The Heart of the AGW Premise Fails Empirical Review.

[SSDD]

You must have forgotten. A lightstick uses a spontaneous chemiluminescence process... Have you ever seen a kid with a chemical lightstick? You can hold it in your hand, and it will illuminate something too hot to touch? That refutes your claim.

You think a light stick is a spontaneous process? Of course you do...hell you think a flash light is a spontaneous process.

You used a metaphysics argument a few weeks ago. Now you are using a religious argument. It might be more appropriate to stick with physics if you can.

Nope...just pointing out the logical fallacy that you believe is a rational argument.

 

[SSDD]

I need no reminder that plenty of smart people are fooled by insturmentation....nor do I need a reminder that you believe that energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm...and I already know that no spontaneous process results in the movement of energy from cool to warm....I also know that if you are able to look deeply enough into any apparent spontaneous movement of energy from cool to warm, you will discover that every non spontaneous process ( which can result in energy moving from cool to warm) is preceded by a spontaneous process. This happens over and over and over in biological systems. It is what leads creationists to believe that life itself could not arise on its own because of the second law of thermodynamics. They see apparent order arising from chaos and fail to se that every non spontaneous process is proceeded by a spontaneous process.

Don't forget the spontaneous lightstick that most kids understand.

I see you are appealing to religious arguments again. Try to understand and use physics in action. Even kids can observe it.

Only an abject idiot would think that a light stick is a spontaneous process...the same sort of idiot that would think that a flashlight is a spontaneous process.

 

[SSDD]

I need no reminder that plenty of smart people are fooled by insturmentation....nor do I need a reminder that you believe that energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm...and I already know that no spontaneous process results in the movement of energy from cool to warm....I also know that if you are able to look deeply enough into any apparent spontaneous movement of energy from cool to warm, you will discover that every non spontaneous process ( which can result in energy moving from cool to warm) is preceded by a spontaneous process. This happens over and over and over in biological systems. It is what leads creationists to believe that life itself could not arise on its own because of the second law of thermodynamics. They see apparent order arising from chaos and fail to se that every non spontaneous process is proceeded by a spontaneous process.

You are misreading my message to Tod.
I was largely referring to the the fact that Prof Raeder (your contact) essentially said,

For a substance at temperature T₁
and the background at temperature T₂.

Emission: Rₑ = e σ T₁⁴

Absorption: Rₐ =e σ T₂⁴

The net rate of EM energy exchange:

Rnet = Rₑ - Rₐ = e σ T₁⁴ – e σ T₂⁴ = e σ (T₁⁴ -T₂⁴) ​

That verifies what I and science know, not what you were seeking. It is a major fail for your own source of authority to deny what you have been so rabidly and falsely claiming.

Yep....seen the bad math...sorry, if that were the SB law, it would be written that way. Writing net doesn't make net real in reality...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Dr Raeder too.

You notice his statement about equilibrium?

Yeah..I know what the models predict...I also know that the models aren't real and that there isn't the first bit of observed, measured evidence that even hints that they are,

But the free flow of radiation in no way violates the second law.

Maybe it doesn't violate your fantasy version of the second law, but it damned sure violates the actual version...

Yeah..I know what the models predict...

Not only that, Dr. Raeder agrees. Einstein too.
You have any Professors who agree that photons only flow from hot to cool?
Any that agree that objects cease to radiate at equilibrium?

Maybe it doesn't violate your fantasy version of the second law, but it damned sure violates the actual version...

Too identical objects, one at 500K, the other at 250K.
The hotter object radiates 16 times as much toward the cooler object as it receives back.
How does that violate the actual 2nd Law?

Maybe you should ask Dr. Raeder?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I need no reminder that plenty of smart people are fooled by insturmentation....nor do I need a reminder that you believe that energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm...and I already know that no spontaneous process results in the movement of energy from cool to warm....I also know that if you are able to look deeply enough into any apparent spontaneous movement of energy from cool to warm, you will discover that every non spontaneous process ( which can result in energy moving from cool to warm) is preceded by a spontaneous process. This happens over and over and over in biological systems. It is what leads creationists to believe that life itself could not arise on its own because of the second law of thermodynamics. They see apparent order arising from chaos and fail to se that every non spontaneous process is proceeded by a spontaneous process.

Don't forget the spontaneous lightstick that most kids understand.

I see you are appealing to religious arguments again. Try to understand and use physics in action. Even kids can observe it.

Only an abject idiot would think that a light stick is a spontaneous process...the same sort of idiot that would think that a flashlight is a spontaneous process.

Maybe you should share your definition of "spontaneous process"?

 

[Wuwei]

I also know that if you are able to look deeply enough into any apparent spontaneous movement of energy from cool to warm, you will discover that every non spontaneous process ( which can result in energy moving from cool to warm) is preceded by a spontaneous process.

So what if a non spontaneous process preceded it. .... It is the spontaneous process of chemiluminescence that is important, not what happened before it. That is all that matters in the second law.

 

[Wuwei]

Only an abject idiot would think that a light stick is a spontaneous process...the same sort of idiot that would think that a flashlight is a spontaneous process

Why do you think a lightstick or any sort of biological luminescence is not a spontaneous process? Simply because a non spontaneous process may have preceded it at one time? We are talking about a physics definition of chemical spontaneity. You can't change a definition and reinvent physics.

 

[Wuwei]

Yep....seen the bad math...sorry, if that were the SB law, it would be written that way. Writing net doesn't make net real in reality...

Wow, the irony of it....You think a professor that you wrote to and referenced is doing bad math.

I told you I agree with the professor, now you don't agree with him. Really ironic.

 

[Wuwei]

No, it does not dial down emissions.
Otherwise “thermal imaging” would not be possible, or take the remote thermometers. Even if the inside of a room[./quote]

Congratulations...you found an academic that is fooled

No, you found the academic. He showed you are the fool.

 

[polarbear]

Actually, I have never been refuted.

In the literature Fluorescence, Phosphorescence, and Chemiluminescence are all said to be thermodynamically spontaneous. They all can cause emission of photons to all objects, warmer or colder.

A lightstick uses chemiluminescence... Have you ever seen a chemical lightstick, which you can hold in your hand, and will illuminate something too hot to touch?

That is spontaneous EM energy moving from a cold substance to a warmer substance. That simple everyday device solidly refutes your claim.

You have been refuted whether you know it or not; whether you believe it or not.

..and the only attempts you wack jobs have ever made have been with unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematica models.

Nope the lightstick is observable, measurable, and testable, and it was used thousands of times by kids who know nothing about mathematical models.

it is, however, a sad commentary on the state of science when models are accepted over observed reality.....

It is a sad commentary on the state of your hubris to think you know more than 372 thousand physicists.

Stupidity is indeed unlimited.
In the literature Fluorescence, Phosphorescence, and Chemiluminescence are all said to be thermodynamically spontaneous
They all can cause emission of photons to all objects, warmer or colder.
Have you ever seen a chemical lightstick, which you can hold in your hand, and will illuminate something too hot to touch
That is spontaneous EM energy moving from a cold substance to a warmer substance. That simple everyday device solidly refutes your claim.....
And it takes that kind of stupidity to claim what you just claimed...which is that since photons from a lightstick which indeed are the product of a spontaneous process can radiate towards a hot object proves that raising the temperature of the hot object with a colder one can be achieved with no effort since it must be a spontaneous process because photons can be radiated at it.
Hahaha I would like to see how a 0.1 eV photon can bump up the energy level of an electron`s orbital to 10 eV

meaning it has been absorbed and raised the temperature as a result of a spontaneous process.
All the while you and the other idiots who agree with you have been pretending to understand not just basic physics, but also quantum physics.
The latter has to be re-written from:
Electrons in atoms and molecules can change (make transitions in) energy levels by emitting or absorbing a photon (of electromagnetic radiation), whose energy must be exactly equal to the energy difference between the two levels.
To Wuwei et al:
Electrons do not not transition to discrete energy levels but can be at any energy level and it is no longer required that the photon`s energy is exactly the same as the energy difference as previously stated having to be E2-E1=hv. We have proven this because we could shine a lightstick at a 2500 deg Tungsten filament .

And it takes that kind of stupidity to claim what you just claimed...which is that since photons from a lightstick which indeed are the product of a spontaneous process can radiate towards a hot object proves that raising the temperature of the hot object with a colder one can be achieved with no effort

Who said a cold object can raise the temperature of a hot object? Link?

Who said a cold object can raise the temperature of a hot object? Link?
So you finally admit it. Who said that a cold object can raise the temperature of a hot object you ask.
Every GW idiot did and agreed with it:
Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still « Roy Spencer, PhD
Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still
And now you are all squirming..."No we never said that" and pretend the whole argument is only about radiation being able to propagate and not about increasing the temperature.
That`s why you cling so desperately to that "intelligent photon" strawman argument which all of you used every time the heat transfer from cold to hot was debunked.
If any of you were not so stupid and realize what the difference between a black body and a gas is you would not be stuck and would have known which conforms with the equation you kept quoting.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Actually, I have never been refuted.

In the literature Fluorescence, Phosphorescence, and Chemiluminescence are all said to be thermodynamically spontaneous. They all can cause emission of photons to all objects, warmer or colder.

A lightstick uses chemiluminescence... Have you ever seen a chemical lightstick, which you can hold in your hand, and will illuminate something too hot to touch?

That is spontaneous EM energy moving from a cold substance to a warmer substance. That simple everyday device solidly refutes your claim.

You have been refuted whether you know it or not; whether you believe it or not.

..and the only attempts you wack jobs have ever made have been with unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematica models.

Nope the lightstick is observable, measurable, and testable, and it was used thousands of times by kids who know nothing about mathematical models.

it is, however, a sad commentary on the state of science when models are accepted over observed reality.....

It is a sad commentary on the state of your hubris to think you know more than 372 thousand physicists.

Stupidity is indeed unlimited.
In the literature Fluorescence, Phosphorescence, and Chemiluminescence are all said to be thermodynamically spontaneous
They all can cause emission of photons to all objects, warmer or colder.
Have you ever seen a chemical lightstick, which you can hold in your hand, and will illuminate something too hot to touch
That is spontaneous EM energy moving from a cold substance to a warmer substance. That simple everyday device solidly refutes your claim.....
And it takes that kind of stupidity to claim what you just claimed...which is that since photons from a lightstick which indeed are the product of a spontaneous process can radiate towards a hot object proves that raising the temperature of the hot object with a colder one can be achieved with no effort since it must be a spontaneous process because photons can be radiated at it.
Hahaha I would like to see how a 0.1 eV photon can bump up the energy level of an electron`s orbital to 10 eV

meaning it has been absorbed and raised the temperature as a result of a spontaneous process.
All the while you and the other idiots who agree with you have been pretending to understand not just basic physics, but also quantum physics.
The latter has to be re-written from:
Electrons in atoms and molecules can change (make transitions in) energy levels by emitting or absorbing a photon (of electromagnetic radiation), whose energy must be exactly equal to the energy difference between the two levels.
To Wuwei et al:
Electrons do not not transition to discrete energy levels but can be at any energy level and it is no longer required that the photon`s energy is exactly the same as the energy difference as previously stated having to be E2-E1=hv. We have proven this because we could shine a lightstick at a 2500 deg Tungsten filament .

And it takes that kind of stupidity to claim what you just claimed...which is that since photons from a lightstick which indeed are the product of a spontaneous process can radiate towards a hot object proves that raising the temperature of the hot object with a colder one can be achieved with no effort

Who said a cold object can raise the temperature of a hot object? Link?

Who said a cold object can raise the temperature of a hot object? Link?
So you finally admit it. Who said that a cold object can raise the temperature of a hot object you ask.
Every GW idiot did and agreed with it:
Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still « Roy Spencer, PhD
Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still
And now you are all squirming..."No we never said that" and pretend the whole argument is only about radiation being able to propagate and not about increasing the temperature.
That`s why you cling so desperately to that "intelligent photon" strawman argument which all of you used every time the heat transfer from cold to hot was debunked.
If any of you were not so stupid and realize what the difference between a black body and a gas is you would not be stuck and would have known which conforms with the equation you kept quoting.

So you finally admit it

Finally admit what?

Every GW idiot did and agreed with it:

I'm a rabid anti-AGWer.

and pretend the whole argument is only about radiation being able to propagate

At the moment, I'm pointing out SSDD's radiation idiocy. The one that you claim to never have seen.

If you want to talk about the existence of back-radiation and what it does to the Earth, I'd be happy to join.
I just want to make sure you agree that SSDD's silly misinterpretation of the 2nd Law is idiotic.

That`s why you cling so desperately to that "intelligent photon" strawman argument

Strawman? LOL!
SSDD seriously believes that because the 2nd Law says heat only moves from warm to cold, that
a photon can see 2 billion years into the future and 2 billion light years away before it decides (or the emitter decides, just as moronic) to be emitted toward some bit of cooler matter or not emitted toward some warmer bit of matter.

realize what the difference between a black body and a gas

But we do. You're still not helping SSDD's moronic misunderstanding though.

 

[polarbear]

Actually, I have never been refuted.

In the literature Fluorescence, Phosphorescence, and Chemiluminescence are all said to be thermodynamically spontaneous. They all can cause emission of photons to all objects, warmer or colder.

A lightstick uses chemiluminescence... Have you ever seen a chemical lightstick, which you can hold in your hand, and will illuminate something too hot to touch?

That is spontaneous EM energy moving from a cold substance to a warmer substance. That simple everyday device solidly refutes your claim.

You have been refuted whether you know it or not; whether you believe it or not.

..and the only attempts you wack jobs have ever made have been with unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematica models.

Nope the lightstick is observable, measurable, and testable, and it was used thousands of times by kids who know nothing about mathematical models.

it is, however, a sad commentary on the state of science when models are accepted over observed reality.....

It is a sad commentary on the state of your hubris to think you know more than 372 thousand physicists.

Stupidity is indeed unlimited.
In the literature Fluorescence, Phosphorescence, and Chemiluminescence are all said to be thermodynamically spontaneous
They all can cause emission of photons to all objects, warmer or colder.
Have you ever seen a chemical lightstick, which you can hold in your hand, and will illuminate something too hot to touch
That is spontaneous EM energy moving from a cold substance to a warmer substance. That simple everyday device solidly refutes your claim.....
And it takes that kind of stupidity to claim what you just claimed...which is that since photons from a lightstick which indeed are the product of a spontaneous process can radiate towards a hot object proves that raising the temperature of the hot object with a colder one can be achieved with no effort since it must be a spontaneous process because photons can be radiated at it.
Hahaha I would like to see how a 0.1 eV photon can bump up the energy level of an electron`s orbital to 10 eV

meaning it has been absorbed and raised the temperature as a result of a spontaneous process.
All the while you and the other idiots who agree with you have been pretending to understand not just basic physics, but also quantum physics.
The latter has to be re-written from:
Electrons in atoms and molecules can change (make transitions in) energy levels by emitting or absorbing a photon (of electromagnetic radiation), whose energy must be exactly equal to the energy difference between the two levels.
To Wuwei et al:
Electrons do not not transition to discrete energy levels but can be at any energy level and it is no longer required that the photon`s energy is exactly the same as the energy difference as previously stated having to be E2-E1=hv. We have proven this because we could shine a lightstick at a 2500 deg Tungsten filament .

And it takes that kind of stupidity to claim what you just claimed...which is that since photons from a lightstick which indeed are the product of a spontaneous process can radiate towards a hot object proves that raising the temperature of the hot object with a colder one can be achieved with no effort

Who said a cold object can raise the temperature of a hot object? Link?

Who said a cold object can raise the temperature of a hot object? Link?
So you finally admit it. Who said that a cold object can raise the temperature of a hot object you ask.
Every GW idiot did and agreed with it:
Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still « Roy Spencer, PhD
Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still
And now you are all squirming..."No we never said that" and pretend the whole argument is only about radiation being able to propagate and not about increasing the temperature.
That`s why you cling so desperately to that "intelligent photon" strawman argument which all of you used every time the heat transfer from cold to hot was debunked.
If any of you were not so stupid and realize what the difference between a black body and a gas is you would not be stuck and would have known which conforms with the equation you kept quoting.

So you finally admit it

Finally admit what?

Every GW idiot did and agreed with it:

I'm a rabid anti-AGWer.

and pretend the whole argument is only about radiation being able to propagate

At the moment, I'm pointing out SSDD's radiation idiocy. The one that you claim to never have seen.

If you want to talk about the existence of back-radiation and what it does to the Earth, I'd be happy to join.
I just want to make sure you agree that SSDD's silly misinterpretation of the 2nd Law is idiotic.

That`s why you cling so desperately to that "intelligent photon" strawman argument

Strawman? LOL!
SSDD seriously believes that because the 2nd Law says heat only moves from warm to cold, that
a photon can see 2 billion years into the future and 2 billion light years away before it decides (or the emitter decides, just as moronic) to be emitted toward some bit of cooler matter or not emitted toward some warmer bit of matter.

realize what the difference between a black body and a gas

But we do. You're still not helping SSDD's moronic misunderstanding though.

And in the process you built another strawman. Now you say he said "a photon can see 2 billion years into the future and 2 billion light years away before it decides (or the emitter decides, just as moronic) to be emitted"
You are the one who keeps telling me that he said it. Don`t you think it`s up to you to prove to me that he said it?
Why should I have to spend all that time it would take to find it while you got a whole collection of such absurd statements...or so you say.
Now to your beloved back-radiation:
It is just as absurd to claim that you could calculate by how much the earth gets heated in a certain number of years with back radiation, ab-using the StB equation. It can only tell you where the equilibrium temperature would eventually be ( how much time is that?)...as long as you can manage to keep everything involved constant. Anything else and better needs a lot more than just the StB equation and these idiotic photon "experts" who keep quoting it. All the "climate scientists" have to offer is a consensus within themselves and nothing more.And that is how "hot" the planet "might" be in 2100 using deceptive statistical methods.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In the literature Fluorescence, Phosphorescence, and Chemiluminescence are all said to be thermodynamically spontaneous. They all can cause emission of photons to all objects, warmer or colder.

A lightstick uses chemiluminescence... Have you ever seen a chemical lightstick, which you can hold in your hand, and will illuminate something too hot to touch?

That is spontaneous EM energy moving from a cold substance to a warmer substance. That simple everyday device solidly refutes your claim.

You have been refuted whether you know it or not; whether you believe it or not.

Nope the lightstick is observable, measurable, and testable, and it was used thousands of times by kids who know nothing about mathematical models.

It is a sad commentary on the state of your hubris to think you know more than 372 thousand physicists.

Stupidity is indeed unlimited.
In the literature Fluorescence, Phosphorescence, and Chemiluminescence are all said to be thermodynamically spontaneous
They all can cause emission of photons to all objects, warmer or colder.
Have you ever seen a chemical lightstick, which you can hold in your hand, and will illuminate something too hot to touch
That is spontaneous EM energy moving from a cold substance to a warmer substance. That simple everyday device solidly refutes your claim.....
And it takes that kind of stupidity to claim what you just claimed...which is that since photons from a lightstick which indeed are the product of a spontaneous process can radiate towards a hot object proves that raising the temperature of the hot object with a colder one can be achieved with no effort since it must be a spontaneous process because photons can be radiated at it.
Hahaha I would like to see how a 0.1 eV photon can bump up the energy level of an electron`s orbital to 10 eV

meaning it has been absorbed and raised the temperature as a result of a spontaneous process.
All the while you and the other idiots who agree with you have been pretending to understand not just basic physics, but also quantum physics.
The latter has to be re-written from:
Electrons in atoms and molecules can change (make transitions in) energy levels by emitting or absorbing a photon (of electromagnetic radiation), whose energy must be exactly equal to the energy difference between the two levels.
To Wuwei et al:
Electrons do not not transition to discrete energy levels but can be at any energy level and it is no longer required that the photon`s energy is exactly the same as the energy difference as previously stated having to be E2-E1=hv. We have proven this because we could shine a lightstick at a 2500 deg Tungsten filament .

And it takes that kind of stupidity to claim what you just claimed...which is that since photons from a lightstick which indeed are the product of a spontaneous process can radiate towards a hot object proves that raising the temperature of the hot object with a colder one can be achieved with no effort

Who said a cold object can raise the temperature of a hot object? Link?

Who said a cold object can raise the temperature of a hot object? Link?
So you finally admit it. Who said that a cold object can raise the temperature of a hot object you ask.
Every GW idiot did and agreed with it:
Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still « Roy Spencer, PhD
Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still
And now you are all squirming..."No we never said that" and pretend the whole argument is only about radiation being able to propagate and not about increasing the temperature.
That`s why you cling so desperately to that "intelligent photon" strawman argument which all of you used every time the heat transfer from cold to hot was debunked.
If any of you were not so stupid and realize what the difference between a black body and a gas is you would not be stuck and would have known which conforms with the equation you kept quoting.

So you finally admit it

Finally admit what?

Every GW idiot did and agreed with it:

I'm a rabid anti-AGWer.

and pretend the whole argument is only about radiation being able to propagate

At the moment, I'm pointing out SSDD's radiation idiocy. The one that you claim to never have seen.

If you want to talk about the existence of back-radiation and what it does to the Earth, I'd be happy to join.
I just want to make sure you agree that SSDD's silly misinterpretation of the 2nd Law is idiotic.

That`s why you cling so desperately to that "intelligent photon" strawman argument

Strawman? LOL!
SSDD seriously believes that because the 2nd Law says heat only moves from warm to cold, that
a photon can see 2 billion years into the future and 2 billion light years away before it decides (or the emitter decides, just as moronic) to be emitted toward some bit of cooler matter or not emitted toward some warmer bit of matter.

realize what the difference between a black body and a gas

But we do. You're still not helping SSDD's moronic misunderstanding though.

And in the process you built another strawman. Now you say he said "a photon can see 2 billion years into the future and 2 billion light years away before it decides (or the emitter decides, just as moronic) to be emitted"
You are the one who keeps telling me that he said it. Don`t you think it`s up to you to prove to me that he said it?
Why should I have to spend all that time it would take to find it while you got a whole collection of such absurd statements...or so you say.
Now to your beloved back-radiation:
It is just as absurd to claim that you could calculate by how much the earth gets heated in a certain number of years with back radiation, ab-using the StB equation. It can only tell you where the equilibrium temperature would eventually be ( how much time is that?)...as long as you can manage to keep everything involved constant. Anything else and better needs a lot more than just the StB equation and these idiotic photon "experts" who keep quoting it. All the "climate scientists" have to offer is a consensus within themselves and nothing more.And that is how "hot" the planet "might" be in 2100 using deceptive statistical methods.

Now you say he said "a photon can see 2 billion years into the future and 2 billion light years away before it decides (or the emitter decides, just as moronic) to be emitted"

Yes, that's what he means when he says a photon can never go from a cooler source to a warmer target.

Don`t you think it`s up to you to prove to me that he said it?

If the other examples of his confusion, from this very thread, aren't enough for you to admit he's talking out of his ass, what will one or one hundred more examples accomplish?

It is just as absurd to claim that you could calculate by how much the earth gets heated in a certain number of years with back radiation

Speaking of strawmen, I'll wait for your link to me claiming that...…….

 

[polarbear]

Stupidity is indeed unlimited.
In the literature Fluorescence, Phosphorescence, and Chemiluminescence are all said to be thermodynamically spontaneous
They all can cause emission of photons to all objects, warmer or colder.
Have you ever seen a chemical lightstick, which you can hold in your hand, and will illuminate something too hot to touch
That is spontaneous EM energy moving from a cold substance to a warmer substance. That simple everyday device solidly refutes your claim.....
And it takes that kind of stupidity to claim what you just claimed...which is that since photons from a lightstick which indeed are the product of a spontaneous process can radiate towards a hot object proves that raising the temperature of the hot object with a colder one can be achieved with no effort since it must be a spontaneous process because photons can be radiated at it.
Hahaha I would like to see how a 0.1 eV photon can bump up the energy level of an electron`s orbital to 10 eV

meaning it has been absorbed and raised the temperature as a result of a spontaneous process.
All the while you and the other idiots who agree with you have been pretending to understand not just basic physics, but also quantum physics.
The latter has to be re-written from:
Electrons in atoms and molecules can change (make transitions in) energy levels by emitting or absorbing a photon (of electromagnetic radiation), whose energy must be exactly equal to the energy difference between the two levels.
To Wuwei et al:
Electrons do not not transition to discrete energy levels but can be at any energy level and it is no longer required that the photon`s energy is exactly the same as the energy difference as previously stated having to be E2-E1=hv. We have proven this because we could shine a lightstick at a 2500 deg Tungsten filament .

And it takes that kind of stupidity to claim what you just claimed...which is that since photons from a lightstick which indeed are the product of a spontaneous process can radiate towards a hot object proves that raising the temperature of the hot object with a colder one can be achieved with no effort

Who said a cold object can raise the temperature of a hot object? Link?

Who said a cold object can raise the temperature of a hot object? Link?
So you finally admit it. Who said that a cold object can raise the temperature of a hot object you ask.
Every GW idiot did and agreed with it:
Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still « Roy Spencer, PhD
Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still
And now you are all squirming..."No we never said that" and pretend the whole argument is only about radiation being able to propagate and not about increasing the temperature.
That`s why you cling so desperately to that "intelligent photon" strawman argument which all of you used every time the heat transfer from cold to hot was debunked.
If any of you were not so stupid and realize what the difference between a black body and a gas is you would not be stuck and would have known which conforms with the equation you kept quoting.

So you finally admit it

Finally admit what?

Every GW idiot did and agreed with it:

I'm a rabid anti-AGWer.

and pretend the whole argument is only about radiation being able to propagate

At the moment, I'm pointing out SSDD's radiation idiocy. The one that you claim to never have seen.

If you want to talk about the existence of back-radiation and what it does to the Earth, I'd be happy to join.
I just want to make sure you agree that SSDD's silly misinterpretation of the 2nd Law is idiotic.

That`s why you cling so desperately to that "intelligent photon" strawman argument

Strawman? LOL!
SSDD seriously believes that because the 2nd Law says heat only moves from warm to cold, that
a photon can see 2 billion years into the future and 2 billion light years away before it decides (or the emitter decides, just as moronic) to be emitted toward some bit of cooler matter or not emitted toward some warmer bit of matter.

realize what the difference between a black body and a gas

But we do. You're still not helping SSDD's moronic misunderstanding though.

And in the process you built another strawman. Now you say he said "a photon can see 2 billion years into the future and 2 billion light years away before it decides (or the emitter decides, just as moronic) to be emitted"
You are the one who keeps telling me that he said it. Don`t you think it`s up to you to prove to me that he said it?
Why should I have to spend all that time it would take to find it while you got a whole collection of such absurd statements...or so you say.
Now to your beloved back-radiation:
It is just as absurd to claim that you could calculate by how much the earth gets heated in a certain number of years with back radiation, ab-using the StB equation. It can only tell you where the equilibrium temperature would eventually be ( how much time is that?)...as long as you can manage to keep everything involved constant. Anything else and better needs a lot more than just the StB equation and these idiotic photon "experts" who keep quoting it. All the "climate scientists" have to offer is a consensus within themselves and nothing more.And that is how "hot" the planet "might" be in 2100 using deceptive statistical methods.

Now you say he said "a photon can see 2 billion years into the future and 2 billion light years away before it decides (or the emitter decides, just as moronic) to be emitted"

Yes, that's what he means when he says a photon can never go from a cooler source to a warmer target.

Don`t you think it`s up to you to prove to me that he said it?

If the other examples of his confusion, from this very thread, aren't enough for you to admit he's talking out of his ass, what will one or one hundred more examples accomplish?

It is just as absurd to claim that you could calculate by how much the earth gets heated in a certain number of years with back radiation

Speaking of strawmen, I'll wait for your link to me claiming that...…….

Well can you link me to a post# where he said it or not?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And it takes that kind of stupidity to claim what you just claimed...which is that since photons from a lightstick which indeed are the product of a spontaneous process can radiate towards a hot object proves that raising the temperature of the hot object with a colder one can be achieved with no effort

Who said a cold object can raise the temperature of a hot object? Link?

Who said a cold object can raise the temperature of a hot object? Link?
So you finally admit it. Who said that a cold object can raise the temperature of a hot object you ask.
Every GW idiot did and agreed with it:
Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still « Roy Spencer, PhD
Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still
And now you are all squirming..."No we never said that" and pretend the whole argument is only about radiation being able to propagate and not about increasing the temperature.
That`s why you cling so desperately to that "intelligent photon" strawman argument which all of you used every time the heat transfer from cold to hot was debunked.
If any of you were not so stupid and realize what the difference between a black body and a gas is you would not be stuck and would have known which conforms with the equation you kept quoting.

So you finally admit it

Finally admit what?

Every GW idiot did and agreed with it:

I'm a rabid anti-AGWer.

and pretend the whole argument is only about radiation being able to propagate

At the moment, I'm pointing out SSDD's radiation idiocy. The one that you claim to never have seen.

If you want to talk about the existence of back-radiation and what it does to the Earth, I'd be happy to join.
I just want to make sure you agree that SSDD's silly misinterpretation of the 2nd Law is idiotic.

That`s why you cling so desperately to that "intelligent photon" strawman argument

Strawman? LOL!
SSDD seriously believes that because the 2nd Law says heat only moves from warm to cold, that
a photon can see 2 billion years into the future and 2 billion light years away before it decides (or the emitter decides, just as moronic) to be emitted toward some bit of cooler matter or not emitted toward some warmer bit of matter.

realize what the difference between a black body and a gas

But we do. You're still not helping SSDD's moronic misunderstanding though.

And in the process you built another strawman. Now you say he said "a photon can see 2 billion years into the future and 2 billion light years away before it decides (or the emitter decides, just as moronic) to be emitted"
You are the one who keeps telling me that he said it. Don`t you think it`s up to you to prove to me that he said it?
Why should I have to spend all that time it would take to find it while you got a whole collection of such absurd statements...or so you say.
Now to your beloved back-radiation:
It is just as absurd to claim that you could calculate by how much the earth gets heated in a certain number of years with back radiation, ab-using the StB equation. It can only tell you where the equilibrium temperature would eventually be ( how much time is that?)...as long as you can manage to keep everything involved constant. Anything else and better needs a lot more than just the StB equation and these idiotic photon "experts" who keep quoting it. All the "climate scientists" have to offer is a consensus within themselves and nothing more.And that is how "hot" the planet "might" be in 2100 using deceptive statistical methods.

Now you say he said "a photon can see 2 billion years into the future and 2 billion light years away before it decides (or the emitter decides, just as moronic) to be emitted"

Yes, that's what he means when he says a photon can never go from a cooler source to a warmer target.

Don`t you think it`s up to you to prove to me that he said it?

If the other examples of his confusion, from this very thread, aren't enough for you to admit he's talking out of his ass, what will one or one hundred more examples accomplish?

It is just as absurd to claim that you could calculate by how much the earth gets heated in a certain number of years with back radiation

Speaking of strawmen, I'll wait for your link to me claiming that...…….

Well can you link me to a post# where he said it or not?

Sure, right after you admit the other examples I posted show that he's wrong.

 

[polarbear]

Who said a cold object can raise the temperature of a hot object? Link?
So you finally admit it. Who said that a cold object can raise the temperature of a hot object you ask.
Every GW idiot did and agreed with it:
Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still « Roy Spencer, PhD
Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still
And now you are all squirming..."No we never said that" and pretend the whole argument is only about radiation being able to propagate and not about increasing the temperature.
That`s why you cling so desperately to that "intelligent photon" strawman argument which all of you used every time the heat transfer from cold to hot was debunked.
If any of you were not so stupid and realize what the difference between a black body and a gas is you would not be stuck and would have known which conforms with the equation you kept quoting.

So you finally admit it

Finally admit what?

Every GW idiot did and agreed with it:

I'm a rabid anti-AGWer.

and pretend the whole argument is only about radiation being able to propagate

At the moment, I'm pointing out SSDD's radiation idiocy. The one that you claim to never have seen.

If you want to talk about the existence of back-radiation and what it does to the Earth, I'd be happy to join.
I just want to make sure you agree that SSDD's silly misinterpretation of the 2nd Law is idiotic.

That`s why you cling so desperately to that "intelligent photon" strawman argument

Strawman? LOL!
SSDD seriously believes that because the 2nd Law says heat only moves from warm to cold, that
a photon can see 2 billion years into the future and 2 billion light years away before it decides (or the emitter decides, just as moronic) to be emitted toward some bit of cooler matter or not emitted toward some warmer bit of matter.

realize what the difference between a black body and a gas

But we do. You're still not helping SSDD's moronic misunderstanding though.

And in the process you built another strawman. Now you say he said "a photon can see 2 billion years into the future and 2 billion light years away before it decides (or the emitter decides, just as moronic) to be emitted"
You are the one who keeps telling me that he said it. Don`t you think it`s up to you to prove to me that he said it?
Why should I have to spend all that time it would take to find it while you got a whole collection of such absurd statements...or so you say.
Now to your beloved back-radiation:
It is just as absurd to claim that you could calculate by how much the earth gets heated in a certain number of years with back radiation, ab-using the StB equation. It can only tell you where the equilibrium temperature would eventually be ( how much time is that?)...as long as you can manage to keep everything involved constant. Anything else and better needs a lot more than just the StB equation and these idiotic photon "experts" who keep quoting it. All the "climate scientists" have to offer is a consensus within themselves and nothing more.And that is how "hot" the planet "might" be in 2100 using deceptive statistical methods.

Now you say he said "a photon can see 2 billion years into the future and 2 billion light years away before it decides (or the emitter decides, just as moronic) to be emitted"

Yes, that's what he means when he says a photon can never go from a cooler source to a warmer target.

Don`t you think it`s up to you to prove to me that he said it?

If the other examples of his confusion, from this very thread, aren't enough for you to admit he's talking out of his ass, what will one or one hundred more examples accomplish?

It is just as absurd to claim that you could calculate by how much the earth gets heated in a certain number of years with back radiation

Speaking of strawmen, I'll wait for your link to me claiming that...…….

Well can you link me to a post# where he said it or not?

Sure, right after you admit the other examples I posted show that he's wrong.

Which example is that?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So you finally admit it

Finally admit what?

Every GW idiot did and agreed with it:

I'm a rabid anti-AGWer.

and pretend the whole argument is only about radiation being able to propagate

At the moment, I'm pointing out SSDD's radiation idiocy. The one that you claim to never have seen.

If you want to talk about the existence of back-radiation and what it does to the Earth, I'd be happy to join.
I just want to make sure you agree that SSDD's silly misinterpretation of the 2nd Law is idiotic.

That`s why you cling so desperately to that "intelligent photon" strawman argument

Strawman? LOL!
SSDD seriously believes that because the 2nd Law says heat only moves from warm to cold, that
a photon can see 2 billion years into the future and 2 billion light years away before it decides (or the emitter decides, just as moronic) to be emitted toward some bit of cooler matter or not emitted toward some warmer bit of matter.

realize what the difference between a black body and a gas

But we do. You're still not helping SSDD's moronic misunderstanding though.

And in the process you built another strawman. Now you say he said "a photon can see 2 billion years into the future and 2 billion light years away before it decides (or the emitter decides, just as moronic) to be emitted"
You are the one who keeps telling me that he said it. Don`t you think it`s up to you to prove to me that he said it?
Why should I have to spend all that time it would take to find it while you got a whole collection of such absurd statements...or so you say.
Now to your beloved back-radiation:
It is just as absurd to claim that you could calculate by how much the earth gets heated in a certain number of years with back radiation, ab-using the StB equation. It can only tell you where the equilibrium temperature would eventually be ( how much time is that?)...as long as you can manage to keep everything involved constant. Anything else and better needs a lot more than just the StB equation and these idiotic photon "experts" who keep quoting it. All the "climate scientists" have to offer is a consensus within themselves and nothing more.And that is how "hot" the planet "might" be in 2100 using deceptive statistical methods.

Now you say he said "a photon can see 2 billion years into the future and 2 billion light years away before it decides (or the emitter decides, just as moronic) to be emitted"

Yes, that's what he means when he says a photon can never go from a cooler source to a warmer target.

Don`t you think it`s up to you to prove to me that he said it?

If the other examples of his confusion, from this very thread, aren't enough for you to admit he's talking out of his ass, what will one or one hundred more examples accomplish?

It is just as absurd to claim that you could calculate by how much the earth gets heated in a certain number of years with back radiation

Speaking of strawmen, I'll wait for your link to me claiming that...…….

Well can you link me to a post# where he said it or not?

Sure, right after you admit the other examples I posted show that he's wrong.

Which example is that?

The Heart of the AGW Premise Fails Empirical Review.

 

[Wuwei]

And in the process you built another strawman. Now you say he said "a photon can see 2 billion years into the future and 2 billion light years away before it decides (or the emitter decides, just as moronic) to be emitted"

This is what Tod is referring to. It's based on SSDD saying that the cosmic microwave background (CMB) has never penetrated earth. Since the CMB is cold, 2.7K it should not hit the earth which is at 300K according to SSDD. However a sane person says the CMB penetrating the warm atmosphere and hitting a warm radio telescope dish on earth proves that EM energy from a very cold source can strike a much warmer earth.

SSDD thinks somehow the CMB knows not to hit earth when it is billions of light years away from us and happened billions of years ago. That was said here for example:

Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

Exactly...CMB is a vibrating system...the vibrations from that system resonate in the radio frequencies...a different system...that is how they were able to detect CMB via radio waves while not actually receiving CMB.

Even when you are looking at the very definition of resonance, and the definition tells you that the vibrations from one system causes another system to oscillate at a greater amplitude, you still apparently don't grasp that they weren't detecting CMB IR with that radio telescope, they were detecting the oscillations in the radio frequencies caused by the CMB.

You are saying the resonantly tuned detectors of Penzias and Wilson's telescope detected radio wave oscillations from the CMB. But they weren't detecting the IR radio oscillations from the CMB. That's a contradiction, to put it mildly.

This whole thing was a tedious discussion that the CMB proves that photons from a cold object can hit a warmer object.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And in the process you built another strawman. Now you say he said "a photon can see 2 billion years into the future and 2 billion light years away before it decides (or the emitter decides, just as moronic) to be emitted"

This is what Tod is referring to. It's based on SSDD saying that the cosmic microwave background (CMB) has never penetrated earth. Since the CMB is cold, 2.7K it should not hit the earth which is at 300K according to SSDD. However a sane person says the CMB penetrating the warm atmosphere and hitting a warm radio telescope dish on earth proves that EM energy from a very cold source can strike a much warmer earth.

SSDD thinks somehow the CMB knows not to hit earth when it is billions of light years away from us and happened billions of years ago. That was said here for example:

Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

Exactly...CMB is a vibrating system...the vibrations from that system resonate in the radio frequencies...a different system...that is how they were able to detect CMB via radio waves while not actually receiving CMB.

Even when you are looking at the very definition of resonance, and the definition tells you that the vibrations from one system causes another system to oscillate at a greater amplitude, you still apparently don't grasp that they weren't detecting CMB IR with that radio telescope, they were detecting the oscillations in the radio frequencies caused by the CMB.

You are saying the resonantly tuned detectors of Penzias and Wilson's telescope detected radio wave oscillations from the CMB. But they weren't detecting the IR radio oscillations from the CMB. That's a contradiction, to put it mildly.

This whole thing was a tedious discussion that the CMB proves that photons from a cold object can hit a warmer object.

Thanks.
There is also a thread(or threads) where he specifically said that a photon won't be emitted today
if billions of years in the future, billions of light years away, it would hit warmer matter.
He went into how time is meaningless to something traveling at the speed of light, so it isn't predicting anything. The epicycles were especially thick in that thread.

 

[polarbear]

And in the process you built another strawman. Now you say he said "a photon can see 2 billion years into the future and 2 billion light years away before it decides (or the emitter decides, just as moronic) to be emitted"

This is what Tod is referring to. It's based on SSDD saying that the cosmic microwave background (CMB) has never penetrated earth. Since the CMB is cold, 2.7K it should not hit the earth which is at 300K according to SSDD. However a sane person says the CMB penetrating the warm atmosphere and hitting a warm radio telescope dish on earth proves that EM energy from a very cold source can strike a much warmer earth.

SSDD thinks somehow the CMB knows not to hit earth when it is billions of light years away from us and happened billions of years ago. That was said here for example:

Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

Exactly...CMB is a vibrating system...the vibrations from that system resonate in the radio frequencies...a different system...that is how they were able to detect CMB via radio waves while not actually receiving CMB.

Even when you are looking at the very definition of resonance, and the definition tells you that the vibrations from one system causes another system to oscillate at a greater amplitude, you still apparently don't grasp that they weren't detecting CMB IR with that radio telescope, they were detecting the oscillations in the radio frequencies caused by the CMB.

You are saying the resonantly tuned detectors of Penzias and Wilson's telescope detected radio wave oscillations from the CMB. But they weren't detecting the IR radio oscillations from the CMB. That's a contradiction, to put it mildly.

This whole thing was a tedious discussion that the CMB proves that photons from a cold object can hit a warmer object.

That link you gave me is to post #63 in the Greenhouse Effect thread. I don`t see anything there from SSDD on the entire page. Am I supposed to spend my time looking for it going through each and every page?