Simple Question About AGW

[CapelDodger]

"Why hasn't anyone put it in a bottle to find out? Oh they did 150 years ago. Ah, but that isn't in the atmosphere..."

I'm mixing and matching here with my paraphrase of course but I am sure this line of thought has come up before and been made to look a little, shall we say...deficient. Now here it comes back round on the carouselle once more.

It always comes back to demands for reproducible in atmosphero experiments, as if the CO2 molecule might have mysteriously different properties outside the lab. Mystic physics, a pretty desperate resort. (Not the last resort, of course, there are others still in play and there may well be more to come.)

 

[Dr. Imago]

It always comes back to demands for reproducible in atmosphero experiments, as if the CO2 molecule might have mysteriously different properties outside the lab. Mystic physics, a pretty desperate resort. (Not the last resort, of course, there are others still in play and there may well be more to come.)

Funny. This sounds precisely like something a pro-AGW proponent would say when a lab experiment proved one of their pet theories wrong.

It's very simple. You build two (for all intents and purposes) identical boxes. You have all the "atmospheric" conditions equalized, except for the microfractions of CO2 in that box, and you then subject them to the same external warming device - perhaps the sun outside. You then directly measure the temperature differences within those boxes using calibrated, state-of-art equipment. This would give you a direct measurement of the heat capacity capable of being stored by CO2 at the quantities in discussion. I use a CO2 analyzer everyday when I give anesthesia. This equipment is readily available. It can give you a precise and accurate measurement of CO2 in the box on a PPM scale.

Tyndal or Arhennius or Joseph Priestly or Antoine Lavosier or any other 19th century (or older) scientist could not have possibly accurately conducted such an experiment using their contemporary devices. They just didn't have accurate measurement tools like we have now, so their margins of error (even though they never conducted such a precise experiment) would've been huge even if they'd tried this exact experiment - which they never did.

It's a simple experiment. Really.

-Dr. Imago

 

[mhaze]

"Why hasn't anyone put it in a bottle to find out? Oh they did 150 years ago. Ah, but that isn't in the atmosphere..."

I'm mixing and matching here with my paraphrase of course but I am sure this line of thought has come up before and been made to look a little, shall we say...deficient. Now here it comes back round on the carouselle once more.

Likely because the science isn't.... settled.

 

[Alric]

It's very simple. You build two (for all intents and purposes) identical boxes....

And if you do it you will get the equation I posted above. Get over it. C02 is a greenhouse gas because it absorbs infrared radiation.

Its a well defined physical property. What else are you going to argue. That its not a gas or not actually composed of carbon and oxygen?

 

[CapelDodger]

Funny. This sounds precisely like something a pro-AGW proponent would say when a lab experiment proved one of their pet theories wrong.

How could you possibly know this? You've never heard any such response, because there's never been any call for one.

It's very simple. You build two (for all intents and purposes) identical boxes. You have all the "atmospheric" conditions equalized, except for the microfractions of CO2 in that box, and you then subject them to the same external warming device - perhaps the sun outside.

How do you, in a box, equalize atmospheric conditions between down here and the tropopause? That's one heck of a pressure gradient across that box, and the basic mechanics escape me anyway. WTF ?

It's very simplistic.

You then directly measure the temperature differences within those boxes using calibrated, state-of-art equipment.

Calibrated and state-of-the-art, you can't ask for better than that. I'm still stuck back at the "how do you build this frickin' box?" problem.

This would give you a direct measurement of the heat capacity capable of being stored by CO2 at the quantities in discussion.

Being stored by CO2 ?

I use a CO2 analyzer everyday when I give anesthesia. This equipment is readily available. It can give you a precise and accurate measurement of CO2 in the box on a PPM scale.

It's the rarefaction gradient and the adiabatic cooling inside the box that trouble me. It's easy to say "box", but making one is not so easy.

Tyndal or Arhennius or Joseph Priestly or Antoine Lavosier or any other 19th century (or older) scientist could not have possibly accurately conducted such an experiment using their contemporary devices.

Apart from anything else, they couldn't have built the boxes. You're asking a lot even now.

They just didn't have accurate measurement tools like we have now, so their margins of error (even though they never conducted such a precise experiment) would've been huge even if they'd tried this exact experiment - which they never did.

It's a simple experiment. Really.

-Dr. Imago

Give me the boxes and the funds and I'll do it.

 

[mhaze]

In twenty minutes? Pretty much.

At 100% CO2 there's 0% water-vapour. As a model of a real atmosphere it kinda sucks. But that's not what the experiment is about. The real atmosphere is in the other jar, as a control.

By the way, it's not the multiplier but the doublings that you should count. Something to do with logarithms, as I recall.

No, equilibrium is reached quickly. 20 minutes is fine.

Okay, use logs. Perhaps this experiment should be done at each doubling step.

 

[David Rodale]

Funny. This sounds precisely like something a pro-AGW proponent would say when a lab experiment proved one of their pet theories wrong.

It's very simple. You build two (for all intents and purposes) identical boxes. You have all the "atmospheric" conditions equalized, except for the microfractions of CO2 in that box, and you then subject them to the same external warming device - perhaps the sun outside. You then directly measure the temperature differences within those boxes using calibrated, state-of-art equipment. This would give you a direct measurement of the heat capacity capable of being stored by CO2 at the quantities in discussion. I use a CO2 analyzer everyday when I give anesthesia. This equipment is readily available. It can give you a precise and accurate measurement of CO2 in the box on a PPM scale.

Tyndal or Arhennius or Joseph Priestly or Antoine Lavosier or any other 19th century (or older) scientist could not have possibly accurately conducted such an experiment using their contemporary devices. They just didn't have accurate measurement tools like we have now, so their margins of error (even though they never conducted such a precise experiment) would've been huge even if they'd tried this exact experiment - which they never did.

It's a simple experiment. Really.

-Dr. Imago

Dr. Imago,
You ask too much. This experiment could very well cost several thousands of dollars, possibly as much as $5000, and the manpower required would be difficult to obtain. Considering the limited budget that global warming research has had over the past 20 years, a complicated experiment you propose may break the bank. This is the same problem the Hockey Team has in updating their proxies after 1980. Besides, the climate models have all verified the CO2 hypothesis so there is no need for experimentation. Please, can't we move on beyond the science?

See, Svensmark conducting an experiment to test his hypothesis on cosmic rays is irrelevant, but a 112 year old untested hypothesis based on 147 year old data is.

CO2 measurements made prior to 1958 are unreliable due to "outdated" instrumentation and methods, but somehow 1861 technology was well suited for 2007 science.

The AGW axiom:

 

[David Rodale]

And if you do it you will get the equation I posted above. Get over it. C02 is a greenhouse gas because it absorbs infrared radiation.

Its a well defined physical property. What else are you going to argue. That its not a gas or not actually composed of carbon and oxygen?

Where is the infrared radiation being absorbed?

 

[a_unique_person]

Funny. This sounds precisely like something a pro-AGW proponent would say when a lab experiment proved one of their pet theories wrong.

It's very simple. You build two (for all intents and purposes) identical boxes. You have all the "atmospheric" conditions equalized, except for the microfractions of CO2 in that box, and you then subject them to the same external warming device - perhaps the sun outside. You then directly measure the temperature differences within those boxes using calibrated, state-of-art equipment. This would give you a direct measurement of the heat capacity capable of being stored by CO2 at the quantities in discussion. I use a CO2 analyzer everyday when I give anesthesia. This equipment is readily available. It can give you a precise and accurate measurement of CO2 in the box on a PPM scale.

Tyndal or Arhennius or Joseph Priestly or Antoine Lavosier or any other 19th century (or older) scientist could not have possibly accurately conducted such an experiment using their contemporary devices. They just didn't have accurate measurement tools like we have now, so their margins of error (even though they never conducted such a precise experiment) would've been huge even if they'd tried this exact experiment - which they never did.

It's a simple experiment. Really.

-Dr. Imago

They used pure CO2, then were able to infer what would happen at reduced levels. It's the amount of CO2 that the radiation passes that is the issue. There are quite a few kilometers worth of atmposphere each particle has to pass through. The precision was not that important in getting the general idea of what happens. Arrhenhius was able to do a calculation back then that was not correct, but was still quite good. They knew back then that the earth was warmer than it should be, greenhouse gases were the reason. CO2 was identified as a greenhouse gas.

 

[CapelDodger]

No, equilibrium is reached quickly. 20 minutes is fine.

What do you base that opinion on? The twenty minutes constraint is imposed by it being part of a lesson-plan.

Okay, use logs.

OK, don't.

Perhaps this experiment should be done at each doubling step.

How many lessons do you want it to occupy? We're talking students here, not researchers.

 

[David Rodale]

They used pure CO2, then were able to infer what would happen at reduced levels. It's the amount of CO2 that the radiation passes that is the issue. There are quite a few kilometers worth of atmposphere each particle has to pass through. The precision was not that important in getting the general idea of what happens. Arrhenhius was able to do a calculation back then that was not correct, but was still quite good. They knew back then that the earth was warmer than it should be, greenhouse gases were the reason. CO2 was identified as a greenhouse gas.

Oh please AUP, point us toward the experiment that is precise...oh, and accurate too.

You are doing nothing more that arm waiving.

 

[a_unique_person]

Oh please AUP, point us toward the experiment that is precise...oh, and accurate too.

You are doing nothing more that arm waiving.

You're asking an anomymous person on the internet about the in depth facts of climate science, then complaining because he doesn't know all the answers.

 

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by mhaze
No, equilibrium is reached quickly. 20 minutes is fine.

​

What do you base that opinion on? The twenty minutes constraint is imposed by it being part of a lesson-plan.

Quote:
Okay, use logs.
​

OK, don't.

Quote:
Perhaps this experiment should be done at each doubling step.
​

How many lessons do you want it to occupy? We're talking students here, not researchers.

Students are fine.

11+ doubling results in 5c warming in the experiment.

What is the temperatures increase for one doubling of CO2?

 

[a_unique_person]

Dr. Imago,
You ask too much. This experiment could very well cost several thousands of dollars, possibly as much as $5000, and the manpower required would be difficult to obtain. Considering the limited budget that global warming research has had over the past 20 years, a complicated experiment you propose may break the bank. This is the same problem the Hockey Team has in updating their proxies after 1980. Besides, the climate models have all verified the CO2 hypothesis so there is no need for experimentation. Please, can't we move on beyond the science?

See, Svensmark conducting an experiment to test his hypothesis on cosmic rays is irrelevant, but a 112 year old untested hypothesis based on 147 year old data is.

CO2 measurements made prior to 1958 are unreliable due to "outdated" instrumentation and methods, but somehow 1861 technology was well suited for 2007 science.

The AGW axiom:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1032347cb6587dbbca.gif

1965 absorption of solar radiation by atmospheric CO2 http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=AD0620034

1978

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978fac..rept.....G

Spectral transmission data for CO2 are presented between approximately 495 and 835/cm for a variety of samples of CO2 mixed in dry air. Sample parameters cover a wide range of pressures with the temperatures near 310 K. The spectral resolution varies from approximately 0.4 to 0.6/cm. Also included are data on the continuum absorption by H2O between 300 and 825/cm. Experimental data on H2O absorption are compared with data calculated on the basis of several theoretical line shapes. The H2O continuum absorption decreases more rapidly with increasing temperature than is predicted by line-shape theories.

Thing I don't get, Dr Imago and Slimething claim to be experts in the scientific method, yet can't go out and look up a few abstracts.

Report Date : 31 JAN 1970​

Pagination or Media Count : 30​

Abstract : The continuum absorption by H2O between 800 and 1250/cm and by CO2 from 780 to 900/cm has been measured. The continuum results from the extreme wings of very strong absorption lines centered outside the 800-1250/cm interval. Experimental results are compared with calculated values based on various line shapes. The extreme wings of N2-broadened H2O lines produce less than 0.005 as much continuum absorption as self-broadened H2O lines at the same pressure. Self-broadened H2O lines absorb more than Lorentz-shaped lines, but the wings of self-broadened CO2 lines absorb only approximately 0.01 as much in the 780-900/cm region as if they had the Lorentz shape. The shapes of the wings of the CO2 lines which produce the continuum between 780 and 900/cm are similar to those near 2400/cm for both self broadening and N2 broadening. Suggestions on methods for using the results for atmospheric transmission calculations are given.​

http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=AD0702117

etc...

 

[Slimething]

1: That would be similar to showing sugar is sweet.

No, it wouldn't be. Dr. Imago is requesting the testing of a causal relationship of two metrics, not an opinion. Both ordinte and abscissa in this case would be quantifiable, negating your assertion.

CO2 and other man-made gases are greenhouse gases and their radiative forcing can be calculated very precisely. This equation shows radiative forcing for C02

Kudos. That is a restatement of the standard equation for a first-order effect C = C0 e^(-kt). That statement follows directly from the assumed mechanism of greenhouse gases.

However, it's still hypothetical in that the equation assumes the effect wihtout corroboration in situ. You need to rethink your assertion. Your math is OK but your claim still needs secondary (real world) validation.

And this is my calculated radiative forcing by C02 in the atmosphere for the past 50 years using Mauna Loa CO2 concentration data:

I've seen that coefficient before. Is this really your work or did you find it somewhere?

 

[Slimething]

Thing I don't get, Dr Imago and Slimething claim to be experts in the scientific method, yet can't go out and look up a few abstracts.

What do "a few abstracts" have to do with the scientific method? Do your "few abstracts" give you a falsifiable test for AGW? What you posted to me is merely more raw data that may someday lead to a falsifiable hypothesis.

Please, read up on the scientific method. All you're doing is demonstrating your personal propensity to cherry-pick facts that agree with your view of how climate is made.

 

[Slimething]

Oh, by the way, IIRC, the atmosphere on Venus is about 96.5% carbon dioxide and the planet has a surface pressure of 90 atmospheres. Due to its much closer proximity to the Sun, a much warmer surface temperature is expected. These facts are in no way any use toward verifying or falsifying the AGW hypothesis.

Consider this a fact pro bono.

 

[a_unique_person]

What do "a few abstracts" have to do with the scientific method? Do your "few abstracts" give you a falsifiable test for AGW? What you posted to me is merely more raw data that may someday lead to a falsifiable hypothesis.

Please, read up on the scientific method. All you're doing is demonstrating your personal propensity to cherry-pick facts that agree with your view of how climate is made.

No pleasing some people . Imago wants proof that CO2 can even be considered a greenhouse gas.

It has been tested to absorb IR radiation. That radiation doesn't just accumulate forever, it has to come out again. When it does, some of it goes out to space, some goes back down to the planets surface again. Is that too hard to understand? Arrhenius and others worked out over a century ago, the earth is warmer than they expected it to be. If they could work out the basic theory back then, I don't know how it could be so controversial now. Arrhenius got the answer correct to a good estimate, even way back then.

 

[a_unique_person]

Oh, by the way, IIRC, the atmosphere on Venus is about 96.5% carbon dioxide and the planet has a surface pressure of 90 atmospheres. Due to its much closer proximity to the Sun, a much warmer surface temperature is expected. These facts are in no way any use toward verifying or falsifying the AGW hypothesis.

Consider this a fact pro bono.

I don't get it. You are quite ready to accept as fact that the same underlying physics can be used to explain the temperature of Venus, but not the temperature of earth?

 

[Slimething]

No pleasing some people . Imago wants proof that CO2 can even be considered a greenhouse gas.

You and I are interpreting Dr. Imago's posts differently. From my point of view, he's asking for a falsifiable test of AGW, same as I am. Of course, laboratory tests support the absorbance/reradiation of IR by CO2. What of it? (IOW, if such had not been demonstrated in the lab, would we even consider CO2 as an agent of AGW? We'd be targetting some other gas, right?)

I don't get it. You are quite ready to accept as fact that the same underlying physics can be used to explain the temperature of Venus, but not the temperature of earth?

Just pointing out that Venus is very different than Earth. 90 atm will do a heck of a lot global warming and that's proven physics. If you want to do the calculations of what the Venusian equivalent temperature would be on Earth, you're welcome to do so. Show your work.

ETA: I couldn't help myself. I did it for you using the law of ideal gases (PV/T = PV/T). Setting P1 = 90 atm and P2 = 1 atm and both V's at unity and T1 = 733 K, T2 is 8.14 K. Now that's chilly! Venusians are trying to fit more CO2 into their atmosphere as we speak!