"Settled Science"??

[Lagboltz]

Surface measurements of downward IR radiation showed an increase during the years 1973 to 2008. High resolution spectral analysis showed that the increases were in the spectra of the green house gases. These changes were consistent with the observed increase in the percentage rise in the various green house gases.

Satellite data were measured, and compared CO2, O3, CFC, and CH4 emissions in 1970 and 1996. The drop in these emissions correlated to the change in the percentage rise of the various greenhouse gases.

The fact that the spectra of the green house gasses dropped in going to space and increased in reflecting to earth confirms that there is an empirically measured net IR energy increase to the earth. These are not modeled or computed. These are actual quantified measurements given in many scientific journals.

Links to the scientific references:

This list of papers contains satellite measurements of changes in outgoing longwave radiation caused by changing concentrations of greenhouse gases.
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/papers-on-changes-in-olr-due-to-ghgs/

This list of papers contains evidence of changes in downward IR radiation caused by changing concentrations of greenhouse gases.
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/19/papers-on-changes-in-dlr/

This is a list of papers on laboratory measurements of the absorption properties of carbon dioxide.
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/20...ry-measurements-of-co2-absorption-properties/

 

[palerider]

Surface measurements of downward IR radiation showed an increase during the years 1973 to 2008. High resolution spectral analysis showed that the increases were in the spectra of the green house gases. These changes were consistent with the observed increase in the percentage rise in the various green house gases.

Funny. There is no downward IR radiation unless the surface of the earth is cooler than the atmosphere. I suggest that you do a bit of research into the instruments actually used to measure that downward radiation. Each and every one of them is cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere so that energy will flow from the cold atmosphere to the colder instrument.

data were measured, and compared CO2, O3, CFC, and CH4 emissions in 1970 and 1996. The drop in these emissions correlated to the change in the percentage rise of the various greenhouse gases.

Satellites measure an increase in outgoing LW at the top of the atmosphere in direct opposition to your claims. Just so you know, model output is not actual data. You guys live and breathe model output because observation makes you look like fools for believing in this hoax.

fact that the spectra of the green house gasses dropped in going to space and increased in reflecting to earth confirms that there is an empirically measured net IR energy increase to the earth. These are not modeled or computed. These are actual quantified measurements given in many scientific journals.

As you can see, actual observation shows that LW escaping at the top of the atmosphere is increasing and has been since the middle 70's. Again, model output is not data and the fact that the models predicted less outgoing LW at the ToA and it didn't happen is just one more factor that should have falsified the hypothesis. Tell me, what would falsify the hypothesis for you?

to the scientific references:

Pal review? Funny. I haven't read them, but I doubt that any of those papers mention the fact that outgoing longwave is increasing at the top of the atmosphere.....or that the instruments used to measure that mythical downward infrared radiation were all cooled to a temperature below that of the atmosphere so that energy would flow downward and a measurement could be taken. Fraud is what it is....fraud to perpetuate the hoax....sleight of hand to fool the duped and keep the grant money rolling in.

By the way, I am laughing my ass off over your papers on AIRS, IMG, and Iris measurements. I don't guess you ever saw the charts associated with those papers. They don't show what was claimed. I have them around somewhere...I will try to find them and show you one more example of the fraud being perpetrated by climate science.

 

[Lagboltz]

There is no downward IR radiation unless the surface of the earth is cooler than the atmosphere.

That is not true at all. Oh yes, I have not forgotten that you have no understanding of radiation thermodynamics and confuse it with refrigeration thermodynamics. You have the view of the second law of thermodynamics as it was by Rudolf Clausius in the mid 1800s. You have no understanding of quantum thermodynamics as it was in the 1900s. You have no understanding of the difference between power and power density. You have no understanding of the difference between coherent and incoherent black body radiation. You think photons can strike each other and cancel each other out. You think that the light energy between two light bulbs cancel each other out and cause a black streak between filaments.

Those were your problems that were uncovered in a previous thread. If anyone else is interested the thread ends at
https://www.houseofpolitics.com/threads/global-mean-temperature.15660/page-11

Pale, you just have to understand these things in order to talk about the science.

Yes, there is fluctuation of the total IR as you show in your graph. But what is confusing you is that it is the change in the IR absorption spectra NOT the total IR that shows the effects of the green house gasses. That is what the references I gave show. Yes, the total radiation is increasing, but the thin bands of GH spectral radiation is decreasing. The increasing IR that your graph shows is what comes from a warming earth in IR bands that are not absorbed by the GH gases. If anything, your IR graph shows that the earth is warming.

... instruments used to measure that mythical downward infrared radiation were all cooled to a temperature below that of the atmosphere so that energy would flow downward and a measurement could be taken...

No no no. IR instruments for the longer thermal bands are always most accurate at low temperatures so that the instrument will not pick up radiation from the walls and windows of the instrument and ruin what they are trying to measure.

Pale, you know how to put scientific words in sentences, but you simply don't understand the thermal physics involved.

 

[palerider]

That is not true at all. Oh yes, I have not forgotten that you have no understanding of radiation thermodynamics and confuse it with refrigeration thermodynamics. You have the view of the second law of thermodynamics as it was by Rudolf Clausius in the mid 1800s. You have no understanding of quantum thermodynamics as it was in the 1900s. You have no understanding of the difference between power and power density. You have no understanding of the difference between coherent and incoherent black body radiation. You think photons can strike each other and cancel each other out. You think that the light energy between two light bulbs cancel each other out and cause a black streak between filaments.

Then you should have no problem providing an example of energy moving from a colder surface to a warmer surface. You can go on and on with the "thought" experiments but when the rubber meets the road and you must show an actual observed example, then you are done. If energy in fact moved from cool objects to warm objects, then the actual observed examples should be legion...they are, however, not.

And your "black streak" claim was simply a failure on your part to understand...not mine.

were your problems that were uncovered in a previous thread. If anyone else is interested the thread ends at
https://www.houseofpolitics.com/threads/global-mean-temperature.15660/page-11

Pale, you just have to understand these things in order to talk about the science.

One can't help but note that in that thread, you could provide no observed examples of energy moving from cool to warm either. I am guessing that you don't understand that quantum mechanics is rife with failures and contradictions. Are you aware that quantum mechanics breaks down, and is unable to even adequately explain the structure of a hydrogen atom? It is chock full of fudge factors, and ad hoc fabrications. It is an attempt to explain a thing that at this time, we don't fully understand...quantum mechanics is not proven science.

, there is fluctuation of the total IR as you show in your graph. But what is confusing you is that it is the change in the IR absorption spectra NOT the total IR that shows the effects of the green house gasses. That is what the references I gave show. Yes, the total radiation is increasing, but the thin bands of GH spectral radiation is decreasing. The increasing IR that your graph shows is what comes from a warming earth in IR bands that are not absorbed by the GH gases. If anything, your IR graph shows that the earth is warming.

I am afraid that it is you who is confused labbolts....or perhaps deluded is the more accurate term. If, in fact, the IR from the so called greenhouse gasses is behaving as you claim, then where is the tropospheric hot spot that must be the result of such behavior? All of the models predict it for the very reasons you claim and yet, literally hundreds of thousands of radiosondes, aircraft measurements, etc have not found it....why you might ask? Clearly you haven't asked but the answer is because it is not happening. Model output is not data...the actual observed data contradict the predictions of the models because the physics upon which the models are based is flawed...it assumes back radiation when back radiation is unphysical.

no no. IR instruments for the longer thermal bands are always most accurate at low temperatures so that the instrument will not pick up radiation from the walls and windows of the instrument and ruin what they are trying to measure.

The instrument will not pick up radiation because energy from the cold atmosphere won't flow to it unless the instrument itself is colder than the atmosphere...just as the second law of thermodynamics predicts.

, you know how to put scientific words in sentences, but you simply don't understand the thermal physics involved.

And you believe in a hoax....You act as if quantum mechanics were scientific law, not an ad hoc construct in an attempt to explain something we don't understand. Show me the hot spot that would be the inevetable result of back radiation as a result of greenhouse gasses. If the tropospheric hot spot doesn't exist, then the physics must be wrong and the hypothesis is falsified...time to get to work on finding out what actually drives the climate.

 

[PLC1]

I see Palerider has ridden back, and still has the same bag of tricks he had the last time.

Heat does not flow from cold to hot surfaces, and therefore, can not come from the atmosphere. OK, so far. Now, explain just how it is that high mountains, where the air is thinner, have lower temperatures on average that do lower elevations? Just what is the mechanics of thicker atmosphere at lower elevations keeping temperatures higher? Obviously, the explanation can't violate the laws of thermodynamics, so there must be something else operating here.

 

[dogtowner]

I see Palerider has ridden back, and still has the same bag of tricks he had the last time.

Heat does not flow from cold to hot surfaces, and therefore, can not come from the atmosphere. OK, so far. Now, explain just how it is that high mountains, where the air is thinner, have lower temperatures on average that do lower elevations? Just what is the mechanics of thicker atmosphere at lower elevations keeping temperatures higher? Obviously, the explanation can't violate the laws of thermodynamics, so there must be something else operating here.

Less surface to absorb energy comes to mind.

 

[palerider]

I see Palerider has ridden back, and still has the same bag of tricks he had the last time.

Heat does not flow from cold to hot surfaces, and therefore, can not come from the atmosphere. OK, so far. Now, explain just how it is that high mountains, where the air is thinner, have lower temperatures on average that do lower elevations? Just what is the mechanics of thicker atmosphere at lower elevations keeping temperatures higher? Obviously, the explanation can't violate the laws of thermodynamics, so there must be something else operating here.

Are you familiar with the ideal gas laws? pV=nRT? Adiabatic lapse rate? Any of this ringing any bells?

Atmospheric mass, gravity, the ideal gas laws and solar input from that big burning ball of gas in the sky can, unlike the greenhouse hypothesis, predict not only the temperature profile of the earth but the temperatures of venus, mars, titan, uranus, neptune, etc. The fact is that the entire 33 degrees of the so called greenhouse effect can be explained, and predicted by atmospheric mass, gravity, and the equilibrium temperature with the sun and no forcing by so called greenhouse gasses is required.

Tell you what PLC, using the greenhouse hypothesis as described by climate science, explain why the bottom of the troposphere on Uranus is 33K warmer than the bottom of the troposphere on earth even though Uranus is 30X further away from the sun than earth and has an atmosphere composed almost entirely of hydrogen and helium.

 

[Lagboltz]

Then you should have no problem providing an example of energy moving from a colder surface to a warmer surface. You can go on and on with the "thought" experiments but when the rubber meets the road and you must show an actual observed example, then you are done. If energy in fact moved from cool objects to warm objects, then the actual observed examples should be legion...they are, however, not.

And your "black streak" claim was simply a failure on your part to understand...not mine.

When we were talking about the ramifications of radiation between two light bulbs, you said,

Yes, the radiation cancels out, or will eventually. If you measure the temperature of the two filaments and they are the same, then the radiation between the two are canceling out.

You are essentially saying that the radiation cancels out so there is a black streak between bulbs. It's your idea, not mine. You are still saying that now. Your position hasn't changed and is rather absurd.

As far as energy moving from a colder to a warmer surface, photon energy can do exactly that, however thermal energy cannot. More photon energy flows from the warmer to the cold surface than the colder to the warmer. So the total net flow of energy is always to the colder object as it should according to the second law of thermodynamics. References are given below.

One can't help but note that in that thread, you could provide no observed examples of energy moving from cool to warm either. I am guessing that you don't understand that quantum mechanics is rife with failures and contradictions. Are you aware that quantum mechanics breaks down, and is unable to even adequately explain the structure of a hydrogen atom? It is chock full of fudge factors, and ad hoc fabrications. It is an attempt to explain a thing that at this time, we don't fully understand...quantum mechanics is not proven science.

The older version of second law of thermodynamics you are thinking of refers to HEAT energy that cannot flow from a colder to a warmer body which is always true, but in radiative thermodynamics EM energy or photons can flow between objects at any temperature with the constraint that the NET energy between two radiative bodies would be from the hotter to the colder. So you have energy flow between two bodies, but no net heat energy flow from the colder to the warmer. Here are some references for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_equilibrium
"One form of thermal equilibrium is radiative exchange equilibrium. Two bodies, each with its own uniform temperature, in solely radiative connection, no matter how far apart, or what partially obstructive, reflective, or refractive, obstacles lie in their path of radiative exchange, not moving relative to one another, will exchange thermal radiation, in net the hotter transferring energy to the cooler, and will exchange equal and opposite amounts just when they are at the same temperature"

http://quantummechanics.ucsd.edu/ph130a/130_notes/node48.html
"A black body is one that absorbs all the EM radiation (light...) that strikes it. To stay in thermal equilibrium, it must emit radiation at the same rate as it absorbs it ...".

The instrument will not pick up radiation because energy from the cold atmosphere won't flow to it unless the instrument itself is colder than the atmosphere...just as the second law of thermodynamics predicts.

Not true. From the above references, EM radiation always will flow between two bodies. As I said earlier the net radiation is of course always from the hotter to the colder. Cooling the detector is for getting rid of noise and interference of radiation from the body of the detector itself and has nothing to do with the second law the way you put it.

And you believe in a hoax....You act as if quantum mechanics were scientific law, not an ad hoc construct in an attempt to explain something we don't understand. Show me the hot spot that would be the inevetable result of back radiation as a result of greenhouse gasses. If the tropospheric hot spot doesn't exist, then the physics must be wrong and the hypothesis is falsified...time to get to work on finding out what actually drives the climate.

Quantum Electrodynamics has explained every experiment that was ever done concerning electromagnetic properties of atoms and bodies of atoms. All experiments have verified quantum mechanics to the limit of accuracy of the experiment. The dipole moment of the electron and the alpha value of a muon were experimentally verified to one part per trillion

And you question quantum mechanics!

The irony is that you have more faith in the second law of thermodynamics as it was understood in the 1800s over the quantum mechanics of the 1900s. Why do you have that much faith in that old thermodynamics and reject radiative thermodynamics as in the above references? Let me ask you to show me an experiment that proves the second law of thermodynamics. Give me a source that says that photon energy cannot flow from a cold body to a hot body.

 

[palerider]

When we were talking about the ramifications of radiation between two light bulbs, you said,

You going to show an observed example of energy moving from a cool source to a warm source or not? I am not interested in going into your convoluted "thought" experiments....or hearing your oh so intelligent explanations of quantum physics. Either you can show observable examples of energy moving from cool to warm or you can't. If you can't, then enough said.

older version of second law of thermodynamics you are thinking of refers to HEAT energy that cannot flow from a colder to a warmer body which is always true, but in radiative thermodynamics EM energy or photons can flow between objects at any temperature with the constraint that the NET energy between two radiative bodies would be from the hotter to the colder. So you have energy flow between two bodies, but no net heat energy flow from the colder to the warmer. Here are some references for you.

There is no "new" version of the second law of thermodynamics...or any law of thermodynamics for that matter. None of the laws of physics have been recended...or rewritten....or replaced...or superceded.....etc. Perhaps in la la land where you live...not over here in the real world. When they are changed in the real world, let me know.

true. From the above references, EM radiation always will flow between two bodies. As I said earlier the net radiation is of course always from the hotter to the colder. Cooling the detector is for getting rid of noise and interference of radiation from the body of the detector itself and has nothing to do with the second law the way you put it.

Neither heat nor energy moves from cool to warm.....and even if it did, as you say with the net being from warm to cool...which it doesn't...the effect would be zero....once more the AGW hypothesis fails.

Electrodynamics has explained every experiment that was ever done concerning electromagnetic properties of atoms and bodies of atoms. All experiments have verified quantum mechanics to the limit of accuracy of the experiment. The dipole moment of the electron and the alpha value of a muon were experimentally verified to one part per trillion

Quantum mechanics is an ad hoc construct that attempts to explain things we can't explain. It can't even explain. The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics is not a model of reality...it is pseudoscience.

Ever hear of Wolfgang Pauli? Pauli Exclusion Principle? Here is what he had to say regarding quantum mechanics in "The General Principles of Quantum Mechanics":

The fact that quantum mechanics yields more states than actually occur in nature (multiD wave function), is still a puzzle and it is hoped that a future theory of elementary particles will bring a deeper insight into the essence of the this restricted choice of nature (symmetric or antisymmetric multiD wave function).
And you question quantum mechanics!

After all these years, the Pauli Exclusion Principle remains a mystery and is a foundational error in quantum mechanics....which, by the way arises from not one, but two conflicting ad hoc assumptions which are:

1. An atom with N electrons is described by a wave function as solution to a linear scalar Schrödinger equation in 3N space dimensions with a richness beyond any reality and imagination, which can viewed as a scientific monster.
2. To balance the richness and come to grips with the monster, a restriction to symmetric or antisymmetric wave functions is made.

A rational scientific approach would have been to trash the old and begin with a new mathematical model in the form of a system in N wave functions depending on 3 space dimensions as solution to a coupled system of N scalar wave equations in 3 space dimensions, as suggested by Hartree directly after the multiD Schrödinger equation was presented in 1925.

There are only waves and resonances. There are no Quantum Jumps, nor are there Particles! (H D Zeh)
Niels Bohr brainwashed a whole generation of physicists into believing that the problem had been solved... (Murray Gell-Mann)

Then there is Schrödinger...ever hear of him? Here are some of the things he had to say about quantum mechanics that to this day have not been adequately reckoned with.

• 
  
  
  • Particles are just schaumkommen (appearances).
  • There have been ingenious constructs of the human mind that gave an exceedingly accurate description of observed facts and have yet lost all interest except to historians. I am thinking of the theory of epicycles.
  • I confess to the heretical view that their modern counterpart in physical theory are the quantum jumps.
  • There is a difference between a shaky or out-of-focus photograph (waves and resonances) and a snapshot of clouds and fog banks (particles and quanta).

In addition, on the topic of quantum mechanics he said:

• The disregard for historical connectedness, nay the pride of embarking on new ways of thought, of production and of action, the keen endeavour of shaking off, as it were, the indebtedness to our predecessors, are no doubt a general trend of our time.
• In the fine arts we notice strong currents quite obviously informed by this vein; we witness its results in modem painting, sculpture, architecture, music and poetry.
• There are many who look upon this as a new buoyant rise, while others regard it as a flaring up that inaugurates decay. It is not here the place to dwell on this question, and my personal views on it might interest nobody.
• But I may say that whenever this trend enters science, it ought to be opposed. There obviously is a certain danger of its intruding into science in general, which is not an isolated enterprise of the human spirit, but grows on the same historic soil as the others and participates in the mood of the age.
• There is, however, so I believe, no other nearly so blatant example of this happening as the theories of physical science in our time. I believe that we are here facing a development which is the precise counterpart of that in the fine arts alluded to above.
• The most appropriate expression to use for it is one borrowed from the history of poetry:Gongorism. It refers to the poetry of the Spaniard Luis de Gongora (1561-1627), very fine poems, by the way, especially the early ones. Yet also his later poems (to which the term more particularly refers) are well sounding and they all make sense. But he uses all his acuity and skill on making it as difficult as possible to the reader to unravel the sense, so that even natives of Castile use extended commentaries to grasp the meaning safely.

(continued)

 

[palerider]

(continuation)

Here, according to far greater minds than yours is the state of quantum mechanics after all these years:


Caslav Brukner:

• Quantum theory makes the most accurate empirical predictions. Yet it lacks simple, comprehensible physical principles from which it could be uniquely derived.Without such principles, we can have no serious understanding of quantum theory and cannot hope to offer an honest answer—one that’s different from a mere “The world just happens to be that way”—to students’ penetrating questions of why there is indeterminism in quantum physics, or of where Schrödinger’s equation comes from.
• The standard textbook axioms for the quantum formalism are of a highly abstract nature, involving terms such as “rays in Hilbert space” and “selfadjoint operators.” And a vast majority of alternative approaches that attempt to find a set of physical principles behind quantum theory either fall short of uniquely deriving quantum theory from these principles, or are based on abstract mathematical assumptions that themselves call for a more conclusive physical motivation.

Jeffrey Bub:

• We don’t really understand the notion of a quantum state, in particular an entangled quantum state, and the peculiar role of measurement in taking the description of events from the quantum level, where you have interference and entanglement, to an effectively classical level where you don’t.

hristoffer Fuchs:

• John Wheeler would ask, “Why the quantum?” To him, that was the single most pressing question in all of physics. You can guess that with the high regard I have for him, it would be the most pressing question for me as well. And it is. But it’s not a case of hero worship; it’s a case of it just being the right question. The quantum stands up and says, “I am different!” If you really want to get to the depths of physics, then that’s the place to look.

ianCarlo Ghirardi:

• I believe that the most pressing problems are still those that have been debated for more than eighty years by some of the brightest scientists and deepest thinkers of the past century: Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, John von Neumann, Albert Einstein, Erwin Schrödinger, John Bell.
• To characterize these problems in a nutshell, I cannot do better than stressing the totally unsatisfactory conceptual status of our best theory by reporting the famous sentence by Bell: “Nobody knows what quantum mechanics says exactly about any situation, for nobody knows where the boundary really is between wavy quantum systems and the world of particular events.”

Daniel Greenberger:

• I don’t think the measurement problem will be solvable soon, or possibly ever.

Lucien Hardy:

• The most well-known problem in quantum foundations is the measurement problem—our basic conception of reality depends on how we resolve this. The measurement problem is tremendously important.
• But there is another problem that is even more important—and that may well lead to the solution of the measurement problem. This is to find a theory of quantum gravity.The problem of quantum gravity is easy to state: Find a theory that reduces to quantum theory and to general relativity in appropriate limits. It is not so easy to solve. The two main approaches are string theory and loop quantum gravity. Both are deeply conservative, in the sense that they assume it will be possible to formulate a theory of quantum gravity within the quantum formalism as it stands. I do not believe this is the right approach.

Tim Maudlin:

• The most pressing problem today is the same as ever it was: to clearly articulate the exact physical content of all proposed “interpretations” of the quantum formalism. This is commonly called the measurement problem, although, as Philip Pearle has rightly noted, it is rather a “reality problem.”
• Physics should aspire to tell us what exists (John Bell’s “beables”), and the laws that govern the behavior of what exists. “Observations,” “measurements,” “macroscopic objects,” and “Alice” and “Bob” are all somehow constituted of beables, and the physical characteristics of all things should be determined by that constitution and the fundamental laws.
• What are commonly called different “interpretations” of quantum theory are really different theories—or sometimes, no clear theory at all. Accounts that differ in the beables they postulate are different physical theories of the universe, and accounts that are vague or noncommittal about their beables are not precise physical theories at all. Until one understands exactly what is being proposed as the physical structure of the universe, no other foundational problem, however intriguing, can even be raised in a sharp way.

David Mermin:

• In the words of Chris Fuchs, “quantum states: what the hell are they?” Quantum states are not objective properties of the systems they describe, as mass is an objective property of a stone. Given a single stone, about which you know nothing, you can determine its mass to a high precision. Given a single photon, in a pure polarization state about which you know nothing, you can learn very little about what that polarization was. (I say “was,” and not “is,” because the effort to learn the polarization generally results in a new state, but that is not the point here.)
• But I also find it implausible that (pure) quantum states are nothing more than provisional guesses for what is likely to happen when the system is appropriately probed. Surely they are constrained by known features of the past history of the system to which the state has been assigned, though I grant there is room for maneuver in deciding what it means to “know” a “feature.”

Lee Smolin:

• The only interpretations of quantum mechanics that make sense to me are those that treat quantum mechanics as a theory of the information that observers in one subsystem of the universe can have about another subsystem. This makes it seem likely that quantum mechanics is an approximation of another theory, which might apply to the whole universe and not just to subsystems of it. The most pressing problem is then to discover this deeper theory and level of description.

Antony Valentini:

• The interpretation of quantum mechanics is a wide open question, so we can’t say in advance what the most pressing problems are...What’s important is that we leave the smoke screen of the Copenhagen interpretation well behind us, and that talented and knowledgeable people think hard about this subject from a realist perspective.

David Wallace:

• Just how are we to understand the apparently greater efficiency of quantum computers over classical ones?

Large minds are asking questions and there is not even the first hint of an answer...."Contemporary physics has lost contact with physical reality. Mysticism and fancy has resulted in quite irrational notions being proposed to account for the physical Universe".... in a nutshell is the state of quantum physics today....and the funny/sad thing is that people like you attempt to give answers derived from a pretended understanding of quantum physics as if they were real answers...not merely ad hoc assumptions.

irony is that you have more faith in the second law of thermodynamics as it was understood in the 1800s over the quantum mechanics of the 1900s. Why do you have that much faith in that old thermodynamics and reject radiative thermodynamics as in the above references? Let me ask you to show me an experiment that proves the second law of thermodynamics. Give me a source that says that photon energy cannot flow from a cold body to a hot body.

The statement of the second law is the same as it has always been...it has not been changed...superceeded...altered...or replaced. As you can see by the statements of some very large minds above...people who are certainly more well aquainted with quantum mechanics than you....quantium mechanics has answered very little...it is assumption, wrapped in guesswork....boxed up in unreality.

Do I question QM?.....damned right. The real question is....why don't you? Is there anything you question?

 

[Lagboltz]

Of course. There is absolutely no question that quantum mechanics defies the intuition of humans. That has been known since its inception. There is no experiment that has ever been done in atomic physics that puts doubt on the computations of quantum electrodynamics (QED, for short).

The second law of Clausius stated that HEAT could not spontaneously flow from a cold body to a hot body. He did not know anything about EM radiation. That came later with Maxwell. The second law of Clausius alone was incapable of explaining how heat could be exchanged between bodies in a vacuum with no physical connection. He didn't know about photons and quantization.

Photons can freely flow both ways to and from hot and cold bodies. Give me a source that says photons cannot spontaneously flow from a cold body to a hot body.

 

[PLC1]

Less surface to absorb energy comes to mind.

Lower elevation places have less surface? How is that?

 

[dogtowner]

Lower elevation places have less surface? How is that?

Other way around. Mountain peaks represent far less surface area than the surface.

 

[PLC1]

Other way around. Mountain peaks represent far less surface area than the surface.

mmm OK. And the thinner air has nothing to do with it then?

 

[dogtowner]

mmm OK. And the thinner air has nothing to do with it then?

I would not think so. Perhaps higher humidity in some surface areas make a difference as water can trap heat by converting its form and with most of our surface area happens to be water so distribution is sorta kinda even. More molecules of water down low than up high given the un-thinness.