Everyone knows that carbon dioxide absorbs infra red radiation and warms our planet. But how do we know? Has anyone ever done an experiment that shows CO2 absorbing infra red?
Yes. You do realize that several billion dollars have been spent through the years in the study of planetary atmospheres, along with just basic studies of physics and chemistry? :dubious: We didn’t just skip over the one test that could be done in a laboratory environment.
Infrared
Major absorption bands: 2350 and 667 cm−1 (4.25 and 14.99 um)
ETA: You can also try to find serious studies that show that CO2 does not influence the temperature/climate. Good luck - really, nobody is denying it, and it’s an extremely simple experiment.
And anybody that has ever taken an IR of an organic compounds sees those nuisance peaks for themselves. That’s a pathlength of less than a meter, so imagine how much is being absorbed over several miles from the surface to space.
Since symmetry rules tend to prohibit other absorptions in that region, getting the actual measurement of what is being absorbed by CO2 is pretty easy.
You’re just a little bit behind the curve on this one. The fact that CO2 absorbs infrared was determined by John Tyndall in experiments conducted in 1859. The fact that atmospheric gases might trap heat and cause a “greenhouse effect” was theorized by Joseph Fourier in the 1820s.
Don’t listen to them! They’re all liars, under the pay of Big Nitrogen! There’s never been a study of CO2. There never will be. You know why? It doesn’t exist! The glaciers are just hiding waiting to pounce! You’ll see. You’ll all be sorry when you’re sitting under a mile of ice in your skivvies!
On one of the science channels there was a woman who demonstrated the heat-retaining properties of CO[sub]2[/sub]. She had two bell jars; one filled with air, and the other with CO[sub]2[/sub]. Each had a thermometer. She set them in the sun, and the thermometer in the jar of CO[sub]2[/sub] displayed a higher temperature than the one in the jar filled with air.
I try to keep my opening posts short, but sometimes I leave out some important details. I guess I was looking for an experiment that visually demonstrated CO2’s heat trapping ability, (a demonstration that the average person could understand). I was thinking that if there was a demonstration that showed people that C02 traps heat they could get a better understanding of the problem. I really don’t understand how C02 absorbs heat but I guess its like a microwave oven. Only instead of microwaves making water molecules flip around IR is making C02 dance around. I should have worded my OP as, “Is there any demonstration that shows C02’s ability to cause global warming, that an average person could understand?”
The fact that questions like this even get asked should tell the IPCC exactly where it needs to direct it’s message. If people can’t even see this simple fact, it’s no wonder that so many people are willing to think climate change isn’t happening.
Actually, CO2 (and man-made CO2 in particular) isn’t even the most putatively potent greenhouse gas, and certainly not the only–or even main–ingredient in the earth’s temperature homeostasis.
One of the areas of controversy is how linear the effect of CO2 is over the predicted doubling of CO2 concentration through 2100 or so. Climate sensitivity to CO2 forcing is predicted with mathematical modeling. These models (thousands of lines of code attempting to take into account all known variables), by nature, make certain assumptions including best-guess parameters plugged into the models. Right now the general range of expected average temperature gain is somewhere from 1 to 6 degrees C, depending on the model and the parameters.
However if it turns out that the relationship between elevated temperatures and CO2 rise is not very linear, all of those models will have overstated the actual change we see. An example of an unknown feedback loop variable is water vapor/clouds. What will the effect of that feedback loop be? Will elevated temperatures increase the amount of clouds and water vapor? Will that effect further raise the temperature, or lower it?
See here for an opinion that the climate science around CO2 and its feedback loops is not settled.
Of course, but as a teacher I get into the habit of repeating the lessons, remember, those posts are not only for the ones that ignore what most of the research are telling us. Many have to learn even the basics.
One thing is a fact: the best evidence and research conclusions have not changed, regardless of all the “gates” and scandals put forward.
For a good introduction regarding this subject it is recommended that all check the Climate Denial Crock of the Week short videos:
That video does show that from 1953 scientists got the essentials of how CO2 warmed the atmosphere and the Water Vapor feedback with CO2.
Actually, as I understand it the most potent greenhouse gas is that old standby, dihydrogen monoxide. Fortunately, nature has means to precipitate out an excess of DHMO – people in the North have been shoveling it all winter, and the liquid state precipitating out is familiar to most people. Carbon dioxide, on the other hand, has a much longer stabilization cycle, involving photosynthesis, particularly by trees, and carbonate deposits in shallow seas, wherea rapid buildup cannot be quickly corrected for, only over decades or longer. That’s why it’s of so much concern.
Among the psychologies associated with Great Causes is the willingness to accept opinion which resonates with one’s core position and reject as incompetent and silly those which do not.
Of your cites, none is a published paper; they are all essays. From yourthird cite I might also recommend this essay’s concluding comments for digestion:
"Thus we have two geological examples and two satellite data studies pointing towards a lesser role of CO2 in global warming. This argument does not discount the reality of global warming during the past century or the potential consequences should it continue at the same rate, but it does suggest we need a broader framework in considering our response. The Copenhagen summit exposed intense political differences in proposals to manage global warming. Scientists are also not unanimous in claiming to understand the complex processes driving climate change and, more important, scientific studies do not unambiguously point to a single solution. "
In any case, and to maintain this as much GQ (Gentlemanly Questions) as possible, there is no real debate that among the properties of atmospheric CO2 is a greenhouse effect.
One of my pet peeves is that nobody knows how to ask a proper question, and this particular example is one for the ages. Why do you even think that OPs should be short? You wasted your time and all of ours by leaving out one whole sentence. But that lack turned your question from something meaningful into nonsense. Who did that help?
In general, don’t expect us to read your mind. Give us all the details. The better your frame your question, the better we can frame our answers.
I’m biased towards science as demonstrated by my acceptance of Nuclear power and nanotechnology, Stop your insults.
Made by climate researchers, but do not let that fact get in the way of an opinion piece from the WSJ.
As for your comment for digestion:
I guess the evidence by researchers that were basically ignored 50 years ago overwhelmed the “big cause” that the scientists had back then: that we should not worry about CO2 levels in the atmosphere. History has demonstrated that the change of position among scientists on this subject did not come by faith.
