How Greenhouse Gas Tricksters Persist Despite Trump

Written by Joseph E Postma

As President Trump leads the charge in dismantling fake news and the ‘hoax’ of global warming we examine how the most climate-skeptical body of scientists are still being reviled and misrepresented.

At Jeff Condon’s site “the Air Vent”, he plays the “Challenge PSI” game following after Anthony Watts and Roy Spencer.  Apparently this is the fun thing to do, even though it continues to support PSI’s position and defeat the challengers. [PSI is Principia Scientific International, a hub for applied scientists and engineers who point to flaws in the greenhouse gas theory]. Will Trump’s administration take note?

Lukewarmist champions, Anthony Watts (WUWT) and Dr Roy Spencer were both answered in their challenges by PSI. And subsequent experiments by Mr. Watts proved that his personal lack of science training is a severe detriment to actually being able to do science.  PSI proved that a real-time model of the spherical Earth is better than an arbitrary flat static Earth with the Sun arbitrarily twice as far away as it actually is.  We think that something is wrong with climate science and possibly science in general if PSI is continually challenged to prove that the Earth is spherical.  Unfortunately for Mr. Condon, his challenge follows the exact same pattern as the WUWT and Spencer challenges.

Mr. Condon asked:

  1.  Define and describe the probability characteristics of Second Law of Thermodynamics as interpreted in classical physics using your own words.   Demonstrable understanding of the standard version of the second law is important so that we have common ground.

  2.  Describe standard physics interpretation of radiation absorption from a cold to hot body.

  3.  Describe the PSI interpretation of the Second law highlighting differences in energy transfer from the standard interpretations.

  4.  Describe the PSI interpretation of what happens to radiation from a cold to hot body, with focus on temperatures.

A PSI member replied at his site:

“1) & 3) are related, so: A closed system tends to a state of maximum entropy. Basically this means that all energy density differentials disappear and the system becomes totally useless, unable to perform any work within itself. Energy spontaneously transfers from low probability to high probability states. Low probability is high density (hot), high probability is low density (cool). This will manifest as spontaneous heat flow from hot to cold. There is no PSI difference from the traditional laws.

2) & 4) are related: Cold radiation does not heat up hot bodies as this would be a violation of the laws of thermo as discussed. It is the hot body which transfers heat to the cold and causes the cold temperature to increase. The presence of a cold body does not mean that a hot body has to warm up – the cold body just warms up until the same energy states are shared by both the cold and hot bodies, and then energy is available to transfer to other things on the far side of the cold body if some condition exists there. The PSI position is the traditional one, whereas we routinely see GHE advocates argue that radiation from a cold body has to heat up a hotter body, or, that the cold body can heat the hot body as long as the “majority net” heating is from hot to cold, which is of course sophistry, but it sounds good. Energy can be shared both ways between hot and cold, but the cold does not cause or require the hot to become hotter – the cold is simply heated by the hot.

We believe that it is PSI arguing for the traditional laws and that GHE alarmists have sought to create a separate new branch of radiative physics alien to the laws of thermodynamics. Radiative transfer of heat obeys the same limitations that the others modes of transfer do.”

Mr. Condon then replied:

“[this answer] mean[s] that your group doesn’t even recognize quantum radiative thermodynamics”

Let us review Mr. Condon’s original question:  “Define and describe the probability characteristics of Second Law of Thermodynamics as interpreted in classical physics”.

Mr. Condon asked us about classical physics, we gave him a perfectly good general answer, and then he promptly switched goal posts to quantum mechanics, which is now familiar behaviour.  But is it even a valid switch of goal posts?  Isn’t everything quantum?  The classical limit comes from a great number of individual quantum events.

Mr. Condon followed up his shift of reference frames with another question:

“Let’s say we have two perfect blackbodies, one at 100K, another at 200K. What happens to a single photon emitted by the cold body that strikes the warm one?”

A PSI member replied:

“Two bodies, one 100K and another 200K: The hotter one heats the cooler one. The rate of heating is proportional to the differential in temperature between them, and this is the effect that the cooler body has on the differential, in that as it rises in temperature, its rate of temperature increase decreases until steady state is found. This does not mean that the hotter body must or has become hotter to heat the cool body, or that the cool body heated the hot body, etc.  This post is related: https://climateofsophistry.com/2013/05/27/the-fraud-of-the-aghe-part-12-how-to-lie-with-math/

In the link it is explained clearly that in radiative heat transfer, Q ~ σ(Th4 – Tc4).  Hence the cold object, and all of its photons, let alone a single photon, are completely accounted for.  The Tc4 term in the previous equation accounts for every single photon from the cold source, and it has the effect described in the reply.  So why the question about the single photon?  How is a single photon relevant?  PSI can account for all of the photons from the cold source by using traditional physics, and the equations show that the cold source does not heat up a hotter source.

A cold source does not conductively heat up a hotter source.  A cold source does not convectively heat up a hotter source.  The desire of GHE advocacy is to demand that radiation does not similarly follow the laws of thermodynamics as the other modes of heat transfer.  This is one of the most remarkably curious state of affairs that science has found itself in.  The three modes of heat transfer are conduction, convection, and radiation.  These three modes obey the same limits described by the set of Laws of Thermodynamics.  Radiation does not let cold things warm up hotter things.

Mr. Condon has followed up to claim:

“PSI Destroyed.  PSI completely surrendered discussion of a highly emotional topic…”; “on all counts, they have failed to address any of the … questions asked”; “We have spent years listening to odd proclamations about the second law of thermodynamics”.

PSI wonders: how is heat transfer emotional?  How is Q ~ σ(Th4 – Tc4) emotional ?  How does that equation not answer exactly what the cold photons are doing?

How is claiming that cold objects heat up warmer objects not the source of the “odd proclamations of thermodynamics”?  Condon is out to lunch and bass ackwards.

Moving the goal-posts by debate opponents is always how it has been for the Slayers…this is exactly the type of behaviour we have had from GHE believers from square one.  It has never been any different.

We have real-world empirical data proving that there is no greenhouse effect, with a real-world time-dependent model based on reality to demonstrate it.  For years, we have pointed out that the Earth is not flat, that the Sun is not twice as far away as it should be, that cold things do not heat up hot things, and somehow these statements are called “odd proclamations”.  We’re not allowed to talk about a spherical Earth with real-time Sunshine.  If anyone does they get abused endlessly.  We are living in a world of insanity.  Climate science, and those who believe it with the greenhouse effect, have gone insane.  It is ludicrous and it is intellectually disgusting.

Read more at climateofsophistry.com

Comments (11)

    • Avatar

      PhD

      |

      My background is many years in theoretical Physics. Then industry for over 30 years with my own very successful company. My degrees were with honors.
      I am with PSI all the way….. I went through the Condon posts at his site and responses by various PSI folk (Doug Cotton etc.)
      You guys are genuine scientists and it shows in your correct responses.
      there is no question in my mind that AGW is a political religion with nothing to do with reality.

      • Avatar

        John O'Sullivan

        |

        Thanks ‘PhD’ your positive feedback is most welcome. We value your support.

  • Avatar

    Jim McGinn

    |

    John:
    that of water vapour which has such a broad spectral band covering virtually the whole of the IR wavelengths. It is not just the re-emission of IR from activated H2O molecules it is also the emission of IR from the latent heat of condensation as water vapour condenses in the cool air that to all intents and purposes swamps IR emissions from CO2.

    Jim McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

    John, there really is no such thing as, “. . . the emission of IR from the latent heat of condensation as water vapour condenses in the cool air . . .” Although it is true that H2O has a huge heat capacity and does, as you indicated, gradually release this heat as it cools in the upper atmosphere, it doesn’t have anything to do with a phase change. Condensation in the atmosphere does NOT involve a phase transition. Contrary to popular opinion, H2O never turns to steam (gaseous H2O) in the atmosphere. It starts out as invisible liquid nanodroplets but never steam.

    James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
    The Real Reason Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift
    http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16652

  • Avatar

    Ed Bo

    |

    You are going to take seriously the arguments of someone who thinks it’s ridiculous that an unpowered device has a steady-state temperature equal to ambient? Or that a powered device must have a steady-state temperature above ambient?

    “So climate science says that it is impossible to get a resistor to operate at room temperature, unless you don’t apply any power to the resistor at all”

    http://principia-scientific.org/introducing-climate-pseudophysics-a-phun-physics-challenge/

    Middle school students understand this easily — Joe doesn’t!

    In 30 years of thermal testing of electronic devices at various ambient temperatures, I have never seen a powered device that did not reach a steady-state temperature above ambient, and I have never seen an unpowered device at a different temperature from ambient.

  • Avatar

    johnharrison

    |

    Joseph, please don’t be so dismissive and disparaging of opinions contrary to your own, it does not become you; such intolerance is more the behaviour we have come to expect of climate alarmists. The argument has never been that a cold object can raise the temperature of a hot body by radiation but that the proximity of a cold body can reduce the rate at which the hot body will cool and will limit the temperature to which the hot body can cool. This is brought about by the net energy radiation between the two bodies. Mr Condon was trying to point out that infrared photons emitted by a cold body will be absorbed by the hot body but more such photons will be emitted by the hot body and absorbed by the cold body. This will continue until equilibrium is reached. Of course, the presence of “GHG” in the atmosphere will emit some IR towards the surface of the Earth, the source being the internal energy gained by previous photon absorption. In doing so the rate of cooling of the Earth’s surface will be reduced to some degree and its minimum temperature raised correspondingly. The questions many skeptics are asking are “to what degree?”, “is it not offset by the ability of the GHGs to radiate energy into space when present in the upper atmosphere?” and “is not this effect from CO2 insignicant compared with that to be expected from water vapour?”

    • Avatar

      John O'Sullivan

      |

      Hi John, Let’s be more specific here: it is known among applied scientists expert in chemistry that CO2 is a superlative gas for losing heat – far better than air, in fact. Thus CO2 doesn’t delay cooling.
      Moreover, the heat transfer equation is…
      (Mass) x (Specific Heat) x (Temperature Difference) = Heat Transfer
      Pressure effects Mass, but static pressure, at any pressure, does not create heat. Then in
      the Science and Environmental Policy Project newsletters Spencer makes these two
      claims…
      “Temperature of anything…can be increased in one of two ways (1) by adding more
      energy (2) by reducing energy loss” ~ July 23, 2016
      “Spencer….stated that the greenhouse effect is not warming per se, but a reduction in the
      rate of cooling” ` Aug 06, 2016
      In fact, delayed cooling is NOT warming, and no mass will increase temperature by
      adding insulation. Just admit that CO2 CANNOT add heat/delay cooling and therefore cutting CO2 emissions is pointless.

      • Avatar

        johnharrison

        |

        Hi John, thank you for your comments. CO2 does indeed have a very short “half-life” (for want of a better word) between absorbing IR photons and re-emitting but nevertheless the rapidly re-emitted photons will take random directions including down to the Earth’s surface so this radiation will form part of the “back radiation” and the almost unique emission spectrum of CO2 has been detected. It does, however, seem highly unlikely that CO2 can be considered an effective GHG. It’s effect must be negligible in comparison to that of water vapour which has such a broad spectral band covering virtually the whole of the IR wavelengths. It is not just the re-emission of IR from activated H2O molecules it is also the emission of IR from the latent heat of condensation as water vapour condenses in the cool air that to all intents and purposes swamps IR emissions from CO2.
        I wasn’t able to find Spencer’s comments on 23 Jul 16. He’s an intelligent guy and is on the side of the skeptics so I would like to see how he justifies “The temperature of anything……can be increased …….. by reducing energy loss” I certainly don’t follow the logic in that. Do you have a copy of the article or provide me with a reference.
        His comments from 06 Aug 16 agree entirely with my initial comments above and comes from the mutual absorption by and emission of IR photons from the Earth’s surface and the GHGs in the atmosphere.
        I also entirely agree with your comment that a reduced cooling rate is not warming, it is essential to carefully differentiate between “warming” and an elevated minimum temperature within a given time-scale.
        CO2 can indeed delay cooling but given the instability of activated CO2 molecules, the extremely narrow band in the emission spectrum, the hugely greater concentration of water vapour, the broad emission spectrum of water vapour the massive thermal activity of water in the atmosphere (evaporation, condensation, IR absorbtion and emission) the effect of CO2 can only be infinitessimal. From a very early age (and I am coming up 70) we were taught that it was the presence of massive amounts of water in it’s evaporation, condensation, cloud formation and precipitation that moderated the temperature of the Earth along with global atmospheric circulation and I have seen nothing in the hype and awful science produced by the Global Warming fraternity or the media seeking sensationalist predictions, that could possibly make me believe otherwise. However, who knows what may develop and a good scientist must ever keep an open mind.
        So, all in all, it most certainly seems to me that cutting CO2 emissions is a complete waste of time and money which could best be spent on the many important and real global problems which desperately need attention.

        • Avatar

          John O'Sullivan

          |

          John, sorry to disagree but CO2 is proven by applied science to be our best cooling gas. Not a shred of evidence in the empirical record of CO2 used as an insulator to delay cooling-quite the opposite. It has been tried, believe me. For example, check out
          http://principia-scientific.org/carbon-dioxide-utterly-useless-trapping-heat-delaying-cooling/
          here we see the Berkeley lab experiment on the issue where scientists took ‘greenhouse gases’ (SF6, CO2, NH3, and N2O) and some other gasses, put them between panes of glass and tested and measured their abilities to trap heat and/or inhibit heat loss. Berkeley’s brightest and best reported that “the effect of the infrared radiation properties of CO2 is unnoticeable.” And that infrared absorbing gasses “are not as effective as low-emittance coatings for reducing radiative heat transfer.”
          In the atmosphere it is even worse for believers in the ‘back radiation’ meme-it is known from Lindzen and Choi (2009) that the ERBE satellite data shows no evidence of any back radiation signal. If it isn’t being detected then it doesn’t exist. QED

  • Avatar

    Joseph A Olson

    |

    I attended the Luke Little Warmist Love Fests of Heartland ICCC-9 in Las Vegas and Heritage Summit in Houston and have met all the players, my reviews….

    “Mommie, Can We Play Obombie Truth Origami”

    “Lukewarm Lemmings and the Lysenko Larceny”

    “Spencer Sorcery on Magic Gas” all at FauxScienceSlayer.com

  • Avatar

    Jeff Greenwell

    |

    Bravo Joseph! … Bravo!

Comments are closed