The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?  (Read 58590 times)

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #50 on: 30/04/2009 13:56:00 »
Pity. There is no data relating to any specific tests or experiments. 

Pity, you're too lazy to look for the data that we have all pointed you towards...

Why do you continue to lie about the lack of data, rather than just put a small amount of effort in to find it?
 

Offline dentstudent

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3146
  • FOGger to the unsuspecting
    • View Profile
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #51 on: 30/04/2009 13:56:36 »
If you consider it to be so important, and are aware that no-one here considers your hypothesis to be worthwhile, why don't you do it? If you are right, then so much the better for you.

Since you know that we're not going to help beyond that already given, I don't believe that you consider it to be at all important or even worthwhile either. You wouldn't leave it all up to us otherwise, would you?

*End of interest*
 

Offline Henry Pool

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 88
    • View Profile
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #52 on: 30/04/2009 14:35:58 »
Ben,I am old man. I don't know how to find my way around the ent like you do and and do not have so many bytes. I did not find the data that I am after - we have to find out how much that 25% did toward heat retention, other then looking at the sky and the tempeartures and saying: that must be it. I am signing off now, seeing that you wanted me to resign anyway.
I hope what I wrote helped someone else to pick up the thread..   
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #53 on: 30/04/2009 19:53:08 »
"Please note that when I look at a problem I always keep my mind open as to what the final solution will be to that problem."

"I have to go with the theory that I can believe in. "

Which did you mean?
Anyway, as someone already pointed out the work has been done, many years ago.
They even gave the name and that points you here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius
That, in turn points you here.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Arrhenius_pdf
which leads you here.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/18/Arrhenius.pdf

So, from the name you were given to the paper that describes the origianl experimental work took three clicks of a mouse.

How much work were you prepared to put in?
 

Offline techmatt

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 28
    • View Profile
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #54 on: 30/04/2009 20:28:46 »
Pity. There is no data relating to any specific tests or experiments. 

You want an experiment to test this theory that CO2 is a GHG?
Here I'll give you one.

Take two clear tubes (glass or plastic)
Insert a thermometer into each (the alcohol kind that does not need batteries.
Fill one with only CO2 and leave the other just atmosphere (plain air). This is your control.
Seal both tubes up and place them in the sun for however long you want to and take a temperature reading every 20 minutes or so.

The according to your hypothesis the CO2 tube will be the same temperature as the other tube. I bet it will be warmer.

Caution: When the gasses expand the tube could explode from a pressure build up. Please take proper safety precautions.
 

Offline Karsten

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 701
    • View Profile
    • Fortunately still only a game
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #55 on: 30/04/2009 21:19:36 »
I tried something rather simple. I went to Google and typed in "CO2 Absorb Infrared". I found an interesting article in the image search (http://www.creative-science.org.uk/hollywood15.html). This guy shows experimentally that CO2 absorbs infrared.

Absorption is the OPPOSITE of reflection, just to clarify. At this point I really don't know what the issue is. And in this case I prefer to err on the safe side anyways.
 

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #56 on: 30/04/2009 22:45:03 »
Ben,I am old man. ..   
I am an old man too. Frankly you are the kind of old man who gives old people a bad name. Your willfull ignorance and blatant refusal to accept simple facts placed in front of you are a distasteful embarassment. You would do yourself a favour by reading just a few of the many references you have been provided with, then returning with some intelligent questions rather than your foolish observations.
 

Offline Henry Pool

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 88
    • View Profile
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #57 on: 01/05/2009 10:55:11 »
I am sorry you feel that way of me. I have resigned from the forum. In defence I just wanted to say that I realize now (from a glimpse of one of the links) that I did not catch the hints you guys were giving because I cannot open the links(files) you are giving. They are too big. This is Africa here.My computer is too slow to download this and I don't have that many megs. So the truth is, I still don't know the nature of that relationship between elevated Co2 and  heat retention. There was a formula for this?
 

Offline Karsten

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 701
    • View Profile
    • Fortunately still only a game
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #58 on: 01/05/2009 21:05:13 »
This is the text in the link I provided:

"
The Climate Wars
CO2 is a greenhouse gas
Note: these articles have been published in InfoChem, the supliment to Education in Chemistry produced by The Royal Society of Chemistry.
Many are based on the two BBC OU TV series - Hollywood Science

In The Climate Wars [1] (BBC1) the presenter, Iain Stewart, demonstrated that CO2 absorbs Infrared (IR) energy and so showed how it can trap heat in the Earths atmosphere contributing to the so called 'green house effect' [2]. The apparatus was simple enough; there was a 1m long, 20cm diameter tube which was filled with CO2 from a cylinder. A lighted candle was held at one end of the tube while a thermal imaging IR camera viewed it from the other end. The bright false colour image of the hot candle on the camera screen slowly disappears as CO2 was introduced into the tube showing that the gas absorbs in the IR. I built the apparatus for the program so let me share what I learnt about this experiment.

Due to the vibrations of the atoms in the molecule CO2 has a number of absorption's in the IR, the main bands being at 4.3 m (2350 cm-1), 7.5 m (1388 cm-1) and 15 m (667 cm-1) [3]. The latter band lies very close to the maximum of the Earth's IR black body emission making CO2 a very important greenhouse gas.

The thermal imaging camera we used was sensitive from ca. 1 to 5 m, quite a large part of the IR spectrum. A lit candle or match produces lots of energy through the IR to the visible. Consequently a candle looks very bright (colourful) on the false colour IR camera image.

In order to be able to seal and look through the tube the ends were covered in plastic cling film. Now plastics absorb strongly in the IR so it's hardly as transparent as it looks to the eye but the film was so thin these simple 'windows' actually worked quite well in practice. The CO2 was flowed in to one end of the tube and vented out the other so that it was well flushed with gas at about atmospheric pressure. In the process the thin film windows bulged a little.

You would think from what I said above that when you view the candle through the tube using the camera, and you introduce CO2 the bright flame would 'disappear' due to the IR absorption. However, when you try this it doesn't work, the candle doesn't disappear!

The reason is that the CO2 absorptions observable by the IR camera are quite weak and are only in a relatively small part of the spectrum. The only way to get the demonstration to work is to have a 'CO2 filter' on the camera. This only lets through IR at around 4 m, close to one of the CO2 absorption's (which are broadened a bit at atmospheric pressure). The filter blocks out much of the IR energy so that the CO2 absorption is not so swamped anymore and this allows us to now observe our vanishing candle effect.

In the Thomas Crown Affair we talked about how IR cameras usually have an Automatic Gain control (AGC) to make the camera responce as versatile as possible. In this case the AGC will stop the candle from disaperaing as it will re-adjust the gain to try and make it farly constant as the signal drops. So to get this demonstration to work the Camera AGC needs to be turned off.

We used a large diameter tube so that we had the option of seeing the presentors face through the apparatus (see last paragraph below). In the end we used it to observe a candle so we could have had a smaller diameter tube. The 1m path length seemed to work well when the tube was filled with CO2 at atmospheric pressure. If you just wanted to measure an IR absorption and were not worried about getting a recognisable image (of say a candle) then a much smaller length tube could be used if multiple passes were arranged using mirrors.

In the Earths atmosphere the CO2 also absorbs in bands but of course there is a much greater amount of gas and also other greenhouse gases present. We also think that global feedback systems in the ocean for example, increase the amount of CO2 available as things heat up multiplying the amount of warming greenhouse gases still further.

An alternative USA series on climate change [4] recently did the same experiment using a military state-of-the-art IR camera and CO2 filter (unfortunately not available for us to use in the UK). It was so sensitive that they used the heat from the presenters face rather than a candle to demonstrate the effect.

References:
[1] The Climate Wars, BBC1 Sept. 2008, see: web site
[2] A real glass greenhouse actually works by preventing convection not by IR absorption! See the Wikipedia section on 'Greenhouse' effect :
greenhouse effect on Wikipedia
[3] Greenhouse Gas Absorption spectrum in the Earths atmosphere
[4] Global Warming: what's up with the weather, Nova, DVD. ISBN 978 1 59375 729 8
....................... "

I am surprised that you can get to the NakedScientist site but not to those that were provided.
 

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #59 on: 01/05/2009 22:55:56 »
I am sorry you feel that way of me. I have resigned from the forum.
I am sorry you have decided to retreat from an opportunity to learn something. You say you did not understand the hints that were being offered. Henry, these were much more than hints. Specific information was provided by several posters. You chose either to ignore this completely, or state that it was irrelevant, or declare it was wrong.
I regret that my comments may have offended you, but your responses were indefensible. I hope you will reconsider your departure, but then listen to the sound information that is being presented to you by other posters, rather than promoting your own viewpoint, which is currently based on ignorance.
 

paul.fr

  • Guest
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #60 on: 02/05/2009 03:28:33 »
Is it possible that Henry is just mistaken, and that he is thinking of Co2 causing Stratospheric cooling?
 

Offline Henry Pool

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 88
    • View Profile
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #61 on: 02/05/2009 09:36:37 »
Yes, my idea was that if CO2 acts as a blanket, it might also act as a shield. But let me rather stay out of this discussion, because what O says is true. I am not qualified in this field and don't have the same access to information like you people do.
 

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #62 on: 02/05/2009 10:19:21 »
Yes, my idea was that if CO2 acts as a blanket, it might also act as a shield.
And that is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis. If we did not have the body of observation and experiment that we do, then it could be a valid hypothesis. However, the point that invalidates it is that the incoming radiation is different in wavelength/frequency from the outgoing radiation. CO2 is largely transparent to the incoming wavelengths, but opaque to outgoing wavelengths. That is the central point I have tried to communicate in my posts and it has been made by several others.

Rgds,
ET
 

paul.fr

  • Guest
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #63 on: 02/05/2009 19:49:44 »
Yes, my idea was that if CO2 acts as a blanket, it might also act as a shield. But let me rather stay out of this discussion, because what O says is true. I am not qualified in this field and don't have the same access to information like you people do.

Henry, you are more than welcome to participate in your own topic, I think you just have to be more willing to explore what others are saying and the information they give. And, perhaps, try and make you point clearer.

It took me a while to figure out what you were getting at, but hey, we all struggle at times to get people to understand what and where we are coming from. Anyway, here are a few links about the cooling effect of Co2 in the upper atmosphere:

Global Warming causes Stratospheric cooling
Stratospheric cooling

Cooling of the stratosphere isn't just the result of ozone destruction but is also caused by the release of carbon dioxide in the troposphere.  Therefore, global warming in the troposphere and stratospheric cooling due to ozone loss are parallel effects.  As cooling increases, development of the ozone layer can be affected because a cold stratosphere is necessary for ozone depletion.

So releasing more carbon dioxide may not only increase global warming but may also contribute to the formation of the ozone hole.  The system is pretty complicated and so we try to give just an overview of it here.

Is the stratosphere cooling?
It's, of course, harder to measure the temperature in the stratosphere than in the troposphere where we have a network of measurement stations.  Stratospheric temperature measurements do exist.  They have been made using weather balloons, microwave sounding units, rocketsondes, LIDAR and satellites.  Most of these readings only go back two or three decades at most and there are large uncertainities associated with the data.

The lower stratosphere appears to be cooling by about 0.5C per decade.  This cooling trend is interrupted by large volcanic eruptions which lead to a temporary warming of the stratosphere and last for one to two years.   Calculations from many research institutes generally estimate the cooling trend for the last two decades (1979-2000) to be greater than for the previous period (1958-1978).

Why does the stratosphere cool?
There are several reasons why the stratosphere is cooling. The two best understood are:

1) depletion of stratospheric ozone
2) increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Cooling due to ozone depletion

The first effect is easy to understand. Less ozone leads to less absorption of ultra-violet radiation from the Sun. As a result, solar radiation is not converted into heat radiation in the stratosphere.  So cooling due to ozone depletion is simply reduced heating as a consequence of reduced absorption of ultra-violet radiation.  Ozone also acts as a greenhouse gas in the lower stratosphere.  Less ozone means less absorption of infra-red heat radiation and therefore less heat trapping.

At an altitude of about 20 km, the effects of ultra-violet and infra-red radiation are about the same.  Ozone levels decrease the higher we go in the atmosphere but there are other greenhouse gases present in the air which we have to consider.

 
 

Cooling due to the greenhouse effect

The second effect is more complicated. Greenhouse gases (CO2, O3, CFC) absorb infra-red radiation from the surface of the Earth and trap the heat in the troposphere.  If this absorption is really strong, the greenhouse gas blocks most of the outgoing infra-red radiation close to the Earth's surface.  This means that only a small amount of outgoing infra-red radiation reaches carbon dioxide in the upper troposphere and the lower stratosphere.  On the other hand, carbon dioxide emits heat radiation, which is lost from the stratosphere into space.  In the stratosphere, this emission of heat becomes larger than the energy  received from below by absorption and, as a result, there is a net energy loss from the stratosphere and a resulting cooling.  Other greenhouse gases, such as ozone and chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's), have a weaker impact because their concentrations in the troposphere are smaller. They do not entirely block the whole radiation in their wavelength regime so some reaches the stratosphere where it can be absorbed and, as a consequence, heat this region of the atmosphere.

 
Where does cooling take place?
The impact of decreasing ozone concentrations is largest in the lower stratosphere, at an altitude of around 20 km, whereas increases in carbon dioxide lead to highest cooling at altitudes between 40 and 50 km (Figure 3).  All these different effects mean that some parts of the stratosphere are cooling more than others.

Other influences
It is possible that greenhouse warming could disturb the heating of the Arctic stratosphere by changing planetary waves.  These waves are triggered by the surface structure in the Northern Hemisphere (mountain ranges like the Himalayas, or the alternation of land and sea).  Recent studies show that increases in the stratospheric water vapour concentration could also have a strong cooling effect, comparable to the effect of ozone loss.

Conclusions
We now know that stratospheric cooling and tropospheric warming are intimately connected and that carbon dioxide plays a part in both processes.  At present, however, our understanding of stratospheric cooling is not complete and further research has to be done.  We do, however, already know that observed and predicted cooling in the stratosphere makes the formation of an Arctic ozone hole more likely. 

The second link from Espere is rather good, in fact, somewhere on their site you can dowload a climatology PDF. It's a large file and goes in to all aspects of climate and meteorology, I can look around for the link if you want?
 

Offline Henry Pool

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 88
    • View Profile
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #64 on: 03/05/2009 10:47:10 »
Thanks Paul, but yes, I already was worried that it would me more complicated up there then I thought it would be. It goes a little bit above my head. Anyway, I said I just wanted to observe and learn, rather then participate. Let me phrase a new question, post this, and then let me just observe what you people can come up with. 
 

Offline 112inky

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #65 on: 06/05/2009 16:08:27 »
the warming effect CO2> cooling effect caused by CO2). 
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #66 on: 06/05/2009 20:05:30 »
the warming effect CO2> cooling effect caused by CO2). 
Principally because the heating effect exists, but the cooling effect doesn't.
 

Offline shockwavemikey65

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 27
    • View Profile
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #67 on: 14/07/2009 02:02:22 »
You're welcome.


And in response to your question, noone blames CO2 for ALL the GCC (please stop calling it GW - it isn't). CO2 is PART of it, and is perhaps the most easily addressed. It is well established that CO2 is a GHG, yes? Increased GHGs increases retained energy, yes? CO2 has increased by 25% in the last few decades, yes?

I'm not sure I see what the problem is. Yes, there are other influences on GCC, but (to use that awful phrase) CO2 provides the low-hanging fruit, and it is predicted through extensive modelling, that GCC in response to CO2 increases, is not linear due to feedback processes. By the time that it has reached 750 ppm, there is a roughly 50% likelihood of an increase in temperature of 6 or 7C, which will have profound effects on the net carbon storage of forests, for example. They will no longer be sinks, but sources due to reductions in photosynthesis, reduced productivity and increased mortality. And if the forests go, not to put too fine a point on it, you're buggered. Completely. Because of CO2.



Well if this is such a problem is there any method to break up the atoms of CO2 IE(an alternative propellant used to propel a canister into the atmosphere where it will release a non hazardous agent which will disassociate the molecules of CO2 into two oxygen atoms and a carbon atom? JW!
 

Offline sgweightloss

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
    • natural diet pill
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #68 on: 14/07/2009 15:47:28 »
we blame the carbon emissions which results in the green house gas for global warmimg, without offering any physical evidence or proof. hence i dont really know that carbon dioxide is causing global warming!
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #69 on: 14/07/2009 17:10:12 »
we blame the carbon emissions which results in the green house gas for global warmimg, without offering any physical evidence or proof. hence i dont really know that carbon dioxide is causing global warming!
In that case, I don't think you've read any of this thread!
 

Offline Henry Pool

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 88
    • View Profile
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #70 on: 10/10/2009 06:15:13 »
My investigations have turned me into a total skeptic. I very much doubt whether carbon dioxide is to blame for global warming. It is not that I deny that global warming is happening. Read my final report on the other thread: How much is the increase in carbon dioxide every year?
 

Offline carbon_action

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #71 on: 18/10/2009 21:17:25 »
If we keep an open mind and try to look at the evidence that there is - we must (I think) feel in our gut that global temperature increases in the geological record correspond eerily closely with increases in atmospheric CO2 and CH4. 

Of course some global climate change is due to natural cycles such as Earth's orbit around the Sun.  Sunspot activity and the angle of tilt of Earth relative to the Sun.  But if you look at all these cycles and atmospheric gas concentrations it does look at this stage as if we have pumped out too much gas into the atmosphere and it is now about to lead to civilisation changing impacts.  Even the Dutch East India Company wrote about climate damage from emissions way back in 1840/1850s so its not a new concern. 

 

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 419
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #72 on: 01/11/2009 00:01:41 »
CO2,

This trace gas has been as high as 3000 parts per million during the Jurasic era to level that now is less the 300 parts per million.  Carbon dioxide increases have not been associated with the end of the last ice age, or with the midieval warming period.

Further, recent increases in CO2 seem entirely independent of the warming after the 'little ice' age that ended in the 1850's, and the current cooling trend. IMHO, simple minded individuals with superiority complexes just make this crap up out of thin air.

First, what sane person wants a colder planet anyway. Jeezzuz Friggn Christ. Crop failure, pestulence and plaque, vast population migrations, pilage plunder and mass carnage and exterminaion. [The victors seem routinely to genetically remove the male populations and happily breed with the surviving femails.]

And in the last twenty years I can not recall any of these Carbonistas even consider solar output.  As of now, the sunspot cycle is about two years late.  It seems stuck in a solar minimum, which means 1% less solar output.  And this has happened before. GOOGLE The Maunder Minimum. http://science.jrank.org/pages/4184/Maunder-Minimum.html

The Carbonistas are dangerous cultists, and need to be watched very closely.  Of course they will seldom be found anywhere near a cold climate.
 

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 419
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #73 on: 01/11/2009 00:29:44 »
Climate Change, constant change:

Causes are beyond comprehension. They include precesion of the equinoxes, the orbital changes of the earth itself. The earths relative position in the various galactic spirals. Solar output varies.  And believe it or not, the amount of cosmic rays can significanly affect cloud formation and thermal transfer.

Then there is continental drift and disruption of thermic oceanic conveyor belts. Add in one or two Super Volcanos, or an astroid impact or two, and we as a species seem an oddity. In fact, some geneticists claim the human race, in the last ice age era, was reduced to fewer then a couple of thousand individual.

Chuckle: apparently there is more genetic diversity among a single troup of Chimps then between the entire human population. In other words, in Las Vegas terms. We are a Royal Flush.

And now we have chumps [not chimps] telling us the planet is getting too warm. Fat Ruck. How many of these thermocline extreem bacterial throw backs do you see setting up survival camps in Northern Alaska to avoid the inevitable catastrophy of Global Warming.

Believe me, superstition is alive and well in all the usual suspect places. The entertainement industry, the Official Doctrine Of Academic Purity. And of course all the suplicant and suckup undergraduates of any instutuion that provides some sort of poster as its accademic degree.

 

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 419
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #74 on: 01/11/2009 01:02:39 »
Henry:

CO2 has varied from 3000 parts per million during Dinosaur era to the lower levels we now observe.  CO2 is a very minor trace gas in the atmosphere that, climatically speaking, approaches insignificance. For instance, the midieval era (renaisance) experienced a warming spell well in excess of anything we see today. Then it got cool for a century or more in the 1600s and beyond.  The only observable connection was a reduction in Sun Spots in the 1600's, and a warming trend from the mid 1800's to the late 20th century that is simply one of thousand unexplained shifts over the billions of world history years..

So, even though CO2 concentrations are higher now then 150 years ago, and about a hundred times less then the dynosaur era, the climate is once again cooling. The sunspot cycle is at least two years late. If we have a solar minimum sunspots for nearly a century, as was the case in the 1600's, I recommend buying Polar Bear Pelt Futures.

 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #74 on: 01/11/2009 01:02:39 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums