# How do we know that C02 is a greenhouse gas? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 27, 2010, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-know-that-c02-is-a-greenhouse-gas/530602 "2010-02-27T03:01:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![blouis79](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f14d63/32.png) [@blouis79](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blouis79)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2011, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-know-that-c02-is-a-greenhouse-gas/530602/61 "2011-11-12T20:31:07Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > What do you think “heat” is, anyway? You just said that some of the energy ends up as heat, while some of it ends up as heat. Tyndall claimed energy was “absorbed”, but he did not measure absorption. He measured that some IR was not transmitted - some could result in heat (a rise in temperature), some would be scattered. The point is that nobody I can find has bothered to repeat the Tyndall experiments with modern instruments to clarify what happened. If one wants computer models, Spectralcalc uses radiative transfer data which is so trusted by climate scientists. This calculation results in a CO2 doubling temperature of 0.2 degrees C [http://climateclash.com/2011/01/31/g4-a-subscriber-paper-request-for-review/](http://climateclash.com/2011/01/31/g4-a-subscriber-paper-request-for-review/) Some people claim the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere is responsible for about 15 degrees of warming. If that is true, then the 3.4m of 100% co2 in sunlight should result in another 15 degrees. If the CO2 doubling temperature is 2 degreesC, then the 3.4m of 100% CO2 should result in another 2 degrees. It is amazing that the basic science is so lacking in this field. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2011, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-know-that-c02-is-a-greenhouse-gas/530602/62 "2011-11-12T23:34:57Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > 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! [Indeed.](http://www.amazon.com/FALLEN-ANGELS-Larry-Niven/dp/067172052X) ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2011, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-know-that-c02-is-a-greenhouse-gas/530602/63 "2011-11-13T01:18:00Z")
> [@blouis79](#): > > Tyndall claimed energy was “absorbed”, but he did not measure absorption. He measured that some IR was not transmitted - some could result in heat (a rise in temperature), some would be scattered. The point is that nobody I can find has bothered to repeat the Tyndall experiments with modern instruments to clarify what happened. Because the latest experiments in the atmosphere itself are the most up to date and more reliable and to the point. > [@blouis79](#): > > If one wants computer models, Spectralcalc uses radiative transfer data which is so trusted by climate scientists. This calculation results in a CO2 doubling temperature of 0.2 degrees C > [http://climateclash.com/2011/01/31/g4-a-subscriber-paper-request-for-review/](http://climateclash.com/2011/01/31/g4-a-subscriber-paper-request-for-review/) > > Some people claim the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere is responsible for about 15 degrees of warming. If that is true, then the 3.4m of 100% co2 in sunlight should result in another 15 degrees. If the CO2 doubling temperature is 2 degreesC, then the 3.4m of 100% CO2 should result in another 2 degrees. It is amazing that the basic science is so lacking in this field. The problem here is that the one claiming this is not trained as a climate scientist, as it has mentioned many times before, contrarians should publish his research in a climate journal and not pretend to claim to do science by publishing a blog. To begin with, the claim that basic science is lacking on this subject is enough to dismiss what you are trying to claim here. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-know-that-c02-is-a-greenhouse-gas/530602.md?page=3)