come up with another, better term for that former aspect of forcing (which I am convinced it is), I cannot see anything in this whole exercise other than nitpicking over mere words.

"But it shows how juvenile and sloppy it was to allow the public to THINK for nearly 20 years --- that CO2/CH4 emissions was the MASTER TUNING KNOB for this complex system.. It isn't.."​

All I read points to CO2 as the main driver of warming at the time, methane playing a comparatively minor role (for the time being). Whether that translates to "MASTER TUNING KNOB" I patently don't know. I also don't know whether in a complex system such as the earth's climate there is a MASTER TUNING KNOB, or whether it was actually sloppy to allow the public think there is one. Global warming is real, CO2 is its main driver, reducing carbon emissions should be our main environmental policy aim, and it does not make one whit of a difference to me whether we call it a "MASTER TUNING KNOB" or humankind's self-destructive addiction to fossil fuels or whatever.

As to this:

"Do you know the what the "storage capacity" is of an additional 120ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is?"​

Of course, CO2 molecules hit by IR radiation transfer energy by way of collisions to nearby N2 or O2 molecules, so the storage capacity of "an additional 120ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere" is of no import. Rather, raising the question appears to indicate a misunderstanding on your part.

I don't think I've ever spoken about my background, as I don't think that our contributions should be judged according to any such claimed, unverified background. As to being wary of wacky pronouncements, yep, there's something to that. You won't be surprised to learn that I am locating the predominant source of such pronouncements in the other corner, eh?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Explain further what allows these cool photons to move toward warmer matter.

Do photons know if they're spontaneously moving or not?

why exactly? it seems SSDD had given you the information you requested awhile back.

Yes, I've already poked holes in his "theory". Thanks!

or not

Maybe you can help him by explaining why photons can NEVER travel from cooler matter to warmer matter....except where the Sun is involved?

Or not.

why is it the surface is cooler if it is the source?

why is it the surface is cooler

Why does it matter?

 

[polarbear]

Trying to tell a warmer what the Boltzmann equation does say and what it does not say is like trying to educate an outback bushman that the tribe`s witch doctor does not have supernatural powers.
The only thing this equation: σT1^4 - σT2^4 states is the amount of work (as in energy) can be transfered from a mass A at T1 to another mass B at T2.
If T1>T2 then energy is transfered from A to B, but never the other way around.
The warmers insist it is reversible enabling B to transfer energy to A because there are photons coming from A that B absorbs.
There are, nobody says there are not.
But that does not TRANSFER ENERGY from B to A, because in order to do that B has to increase the ENERGY of A, which means work was performed on the mass A with ENERGY being consumed that came from B. If that were possible then A should now be able to perform more work than it could before that backward process happened.
Warmers are unable to realize how absurd their interpretation of the Boltzmann equation is, reject any proof of the contrary and if all fails they invoke a third body C that finally explains why A can perform more work because B was there.
All the while there is proof that only A to B transfer can happen and not B to A. It`s everywhere you look and can observe a thermodynamic process that performs work.
Expanding the liquid in a bulb thermometer requires work, as does the expansion of a gas.
If you put some hot liquid A in a thermos and screw the top on the hot liquid will heat the colder air B that makes up the head space in that thermos.
You can observe that by connecting a manometer tube to the thermos and watch the pressure going up or you can connect a volumetric device and watch the volume increase while leaving the pressure at ambient.
Either way A at any time transfered energy to B and at no time was there an energy transfer from B to A. Else it should have been possible to observe a drop in pressure or volume.
The A ----> B energy transfer will continue until B is at the same final temperature f as A
Now you got the situation, σTf - σTf, where the energy transfer is null
After that both will start cooling down to the ambient temperature a ,because we can`t make a perfect thermos bottle.
The air in the thermos head space is now at the same volume and/or pressure it was when we started the process and now no more work or energy transfer between A and B is performed in either direction.
Warmers will refuse to accept that all Watts/m^2 = σT1 - σT^4 states is that cooling rate is slower. They claim that proves that A at T1 is getting energy from B at T2.
A Stirling engine performs less work per time, i.e. is loosing power when the cooling cycle is impeded even though you supply heat energy at the same rate as before.

According to the warmers that should not be happening because slowing the cooling rate means you added more heat energy.
According to the warmers, since photons are an energy quantum photons also have a mass.
After all E=mc^2 so it`s child`s play for warmers to find out the mass of a photon by solving for m, m=E/c^2 using the energy in photons to determine their mass.
Which gives us a clue how a Hollywood startrek photon torpedo works.
It`s a photon mass fusion reactor and the energy is the mass defect divided by c^2 after the fusion reaction.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Trying to tell a warmer what the Boltzmann equation does say and what it does not say is like trying to educate an outback bushman that the tribe`s witch doctor does not have supernatural powers.
The only thing this equation: σT1^4 - σT2^4 states is the amount of work (as in energy) can be transfered from a mass A at T1 to another mass B at T2.
If T1>T2 then energy is transfered from A to B, but never the other way around.
The warmers insist it is reversible enabling B to transfer energy to A because there are photons coming from A that B absorbs.
There are, nobody says there are not.
But that does not TRANSFER ENERGY from B to A, because in order to do that B has to increase the ENERGY of A, which means work was performed on the mass A with ENERGY being consumed that came from B. If that were possible then A should now be able to perform more work than it could before that backward process happened.
Warmers are unable to realize how absurd their interpretation of the Boltzmann equation is, reject any proof of the contrary and if all fails they invoke a third body C that finally explains why A can perform more work because B was there.
All the while there is proof that only A to B transfer can happen and not B to A. It`s everywhere you look and can observe a thermodynamic process that performs work.
Expanding the liquid in a bulb thermometer requires work, as does the expansion of a gas.
If you put some hot liquid A in a thermos and screw the top on the hot liquid will heat the colder air B that makes up the head space in that thermos.
You can observe that by connecting a manometer tube to the thermos and watch the pressure going up or you can connect a volumetric device and watch the volume increase while leaving the pressure at ambient.
Either way A at any time transfered energy to B and at no time was there an energy transfer from B to A. Else it should have been possible to observe a drop in pressure or volume.
The A ----> B energy transfer will continue until B is at the same final temperature f as A
Now you got the situation, σTf - σTf, where the energy transfer is null
After that both will start cooling down to the ambient temperature a ,because we can`t make a perfect thermos bottle.
The air in the thermos head space is now at the same volume and/or pressure it was when we started the process and now no more work or energy transfer between A and B is performed in either direction.
Warmers will refuse to accept that all Watts/m^2 = σT1 - σT^4 states is that cooling rate is slower. They claim that proves that A at T1 is getting energy from B at T2.
A Stirling engine performs less work per time, i.e. is loosing power when the cooling cycle is impeded even though you supply heat energy at the same rate as before.

According to the warmers that should not be happening because slowing the cooling rate means you added more heat energy.
According to the warmers, since photons are an energy quantum photons also have a mass.
After all E=mc^2 so it`s child`s play for warmers to find out the mass of a photon by solving for m, m=E/c^2 using the energy in photons to determine their mass.
Which gives us a clue how a Hollywood startrek photon torpedo works.
It`s a photon mass fusion reactor and the energy is the mass defect divided by c^2 after the fusion reaction.

there are photons coming from B that A absorbs.
There are, nobody says there are not.

SSDD and JC456 (and probably Billy_Bob) say that there are no photons from the cooler to the warmer.

But that does not TRANSFER ENERGY from B to A, because in order to do that B has to increase the ENERGY of A,

Correct, net energy still moves from A to B.

Warmers are unable to realize how absurd their interpretation of the Boltzmann equation is

Yeah, warmers are the worst. They want to waste trillions on stupid windmills and damage our economy.
But the only confusion about Stefan-Boltzmann I've seen involves SSDD's claim that two identical objects at the same temperature stop emitting completely. And his claim that a cooler object emits zero toward the warmer.

Now you got the situation, σTf - σTf, where the energy transfer is null

If you mean net transfer is 0, we agree. If you think no photons move between the objects, that's SSDD's claim.

 

[jc456]

why exactly? it seems SSDD had given you the information you requested awhile back.

Yes, I've already poked holes in his "theory". Thanks!

or not

Maybe you can help him by explaining why photons can NEVER travel from cooler matter to warmer matter....except where the Sun is involved?

Or not.

why is it the surface is cooler if it is the source?

why is it the surface is cooler

Why does it matter?

why does your question matter then?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, I've already poked holes in his "theory". Thanks!

or not

Maybe you can help him by explaining why photons can NEVER travel from cooler matter to warmer matter....except where the Sun is involved?

Or not.

why is it the surface is cooler if it is the source?

why is it the surface is cooler

Why does it matter?

why does your question matter then?

It shows SSDD's error.

 

[jc456]

or not

Maybe you can help him by explaining why photons can NEVER travel from cooler matter to warmer matter....except where the Sun is involved?

Or not.

why is it the surface is cooler if it is the source?

why is it the surface is cooler

Why does it matter?

why does your question matter then?

It shows SSDD's error.

or not

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Maybe you can help him by explaining why photons can NEVER travel from cooler matter to warmer matter....except where the Sun is involved?

Or not.

why is it the surface is cooler if it is the source?

why is it the surface is cooler

Why does it matter?

why does your question matter then?

It shows SSDD's error.

or not

Maybe you can help him by explaining why photons can NEVER travel from cooler matter to warmer matter....except where the Sun is involved?

Or not.

 

[jc456]

why is it the surface is cooler if it is the source?

why is it the surface is cooler

Why does it matter?

why does your question matter then?

It shows SSDD's error.

or not

Maybe you can help him by explaining why photons can NEVER travel from cooler matter to warmer matter....except where the Sun is involved?

Or not.

well then explain why the corona is hotter than the surface? dude, I can play this game all year with you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

why is it the surface is cooler

Why does it matter?

why does your question matter then?

It shows SSDD's error.

or not

Maybe you can help him by explaining why photons can NEVER travel from cooler matter to warmer matter....except where the Sun is involved?

Or not.

well then explain why the corona is hotter than the surface? dude, I can play this game all year with you.

That is a very interesting question. We may never know.
Which has nothing to do with the claim that photons can NEVER travel from cooler matter to warmer.

 

[flacaltenn]

If you add insulation to your house, and the heater (the sun) keeps running at the same rate, the new equilibrium will show there's more heat in the house (system). So, in that sense, GHGs (insulation) "add" energy to the system. I believe we agree on that, even if the process of heat retention is different from heat creation in, say, a stove.

If you use the insulation analogy, insulation itself -- adds no energy to the system. It all derives from your HVAC. It's not a NEW forcing, --- it's in storage..

Moreover, since you're perennially bashing poor Trenberth: The earth's heat content (let's leave out minor factors such as heating by the earth's molten core, etc.) is determined by solar irradiation minus the sum of all radiation to space. That alone gives you the changes in energy content. Where any excess heat ends up being stored affects the internal dynamics, but not the overall heat content. That's why Trenberth could leave out ocean storage and still come up with a pretty accurate figure.

No.. It's not just the "in" versus the "out".. That's the trivial approach that Trenberth did. So let's back up.. He called it an "energy balance", but it wasn't and energy balance. It was a POWER balance. What's the big diff you say??

ENERGY has a time component. It's the power flow over a period of time. If you have storage mechanisms and delays and feedbacks -- you cannot account for them in units that don't include proper time constants for dissipation and thermal redistribution. So in his "diagram", he's got a certain amount of solar forcing balanced by the "insulation" that keeps it in or lets it out. But in reality, the MAJORITY of that energy (as Trenberth acknowledged 20 years later) didn't "exchange" at all. It was saved in the oceans and smaller fraction saved in the atmos. NONE of that "deep ocean storage" is available to warm the surface UNTIL you get an El Nino or other "heat venting" from that source. For the MOST part -- it resides in Davy Jones Locker and NOT at the surface or in the atmos.

NOWHERE in his famous "balance" did this MASSIVE amount of energy show up as a debit on the solar side or even a debit from the amount returned to the sky.. But YET -- this "leading AGW scientist" ended up finding EXACTLY the measly 3.5 W/m2 of "imbalance" (out of 500 or 1000 W/m2 of input power daily) he was looking for to show the AGW "effect".. Is that not fucking amazing????

So, when oceans are storing heat away in deeper regions, and land surface temperatures don't budge much, "global warming" still hasn't stopped. So, the much celebrated "Hiatus" or "Pause" was just bogus nonsense based on the difficulty to find the excess heat, and the ubiquitous reliance on cherry-picking beginning and end dates subsequent to the 1998 El Niño..

I don't spite you for believing in that Fairy Tale, because it was effective propaganda. But the REALITY is that the deep ocean charts from the BTK study (where Trenberth is the "T" in BTK) show that oceans were ABSORBING this energy AT THE SAME RATE OR LESS since the 1960s. Thus without going to secondary analysis involving delays and time constants --- you CAN NOT account for a 15 year pause with just that information. Add to that the fact that LWIR cannot penetrate much more than a mmeter of the ocean surface while direct solar radiation CAN -- It's not likely that ONLY the back radiation from GHGases is the primary source of that constant amount going into the oceans at the same RATE for 40 or 50 years.

So, yes, heat retention by GHGs is somewhat different from solar irradiation. Unless you come up with another, better term for that former aspect of forcing (which I am convinced it is), I cannot see anything in this whole exercise other than nitpicking over mere words.

I'm merely pointing out that by declaring "back radiation" from the Atmos as a FORCING, (or deforestation or any of the other things that you mentioned) you can make MAJOR MISTAKES in accounting for the energy balance to temperature equilibriums. The GH effect is a STORAGE mechanism, NOT a forcing. And when you draw up the block diagram and start MODELING it -- it better be represented as a storage with various time dependencies and functional relations.

Of course, CO2 molecules hit by IR radiation transfer energy by way of collisions to nearby N2 or O2 molecules, so the storage capacity of "an additional 120ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere" is of no import. Rather, raising the question appears to indicate a misunderstanding on your part.

Those "collisions" might cause some change in the energy of either component. But that mechanical agitation is not PART of "heat retention" or storage capacity of the atmos. Those mechanical effects will end up with no CHANGE to the energy balance. To STORE heat, any atmos component must have a "thermal capacity" that you can find in ANY basic Chemistry handbook. To interact with LONG WAVE IR -- they must also have emission/absorbance lines at the CORRECT frequencies. That limits the components that can STORE the Earth's LWIR heat budget to those molecules that have the right vibrational mechanics in their structure. And that limits the storage function to the GHGases. Because the Earth only EMITS it's heat in those frequency bands. True statement. If the atmos has "heat retention capability" and it does -- and time constants that determine the RETENTION time of that heat -- and it does -- then ONLY those gases not transparent to LWIR are involved. Basic GH theory..

I don't think I've ever spoken about my background, as I don't think that our contributions should be judged according to any such claimed, unverified background. As to being wary of wacky pronouncements, yep, there's something to that. You won't be surprised to learn that I am locating the predominant source of such pronouncements in the other corner, eh?

So I apologize for thinking I saw that in our discussion. As usual, I spend MORE time focused on the discussion and LESS time focused on the personality. As to rest of your "brushback" -- you haven't located anything yet -- we're just having a discussion. When it escalates to an ARGUMENT -- we can get snippy with EACH OTHER. I have been snippy about A LOT of the misrepresentations of science that have happened in the interest of propagandizing the public -- but the more important bit for YOU to realize -- is that I've not been snippy with you at all ---- YET ...

 

[SSDD]

why is it the surface is cooler

Why does it matter?

why does your question matter then?

It shows SSDD's error.

or not

Maybe you can help him by explaining why photons can NEVER travel from cooler matter to warmer matter....except where the Sun is involved?

Or not.

well then explain why the corona is hotter than the surface? dude, I can play this game all year with you.

At this point his argument has become.....because...don't expect more. He doesn't like the explanation he was given...and in a couple of posts, he will have forgotten all about the whole spontaneous movement and be right back to his childish argument again claiming whatever it is about my position he claims...

 

[jc456]

why does your question matter then?

It shows SSDD's error.

or not

Maybe you can help him by explaining why photons can NEVER travel from cooler matter to warmer matter....except where the Sun is involved?

Or not.

well then explain why the corona is hotter than the surface? dude, I can play this game all year with you.

That is a very interesting question. We may never know.
Which has nothing to do with the claim that photons can NEVER travel from cooler matter to warmer.

well sure there is, if there are photons moving between each location than something is wrong with your physics.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It shows SSDD's error.

or not

Maybe you can help him by explaining why photons can NEVER travel from cooler matter to warmer matter....except where the Sun is involved?

Or not.

well then explain why the corona is hotter than the surface? dude, I can play this game all year with you.

That is a very interesting question. We may never know.
Which has nothing to do with the claim that photons can NEVER travel from cooler matter to warmer.

well sure there is, if there are photons moving between each location than something is wrong with your physics.

if there are photons moving between each location than something is wrong with your physics

Photons are clearly moving from the cooler surface to the hotter corona and from the hotter corona to the cooler surface. What's wrong with the physics of that?

 

[jc456]

or not

Maybe you can help him by explaining why photons can NEVER travel from cooler matter to warmer matter....except where the Sun is involved?

Or not.

well then explain why the corona is hotter than the surface? dude, I can play this game all year with you.

That is a very interesting question. We may never know.
Which has nothing to do with the claim that photons can NEVER travel from cooler matter to warmer.

well sure there is, if there are photons moving between each location than something is wrong with your physics.

if there are photons moving between each location than something is wrong with your physics

Photons are clearly moving from the cooler surface to the hotter corona and from the hotter corona to the cooler surface. What's wrong with the physics of that?

how do you know they are? you just said you can't explain why the corona is hotter than the surface? so how do you know that there are actual photons? Again, it goes against your physics.