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.
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.
Describe standard physics interpretation of radiation absorption from a cold to hot body.
Describe the PSI interpretation of the Second law highlighting differences in energy transfer from the standard interpretations.
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: 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.