Is There Experimental Proof of CO2 Warming?

[Davaris]

I was just wondering if there is any hard experimental evidence that proves CO2 warms the environment?

For instance has anyone done an experiment where they add a mix of gases (that represent the atmosphere of the earth) to a glass tank. Then shine a light through it representing the Sun and then increase the CO2 content to see if the increasing CO2 increases the temperature of the tank?

[screener]

good question, would it be possible to more or less duplicate the factors involved?

[spot1234]

I understand that there is experimental proof of the property's of CO2 gas and has been since the 19th century and from that you can work out what the effect on climate would be However like evolution and astronomy you can't reproduce proof in a laboratory.


this link is very informative;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

[ThankyouMoneypenny]

Hi Davaris,

I am not a scientist but I would think that although it is theoretically possible to get experimental proof (and according to some links it definitely has been done), the problem would appear to be achieving the correct basis for the experiment. As I understand it, CO2 'warms' the atmosphere by, in effect, reducing the Earth's ability to cool by radiation. Short wave radiation from the Sun passes through a 'layer' of CO2 easily to reach the Earth. But, once the Earth has warmed, it radiates long wave radiation which has more difficulty penetrating the CO2 'layer'. In order to prove the 'warming' properties of CO2 I suppose one would have to have some sort of body which could transmit long wave radiation. Just using the gas would probably not work. I am sure a real scientist will put me right if I am incorrect. Either way, this is one of the problems that the IPCC has in forecasting Global Warming. It uses computer models to predict an outcome but cannot input into the model all the variables that exist in our 'open' atmosphere system. There are other reasons why the Earth may be warming, such as solar radiation increasing but that is another discussion. By the way, I believe that the most potent (pound for pound) 'Greenhouse' gas is Methane, whilst the biggest in terms of quantity is Water Vapour. Also, the use of the term 'Greenhouse' is misleading because a greenhouse doesn't work (well, only very minutely) by differential absorption of radiation. A greenhouse works primarily by preventing heat loss by convection. If the CO2 theory was correct, a gardener could have no walls to his greenhouse and just use the glass roof to warm his plants! Not much use on a windy day...
Anyway, I digress. Hope this has helped.

Th...

[Windguy]

Mann's 1998 paper, which was the paper that evaluated CO2 and it's forcing. And it was a paper released after another paper who had higher forcing figures. So it wasn't created to scare people with "junkscience" if you call it that. It places CO2 at 1.66W/m^2 forcing for 380ppm CO2. A CO2 doubling of 550ppm from 1750 is related from 4.5 to 4.2W/m^2 forcing. Methane at 1750ppb from 760ppb is related to another 0.5W/m^2 increase.

Here is the typical graph posted

And here is the absorption bands

[ThankyouMoneypenny]

Windguy,

Thank you for posting that graph. Can you explain what the right hand column actually means? The column size, and the term 'Net Anthropogenic Component', would imply that the left hand column of CO2 forcing equates to all CO2 warming by anthropogenic factors. I thought that anthropogenic production of CO2 is only about 3% of the planet's CO2 production? Surely all the experiments can show is that CO2 has a certain forcing factor. The warming of the atmosphere may only be very slightly due to CO2 and yet it is held as the great ogre of GW. Maybe this is done in order to scare the general populace into accepting 'environmental' taxes?

Th...

[prashamk]

Originally Posted by ThankyouMoneypenny

.............The warming of the atmosphere may only be very slightly due to CO2 and yet it is held as the great ogre of GW. Maybe this is done in order to scare the general populace into accepting 'environmental' taxes?

Th...

Run away, don't look back, just run, never again login to this forum, run, run, run. You have got some knowledge that IPCC, NOAA and others don't want you to have. Moreover they are keeping eye on every post here and every other forum internet has. So sooner or later they will come after you.

Run Run Run...

[ThankyouMoneypenny]

...Bugger!

[forfismum]

Originally Posted by ThankyouMoneypenny

...Bugger!:-"

Welcome aboard I usually say bollocks but I have been rationed on the use of the word due to complaints.

[ThankyouMoneypenny]

Thanks forfismum, and may I say how much I enjoy your posts. I will see how many complaints I get for the word 'Bugger"!

“The need to be right is the sign of a vulgar mind.” Albert Camus