freeztar Posted January 10, 2010 Report Posted January 10, 2010 Are you saying climate sensitivity to [ce]CO_2[/ce] isn't a direct measurement, it's a prediction? If you are unfamiliar with the scientific method, please study up and come back whenever you are ready. We have no direct experience of [ce]CO_2[/ce]'s greenhouse effect on atmospheric temperature? "direct experience"? I'm not sure what that means, exactly... We know that putting our hand in fire leads to skin burns. This is directly testable.We know that increasing carbon dioxide in the air leads to more heat build up. This is directly testable. I was watching myth busters the other day and they were trying to determine whether a ship could be pulled into a natural whirlpool and sunk. They started with a scale model of a ship and created conditions similar to the most extreme natural conditions. They found that there was no way for this to happen, not even close. But, of course, they tested at a larger scale. And guess what, same result. The ship did not sink. It did not even get close to sinking. They had to seriously ramp up the variables to get an effect (for TV). In subsequent shows that I've watched, their small scale models prove invaluable when testing at a larger scale. They always seem to have a similar effect, although the results might be different. In comparison, we know that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas. This is easily shown in high school aquarium experiments. The effect is still there when we look at the global Earth system. It might not be even close to the same result as a controlled lab experiment, but the effect is there. The biggest challenge right now is figuring out how much of an effect CO2 has, rather than does it have an effect. Can we make a large scale experiment? Sure!Will it help us more than potentially hurt us? Probably not. Here's the thing. We couldn't even get biosphere working properly. If we could, that might be a great place to run tests on climate. But, alas, we can't. Does that mean we shouldn't try to stop a potential climate juggernaut? No! We can use what evidence we do have, mostly collected without any unnecessary toil on humanity, without running "mitigation tests". Or, rather, why not see the current trend to mitigate CO2 as a type of test. Quote
BrianG Posted January 10, 2010 Author Report Posted January 10, 2010 ...We know that increasing carbon dioxide in the air leads to more heat build up. This is directly testable. ... How? That's all I'm asking for, a direct test of man made [ce]CO_2[/ce] and climate warming. Quote
Essay Posted January 10, 2010 Report Posted January 10, 2010 [quote name=: Originally Posted by freeztar]...We know that increasing carbon dioxide in the air leads to more heat build up. This is directly testable. ... How? That's all I'm asking for, a direct test of man made [ce]CO_2[/ce] and climate warming. Wasn't it my first post to you, BrianG, about the difference between "heat build up" & "climate warming" [heat & temperature]? Quote
BrianG Posted January 11, 2010 Author Report Posted January 11, 2010 Yes, http://hypography.com/forums/environmental-studies/21736-greenhouse-effect-experimental-designs.html#post287740 . Have you given any thought to Single-subject research? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.