Chevron and Climate change

[Old Rocks]

And that imagination created the warmest decade on record for the past ten years?

 

[Trakar]

Wait.

You got a 5 degree temperature increase of .06% CO2? Was that a typo or are you really saying you got a 5 degree increase in temperature from a 600PPM increase in CO2?

Good catch, I wasn't looking at the correct column in my notes, the 4.82° F rise came from the 400ppm to 800ppm trials - the doubling series. The 400ppm to 600ppm series only averaged 2.78° F.

If that's true, that's amazing.

I've never seen any other experiment come anywhere near those results and neither has Old Rocks or any other Warmer that ever posted here or on any other board

What you've done is the equivalent of Cold Fusion

No, its simply repeating the basic experiments (with a touch of equipment updating) that Arrhenius, Tyndal, Revelle, Callendar, Fourier and the rest intially did more than a century ago.

I'm not saying that there isn't any potential error, nor that the results of this backyard setup should be looked at as any more rigorous in terms of fidelity than any other backyard setup. The results between adjusted samples and controls, however, were consistently higher than both base atmosphere control tubes (which consistently measured higher than the inert 1 bar dry Nitrogen benchmarking tubes). But what I did was not significantly different than what many HS and Undergrad students have been doing for most of the last half century or so.

 

[Trakar]

Did anyone do experiments, which simulate progressive increases, in CH4, with radiance increases?

If you don't want to post tables and tables of results, I'll understand that.

Certainly, that is where radiation transfer physics really grew into its own field of study when Fourier became involved with the Sun's transmission of energy to the Earth's surface back in the 1820s. From reading some of Fourier's early works Tyndal began a much more careful and individual study of the Earth's atmosphere and the gases of which it was composed and how they interacted (or didn't) with the visible and invisible radiations being given off by the Sun. By 1859 he had identified the major gases that seemed most reactive to solar radiations: Water vapor, CO2, CH4, N2O, O3.

Probably want to start with Tyndall here (Other Greenhouse Gases) and then I'll try to find some of the better early papers to link for you, once you are good with the basics I'll be happy to try and guide you to as complete a modern understanding as we can accomplish on a political discussion board.

 

[flacaltenn]

No, the series of experiments (If you are interested in accuracy, you never run an experiment one time), unsurprisingly, supported the basic physics principles and understandings upon which they are based. CO2 is a very well studied GHG with over a century of accumulated experimental and observation evidence supporting its basic characteristics. But please, don't take my word for it, perform the experiments yourself.

Are you being intentionally fuzzy?

How much CO2? What increase in temperature?

Science is "intentionally fuzzy," it is always conditional and qualified, if you want convictions and absolutes you need to find religon, the real world is always relative.

The science doesn't indicate 5-7° per 200ppm for CO2 alone, in fact the science says that we will have a range of temp changes for each additional increment depending upon how much CO2 is in the air. Climate science says that short term climate sensitivity indicates that each doubling of atmospheric CO2 leads to about 3.5° C of temperature doubling in the short term and around 5-6° C after long-term equilibration of the Earth's climate. Short term expresses in several decades, long term expresses in a century or two. Both of these expressions include the variables you wanted excluded from the lab experiment and only focus on direct and immediate CO2 impact which looks, from my experiments to be about 2.68° C when we add half again as much CO2 to an dry atmosphere containing 400ppm of CO2.

What you've stated here contradicts the CO2 forcing function which is based on nat. Log -- not linear. Each successive doubling in concentration has LESS of an effect than the previous. In fact, because absorption is in very narrow bands that HIGHLY overlap water vapor, there's very little confidence that we'd ever see the amounts you're quoting UNLESS the Earth's Albedo and associated "heating constants" are much higher than most surveys have surmised.

I'm almost certain that UNLESS you have a light source closely approximately the sun, and an environmental heat absorption approximately the surface -- that you will not get accurate results in the lab with simple ass experiments.

 

[bobgnote]

Approximating the complex, rotating surface and atmospheric variations of the Earth and Earth's relationship to the variably intense, variably distant Sun would seem a daunting task, for anything but computer simulations.

Simulating revolution and revolving-related phenomena of complex but known bodies needs to be done, by some really smart people, somewhere.

 

[Trakar]

Approximating the complex, rotating surface and atmospheric variations of the Earth and Earth's relationship to the variably intense, variably distant Sun would seem a daunting task, for anything but computer simulations.

Simulating revolution and revolving-related phenomena of complex but known bodies needs to be done, by some really smart people, somewhere.

Of course it depends upon the degree of accuracy required, but such has been well approximated for the last 20-40 years.