Greenhouse Effect Experimental Designs

[BrianG]

Why are there no experiments on climate change mitigation? Is the effect of restricting CO₂ emissions too small to mitigate climate change? That's the sense I'm getting from the suggestions, so far.

 

Plastic wrap is good because, pop it on, pop it off, like Tupperware. Turning the oceans into Jello wouldn't be easy to reverse.

[JMJones0424]

I think there is a solution we can both agree upon Brian. Why don't we try doing your experiment in reverse order, with carbon dioxide removal first. I think it is far more likely that you will find funding for that, though others are trying to do so, and are likely more enthusiastic about it than you, and still aren't up to the task. Once this is accomplished, and we run the test long enough to have valuable data, then we can consider the carbon dioxide increase portion of the test.

 

Why are there no experiments on climate change mitigation? Is the effect of restricting CO2 emissions too small to mitigate climate change? That's the sense I'm getting from the suggestions, so far.

 

I can not believe that this is true, it must be a joke. If you actually feel this way, I invite you to read through this thread again, and try to understand what others have said rather than looking for ways that what they said agrees with your preconceived notions.

[HydrogenBond]

The next time we have a major forest fire, that burns millions of acres, this is a good time to watch the impact of CO2 in almost real time. We will get a spike of CO2 within weeks, that might takes months using human means such as a little coal plant. We have had some very good forest fires over the past couple of decades.

 

For example,

In 2003, one of the hottest summers in Europe, 22m hectares (50 million acres) of spruce, larch, fir, Scots pine and oak were destroyed, charred, scorched or in some way affected by fire. On one day in June that year, a US satellite recorded 157 fires across almost 11m hectares, sending a plume of smoke that reached Kyoto 5,000 kilometres (3,107 miles) away.

 

Did that forest fire increase global warming or have no impact?

 

Here is a cool NASA pic that shows forest fires in Africa. I don't think this is all at once but plots where they occur. That looks like a lot of CO2 to me.

 

[BrianG]

I think there is a solution we can both agree upon Brian. Why don't we try doing your experiment in reverse order, with carbon dioxide removal first...

 

I'd certainly like to see any direct experimental test on CO₂ and climate. Is there any way to take out CO₂ as fast as it can be added? There are experimental designs for testing a single subject:

 

Single-subject research - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Essay]

I'd certainly like to see any direct experimental test on CO₂ and climate.

But you're asking for a "direct experimental test on CO₂ and..." temperature.

 

That's a nice link, but you're not testing for a "single subject;" you're testing how the climate system readjusts itself in response to changing levels of a single parameter over a given time span (while other parameters change naturally).

 

You seem to still be focusing on temperature, which is only one of many ways the climate adjusts itself (or its expression) in response to an increase in heat retention.

===

 

Brian, I'm not sure how your link to "single-subject" research pertains to this climate situation (though both involve behaviour):

Single-subject research is a group of research methods that are used extensively in the experimental analysis of behavior and applied behavior analysis with both human and non-human participants. Four principal methods in this type of research are: changing criterion, reversal ("ABA"), alternating treatments, and multiple baseline.

...but regarding your "experiment" suggestions:

 

1. Over what area (local, regional, or global) do you expect to see a "signal" from your artificial manipulation of CO2 levels?

 

2. Over what timespan (when) would you expect to see a "signal" from your artificial manipulation of CO2 levels?

 

3. How would you run controls experiments to rule out some confounding factors?

Any chances of a double-blind study?

 

~

[Essay]

The next time we have a major forest fire, that burns millions of acres, this is a good time to watch the impact of CO2 in almost real time. We will get a spike of CO2 within weeks, that might takes months using human means such as a little coal plant. We have had some very good forest fires over the past couple of decades.

 

For example,

 

Did that forest fire increase global warming or have no impact?

 

Here is a cool NASA pic that shows forest fires in Africa. I don't think this is all at once but plots where they occur. That looks like a lot of CO2 to me.

 

 

HB,

I'm surprised you'd think this would work. I thought you "got" how CO2 doesn't affect temperatures directly (especially locally), and how it causes heat to back up in the whole heat-transfer system (ice, oceans, water vapor, crustal heating, biologic factors, many albedo-related factors, other gases and gas layers, and atmospheric dynamics) over time; with some of the extra heat energy going to expand the oceans, increase humidity, melt ice, etc.

 

Besides....

Forest fires can be problematic regarding CO2 production. They also cause a large drawdown of CO2 in the weeks following the fire (which might interfere with the experiment's goal) as the soil takes advantage of the new-found nutrients; and the extra heat associated with the fire might confound your results, if not the higher injection altitude of the CO2 associated with the fire's rising heat plume.

 

Neat pic though....

 

~ :)

 

p.s.

http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/mas/article/viewFile/4592/3931

Satellite Mapping of CO2 Emission from Forest Fires in Indonesia Using AIRS Measurements

Vol. 3, No. 12; Modern Applied Science; by JM Rajab - 2009

 

Abstract:

Results from the analysis of the retrieved carbon dioxide (CO2) columns in the free troposphere are presented for one year (2005) obtained by the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) included on the EOS Aqua satellite launched on May 4, 2002. Providing information for several greenhouse gases, CO2, CH4, CO and O3 is one goal of the AIRS instrument as well as to improve weather prediction and study the water and energy cycle. .... The aim of this study is to generate Monthly CO2 Distribution maps and to investigate the effects of Indonesia forest fires on CO2 distributions over Peninsular Malaysia, north Sumatra and Singapore for 2005. The CO2 concentration map of the study area was generated by using mole-fraction of CO2 in free troposphere, obtained from AIRS/Aqua Level 3 monthly CO2 retrieval product (AIRS+AMSU) V005 (AIRX3C2M) at GES DISC. Considerable variations were demonstrated in the annual changes of rainfall and drought patterns in various seasons (dry & wet season). Variations in the biomass burning and CO2 emissions where noted over the study area, while the highest CO2 occurred over industrial and congested urban zones and a greater draw down of CO2 occurred in the pristine marine environment over northeast coasts of Sumatra during 2005. In particular, we observe a quasi-biennial variation in CO2 emissions from study area with two peaks, the natural peak occurring at the end of each dry season (February to April), when biomass burning occurs, and the second peak at wet season (July to September), because of the influence of Indonesia forest fire. Examining satellite measurements, the results showed that the enhanced CO2 emission correlates with occasions of less rainfall during dry season.

 

The variation of CO2 values for 2005 from Bukit Koto Tabang station measurement (near the surface, Sumatra, Indonesia) and the corresponding mid-tropospheric column from AIRS are illustrated in Figure 5. Note two peaks for CO2 measurement from ground station, the natural peak occurred in the late dry season between February and April, and the CO2 values had a large seasonal cycle whose amplitude was larger near the surface than column average CO2 as a result of biomass burning. The second peak which occurred between July to September was caused by the Indonesia forest fire and thus phenomenon did not appear in the previous years. While from May to January the column average CO2 was greater than surface CO2, exceeded ~2-6 ppm.

 

Plainly evident the highest values of CO2 occurred during biomass burning in the late dry season and over Industrial and congested urban zones. The local CO2 maximum in the north Peninsular Malaysia occurs in a region that experienced the effect of extensive Indonesia forest fire in 2005. A greater draw down of CO2 occurs in the pristine marine environment over northeast coasts of Sumatra during 2005.

This paper has provided evidence for the impact of remote biomass burning and forest fire on Carbon Dioxide pollution levels above study area and enhanced our knowledge on AIRS detection of CO2 emission from forest fire, the accuracy of remotely sensed tropospheric CO2 columns and abundances from AIRS.

"Examining satellite measurements, the results showed that the enhanced CO2 emission correlates with occasions of less rainfall during dry season."

Surprise!

 

"Plainly evident the highest values of CO2 occurred during biomass burning in the late dry season and over Industrial and congested urban zones."

Pyrolysis!

 

~ ;)

[TheBigDog]

Experiments are moot. All we need to do is continue observing. In another 30 years we will have a better answer. The longer we observe the better we can tune our atmospheric models to our current unprecedented CO2 levels. As each year passes we adjust the parameters and the algorithms to more accurately take old data and match the most recent years. I don't see another way. In the mean time we can be prudent without being fanatical. We can do things to reduce CO2 emissions, and to adapt to a warming climate, and to prepare for possible continued change.

 

Bill

[BrianG]

Experiments are moot? In religion experiments are moot, this isn't an issue of prudence, it's an issue of science. Experiments are central to science, we don't take medicine that hasn't been experimentally tested, businesses don't try expensive policies without tests, they call it due diligence. How can experimental tests be dismissed in climate science?

 

The ABA single subject test, releasing carbon dioxide, measuring, capturing carbon dioxide and measuring, will tell us if there are regional and global changes and how much time it takes for change caused by CO₂ emissions.

[freeztar]

How can experimental tests be dismissed in climate science?

 

Why do you write that experimental tests are dismissed in climate science?

 

Experiments are important in science, but it doesn't mean that science must have experiments in order to be called science. Experiments make science fun, but they can not be done without the backbone data. Cataloging is the "man behind the curtain" when it comes to science. :Alien:

The ABA single subject test, releasing carbon dioxide, measuring, capturing carbon dioxide and measuring, will tell us if there are regional and global changes and how much time it takes for change caused by CO[sub[2[/sub] emissions.

 

I don't think this will suffice. You yourself brought up the importance of feedbacks. How would this experimental data be extrapolated to the real world, where there are a lot more variables? How would such an experiment tell us about regional changes? What will this tell us about atmospheric chemistry in the presence of solar radiation? More to the point, why do we need such an experiment? What is wrong with the current one (the atmosphere now)? :)

[Zythryn]

Brian, in any experiment you want to have as much control over variables (other than the one being tested) as possible.

By running an experimenet by simply producing a bunch of CO2 into the atmosphere, you run into the problem of correcting for other variables.

For example, lets say we run your experiment and in a short time we find the average temperature of the earth increases 7C!

Wow, holy cow! But wait, we also had other increases in CO2 during that time, and for whatever reason, the ocean stopped absorbing ANY CO2, and methane in the atmospher increased 30%, and there was a solar flare that fried half the earth, etc etc.

Now, while the last 'occurance' was rather fanciful, there are many many others that affect temperatures.

So your experiment is most likely not going to be helpful as you have to many unknowns without ANY method of correcting for them.

Experiments are good, and more research is needed. I have stated why I don't think YOUR PARTICULAR experiment is useful. I have not stated I don't want to see any experiments. Just experiments we can glean some information from.

[TheBigDog]

Experiments are moot? In religion experiments are moot, this isn't an issue of prudence, it's an issue of science. Experiments are central to science, we don't take medicine that hasn't been experimentally tested, businesses don't try expensive policies without tests, they call it due diligence. How can experimental tests be dismissed in climate science?

 

The ABA single subject test, releasing carbon dioxide, measuring, capturing carbon dioxide and measuring, will tell us if there are regional and global changes and how much time it takes for change caused by CO[sub[2[/sub] emissions.

The dynamic forces of climate change are far too complex for a single variable test on CO2 to tell us how it will ultimately contribute to the mix. The only reasonable solution is to continue to observe and improve our modeling and to take prudent steps to conserve our resources and reduce pollution (this makes sense under any circumstance). As we learn more we take actions based upon those lessons.

 

Before you tell me that CO2 is not pollution... CO2 is not pollution, it is a critical component of the life cycle through respiration and photosynthesis. But it is normally kept in a balance by those forces. It has fallen out of balance, which is why I am a proponent of planting trees to get back into balance with our output. I confident in the fact that further observations will educate us to its actual level of contribution. I do not believe a single variable test will prove that conclusively one way or another because of the complexity of the climate as a whole.

 

Bill

[BrianG]

I'd like to deal with two themes expressed in this thread, freeztar says we are doing an experiment now, by using fossil fuel, our use of fossil fuel is in no way an experiment. We've increased the speed and volume of traffic, perhaps the air resistance on moving vehicles has as much effect, as CO₂ on climate. Maybe the shape, height and quantity of buildings is causing the climate trends we interpret as global warming. An experiment is a special scientific test, and when we use fossil fuel, we're just living, not experimenting.

 

Models have to be tested, if they are to be of any use. Climate models only "work" by coincidence. A computer model of an airplane wing is ultimately tested in flight, a climate model is only tested by the chance next years climate matches some description of the model. This has the same problem as freeztar's "life experiment".

 

An experiment on a single subject involves random changes to a single variable, repeated over time. Absorbing and releasing a greenhouse gas repeatedly, until some climate signal can be correlated with the test variable. We would look for the smallest measurable change, it's possible our experiment would create a larger change, but that's not the goal. The goal is to create an experiment that can be repeated to observe climate change from greenhouse gas. Coincidence won't achieve this, science can. If it isn't possible to detect a measurable climate change from absorbing and emitting greenhouse gas in an experimental test, the only conclusion I can draw is the effect is too small for detection.

 

Bill believes in a "carbon balance" that needs to be "put back in balance". It has to do with an ideal Rousseauian state of nature, not science. This is a model of the complex interaction between billions of billions of processes that either absorb or emit CO₂, and compress the result to a scale that is either in or out of balance. I contend that this balance model is oversimplified, the amount of carbon dioxide in the air is constantly changing, there is no balance. It's not even as useful as the Bohr atomic model, can anyone name a practical application for the carbon dioxide balance model?

 

Further, If nature has a carbon balance, perhaps it's man. Man uses carbon that's been locked away under the Earth, and frees it into the light of the sun. If you want to believe in a metaphysical carbon balance, then it's as easy to say man is fixing the balance as tipping the balance.

[Zythryn]

Brian, again, how do you propose to eliminate variables OTHER than CO2 if your 'test' takes place in the ecosphere in general?

In a single variable test, you need to control or know the impact of other variables if not outright eliminate them.

In a lab, you can reduce or even eleiminate many variables, how do you propose to do that in your experiment?

[TheBigDog]

Bill believes in a "carbon balance" that needs to be "put back in balance". It has to do with an ideal Rousseauian state of nature, not science. This is a model of the complex interaction between billions of billions of processes that either absorb or emit CO2, and compress the result to a scale that is either in or out of balance. I contend that this balance model is oversimplified, the amount of carbon dioxide in the air is constantly changing, there is no balance. It's not even as useful as the Bohr atomic model, can anyone name a practical application for the carbon dioxide balance model?

What an interesting interpretation. There is no denying the volume of CO2 emitted by fossil fuels. Planting enough trees to counter that simply stops the excuses and lets people think they are helping. That's all there is to it.

[CraigD]

We've increased the speed and volume of traffic, perhaps the air resistance on moving vehicles has as much effect, as CO₂ on climate. Maybe the shape, height and quantity of buildings is causing the climate trends we interpret as global warming.

To answer these questions, you need

 

a) to present a quantified model – some collection of number with units, even highly approximate, and at least simplistic mechanical models relating them –

 

B) to provide links or citations to descriptions of such work by others

 

that suggest that “air resistance on moving vehicles” or “the shape, height and quantity of buildings” has an appreciable effect on climate,

 

or

 

c) in good faith, ask others for help doing (a) or (:).

 

If you’re not doing one of these, you’re

 

d) making unsupported claims in the form of questions.

 

In asking these two questions, Brian, are you doing © or (d)?

[Boerseun]

This discussion is a bit silly. An experiment as Brian propose is simply impossible, due to scale. Because of that, we are limited to observation, as Bill said. But not necessarily observation of the 30-year kind.

 

1) Observations of Venus shows a runaway greenhouse effect on a planetary scale. Observations of Mars shows a too small greenhouse effect to make the planet habitable. In both cases their distance from the sun has an impact, but they are both in the Goldilocks zone where liquid water should be possible - prevented only by their atmospheric composition.

 

2) On a much smaller scale, you can take your test equipment to any large city of your choice and directly measure the urban heat island. Compare this to a similar measurement in a rural town, where you make sure you get the heat effect from tarmac, concrete and buildings - the only variable being the atmospheric composition.

 

Brian, I don't care how many doctors smoke Camel, cigarettes do cause cancer.

[BrianG]

Brian, again, how do you propose to eliminate variables OTHER than CO2 if your 'test' takes place in the ecosphere in general?

In a single variable test, you need to control or know the impact of other variables if not outright eliminate them.

In a lab, you can reduce or even eleiminate many variables, how do you propose to do that in your experiment?

 

Repeated random trials of releasing GHG and capturing GHG, looking for the smallest measurable temperature change..