[dentstudent]

I did post a new question.

I don't see it....

[Henry Pool (OP)]

I did e-mail the question to Chris. I suppose we will have to wait and see if they put it on? I have also posed same question to other people who seem to have done work on global warming.THANKS!

[dentstudent]

You are able to start your own topic in an appropriate area of the forum without Chris if you wish. Just go to the proper subject area and click "New Topic" and you can post your own question. Just make sure that it's in the form of a question, otherwise the mods get all tetchy.

*Waves at mods  [:X]*

[Bored chemist]

Henry, your "experiment 3." shows that you simply don't understand the theory.
In that experiment you propose heating an object using IR. The point about the greenhouse effect is that the energy arrives as visible light (which goes through the CO2)and is absorbed by the ground which heats up. The ground then tries to lose heat by IR radiation but some of that radiation is trapped because the CO2 absorbs it. The only way it can lose the heat is to get slightly hotter.
None of this is rocket science.

[Henry Pool (OP)]

I think I know where you are going with this. My (thought) experiment 3 & 4 was designed to similate sunshine coming in. Undeniably, I think I would have been able to prove that CO2 causes a cooling effect. However, you and others want us to look what happens to IR that is already in, looking from the inside out? Thereby ignoring the initial cooling effect? Let us continue this discussion on the new topic (since we strayed too far from the original question)   

[Bored chemist]

There is no cooling effect. The absorbtion of radiation doesn't make things go cold.

[Henry Pool (OP)]

"carbon emissions" are often blamed as the greatest culprit for global warming. But is this really true? How can we be sure about this? What about energy coming from increased sun activity? What about increased salinity of the ocean, does that not trap heat? What about increased volcanic activity, going on underneath the seabed, that we cannot even see happening? What about energy from human activities - e.g.all these Abombs and rockets? &.......(fill in)

[Matthew]

If you compare the normal rate of global temperature fluctuations over the past hundreds of years compared to the natural temperature increases, there is little difference. However, what we call the "global arch" indicates a humanitarian contribution to global temperatures, an impact the planet cannot necessarily reverse easily. As a student, I have few expertise with regards to our nearest star, the sun, although I suppose the level of thermal radiation remains relatively constant although, human activities which you mentioned are evidently a problem. CO2 emissions are causing the upper layers of the atmosphere to trap heat reflected off the surface of the Earth - maximising the greenhouse effect.
You are correct to assume increase volcanic activity could result in rapid global changes although, following 6 months of volcanic eruptions, the earth manages to restore normal natural temperatures. At the moment, in spite of past eruptions, we experience a low level of volcanic activity which again, is no different thousands of years ago to the present day.
You must consider the human arch where temperature changes most probably result due to human output.
The human arch in more detail is the curve or human line of global average temperatures over the last 50-100 years compared with the natural arch or steady curve. Here, with more information, we can calculate the average human input to global changes - which to the present day is low although every point of a degree is terribly significant and can affect specific species of unknown species dramatically.

[Make it Lady]

Don't go abroad on holiday, buy local seasonal food and become a vegetarian. If you do these three things you will save the planet. Yes co2 emissions are a biggy in global warming but they don't have to be. Remember a 4x4 driving vegetarian uses less carbon than a meat eating bus user!

[Don_1]

"Remember a 4x4 driving vegetarian uses less carbon than a meat eating bus user!"

Well said MiL. CO₂ pollution is not as clear cut as most would have us believe. In fact, that goes for all pollutants.

[Bored chemist]

What about energy from human activities - e.g.all these Abombs and rockets? &.......(fill in)

Why are you asking this again?
Didn't you like the answer you got last time?
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=22348.0


_{Mod edit - Good point - topics merged}

[Richard345]

Greetings all. I came across this thread Googling for "experiments using various CO2 concentrations global warming" and similar terms. So far, I've only been able to come across people asking the same question, and no experiments. In reading this thread, I share many of the thoughts of Henry Pool.

To be honest, I did come across these two experiments:

newbielink:http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watexpgreenhouse.htm [nonactive]


newbielink:http://www.rsc.org/education/teachers/learnnet/JESEI/co2green/home.htm [nonactive]


What strikes me as odd is that they both use 100% CO2 in their experiment, and it results in a temperature difference of a few degrees. Replicating the atmosphere of Venus and proclaiming CO2 to be a greenhouse gas is a bit overreaching, yes?

So far, I've seen experiments or studies where the entire Earth or the entire atmosphere is used as a test bed. I didn't go to college, but doesn't basic scientific method dictate that you test one variable at a time? How is this possible if you use the whole atmosphere?

What I have not seen, and what Henry Pool also wants to see, is a simple experiment with 2 enclosed boxes.

Box A: ambient air, some dirt and water at the bottom.

Box B: air with 500ppm CO2, some dirt and water at the bottom.

Put a sun lamp on them. Record the temp until it maxes. Shut the sun lamps off. Record the temp until it reaches its low point. Compare the two.

Repeat the experiment with Box B having 750PPM, 1000ppm, 2000ppm CO2.

This elementary experiment, which should be the cornerstone of the global warming argument, is nowhere to be found. Why am I having such difficulties finding this experiment? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

The absence of this experiment, or the difficulties in me finding it, speaks volumes.

I get the sneaking suspicion that any temperature changes would be absolutely minuscule, and that's why such an experiment is not easy to find.

[paul.fr]

To be honest, I did come across these two experiments:

http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watexpgreenhouse.htm

If you found Espere, did you also find thire climate encyclopedia? From memory, it has quizzes at the end of chapters / sections so you can see if you understood what you have just read.

CLIMATE ENCYCLOPEDIA

You can even download it, free of charge, HERE

[Richard345]

Thanks Paul. I'll download the entire PDF and come back to the thread in the coming days.

[paul.fr]

Im pretty sure you can only take the quizzes on the online version, but the pdf is well worth dowloading and keeping.
At the end of the day all you can do is read whats out there and make your own mind up, but do keep questioning both sides of the argument. Even when you have decided which side you favour, keep reading what they both put out and see if their or your position changes. Both side do publish peer reviewed work, both sides have their critics of the other, and both sides have people with great personalities who can easily persuade you that they are right.

Two places to start are:

ICECAP

ICECAP, International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, is the portal to all things climate for elected officials and staffers, journalists, scientists, educators and the public. It provides access to a new and growing global society of respected scientists and journalists that are not deniers that our climate is dynamic (the only constant in nature is change) and that man plays a role in climate change through urbanization, land use changes and the introduction of greenhouse gases and aerosols, but who also believe that natural cycles such as those in the sun and oceans are also important contributors to the global changes in our climate and weather. We worry the sole focus on greenhouse gases and the unwise reliance on imperfect climate models while ignoring real data may leave civilization unprepared for a sudden climate shift that history tells us will occur again, very possibly soon. 

Through ICECAP you will have rapid access to our experts here in the United States and to experts and partner organizations worldwide, many of whom maintain popular web sites or insightful blogs or newsletters, write and present papers, have authored books and offer interviews to the media on climate issues. We spotlight new findings in peer-review papers and reports and rapidly respond to fallacies or exaggerations in papers, stories or programs and any misinformation efforts by the media, politicians and advocacy groups.

ICECAP is not funded by large corporations that might benefit from the status quo but by private investors who believe in the need for free exchange of ideas on this and other important issues of the day. Our working group is comprised of members from all ends of the political spectrum. This is not about politics but about science.

We are an open society that welcomes your membership and appreciates your endorsement and support.  Icecap is now a 501C3 corporation. As such, contributions are tax exempt under section 170 of the Internal Revenue Code. Any bequests, transfers or gifts are also exempt under sections 2055, 2106 and 2522 of the code. For your records, we are ICECAP US.

REAL CLIMATE

RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science

[Henry Pool (OP)]

Hi there. I have posted my in the "new theory" box but it seems Ben decided to close it. Anyway I decided to share my experiences as to how I came to my theory. I grew up as a young man in western Europe where it was mostly cold and wet and humid. I remember only feeling the "heat" (which we know is infra red) of the sun only during a few weeks in summer, if we were lucky. I then moved to Africa and we live inland where it is very dry, humidity usually below 30%. Now  here we do feel the heat the sun! Both in winter and in summer. In fact in summer the heat is so scorching that only after ten minutes you will look for cover or shade. But on a sunny day moving to the coast going from west to east on the same height you can actually see a) a rise in humidity the nearer you get to the sea and b)  a lowering of the temperature. You can actually feel that the heat from the sun is being lessened by the presence of water vapor. These experiences of mine were like the apple on Newtons head and in my mind I was able to formulate a simple rule: the higher the humidity the less infra red heat you feel from the sun, the cooler it gets. Obviously we know that carbondioxide reacts similar to water vapor, so from this I was able to formulate the general rule: the higher the humidity and carbon dioxide levels the more it covers us as a shield against infra red. So all this talk about the greenhouse effect and then to ignore the cooling effect makes no sense to me whatsoever.  Hence here is my theory, for those who are interested:If carbon dioxide traps infra red radiation (IR) from earth (keeping us warm) then it must follow that carbon dioxide also blocks IR coming from the sun (similar to ozone blocking UV, keeping us cool). So the logical question everyone must ask, is: what is the nett effect, especially at the relevant levels of carbon dioxide 0.02-0.04%? Using my body as the sensor, I can measure that the IR coming from earth must be a lot less than the IR coming from the sun. This means that the cooling effect of carbon dioxide must be greater than the warming up effect. So I say: carbon dioxide is good. So my theory is this:Global warming is probably caused by energy released by human activities and/or unseen volcanic activity in the oceans or the change in salinity in the water , & probably has little or nothing at all to do with the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. (Human population has doubled in the past 50 years).

[Bored chemist]

That's not a theory,it's a collection of logical fallacies.
That may explain why it was locked.
I sugest that you lookup the definition of relative humididty; in pparticular how it relates to absolute humidity and the effect that temperature has on that relationship.
Here's a quick summary.
If you take some air and heat it, the relative humidity falls.
So, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the low RH in the centre of Africa is due to the high temperature. The high temperature is, in turn, due to the distance from the sea.

I guess we can close this thread too now.

[Henry Pool (OP)]

I did not start this thread again to have another debate or discussion. Believe it or not, but I am actually worried that my theory is correct. If it is, we will be making the wrong decisions in Copenhagen. All I am asking for is to see the results of actual measurements of actual tests caried out during actual experiments that will give a clear answer to the logical and relevant question that I asked. We need to help each other here, that is why I posted again. If you do not have the figures then I suggest you do not interfere.

[Madidus_Scientia]

What cooling effect? Carbon dioxide absorbs IR energy, meaning the atmosphere is heated. Where else do you think the energy goes?

If you shield your face from a fireplace it will make your face cooler, but it won't cool the whole room down will it.

[Henry Pool (OP)]

So where does the UV go that is being blocked by ozone? The term absorbtion comes from the way as to how we measure this blocking action (with an infra red spectrophotometer). If I can feel and notice a  difference in the heat from the sun on earth when humidity is high,then surely that additional Infra red (heat) must have been mirrored to outside? Perhaps the H2O and CO2 molecules keep on working as mirrors even when it is saturated in heat? I can also reverse your question: why is heat trapped when IR from earth bounces back to earth due to the presence of H2O and CO2 in the atmosphere. Is it not precisely because of the blocking action and the molecules being saturated with heat?
Anyway, as I said, I am not really interested in starting another debate or discussion. I am hoping to find someone who has some real figures from some real experiments that would somehow convince me that that 0.01 % increase in carbon dioxide that happened over the past 50 years is really significant. (please note the logical question that I am posing in my theory. )