Another Greenhouse Idiot

At Jeff Condon’s site “the Air Vent”, he decided to get into the “Challenge PSI” game following after Anthony Watts and Roy Spencer.  Apparently this is the fun thing to do these days, even though it continues to support PSI’s position and defeat the challengers.

Watts and Spencer were both answered in their challenges and subsequent experiments by Mr. Watts proved that 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 have 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:

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.

This entry was posted in Sophistry and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Another Greenhouse Idiot

  1. Pingback: Another Greenhouse Idiot | Skeptics Chillin'

  2. johnosullivan says:

    Jeez! Watts is now on Twitter claiming he has pulled out of debating PSI because of an “attack” by us. He states:
    @wattsupwiththat: @ClimateRealists Well what I got was an attack email from PSI, so no, no good came of it.

    This gatekeeper is really digging his own grave deeper by the day! Another backward step by him towards confirming the cynical view he is part of a dishonest campaign to subvert objective, open discussion. What needs to be brought back to the front of all this is that PSI not only answered the original Spencer “put up or shut” challenge to provide and alternative earth energy model, but we categorically demonstrate PSI not only has a more realistic model, but one where all the numbers tally without the need to factor in the bogus GHE. Watts and Spencer were so dumbstruck by our reply they ignore our model and pretend it doesnt exist.

    Instead, Watts, Spencer, Condon et al, cling to the junk science notion that the world should only be modeled as a flat disk under cold sunshine. That is absurd when our superior 3D model accommodates earth’s has night and day and applies actual MEASURED solar insolation and shows all the numbers tally without the need to factor any supposed “greenhouse effect.”

    The longer Watts, Spencer, Condon et al. refuse to address our model the more desperate/dishonest/incompetent they look.

  3. johnmarshall says:

    Reality can drive some people crazy. I have never got warm by sucking an ice cube only sitting by a fire with the ice in the G&T.

  4. Watts accuses us of an attack? After his stupid challenge and his stupider experiment?

    What an amazing idiot.

  5. Pingback: Closing with Watts | Climate of Sophistry

  6. johnmarshall says:

    I went off Spencer when told me, in an email, that getting into a cold bed and getting warm proves that cold can increase the temperature of hot because you get warmer forgetting that your metabolism was providing the heat, the loss of which was reduced by the bedclothes insulation.
    Totally wrong Dr. Spencer.

  7. Oh man, guess what a Watts affiliate just told us the other day: That you could put your vehicle’s key FOB in the fridge and still have it open the car doors afterwards, thus proving that radiation can go from cold to hot, and thus cold things heat up hot things!! Amazing idiots.

  8. squid2112 says:

    What? Hello…? … Earth to reality…. WTF does a key FOB have to do with any of this? My God man… have these people completely lost it?

  9. Well you see, the GHE is like a key FOB, and the Earth is your car. Oh, right yes, now I’ve got it!

    Yes, they have lost their minds…!

  10. sunsettommy says:

    I have yet to read of credible evidence that THEIR logarithmic CO2 warming effect is visible in the temperature data.

  11. Peter Weggeman says:

    Mr. Condon’s silly four question quiz is obvious harassment. I suggest you ask him to give us the ‘correct’ answers to his own questions. That should be interesting.

  12. John in France says:

    I agree with Peter Weggerman (2013/06/18 at 6:17 AM). – I’d be very interested to know how Jeff Condon interprets the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
    I can only add that unlike his Jeff Id site, which I often visited, and many of Watts’ posts, I have never felt shut out from recondite hermetic discussion on your site, Joe, mainly because your articles are largely jargon-free and can be understood by anyone with a modicum of common sense.

  13. Allen Eltor says:

    Dear little Jeffie: You are an ignorant hick I wouldn’t let service fleet vehicles.

    I was going to post the below at your site but I thought if you’re so f***g evil you don’t know what happens when sunlight hits a rock, you’re stupid enough to just delete it because it reveals my contempt for you.

    Poor Jeffie’s not as smart as the anvil named Rudolph who taught the entire world before, what happens to those photons.

    Jeff needs to be told the story of Rudolf the Red Nosed Anvil, because Jeff’s not smart enough to sit down and analyze light hitting a rock.

    Jeff since you’re not as smart as a rock I’m going to tell you the story of Rudolph the Red-Nosed Anvil.

    I don’t want to hear how you think you’ve got something intelligent to say, I’ve see people leave you to figure this out for Y.E.A.R.S. as people have sat around and let you cook in your own, and your associates’, stupid.

    Not one of you realized the Magic Gais wasn’t magic. Not one of you realizes the hoplessness of looking into Dr. Borehole’s Trenberthian Backerdizer and seeing a treemomitur tell the temperature to within a tenth, 600 years ago.

    Do you really expect everyone’s going to be able to let you broadcast your third class stupid without someone humiliating you?

    Think, stupid: HOT ROCK.
    If you can’t figure out what happens

    But since people shouldn’t be systematically misled by amateurs here is the umpteenth time you’re going to claim no one tells you what happens to radiation.

    Rudolph the red nosed anvil, stupid. He had blue light shined on one side, yellow light on one side, green light on one side, and
    the light that came out of Rudolph’s nose was – WHAT COLOR, STUPID?

    You’re as stupid as you’ve been sounding for I don’t know how long; I just came over here and found you TOO STUPID to UNDERSTAND what HAPPENS to A HOT ROCK when SUNS SHINES ON IT.

    Do you think that’s somehow FORGIVABLE on the internet in physics?
    Jeffie do I have to take you down the ladder of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, what that means, when Rudolph’s nose is always red?

    Do I have to literally club you with the fact that means the electronic lattice has utter and absolute control of all photonic energy entangled within that realm?

    You have a degree? In aeronautical engineering, and you can’t figure out, what happens to HOT ROCKS when SUN LIGHT reflects off?

    No I’m not going down the list of 2, 3, 4, and explain how water runs dowhill and the wind blows because the world spins, and I’m not going to act like there’s anything you can say that won’t have me humiliating you without cracking a book. I can’t believe you’ve been conducting yourself this way. You’res supposed to have something called the reserve that comes from seeing everyone watch you wallow in your own stupid.

    You don’t even have the GUMPTION to ask WHAT PHASE MATTER you’re postulating the impingements: you’re just going on about how no one will answer so you keep taunting.

    YOU’RE AMATEUR HOURING your REPUTATION down a RABBIT HOLE of NO RETURN as PEOPLE from SEVERAL FIELDS come around and watch you jump up and down,

    shouting YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT SUNLIGHT DOES, to a HOT ROCK lying in the sun.

    I don’t care who you claim to blow I’ll humiliate you so many directions you’ll wonder what in the world came out and started giving you a stain to your name your grandkids would tell THEIR OWN FRIENDS about if they see it on the internet, because I’ll humiliate your name with the i.d.e.n.t.i.c.a.l. offhand e.a.s.e. I just did, here, without you having a s.y.l.l.a.b.l.e. TO ADD that can reveal you as anything but educated in the South. If not, then you should move there because you act that stupid.

    Don’t ever jump up and down when people from several fields refuse to give their own field’s answer to you for you to mock, I’m careless WHAT field YOU try to mock in pretense you didn’t understand. Pretense you don’t understand is the mark of the magic gasser and the only way someone would be so just plain evil-level stupid is if they are one.

    I’ll make about a half-page comedy routine of your stupid “I don’t understand” routine without cracking a BOOK and you’ll be wondering what else there is to blog about.

    It’s incredible how every time you return and find a magic gasser in full bloom it’s as an infantile.

    You’d better grow up Condon the world’s a sphere not flat.
    You can’t make a 110 watt bulb a 115 one with a mirror.
    You can’t measure backerdisms from water with a .1 infrared thermometer.
    You can’t fill jars with CO2 having the more concentrated one cool and have everybody forget.

    Most of all you can’t get by forever claiming you don’t understand why red light comes out of the nose of an anvil with three colors of light hitting three, different sides.

    Because I’m here to tell you this once and if you act stupid I’ll go all over blogville ridiculing you for not knowing: the fact that red light comes out the nose of that anvil ALWAYS lower in frequency after a LATTICE-ESTABLISHED PROPAGATION interval


    It can hinder emissions, and can simulate absorption in VERY limited terms, but if you BELIEVE in it,


    The way I know YOU do.

    All you W.A.C.K.O.S. are too stupid to learn from an ANVIL.

    You’re a hick.
    A simple minded one.
    More stupid than a ROCK lying out there in a parking lot, in the SUNSHINE.
    That ROCK knows what to do.
    because what’s DRIBBLING OUT is the STUPIDITY that CAN’T SIT and GAZE on a ROCK
    and FIGURE OUT
    what’s going on.

    You don’t get that with a real education – you’re just acting stupid for money.

    Or, you’re a stocker at a grocery store who finished some second/third rate vocational class in aeronautical shuckin & jivin’.

    You OBVIOUSLY didn’t learn anything of any real use Jeff. A HOT ROCK JEFF, you’re PERPLEXED.

    You deserve what you get for being as stupid as you are.

  14. Allen Eltor says:

    Lousy grammar and some of it doesn’t seem to makes sense like when I said



    and kept saying how – ok how S.T.U.P.I.D. you are Jeff Condon.

    Just past educating so all I can think of to do is remind everyone YOU CLAIM IT’S A SOURCE of PRIDE in you that YOU DON’T KNOW what HAPPENS when SUN HITS a HOT ROCK.

    Well the POINT little Jeffie is I’LL PUT IT ANY WAY I SEE FIT: because IT’S NOT THE GRAMMAR,


    Are you feeling me on that one? I CAN SAY IT ANY WAY I WANT.

    The POINT IS
    YOU’RE so F****G STUPID


    Since you might have WALKED AWAY from YOUR KEYBOARD and FORGOTTEN ALL that’s GONE ON till NOW,
    the R.E.D. nosed
    Since it is OBVIOUSLY smarter than YOU
    we can’t NAME it a JEFFIE and call it JEFFIE the RED NOSED ANVIL

    But how about each of us who GRASP the FUNDAMENTALS ALL FIND A STUMP NEAR OUR HOME and NAME IT in HONOR of YOU.
    Because YOU have got STUPID
    not market-CORNERED
    COME to the INTERNET
    claiming NOBODY can PERSUADE you
    striking a LATTICE EMITTING due at IDENTICAL/HIGHER-frequency LIGHT.
    You are one STUPID
    stumble bum
    I have been wondering why Twerk was always smirking he had friends I knew Lucia was innumerate and illiterate I never dreamed YOU are AS WELL.

    No wonder the entire blogosphere is filled with HICKS who think CROSS ABSORPTION is happening in D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E. of MATHEMATICS, I.T.S.E.L.F.

    Oh, man. Let me hear about you telling people you don’t understand Rudolph the red nosed anvil somewhere, I will have EVERY
    at that PLACE YOU SAY IT
    L.A.U.G.H.I.N.G. in Y.O.U.R.
    And it’ll be as EASY as THIS time.

  15. Allen Eltor says:

    The air vent’s your head Condon. Your place is named appropriately. Because the stuff that comes from what’s inside there is pure hot air devised by apparently, gaian faeries twitching wands to make you issue stupid utterances.

    Grammar be damned you’re just stump stupid backwoods internet area 51/Bigfoot/Magic GAiS country. Ten bucks someone comes in and says “Yep. Sure is.”

    I didn’t even look you up to see which vortexes outside Sedona you drink wine and smoke pot beside before you ask Gaia to accept your sacrifice.

    You’re pretty pathetic and if hot rocks are all it takes to humiliate you I see how you got caught believing in the Magical Backerdisms and Mike Mann’s Magically Melting Hockey Stick.

    Sucks to be caught claiming to use a hockey stick generator to look into a bore hole.

    Sucks to be found on the internet claiming you don’t understand how red light comes out the back of a hot rock too.

    But you managed both of those. You believe in all that and you don’t have an Area 51/Bigfoot section?

    You’re missing part of your core audience, hillbilly. You need to versitalize your crystal gazings and commercialize on some Mannian Hockey Stick generators that’ll make a mimosa tree a spectrum analyzer.

    My gosh. Where are you even from?

    Somebody go check. This hick’s making money somewhere on this Magic Gais deal. Gotta be.

    Or maybe he’s just that stupid.

  16. John in France says:

    Eltor, Can’t you keep it short and to the point?

  17. Ha! 😉 All good.

  18. Carl Brehmer says:

    After asking a question about the second law of thermodynamics Mr. Condon then asked about the fate of a single photon that is emitted by a cold sink towards a hot source.

    I read through a number of his posts in the comments section of the thread “PSI –Theory Destroyed” to see what his answer to the question was. This is Mr. Condon’s description of photons.

    “Actually, I do most often view them as a wave. Basically a ripple in spacetime frozen in a single dimension with a probabilistic interaction with matter. Not a shock wave, but a fractional oscillation of matter. In fact, all matter is a wave to me with nothing really being a particle. They say matter can be understood both ways, (particle or wave) but that is just a lack of understanding of the universe. Two particles cannot occupy the same space, means to me that particles are a representation of the finite resolution of stable waves in spacetime. We really don’t know the full basis and I am no expert on modern particle physics but it is fun to consider.” Jeff Condon said: June 6, 2013 at 6:05 pm

    Pay specific attention to the last sentence:
    1) We really don’t know what a photon is
    2) I am no expert
    3) but I most often view them as a wave

    In other words he has passed judgment on the scientific prowess of the PSI organization because it didn’t answer a question that he, himself nor anyone else knows the answer to with certainty.

  19. Carl Brehmer says:

    I was reading through a number of Mr. Condon’s posts on the thread “PSI –Theory Destroyed” and ran across this curious assertion.
    “‘A cold source does not conductively heat up a hotter source.’ — It does add heat just not as much as it receives.

    “‘A cold source does not convectively heat up a hotter source.’ — It does add heat just not as much as it receives.

    “‘A cold source does not radiatively heat up a hotter source.’ — It does add heat just not as much as it receives.
    “Three modes the same, all operating the same. Just as you should have learned in basic thermodynamics.” Jeff Condon said June 7, 2013 at 1:32 pm
    This is the sad state of affairs to which science has sunk in its attempt to rationalize the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis. Heat is the flow of energy from a “system” either to OR from its surroundings due to a temperature differential. It is not a flow of energy to AND from its surroundings and that flow is always and only unidirectional. This is what is taught in “basic thermodynamics.”

    The zeroth law specifically deals with defining the condition in which heat (the flow of energy) is ABSENT, which is the state of thermal equilibrium.
    If temp A = temp B and temp B = temp C than temp C will = temp A.

    I realize that it sounds counter intuitive, but when a “system” is in thermal equilibrium with its surrounding there is zero heat. In those rare moments when up-going IR radiation from the ground equals down-welling IR radiation from the atmosphere there is zero radiant heat; there is no flow of heat via IR radiation in either direction even if the radiometers up and down both read 350 W/m^2. Radiation is not heat.

    This is what one should learn in basic thermodynamic

    “By Fourier’s law, the rate of flow of heat energy through a surface is proportional to the negative temperature gradient across the surface”

    q = -k (T1 – T2)

    where q = heat
    where k is the thermal conductivity
    where (T1 – T2) is the temperature differential between a “system” and its surroundings
    If (T1 – T2) = 0
    q = -k x 0
    q = 0
    heat = zero if temp of system = temp of surroundings regardless of how hot they are

    Heat is not unlike the flow of water through a pipe; it only flows in one direction depending upon the pressure differential between one end of the pipe and the other. If the pressures are the same then there is zero flow regardless of how high the pressure might be within the pipe.

    We might consider the W/m^2 reading on a radiometer equivalent to the reading on a pressure valve, but it is not a measure of heat flow any more that the reading on a pressure valve is a measure of water flow.

    This is not just a matter of semantics; this definition of “heat” is a fundamental principle of thermodynamics.

    [JP: Very nice, Carl.]

  20. “In other words he has passed judgment on the scientific prowess of the PSI organization because it didn’t answer a question that he, himself nor anyone else knows the answer to with certainty.”

    Ha, yes exactly.

  21. “…that cold things do not heat up hot things.”

    Like all objects, cold things radiate.
    Those photons carry energy.
    When they are absorbed by ANY body, hot or cold, that body gains the photon’s energy.
    Physics 1010.

    [JP: From “Thermodynamics”, G. J. V. Wylen, John Wiley & Sons, 1960:

    “Heat is defined as the form of energy that is transferred across a boundary by virtue of a
    temperature difference or temperature gradient. Implied in this definition is the very
    important fact that a body never contains heat, but that heat is identified as heat only as it
    crosses the boundary. Thus, heat is a transient phenomenon. If we consider the hot block
    of copper as a system and the cold water in the beaker as another system, we recognize
    that originally neither system contains any heat (they do contain energy, of course.) When
    the copper is placed in the water and the two are in thermal communication, heat is
    transferred from the copper to the water, until equilibrium of temperature is established.
    At that point we no longer have heat transfer, since there is no temperature difference.
    Neither of the systems contains any heat at the conclusion of the process. It also follows
    that heat is identified at the boundaries of the system, for heat is defined as energy being
    transferred across the system boundary.”

    Thus, there is no heat transfer from the atmosphere to the surface, or from a cooler object to a warmer object. And since positive heat flow is what is required for temperature increase, then no cooler object raises the temperature by utilization of its thermal energy of a warmer object.

    As heat is defined as the “energy transfer across a boundary by virtue of a temperature gradient”, and the direction of this transfer is “down the gradient”, i.e. from higher to lower temperature, then it is impossible for thermal energy held within a cooler atmosphere or a cooler object to transfer by heat to a warmer primary surface that is itself the original source of heat. Given that this is a general definition, its resultant restrictions must apply to all the modes of heat transfer being conductive, convective, and radiative (or just physical and radiative). “Secondary heating”, i.e., where heat is transferred from cool back to warm after warm has heated the cool, is an incommensurate postulate to the definition of heat.]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s