The Heart of the AGW Premise Fails Empirical Review.

[SSDD]

Regards your comment, for sure, the light bulb is giving off higher energy photons. And they show up brightly when they hit my retinas. But what about the photons coming from my cold leftover lasagna? Has it been heated up by the light bulb? Are those photons of a higher or lower energy level than the ones given off by my eyeballs?

Grab your cold left over lasagna, take it into the hall closet, put a towel at the base of the door so you have no light coming in and tell me how many photons you see coming off your cold lasagna. If you see your lasagna, in the fridge, it is because light from a source in excess of 2000 degrees provided that light.

 

[SSDD]

The fact remains that nothing connected to a power source is a spontaneous process....and anyone who thinks otherwise is completely ignorant of the basics of physics..

Nope, you disagree with the definition of spontaneous process. It is spontaneous if there is no external energy source. And there is none in a penlight.

You are proof that you can't fix stupid....or dishonesty.

 

[Kosh]

The entire AGW religion is solely based on computer models and nothing else.

Models the AGW cult program.

 

[Wuwei]

But the photons from cooler to warmer doesn't violate the second law.

Yes, but SSDD doesn't comprehend that the warmer object out-radiates the cooler object.

So you say...and I keep asking for an observed measured example and you don't seem to be able to provide any at all. Unmeasurable, unobservable untestable models seem to be all you have...

Going back to your fallacy again.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam (also known as: appeal to ignorance): The assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary.

The fallacy is usually best described by, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

All of science disagrees, but appeal to ignorance if you wish.

 

[Wuwei]

The fact remains that nothing connected to a power source is a spontaneous process....and anyone who thinks otherwise is completely ignorant of the basics of physics..

Nope, you disagree with the definition of spontaneous process. It is spontaneous if there is no external energy source. And there is none in a penlight.

You are proof that you can't fix stupid....or dishonesty.

There are no external power inputs to a penlight. Look at this and tell me where you see an external power source.
penlight at DuckDuckGo

 

[SSDD]

But the photons from cooler to warmer doesn't violate the second law.

Yes, but SSDD doesn't comprehend that the warmer object out-radiates the cooler object.

So you say...and I keep asking for an observed measured example and you don't seem to be able to provide any at all. Unmeasurable, unobservable untestable models seem to be all you have...

Going back to your fallacy again.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam (also known as: appeal to ignorance): The assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary.

The fallacy is usually best described by, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

All of science disagrees, but appeal to ignorance if you wish.

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

 

[SSDD]

The fact remains that nothing connected to a power source is a spontaneous process....and anyone who thinks otherwise is completely ignorant of the basics of physics..

Nope, you disagree with the definition of spontaneous process. It is spontaneous if there is no external energy source. And there is none in a penlight.

You are proof that you can't fix stupid....or dishonesty.

There are no external power inputs to a penlight. Look at this and tell me where you see an external power source.
penlight at DuckDuckGo

The LED is producing light...is the LED producing light on its own, or is the LED being powered by something outside itself.

Arguing that because they are all in the same container they constitute a spontaneous system is abject ignorance. By that logic, you could claim that a battery powered refrigerator cools spontaneously since everything required to make it work is in the same box, or that your car moves down the road spontaneously, rolling up hills on its own...everything required to move down the road, at least for a short period of time is contained within the same package...just like everything that is required for your penlight to produce light for a short period of time is contained in the same package.

Do you think you can put any process in a box and call it spontaneous?

Here is perhaps a more complete explanation, in simpler, grade school level terms that you probably also can't, or won't understand. You want to be right so badly that you have become blinded to the obvious.

Spontaneous Reaction - Chemistry Video

"When we say spontaneous, just remember, we're going to say a reaction that requires no outside energy source is classified as a natural process. Think about it. Let's think of a boulder, a huge rock, rolling down a hill. We're going to say that huge boulder doesn't require any type of energy to roll down that hill. It's using its own momentum in order to do that. We're going to say that since it doesn't require any type of energy for it to happen, then it's a spontaneous reaction. On the flip side, let's say we have a reaction where we have to continuously feed it energy in order for it to occur. If you're supplying a continuous amount of energy to something, we're going to classify it as a non-spontaneous reaction. We're going to say non-spontaneous reactions are unnatural. They constantly need energy for them to occur. Let's say we want to run our car. Our car cannot spontaneously run itself without any type of energy. We have to give it a battery, we have to give it gasoline. Without these sources of energy, the car can’t ignite and start off and move on its own. Just remember, the movement of a car will be classified as a non-spontaneous reaction."


By the same token, the light coming out of your penlight is also not a spontaneous reaction. You have to constantly feed it energy and when the battery is dead, the reaction is over.

 

[SSDD]

The fact remains that nothing connected to a power source is a spontaneous process....and anyone who thinks otherwise is completely ignorant of the basics of physics..

Nope, you disagree with the definition of spontaneous process. It is spontaneous if there is no external energy source. And there is none in a penlight.

You are proof that you can't fix stupid....or dishonesty.

There are no external power inputs to a penlight. Look at this and tell me where you see an external power source.
penlight at DuckDuckGo

How much light do you get out of your penlight when the battery is dead? Non spontaneous processes, by definition, require the constant input of energy. Just because you put the battery in the same box with the LED does not mean that the LED is spontaneously producing light, This is such basic stuff, that it is literally astounding that you aren't getting it.

 

[polarbear]

The fact remains that nothing connected to a power source is a spontaneous process....and anyone who thinks otherwise is completely ignorant of the basics of physics..

Nope, you disagree with the definition of spontaneous process. It is spontaneous if there is no external energy source. And there is none in a penlight.

You are proof that you can't fix stupid....or dishonesty.

There are no external power inputs to a penlight. Look at this and tell me where you see an external power source.
penlight at DuckDuckGo

With that you just earned another Darwin award on top of the "I can see whats inside my fridge" example.
There are other ways to power an LED flashlight. Just because you can`t see it does not mean that a LED can light up without power. Like this kid that Google glorified for re-inventing the Peltier effect by simply connecting an LED to it...no matter that all that kid had to do was to watch old Youtube videos showing just that.
Be that as it may, there is no way this flashlight will work if the heat sink is at the same temperature as the heat absorber:

But according to what you (and some other people) have been saying that should not matter.
You figure since photons can be emitted by anything above 0 degK and more of them the warmer the object, that the second law of thermo-dynamics does not apply. As long as you got photons you come up with this idiotic "extra energy", totally ignoring that energy is a work unit and that you need a potential energy DIFFERENCE to perform work. According to you even more work is performed when both objects have the same potential energy (at equal Temperature) because each one is emitting photons.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

Did you ask your professors yet if photons or EM radiation can't flow to warmer objects? Don't you think that would be a great question for you?

No one is denying that Photons or EM radiation can flow from a cooler object towards a warmer object, but it doesn't slow down its cooling rate at all since it is Initially WARMER than the cooler object in the first place.

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

SSDD denies that. Strenuously.

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

But the photons from cooler to warmer doesn't violate the second law.

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

Photons are emitted from anything that is warmer than absolute zero. We had this discussion before, talking about Stefan-Boltzman. Photons leave spontaneously. You seem to keep forgetting the term "NET". The warmer object emits higher energy photons than the cooler object, but they both emit. And the photons do not intercept each other, so some of the photons from the cooler object hit the warmer object. So the NET effect is a flow of energy from warmer to cooler, so the second law is not violated.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I love photons. They hit my retinas and I can see stuff. As far as this silly argument about photons moving from colder to warmer, how is it I can see the stuff in my refrigerator? My retinas are at 98.6F, the stuff in the fridge is about 35F, yet I can see it. All the lettuce and cheese and old spaghetti sauce and everything else are emitting photons that my eyes detect. How can that be?

That's actually a clever counterexample of the SSDD misunderstanding of the wording of the second law;
Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

The true second law is in action when your eyes feel the cold from standing close, but if you want to live up to SSDD's standards you have to make it spontaneous. So put some ice cream on your counter top and do something else for a while like let your fingers be snapped by a mousetrap so you forget about the ice cream. Then when you next happen to see the ice cream it will be spontaneous energy flowing to your eyes. The ice cream might have become soggy, but it was all for science.

Reflected light.... is not the same as emitted light. What your eyes see is the absences of specific bandwidths in the visible spectrum. You guys need to get a new gig.

 

[SSDD]

No one is denying that Photons or EM radiation can flow from a cooler object towards a warmer object, but it doesn't slow down its cooling rate at all since it is Initially WARMER than the cooler object in the first place.

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

SSDD denies that. Strenuously.

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

But the photons from cooler to warmer doesn't violate the second law.

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

Photons are emitted from anything that is warmer than absolute zero. We had this discussion before, talking about Stefan-Boltzman. Photons leave spontaneously. You seem to keep forgetting the term "NET". The warmer object emits higher energy photons than the cooler object, but they both emit. And the photons do not intercept each other, so some of the photons from the cooler object hit the warmer object. So the NET effect is a flow of energy from warmer to cooler, so the second law is not violated.

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

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

 

[SSDD]

I love photons. They hit my retinas and I can see stuff. As far as this silly argument about photons moving from colder to warmer, how is it I can see the stuff in my refrigerator? My retinas are at 98.6F, the stuff in the fridge is about 35F, yet I can see it. All the lettuce and cheese and old spaghetti sauce and everything else are emitting photons that my eyes detect. How can that be?

That's actually a clever counterexample of the SSDD misunderstanding of the wording of the second law;
Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

The true second law is in action when your eyes feel the cold from standing close, but if you want to live up to SSDD's standards you have to make it spontaneous. So put some ice cream on your counter top and do something else for a while like let your fingers be snapped by a mousetrap so you forget about the ice cream. Then when you next happen to see the ice cream it will be spontaneous energy flowing to your eyes. The ice cream might have become soggy, but it was all for science.

Reflected light.... is not the same as emitted light. What your eyes see is the absences of specific bandwidths in the visible spectrum. You guys need to get a new gig.

What they need to do is stop posing as people who have a clue with regard to physics and actually learn some of the basic principles. the more they talk, the more obvious it becomes that they really don't know jack. According to wuwei's thinking, if you put all the components into one box, you suddenly make the output of whatever comes out of that box spontaneous....put a battery in a refrigerator and suddenly it spontaneously cools and the energy at a lower frequency being extracted from the inside of the refrigerator is actually making the mechanism warmer.....and since it is all in one package, your car spontaneously rolls up a mountain if you point it in that direction...and airplanes spontaneously fly because all the components are in the same package...and on and on and on...it is idiocy and ignorance of the highest order.

 

[Billy_Bob]

No one is denying that Photons or EM radiation can flow from a cooler object towards a warmer object, but it doesn't slow down its cooling rate at all since it is Initially WARMER than the cooler object in the first place.

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

SSDD denies that. Strenuously.

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

But the photons from cooler to warmer doesn't violate the second law.

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

Photons are emitted from anything that is warmer than absolute zero. We had this discussion before, talking about Stefan-Boltzman. Photons leave spontaneously. You seem to keep forgetting the term "NET". The warmer object emits higher energy photons than the cooler object, but they both emit. And the photons do not intercept each other, so some of the photons from the cooler object hit the warmer object. So the NET effect is a flow of energy from warmer to cooler, so the second law is not violated.

Nothing more than a mathematically constructed hypothesis based on assumptions.

This is the whole argument you guys have been fighting for weeks on. This drives me nuts!

The whole point of my thread was the physical conditions of matter that allow or disallow absorption of photons (EM radiation). CO2 is energy saturated in our atmosphere and once the molecule is in the positive or high state it can not receive more energy before it releases energy and returns to its low (neutral) dipole state.

MY whole point being, that our atmosphere is now totally transparent to LWIR and it can not cause further warming at current levels of CO2 saturation.

 

[polarbear]

No one is denying that Photons or EM radiation can flow from a cooler object towards a warmer object, but it doesn't slow down its cooling rate at all since it is Initially WARMER than the cooler object in the first place.

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

SSDD denies that. Strenuously.

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

But the photons from cooler to warmer doesn't violate the second law.

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

Photons are emitted from anything that is warmer than absolute zero. We had this discussion before, talking about Stefan-Boltzman. Photons leave spontaneously. You seem to keep forgetting the term "NET". The warmer object emits higher energy photons than the cooler object, but they both emit. And the photons do not intercept each other, so some of the photons from the cooler object hit the warmer object. So the NET effect is a flow of energy from warmer to cooler, so the second law is not violated.

You seem to keep forgetting the term "NET".
So the NET effect is a flow of energy from warmer to cooler, so the second law is not violated.
SSDD is not the one forgetting "NET" energy it`s your buddy Wuwei...and some of the other warmers.
Not only do they forget "NET" but they go so far and change it to EXTRA energy.
As if you could hide a clear violation of the 2nd law of thermo-dynamics behind the phrase "net energy". , performing work even when there is no energy potential difference.

 

[polarbear]

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

SSDD denies that. Strenuously.

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

But the photons from cooler to warmer doesn't violate the second law.

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

Photons are emitted from anything that is warmer than absolute zero. We had this discussion before, talking about Stefan-Boltzman. Photons leave spontaneously. You seem to keep forgetting the term "NET". The warmer object emits higher energy photons than the cooler object, but they both emit. And the photons do not intercept each other, so some of the photons from the cooler object hit the warmer object. So the NET effect is a flow of energy from warmer to cooler, so the second law is not violated.

Nothing more than a mathematically constructed hypothesis based on assumptions.

This is the whole argument you guys have been fighting for weeks on. This drives me nuts!

The whole point of my thread was the physical conditions of matter that allow or disallow absorption of photons (EM radiation). CO2 is energy saturated in our atmosphere and once the molecule is in the positive or high state it can not receive more energy before it releases energy and returns to its low (neutral) dipole state.

MY whole point being, that our atmosphere is now totally transparent to LWIR and it can not cause further warming at current levels of CO2 saturation.

once the molecule is in the positive or high state it can not receive more energy before it releases energy and returns to its low (neutral) dipole state.
Of course you meant to say the electron orbitals in a molecule and shortened that to "molecule", but even though that can be proven to be as you said with any absorption spectroscope it won`t matter to the warmers.
They rely on that you won`t be able to find a link to it with Google. The only place you can find it is in the operator manuals that come with these instruments. Perkin Elmer, Jarell Ash etc don`t publish the contents of these manuals for free on the internet. I wish they would because then it would be easy to shut up these bozos once and for all.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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

But the photons from cooler to warmer doesn't violate the second law.

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

Photons are emitted from anything that is warmer than absolute zero. We had this discussion before, talking about Stefan-Boltzman. Photons leave spontaneously. You seem to keep forgetting the term "NET". The warmer object emits higher energy photons than the cooler object, but they both emit. And the photons do not intercept each other, so some of the photons from the cooler object hit the warmer object. So the NET effect is a flow of energy from warmer to cooler, so the second law is not violated.

Nothing more than a mathematically constructed hypothesis based on assumptions.

This is the whole argument you guys have been fighting for weeks on. This drives me nuts!

The whole point of my thread was the physical conditions of matter that allow or disallow absorption of photons (EM radiation). CO2 is energy saturated in our atmosphere and once the molecule is in the positive or high state it can not receive more energy before it releases energy and returns to its low (neutral) dipole state.

MY whole point being, that our atmosphere is now totally transparent to LWIR and it can not cause further warming at current levels of CO2 saturation.

once the molecule is in the positive or high state it can not receive more energy before it releases energy and returns to its low (neutral) dipole state.
Of course you meant to say the electron orbitals in a molecule and shortened that to "molecule", but even though that can be proven to be as you said with any absorption spectroscope it won`t matter to the warmers.
They rely on that you won`t be able to find a link to it with Google. The only place you can find it is in the operator manuals that come with these instruments. Perkin Elmer, Jarell Ash etc don`t publish the contents of these manuals for free on the internet. I wish they would because then it would be easy to shut up these bozos once and for all.

Quantum Mechanics is in its infant stage. What we think we know is barely scratching the surface, but you are correct about the orbital and molecule terms. My Bad.. I will try harder in the future to be more precise.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

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

SSDD denies that. Strenuously.

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

But the photons from cooler to warmer doesn't violate the second law.

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

Photons are emitted from anything that is warmer than absolute zero. We had this discussion before, talking about Stefan-Boltzman. Photons leave spontaneously. You seem to keep forgetting the term "NET". The warmer object emits higher energy photons than the cooler object, but they both emit. And the photons do not intercept each other, so some of the photons from the cooler object hit the warmer object. So the NET effect is a flow of energy from warmer to cooler, so the second law is not violated.

Nothing more than a mathematically constructed hypothesis based on assumptions.

This is the whole argument you guys have been fighting for weeks on. This drives me nuts!

The whole point of my thread was the physical conditions of matter that allow or disallow absorption of photons (EM radiation). CO2 is energy saturated in our atmosphere and once the molecule is in the positive or high state it can not receive more energy before it releases energy and returns to its low (neutral) dipole state.

MY whole point being, that our atmosphere is now totally transparent to LWIR and it can not cause further warming at current levels of CO2 saturation.

What is the status of newly emitted CO2 from vehicles and powerplants? Is it also transparent to LWIR? I thought the whole argument about AGW was more CO2 led to more energy absorbed led to a warmer atmosphere.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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

But the photons from cooler to warmer doesn't violate the second law.

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

Photons are emitted from anything that is warmer than absolute zero. We had this discussion before, talking about Stefan-Boltzman. Photons leave spontaneously. You seem to keep forgetting the term "NET". The warmer object emits higher energy photons than the cooler object, but they both emit. And the photons do not intercept each other, so some of the photons from the cooler object hit the warmer object. So the NET effect is a flow of energy from warmer to cooler, so the second law is not violated.

Nothing more than a mathematically constructed hypothesis based on assumptions.

This is the whole argument you guys have been fighting for weeks on. This drives me nuts!

The whole point of my thread was the physical conditions of matter that allow or disallow absorption of photons (EM radiation). CO2 is energy saturated in our atmosphere and once the molecule is in the positive or high state it can not receive more energy before it releases energy and returns to its low (neutral) dipole state.

MY whole point being, that our atmosphere is now totally transparent to LWIR and it can not cause further warming at current levels of CO2 saturation.

What is the status of newly emitted CO2 from vehicles and powerplants? Is it also transparent to LWIR? I thought the whole argument about AGW was more CO2 led to more energy absorbed led to a warmer atmosphere.

Here is the LOG of CO2... Its primary warming capabilities were spent long before reaching 250ppm

The fact that it is not positively affecting of H2O in our atmosphere and that H2O is acting as a damper restricting the warming is driving alarmists nuts. We have seen just 1/2 of the lab results warming in our atmosphere. This tells us water vapor is the control, not CO2.

Their modeling is a failure, as their outcomes compared with reality show...

 

[Billy_Bob]

What is the status of newly emitted CO2 from vehicles and powerplants? Is it also transparent to LWIR?

Transparent as well... Any thing we place into the atmosphere now will have little to no effect, <1.1 deg C per doubling. This means a doubling to 820ppm will have less than a 1.1 Deg C rise.