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

[Wuwei]

the second law is all about entropy...energy rolling down hill...always becoming less organized....energy moving from the warm surface of the earth to the cooler atmosphere is and example of entropy...and in addition, it is a natural process...and all natural processes are irreversible

That's right!

.no back radiation ever.

That's not right!
Where in the law of entropy does it say that? Nowhere. As long as the colder object received more energy than it emits, the entropy law is satisfied. Anyone can understand that.

the second law says no such thing...you say that..and your references say that...but the second law doesn't say that...an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model says that...but not the second law...

The second law is very general. Consider a cold object and a warm object. The entropy of the system will be given by some value S0. After a while the warm object will be colder and the cold object will be warmer. The entropy is a larger value S1. There is no place in the entropy representation that says the two objects cannot have a two way exchange of energy, with, of course, the end result that more energy went from the warmer to the colder object.

 

[Wuwei]

Is energy flowing from the warm earth to the cooler atmosphere a natural process?

The net energy flow is from the warm to the cold.

 

[SSDD]

the second law is all about entropy...energy rolling down hill...always becoming less organized....energy moving from the warm surface of the earth to the cooler atmosphere is and example of entropy...and in addition, it is a natural process...and all natural processes are irreversible

That's right!

.no back radiation ever.

That's not right!
Where in the law of entropy does it say that? Nowhere. As long as the colder object received more energy than it emits, the entropy law is satisfied. Anyone can understand that.

the second law says no such thing...you say that..and your references say that...but the second law doesn't say that...an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model says that...but not the second law...

The second law is very general. Consider a cold object and a warm object. The entropy of the system will be given by some value S0. After a while the warm object will be colder and the cold object will be warmer. The entropy is a larger value S1. There is no place in the entropy representation that says the two objects cannot have a two way exchange of energy, with, of course, the end result that more energy went from the warmer to the colder object.

Again...that isn't what the second law says....I suppose you are arguing that the second law of thermodynamics is a "living" law....meaning that you can change it when it isn't convenient...face it guy...neither heat nor energy move spontaneously from cool objects to warm objects...

and again...is energy moving from the warmer surface of the earth to the cooler atmosphere a natural process? easy question...yes or no answer is all that is needed.

 

[Wuwei]

Again...that isn't what the second law says....I suppose you are arguing that the second law of thermodynamics is a "living" law....meaning that you can change it when it isn't convenient...face it guy...neither heat nor energy move spontaneously from cool objects to warm objects...

The second law in modern usage is given by the properties of entropy.

and again...is energy moving from the warmer surface of the earth to the cooler atmosphere a natural process? easy question...yes or no answer is all that is needed.

It is more clear to say net energy moves from the earth to the atmosphere.

 

[SSDD]

The second law in modern usage is given by the properties of entropy.

The second law doesn't say anything at all about a modern usage...more torturing the statement on your part.

It is more clear to say net energy moves from the earth to the atmosphere.

What's the matter guy?...can't bring yourself to simply state that energy moving from the warm surface of the earth to the cooler atmosphere is a natural process?...see what your believes have led you to?....how much more goofy can you get than to be afraid to say that energy moving from the warm surface to the cooler atmosphere is a natural process for fear of what it will do you your beliefs?

 

[Wuwei]

What's the matter guy?...can't bring yourself to simply state that energy moving from the warm surface of the earth to the cooler atmosphere is a natural process?...see what your believes have led you to?....how much more goofy can you get than to be afraid to say that energy moving from the warm surface to the cooler atmosphere is a natural process for fear of what it will do you your beliefs?

What could be clearer than saying net energy moves from the warm surface to the cooler atmosphere. Of course it's a natural process. Who said it wasn't?

 

[SSDD]

What's the matter guy?...can't bring yourself to simply state that energy moving from the warm surface of the earth to the cooler atmosphere is a natural process?...see what your believes have led you to?....how much more goofy can you get than to be afraid to say that energy moving from the warm surface to the cooler atmosphere is a natural process for fear of what it will do you your beliefs?

What could be clearer than saying net energy moves from the warm surface to the cooler atmosphere. Of course it's a natural process. Who said it wasn't?

What would be bullshit is to weasel rather than simply state the obvious....of course that energy movement is a natural process and all natural processes are irreversible...energy moves from warm to cool...it doesn't go back...that is precisely the opposite of entropy..

 

[Wuwei]

What would be bullshit is to weasel rather than simply state the obvious....of course that energy movement is a natural process and all natural processes are irreversible...energy moves from warm to cool...it doesn't go back...that is precisely the opposite of entropy..

Of course what you say above is true.

And of course it doesn't preclude the fact that the energy of thermal radiation goes everywhere independent of temperature of its surroundings, with the constraint that the total, or net energy moves from the warmer objects to the cooler objects. It's as simple as that.

 

[SSDD]

What would be bullshit is to weasel rather than simply state the obvious....of course that energy movement is a natural process and all natural processes are irreversible...energy moves from warm to cool...it doesn't go back...that is precisely the opposite of entropy..

Of course what you say above is true.

And of course it doesn't preclude the fact that the energy of thermal radiation goes everywhere independent of temperature of its surroundings, with the constraint that the total, or net energy moves from the warmer objects to the cooler objects. It's as simple as that.

so you say...and yet, it can't be observed, or measured with instruments at ambient temperature...again...let me know when they alter the second law to support your belief rather than every observation ever made...

 

[Wuwei]

..let me know when they alter the second law to support your belief rather than every observation ever made..

You are the one altering it to support your belief.

 

[SSDD]

..let me know when they alter the second law to support your belief rather than every observation ever made..

You are the one altering it to support your belief.

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Which part of that am I altering?....I accept that statement precisely as it is written...you, on the other hand want to add, or take away...or alter it to agree with your belief.

 

[Crick]

If we have a system of two objects of differing temperature, each will radiate according to its absolute temperature and the net effect will be flow of heat energy from the warmer to the cooler. But both are radiating, constantly, in all directions.

You have found another way to interpret the 2nd Law, but given that your interpretation requires intelligent matter (or photons) capable of violating special relativity while the interpretation that everyone else on the planet makes does not, yours is obviously incorrect.

 

[SSDD]

If we have a system of two objects of differing temperature, each will radiate according to its absolute temperature and the net effect will be flow of heat energy from the warmer to the cooler. But both are radiating, constantly, in all directions.

You have found another way to interpret the 2nd Law, but given that your interpretation requires intelligent matter (or photons) capable of violating special relativity while the interpretation that everyone else on the planet makes does not, yours is obviously incorrect.

And on and on and on...and the second law still says what it says....

AGAIN....
Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

So which part am I "interpreting"? And which part is in opposition to my position.

 

[Wuwei]

Which part of that am I altering?....I accept that statement precisely as it is written...you, on the other hand want to add, or take away...or alter it to agree with your belief.

No, you took the word energy out of the context that was intended. The context at the hyperphysics site was, "Spontaneous flow of heat from a cold area to a hot area would constitute a perfect refrigerator." Read that site again.

 

[SSDD]

Which part of that am I altering?....I accept that statement precisely as it is written...you, on the other hand want to add, or take away...or alter it to agree with your belief.

No, you took the word energy out of the context that was intended. The context at the hyperphysics site was, "Spontaneous flow of heat from a cold area to a hot area would constitute a perfect refrigerator." Read that site again.

Don't you think they would have said "heat" if they meant heat?...they certainly know the word since they used it in the first sentence...then in the second, they said energy so that some goofus like you couldn't say that heat is something other than energy....And once again...it is you who is interpreting...it is a straight forward, unambiguous sentence...it is you and yours who are trying to add ambiguity to it in an effort to support your beliefs.

 

[Wuwei]

Don't you think they would have said "heat" if they meant heat?...they certainly know the word since they used it in the first sentence...then in the second, they said energy so that some goofus like you couldn't say that heat is something other than energy....And once again...it is you who is interpreting...it is a straight forward, unambiguous sentence...it is you and yours who are trying to add ambiguity to it in an effort to support your beliefs.

If you want to be a troll and interpret that word out of context, so be it. You will find yourself disagreeing with all scientists over the last 100 years. But that's the sort of thing trolls do.

 

[jc456]

Don't you think they would have said "heat" if they meant heat?...they certainly know the word since they used it in the first sentence...then in the second, they said energy so that some goofus like you couldn't say that heat is something other than energy....And once again...it is you who is interpreting...it is a straight forward, unambiguous sentence...it is you and yours who are trying to add ambiguity to it in an effort to support your beliefs.

If you want to be a troll and interpret that word out of context, so be it. You will find yourself disagreeing with all scientists over the last 100 years. But that's the sort of thing trolls do.

Troll? Words out of context?

project much?

 

[SSDD]

Don't you think they would have said "heat" if they meant heat?...they certainly know the word since they used it in the first sentence...then in the second, they said energy so that some goofus like you couldn't say that heat is something other than energy....And once again...it is you who is interpreting...it is a straight forward, unambiguous sentence...it is you and yours who are trying to add ambiguity to it in an effort to support your beliefs.

If you want to be a troll and interpret that word out of context, so be it. You will find yourself disagreeing with all scientists over the last 100 years. But that's the sort of thing trolls do.

the context is that energy won't move spontaneously from cool to warm...and it is more than clear that you are the one interpreting...altering...attempting to read something into the statement that isn't there....

And disagreeing with scientists is nothing new...nor unusual...and if one looks at history...and one disagrees with mainstream science...espeically science not grounded solidly in observation, then one has a better than average chance of being right...you have apparently elevated science to a position of religion in your mind...and have made the practitioners infallible....your zealotry has made it impossible to view science with anything like cold calculating rationality...any disagreement with your dogma brings on an instant attack...just as it is with all religious zealots.

 

[SSDD]

Don't you think they would have said "heat" if they meant heat?...they certainly know the word since they used it in the first sentence...then in the second, they said energy so that some goofus like you couldn't say that heat is something other than energy....And once again...it is you who is interpreting...it is a straight forward, unambiguous sentence...it is you and yours who are trying to add ambiguity to it in an effort to support your beliefs.

If you want to be a troll and interpret that word out of context, so be it. You will find yourself disagreeing with all scientists over the last 100 years. But that's the sort of thing trolls do.

Troll? Words out of context?

project much?

Amazing...the lengths they will go to isn't it...look at these sentences...

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Do you see anything ambiguous there?...any thing in which the context isn't perfectly clear? In fact, I would say that those two are among the most straight forward, unambiguous sentences I have ever read...they simply are not open to misunderstanding...or taking them out of context in any way...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Don't you think they would have said "heat" if they meant heat?...they certainly know the word since they used it in the first sentence...then in the second, they said energy so that some goofus like you couldn't say that heat is something other than energy....And once again...it is you who is interpreting...it is a straight forward, unambiguous sentence...it is you and yours who are trying to add ambiguity to it in an effort to support your beliefs.

If you want to be a troll and interpret that word out of context, so be it. You will find yourself disagreeing with all scientists over the last 100 years. But that's the sort of thing trolls do.

Troll? Words out of context?

project much?

Amazing...the lengths they will go to isn't it...look at these sentences...

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Do you see anything ambiguous there?...any thing in which the context isn't perfectly clear? In fact, I would say that those two are among the most straight forward, unambiguous sentences I have ever read...they simply are not open to misunderstanding...or taking them out of context in any way...

Amazing...the lengths they will go to isn't it...look at these sentences...

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Amazing, those sentences don't say anything about smart photons measuring the temperature of all matter.