Timeline for What experiments prove the greenhouse effect?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 2, 2023 at 21:22 | comment | added | Cloudyman | The question asks for experiments and the answer does not refer to any. This may all be well and good but predictions, models, and measurements, are not experiments. | |
| May 31, 2012 at 18:53 | comment | added | Ron Maimon | You can question models until you are blue in the face--- the main point is that a 30% rise in CO2 is expected to heat the planet, and an additional 50% rise in the planet will warm the planet by the same amount or more. The experiment is already done, we know its about 1 degree for this much carbon dioxide, so the standard predictions are roughly right, and whether there will be more melting here or there, or whether it will be 5 degrees is a matter of uncertainty, but considering the planet-wide effects, it's best to be as hysterical as possible, to get action done. | |
| May 31, 2012 at 18:46 | comment | added | Ron Maimon | @annav: What are you talking about? Any "little ice age" business is much slower than this human stuff, ignore it, you are talking about derivatives when you should be comparing absolutes, the last decade is warmer than the 1980s by the amount you expect due to greenhouse gasses. The warming doesn't appear in continuous increments, but in bursts, as long-standing local equilibria are broken due to forcing. I have no patience with questioning the climate science model--- I don't care about this model. I agree with the long-hair-hippy one-parameter warming model, not the complicated one. | |
| May 31, 2012 at 4:15 | comment | added | anna v | Of course we are heating, we are coming out of the little ice age after all.It is whether CO2 is the culprit. Here is the list of discrepancies with model predictions I have in my last year's lecture on weather and climate backed with plots and references: 1)temperature is in stasis the last ten years while CO2 rises2)there is no CO2 footprint in the troposphere3)no positive feedback4)specific humidity is falling instead of rising5)the missing energy is not hiding in the oceans6)the models cannot reproduce absolute temperatures, only anomalies7)disagreement with hydrological world data. | |
| May 31, 2012 at 4:02 | comment | added | anna v | @RonMaimon Have a look at this dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2152004/… please. I have read through the AR4 blurb on climate models and their evaluation, all 593 pages of it, and at the time, some years ago, I was walking around pulling my hair at the gross assumptions and oversimplifications. Climate "scientists" of AGW are financed with billions, and they get good PR. Their extrapolations of that time are way off now. If you see plots that fit, they have moved the posts, mapping further the known. | |
| May 31, 2012 at 1:31 | comment | added | Ron Maimon | @annav: The question of sea level prediction or the future warming is not the same as the question of whether we are responsible for the present warming. The answer to that is an unquestionable "yes". You might like the arctic sea unfrozen and North America balmy, so the effects might be peachy, or there might be some feedback that lessens the impact, but so far, the estimates of climate change have been too conservative--- the effect so far has been bigger than anticipated. A 2 degree change by 2100 is plausible given what we've seen so far, and the effect might be larger still. | |
| May 30, 2012 at 19:06 | comment | added | anna v | @RonMaimon Nobody is disputing that humans raise CO2 or that CO2 has a contribution to the greenhouse effect. Please read up on the feedback mechanism which is absolutely necessary in order for the predictions of 6 meter rise in sea level and more than 2C degrees higher average temperature by the end of the century. Without the feedback introduced in the models, called "sensitivity to CO2" which goes: CO2 raises temperature,temperature evaporates H2O,temperature rises, evaporates H2O ... the results are much smaller than the IPCC sponsored models predict. | |
| May 30, 2012 at 18:35 | comment | added | Ron Maimon | @annav: The detailed models are not the source of the prediction, they are chekcing and verifying details. The prediction itself is one made by a bunch of long-haired pot-smoking people in 1970--- more CO2 means hotter Earth. The single parameter required is the one AlanSE gives--- the radiative forcing due to CO2. Also, human contributions to CO2 in the atmosphere is of order 30%. By Wikipedia, we burn making about 30 billion tons, and the atmosphere has 3000 billion tons. This swamps natural CO2 changes, and is obviously the cause of rising CO2 levels. | |
| May 30, 2012 at 18:29 | history | edited | Ron Maimon | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
reword
|
| May 30, 2012 at 17:15 | comment | added | anna v | @EnergyNumbers From the abstract I do not think it has been refuted.Can you please give a link to a preprint/pdf ouside a pay wall? | |
| May 30, 2012 at 16:32 | comment | added | 410 gone | @annav I think it's quite poor form to still be citing a paper two years after it's been refuted: dx.doi.org/10.1029/2009GL042314 | |
| May 30, 2012 at 15:11 | comment | added | anna v | It is the feedback hypothesis which they presume starts a positive cycle with H2O that pulls the tiny amounts of CO2 with respect to H2O ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth ) into prominence to be used as a scarecrow, and that is not sustained by the data. The models use much higher sensitivity than the data displays drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf . | |
| May 30, 2012 at 12:49 | comment | added | N. Virgo | +1, but a slight technical correction: it's absorption and reemission of thermal photons that causes the greenhouse, not scattering. (At infra-red wavelengths, the atmosphere is a good approximation to a black body.) | |
| May 30, 2012 at 12:19 | comment | added | 410 gone | +1. But wasn't it Svante Arrhenius who first proposed the model, some time before the 1970s? (albeit that he underestimated just how rapidly our greenhouse-gas emissions would grow). globalwarmingart.com/images/1/18/Arrhenius.pdf | |
| May 30, 2012 at 11:34 | comment | added | anna v | -1, sorry to say, because I have looked into the models and you could fit an elephant with them. They have no predictive power ( give me four parameters and I can fit an elephant, a fifth and he can wiggle his ears). The basic assumption that boosts the normal effect of the .5% anthropogenic contribution of CO2 to greenhouse gases is a "sensitivity assumtions" which when measured is much smaller than the IPCC modellers have assumed. In addition the money spent with the anthropogenic bandwagon is orders of magnitude more than the money spent to try and find the true science behind the data. | |
| May 30, 2012 at 10:34 | history | answered | Ron Maimon | CC BY-SA 3.0 |