This may be too political to do, but I would like to see the results of this anyway. The hot button issue now with climatologists vs. other scientists is whether increased amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere causes an increase in global temperature. While a nice pretty graph of CO2 vs Temperature was shown in Al Gores new book and movie, its impossible to tell from this which is the independant variable. It could very well be that when temperature increases, CO2 subsequently increases. Anywho, I digress.
I think a good way to test this is to test greenhouse effects in simulated atmospheres. Take 3 very large, sealed tanks. (how large? Dont know) Fill one with exactly the same amounts of compounds present in our atmosphere (70% nitrogen, 20% oxygen, blah blah). Then, in Tank 2, add much more CO2. In tank 3, have much less CO2.
All tanks must be thermally sealed as much as they possibly can, but assuming less than 100% efficiency, just keep them all in the same room, away from any drafts.
All 3 tanks will be heated/lighted by a combination of lights: full visual spectrum lights, UV lights, and Infrared lights. The level of each should be attempted to match the level emitted by the sun. These different lights are needed because we still dont know everything about global warming, and it can only be assumed that everything that comes from the sun plays a part.
Also, it would probably be best not to include any plants or life of any kind in the first trial, as to keep the chemical balance in check.
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, to emulate the planets ability to lose heat into space, the top of the tanks should not be thermally sealed, but should be capped with a good heat conducting metal, and then have a tank filled with water that is itself thermally sealed. By measuring the change in water temperature, you can find out how much energy the atmosphere is losing to "space"
So basically you would let this experiment sit, with very sensitive thermometers at different points throughout the tanks, as well as in the water on top. As another option, perhaps the lights should be turned off for certain amounts of time to simulate nighttime, but based on the scale I think it would be too easy to lose much of the heat that way.
So by measuring the temperature in the tanks over time, and the temperature of the water in each tank, the effect of CO2 as a greenhouse gas should become apparent. However, the very small scale compared to the atmosphere may be too great, but I think its worth a shot.
Well this experiment is designed only to test the greenhouse gas effects of CO2, any polar ice cap melting effects are a by-product of increasing temperature.
This experiment would try to determine if increasing CO2 causes the increase in temperature
In the science world, there is absolutely no doubt that the increase of Carbon (not necessarily CO2 but simply carbon) causes heat energy, heat that would otherwise leave the biosphere, to be trapped, heating the earth.
Energy will always be lost to "space." The problem is that heat energy is staying for too long before leaving, causing a build up of unusable energy.
The greenhouse effect is not a myth by any standards. Even Adam and Jamie, who are technically special effects technitions, would be unable to refute that fact.
Im not trying to say the greenhouse effect is a myth, in fact I said "this experiment is designed only to test the greenhouse gas effects of CO2"
And in regards to the "Science World" (Which I am also a part of), the only true consensus is among climatologists, who of course have their bias. Just as a rabbit specialist could never justify cooking and eating rabbits (oh so tasty), a climatologist is more inclined to assume they already know whats causing global warming, that being increased CO2 emmissions.
Now, the rest of the "Science World", doesnt quite share this consensus, which is why I wanted to see the greenhouse effect of CO2 tested.
[quote]In the science world, there is absolutely no doubt that the increase of Carbon (not necessarily CO2 but simply carbon) causes heat energy, heat that would otherwise leave the biosphere, to be trapped, heating the earth.[/quote]
Just saying "there is absolutely no doubt" does not make it true. In fact, there is a great deal of doubt, even at the level of "the greenhouse effect" even being possible.
[quote]Just saying "there is absolutely no doubt" does not make it true. In fact, there is a great deal of doubt, even at the level of "the greenhouse effect" even being possible.[/quote]
Just saying it does not make it true but the facts and the research behind it do. Just because there is "doubt" does not make it a real question. There may be doubt but there is no intelligence behind the doubt, just political ideology.
If I say I think the world is shaped like a pyramid therefor there is doubt that the world is round, that does not mean there is a valid argument about wether the world is round or not. Simply saying I don't think so created "doubt"
There is NO conflicting evidence here, "scientist" are NOT in disagreement on this, only political propogadists. Even the oil companies (with the exception of Exxon) have admitted that the data shows that our incresed CO2 emmsision are direclty effecting the temperature of the planet. This is no more in "doubt" than gravity. This oil administration and its supporters feel threatened by these fact and have launched their disinformation campaign for purely political reasons. Good science can never take into account politics or popular opinions in reaching its conclusions.
To quote the Exxon memo: "Our product is doubt" They admitted they could not win the argument against all the facts so to win all they have to do is create doubt. All you have to do to create doubt is say there is doubt. Look at the evidence, look at the facts, there is no doubt.
AND....The real question is.....How much CO2 does it take in order to raise the temp.? On Submarines, we run with a very high CO2 content, sometimes just under the 90 day limit and I have never felt the ship get any warmer due to the high CO2. The way I see it, the CO2 level would have to be so high as to make the atmosphere unbreathable. However, I would love to see the MB's try this one out. You should have several such containers, Starting with regulat atmosphere all the way up to 600PPM which is the 90 day limit on submarines.
[quote].How much CO2 does it take in order to raise the temp.?[/quote]
Not that much as the data geological history has shown.. It's not CO2 saturation as in the sub that is the issue. CO2 reflects longer wavelengths of energy i.e. heat back toward the earth. As the shorter wavelengths hit the planet and warm it due to conservation of energy longer wavelengths are reflected back to space. CO2 reflects these longer wavelengths back to the planet…etc... A balance is maintained. Now the balance is off. The long terms effects are just now beginning to be understood. One of the stranger effects is the faster malting of the arctic ice sheet bringing cold fresh water down from Baffin bay to the north Atlantic could shut off the Atlantic conveyer (gulf stream) causing Iceland, England and N. Europe to become much colder.
Bernie, air with higher concentration of CO2 absorbs heat from the sun more readily and radiates it to space more slowly. (This is not simply conjecture; it was established experimentally long ago.)
Now in a submarine, correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think the air is exposed to sunlight... and I do not think you depend on radiation from the air to space for your cooling, either.
So how you think the situation in the submarine is relevant is completely beyond my comprehension.
Once again, we need to find out how much CO2 is needed to accomplish this before we sign over power to a bunch of ECO Nazis who want to send fourth men dresed like Darth Vader and forcfully conficating cars, shutting down industries, and pretty much establishing an ECO-Theocracy. Even if the problem is real. submitting to this social aganda is not the answer. (Read Al Gore)
There isn't much mystery about it. The infrared absorption spectrum of CO2 is well known and the additional heat load as a function of CO2 concentration is trivial to calculate. The results show that the observed temperature increase is consistent with increased CO2 concentration, after other factors are accounted for.
Also beyond question is the fact that the recent rate of increase in the earth's temperature is literally without precedent in all the data we can gather. Same for the rate of glacier shrinkage.
[quote] before we sign over power to a bunch of ECO Nazis who want to send fourth men dresed like Darth Vader and forcfully conficating cars, shutting down industries, and pretty much establishing an ECO-Theocracy. Even if the problem is real. submitting to this social aganda is not the answer. (Read Al Gore) [/quote]
People have been calling for "more study" on this topic for literally decades. And more study has been done for decades. So far there has been nothing to suggest that the original theories and fears were unfounded. If anything, things seem to be getting worse faster.
And if you had actually READ Al Gore you'd know that such scenarios as you suggest are scare tactics promulgated by the current oil-garchy.
Do you think that if we just continue "business as usual" the problem will just solve itself?
10,000 years ago, the part of the country I live in was buried beneath two miles of ice.
It's been clear of ice since shortly after that time.
It's hard to believe that human industry was involved in the massive warming required.
Just today, another report is claiming that the earth is hotter "than it has been in the last 2000 [or 400, depending on the report] years!" Which begs the question: why was it so much hotter 2000 [or 400] years ago?
Frankly, I'd rather not assume we know so much about climate that we should actively start trying to manipulate it.
Frankly, I am inclined to trust the climatologists who have spent eight or more getting a PhD in their field, then years in research... rather than raising objections based on isolated facts and my own very limited knowledge of the subject.
As in any other field of advanced study, the opinion of even a reasonably well-rounded science geek is NOT worth nearly as much as that of someone who's been making the field their life's work.
[quote]As in any other field of advanced study, the opinion of even a reasonably well-rounded science geek is NOT worth nearly as much as that of someone who's been making the field their life's work.[/quote]
There are quite a large number of climatologists who dispute various aspects of global warming, from it's cause to it's rate all the way to whether it is actually taking place. A glance at any peer-reviewed journal which treats such matters quickly reveals that there isn't any consensus, but instead vigorous debate with many on each side of the issue.
Instead of this sort of information, though, we're treated to the ravings of Al Gore, who has precisely zero scientific training or understanding, and similar mono-speak from a gaggle of Hollywood celibrities, whose scientific credentials in toto amount to barely being able to spell "warm."
I'm all for letting science take a front seat in this matter - rather than politics and emotion - but that seems unlikely to happen.
If we do what AL Gore is calling for, there will be Storm Troopers machine gunning everybody who owns a car and? or a musiness deemed to be emitting too much CO2. While I am open to the question and welcome the challenge, signing power over to Gore and His Eco Nazis is not the answer.
The question is not "does more CO2 cause temperature to build up?" since we know that's true. The real question is, are we causing the temperature to build up? Earth's climate has been fluctuating since its creation, people or not. Could we really be putting enough CO2 into the atmosphere to dramatically change the earth's climate? Personally, I don't think so, I think that the Earth might be getting hotter right now with or without us, but since we're here, we're blaming ourselves. Should we try to me more eco- friendly? Yes, definately. But I don't think we've gotten so bad that we're drastically changing earth's climate.
The only thing I know about this subject is that no one can reach a consensus about what is going on. People either believe it will destroy the world, is a result of a natural cycle, or is plain not happening.
Given the very serious consequences that could result from global warming, whether's it's happening or not, I'd think we should all assume it's a threat and do something about it. Things should be done to try to reduce pollution etc just in case. Besides pumping all those wonderful exhaust fumes into the atmosphere can't be good for the environment or for us.
Now then, on to the science: CO2 is known to science to increse the temprature of air, and I'm nearly 100% sure that scientists know the exact figures. It would simply be a matter of how much air is there and how much energy does the sun provide.
Also, do a search for Global Dimming, it's related to Global Warming, and scientists think it's actually decresing the effects of Global Warming by over 50%, but it's caused by visible pollution, whick we're trying to reduce so...
-Tyler Menezes CEO and Chairman of Programs and Websites and MyWebsFree.com
Forums 