“While most people agree that:

A) The earth has warmed over the last century
B) Adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases the greenhouse effect.

there is no agreement, and no data, that proves a cause and effect relationship between A and B.”

In reply, Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. (July 26, 2010 at 12:34 PM) said:

“I would say the evidence is tenuous at best.”

In the following remarks, I follow up on Henderson’s comment and Spencer’s reply by falsifying the thesis that there is a “CO2 atmospheric greenhouse effect.”

To begin my proof, for every “effect” there is a “cause.” That there is a cause and effect relationship implies that: a) the event of the cause preceeds the event of the effect and b) given the event of the cause, the event of the effect occurs with a probability of 1.

Spencer’s thought experiment identifies a cause and effect relationship. The cause is introduction of the unheated plate. The effect is a rise in the temperature of the heated plate.

By analogy, one might reason that there is a cause and effect relationship in the atmosphere wherein the cause is a rise in the CO2 concentration and the effect is a rise in temperatures at points in Earth’s surface. However, this reasoning is refuted by the numerous observations of events in which a rise in the CO2 concentration was followed by a fall in temperatures at points in Earth’s surface. These observations falsifiy the existence of the “CO2 atmospheric greenhouse effect,” for given the cause, the probability of the effect is not 1.

Reading through all these exchanges, I’m struck by something — you are in a lonely spot. On the one hand, you are a serious scientists — you understand the physics & theory of AWG while you disagree with the consensus view of positive feedbacks. Yet you work patiently to explain to the “uninformed skeptics” the basic science that underlies the theory.

I agree, there is debate within the scientific community, but not certainly on many of the points that the political class or amateurs seem to have siezed as their primary talking points/means of attack.

Do you ever find it frustrating that the people who are most adamantly opposed to the idea that AGW may be a problem make such outlandish claims, presenting themselves as the “face” of skepisism in general?

you wrote “Brian, why are you piling up a bunch of non-issues related to my various posts? FYI, I’ve had the opinion advanced that you and those like you are just playing with me to waste my time.”

I am sorry you feel this way, it was (and is not) my intention to waste time. This is your blog and I would like to feel that I was contributing in a positive way.

The question “where the heat enters a system” is by no means time wasting, nor is the energy of photons, both are at the heart of modern physics. If you consider these matters as ‘wasting your time’, I am afraid I have little else to say.

I apologise for introducing the difference between a live and dead body as a source of heat but it is apt!

With best wishes.

Yours sincerely.

Brian

Brian, why are you piling up a bunch of non-issues related to my various posts? FYI, I’ve had the opinion advanced that you and those like you are just playing with me to waste my time. I discounted the suggestion at first….

I’m afraid a photon does ‘check the temperature of the surroundings’before departing. The fundamental property of a photon is its energy ‘hv’ where h is Planck’s constant and v is the frequency. The energy of a photon is a function of its source temperature. This is the whole principle of thermal radiation as described by the laws determined by Max Planck and Wilhelm Wien, it is tha basis of all quantum theory.

You write:-

“That does NOT tell you what the surface temperature will be.”

Planets without an atmosphere have a surface temperature which is a function of the solar intensity. The solar intensity is a function of the Sun’s surface temperature and the distance from the Sun.

Solar intensity is also a function of the angle the surface makes with the incoming sunlight, that is why it is colder at the poles than the equator.

Planets with an atmosphere and oceans are rather more complicated because the atmosphere and the oceans both transport heat from the equator to the poles.

Regards, Brian.

You must distinguish between heat and temperature, the temperature in the atmosphere varies with altitude because the pressure varies with altitude. This variation with altitude is more easily seen if you account for it by change of gravitational potential energy (GPE). GPE affects the gas temperature directly because it reduces the specific energy in the gas. Thermal (kinetic energy) is exchanged with GPE but the total energy remains constant. This is clear from the lapse rate, which is uniform and linear at -6.5K/km over the whole planet, equator to poles. GPE is the only energy that changes uniformly with altitude over the entire planet.

Further you seem to place no importance on the placing of the heat source. I do not understand how you can do your analysis with a heat source on (or in) the planet. The Earth generates about 0.1W^2 from radiactive decay but this is not really significant.

Is it not clear from the banket analogy? If you try to heat a corpse in a blanket by putting it in sunlight the corpse will not get warmer than the exterior temperature of the blanket. Put a live person inside the blanket then that person (because a live person is a heat source of between 100W – 150W) will raise the temperature inside the blanket with or without the sunlight.

The temperature increase for the live person will depend on the insulating quality of the blanket, the temperature of the corpse will be independent of the blanket quality.

Regards, Brian.

The model you present doesn’t correspond with the situation of planet Earth vis-a-vis the Sun. You appear to have a heat source where the Earth is but there are no heat sources of any significance in or on the Earth.

If the Earth was like you describe then something like what you write would apply.

What you describe is a heat source surounded by some material through which heat must flow to escape, presumably reflecting a little and offering some diffusive heat transport to the radiating surface that interfaces with deep space at about 3K. Now suppose you add more material then there is more ’stuff’ between your heater and deep space, the temperature near the heater rises, of course!

But the Earth doesn’t get its heat from a heater, it gets it from the Sun, so adding material will slow the heat coming in just as it slows the heat going out.

If you model the Sun/Earth system properly you will find that the planets stabilise at a a temperature defined by the temperature of the Sun and the distance to the planet, it doesn’t matter one jot what are the thermal properties of the material the planet is made of.

If you think about your model, replace the atmosphere with mutilayer aluminised mylar insulation, the radiation from the Sun will not get past it but neither will the heat from your 100W electric stove be able to escape, it will just accumulate, raising the temperature continuously (untill something melts!)

Similarly with your corpse, sorry – body. The blanket keeps a body warm because it restricts the flow of heat out of the body, no heat (a corpse) cold corpse, just like in a morgue.

I think other comments have pointed this out, it remains true.

Thank you for the opportunity to make these remarks.