CO2 experiment.

Discussion in 'Quackenbush's' started by Gadfly, Apr 16, 2008.

  1. Gadfly

    Gadfly 250+ Posts

    CO2 is believed to be a major cause of global warming. I figured I could prove this hypothesis by creating several air tight green houses and fill some with tons of CO2 (sublime some dry ice), and just leave the others alone. Taking periodic temp readings through the day and year, I could show hard evidence of CO2 induced global warming. I was also thinking I can add water to one of the green houses and see if the humidity would rise and if that would also cause the atmosphere to heat (or at least stay warmer longer through the night).

    There would of course need to be strict controls regarding shade and I’d need to line all the houses up north to south so none of them are getting more sun than the others.

    I tried to look for the science behind the fact that CO2 causes global warming, and couldn’t find any. I found some theories, but no real science that proves it. Actually, I found more cause to believe CO2 does not cause global warming than I could find for it (search “How does CO2 cause global warming?”).

    Since I don’t have the resources to build greenhouses, purchase thermometers, CO2-meters, and checking these things daily, does anyone know a professor at UT I may be able to generate some traction on this. Does anybody know why this entire idea may be flawed?
     
  2. kgp

    kgp 1,000+ Posts

    The theory is grounded in solid science. Insolation is spread across a spectrum of wavelengths that are largely transmitted by CO2. The energy re-emitted from earth tends to be of longer wavelengths, with a higher percentage in the IR band. CO2 (and to a greater degree, H2O) absorbs more strongly in these bands. Hence, inbound energy tends to travel all the way in; outbound energy tends to get scattered on its way, with some escaping and some turned back around.

    A literal greenhouse would be, at best, a painfully rudimentary model of the earth. A controlled experiment to demonstrate the effects of CO2 on the earth would appear to call for a large number of earths. Instead we are left with models, hypotheses, and extrapolations. Depending on whose model you believe, CO2 and GW are already well proven. Then again, not all models agree.
     
  3. Nivek

    Nivek 500+ Posts

    This experiment is akin to digging a 2 foot hole in your backyard, not seeing any fossils, and declaring that paleontology is fake.
     
  4. pulque

    pulque 1,000+ Posts

    You global warming folks can develop no convincing statistics since none you cannot bring statistics to life that do not exist, and never will...Don't worry, according to the Mayan calender we will all be dust in 2012.
     
  5. Gadfly

    Gadfly 250+ Posts

    Thanks kgp for your well thought input. I am aware of the differing wavelengths and the effect it has on CO2 (and of course O3). You claim GW has been proven true which is scientifically accepted as a proven statement. You combine that with the statement which insinuates CO2 represents one cause of the cause and effect relationship. It is a true statement to say CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but it is not clear to what end or magnitude. And if it does, what is the measureable effect?

    Heat excites the molecules in CO2 and is eventually released. There is a lot of science that proves this, but most people can’t wrap their minds around it (I have trouble and I’ve been researching for a week now).

    The goal of real science should be to prove a hypothesis true or false without bias or predisposition to the answer. Ridiculous straw man arguments aside, why does this experiment not work? What must change about the experiment to make it better? Nivek, your opinion/ridicule is worth nothing, but I hope your logic serves you better than it has me.

    I am an admitted layman here. I am open and not offended by being called ignorant, but I would appreciate the accuser to use solid reason. If we artificially inflate CO2 in a small representation of a climate, why would the CO2 act differently? If it's all about slowing down heat, shouldn't it work? The greenhouse affect works great in our cars every day. The entire idea of “greenhouse effect” is based on greenhouses.

    If we have 2 greenhouses exactly the same, and one greenhouse is full of CO2 and the other is not, we should see that the CO2 greenhouse takes longer to cool off at night. We could then make predictions base on the rate of heat loss. X ppm of CO2 will cause the loss of heat to be slowed to Y. As X increases, so does Y.

    I will think of a way to do this with our without some really smart UT scientist. I think this experiment can be understood by everyone and solve the debate once and for all (for or against). I could be wasting my time too because surely somebody has thought to do this before. I’d imagine there is some atmospheric model that proves the CO2 affect on the atmosphere as well, but I don’t think people listen when too much jargon and math is used. It’s like a post that gets so long nobody really wants to read it – like this one.
     
  6. Nivek

    Nivek 500+ Posts

    Gadfly,

    Let start over. Which journals have you subscribed to and which ones have you searched to draw the conclusion that there is no scientific evidence for CO2 being a greenhouse gas.

    Logistically:
    How are you going to remove contact heat transfer and rely only on radiation?

    And please do not pretend to lecture me on science.
     
  7. GT WT

    GT WT 1,000+ Posts


     

Share This Page