[Henry Pool (OP)]

You keep approaching this problem from the same angle, I can see
1) you have not done that calculation
2) actual energy reaching earth by the sun is much lower then you were claiming
3) what about all the atomic bombs that were exploded mostly for 'testing"
how much energy was that?
3)what about all the nuclear plants, how much energy was that?
etc/etc/etc
You see what the problem is? You cannot prove my theory wrong because I know that I am right, the only thing I don't know (yet)is the percentage that energies from human activities are contributing to the warming up.
 
The thing that I am looking for is to find some data from experimental tests that would tell me how much the influence of various amounts of CO2 is on the warming up of the earth.

If somehow you don't understand or you don't want to understand the importance of that information for the future of mankind, then maybe it is you who should take a hike. 

[BenV]

You keep approaching this problem from the same angle, I can see
1) you have not done that calculation
2) actual energy reaching earth by the sun is much lower then you were claiming
3) what about all the atomic bombs that were exploded mostly for 'testing"
how much energy was that?
3)what about all the nuclear plants, how much energy was that?
etc/etc/etc
You see what the problem is? You cannot prove my theory wrong because I know that I am right, the only thing I don't know (yet)is the percentage that energies from human activities are contributing to the warming up.
 
The thing that I am looking for is to find some data from experimental tests that would tell me how much the influence of various amounts of CO2 is on the warming up of the earth.

If somehow you don't understand or you don't want to understand the importance of that information for the future of mankind, then maybe it is you who should take a hike. 

But Henry, with your idea the following applies:
1) you have not done that calculation
2) You do not know how much energy reaches the earth from the sun, and seem to ignore that fact that energy absorbed in the atmosphere contributes to the temperature of the earth
3) You do not know how much energy was supplied by "all the atomic bombs that were exploded mostly for 'testing""
3(sic))You do not know "about all the nuclear plants"etc/etc/etc

And yet you firmly believe you are right.    You have no right to make this assertation.

You also have no right to claim that people who do not have the time or inclination to spend time researching a topic for someone who
a) cannot be bothered to do their own research
b) ignore the advise of those trying to help
c) have made it quite clear that they will not accept any evidence anyway
...cannot find the data.  It's not up to dentstudent, it's up to you.

Please be advised that this sort of behaviour isn't really acceptable on this forum.

[Bored chemist]

As I said.
I have proved your theory wrong; you just didn't understand the proof.
I grant you I haven't done that calculation.
But I can show that someone else has.
There's some data about it here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy
It shows that primary energy production (500EJ)is about a ten thousandth of the energy we get from the sun (4,0000,00 EJ).
You can also find data on nuclear energy on WIKI.
"As of 2005, nuclear power provided 2.1% of the world's energy"
Now you know why I ignored it.

The bombs have yields measured in kilotons or megatons. A ton of TNT produces a lot less energy than a ton of coal.
How long does it take for the world to burn a megaton of coal?
Well, looking at this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal
its a matter of hours. (total use is 6195.1 million tons per year 17 million tons a day.)
Unless we set off a megaton nuke every hour the energy released won't be comparable with the energy released by burning coal.
It's even less significant than nuclear power.


I do indeed see what the problem is. You don't know what you are talking about.
Unless I dig up every possible number you might ever ask for, you are not going to believe me (and even then you still might not).
That's really not my fault, it's because you don't understand the nature of science. Also, you steadfastly refuse to accept the evidence I offer and simply pretend it doesn't exist. You can't say that you just don't believe it; you need to show some sort of evidence.


"If somehow you don't understand or you don't want to understand the importance of that information for the future of mankind, then maybe it is you who should take a hike.  "
I have repeatedly shown you the information; you just cannot or will not understand it.

[Henry Pool (OP)]

You are not going to be able to prove that my theory is wrong. Because you do not know the sum total of all energies that have gone up in the earth and sky by human activities. (think of all the rockets that have gone up in the sky, how much energy was that?)
But I think you guys keep coming at this from the wrong angle. If the CO2 has increased by 25% over the past 50 years, (adding only 70 ppms of CO2 to the atmosphere), then the first obvious question that comes to my mind is: how much does that difference make on the greenhouse effect that you say must exist? So, is there no one who looked into that question? You mean to tell me that none of the big fuel companies thought that this would become an important question related to their products?

[Bored chemist]

" (think of all the rockets that have gone up in the sky, how much energy was that?)".
The biggest of them IIRC had roughly a thrid of the energy of the Hiroshima bomb.
So again, they are not relevane.

The other question has been asked; and answered.
If you were less lazy you could look that up too.

[Henry Pool (OP)]

I did not see the answer to my question as to how much the influence is on the greehouse effect of the various amounts of CO2....I missed it?
Perhaps we must pose this question to the fuel companies. 

[dentstudent]

I think that this is another thread that isn't going to lead to anything useful. If one side of an argument resolutely refuses to listen to evidence, then it is neither scientific nor useful. Also "You are not going to be able to prove that my theory is wrong" implies that the hypothesis (not theory) is not falsifiable, and therefore falls outside of the scientific realm.

[Henry Pool (OP)]

Anyone who can think knows that if you put the kettle on, the water will get warmer. I just don't know yet how much energy caused by human activity contributes to global warming. Maybe it is not a lot. But it must be  something. How can you say that this line of thinking is not scientific?  Who knows, maybe one day we will find out that Henry's theory may have more bearing on global warming then we think. But we first need to find the data from the tests on heat retention.Did you find anything?

[dentstudent]

"But we first need to find the data from the tests on heat retention"

But YOU first need to find the data from the tests on heat retention.


"Did you find anything?"

Personally, no. Because I'm not looking for it. It's your pet. You look after it.

[Henry Pool (OP)]

Pity. There is no data relating to any specific tests or experiments.
 
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. Conventional wisdom is often suspect. Sometimes the solution comes from a corner where you had never expected to find it. How is this for a theory: maybe in the time when they still thought that it was "safe" to detonate atomic bombs, as long as it was deep down below, they triggered some major upheaval in the earth's crust. This caused earth quakes (Tsunami) and now heat from the core is leaking into the oceans. What do you think of that theory?
Anyway, just speculating.

What we have to do is quite simple. We have to go to all the fuel companies. We have to say to them: look , this is your product. It has caused an increase of 70 ppm during in CO2 in the atmosphere during the past 50 years. This is our earth. Have you done any studies that relate to heat retention caused by varying amounts of CO2 in the air at differing atmospheric conditions. Perhaps they have done something on this.I doubt it. Eitherway, it is not too late. It should not be too difficult to try and devise some specific tests and experiments that give repeatable results on heat retention of various heat sources and various air compositions..       

I leave it all up to you.

[BenV]

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?

[dentstudent]

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*

[Henry Pool (OP)]

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..   

[Bored chemist]

"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?

[techmatt]

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.

[Karsten]

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.

[Ophiolite]

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.

[Henry Pool (OP)]

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?

[Karsten]

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 µm (2350 cm-1), 7.5 µm (1388 cm-1) and 15 µm (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 µm, 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 µm, 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.

[Ophiolite]

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.