Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
Looking for a link for Global warming?
Can anyone please give me a link that has one of the following.
1. Experimental proof to show through repeatable experiment how CO2 causes climate change.
2. Calculation to show how CO2 effect world climate and how it could be applied to its concentration?
3. IPCC climate model online and its source code?
Guy please DON'T give me link to some website that talks about
1. Effects of global warming
2. That CO2 causes global warming (I already know that)
3. Site asking for Money to give me data.
4. IPCC.org (which has none of the above information)
Please awaiting your answers
Bubba, in fact thats the whole point, temperature change between pure CO2 beaker and pure O2 beaker doesn't change. (This was the first thing I did when I started doubting CO2 being green house gas), in fact low concentration of CO2 from "dry & filtered" cigarette smoke actually has lower temperatures.
Thanks for the link though which has no reasult, but I'm sorry to say its not proof when it doesn't work.
Now you're telling me that someone says up in the hierarchy that there is God called "Ra" and this God is head of all the Gods and he has power to bring end to this world but I don't know about this God and you are not going to give me any proof of this God, yet I'm suppose to believe? Funny, I never thought science worked this way.
Mr. Newton was an idiot to publish his theory and mathematical equations, he should've just said so and yes we'd have believed him anyways cause we're idiots to believe without proof.
Dawei... Mate, I gave my clear requirement, I don't want data, I never requested for data, data can be created, destroyed, changed, manipulated, hacked, corrupted and misrepresented.
I can write you a simulation program right now and show you that world is going into ice age, would you believe me if I do so? You'll ask me for proof and ask me to show you my source code, if you check it and find mistakes in them you'll call me a fool, yet you don't question IPCC on their models.
If you believe word of mouth that is your problem, I'm not ready to accept something people "say", I want proof.
As for your youtube it doesn't exist at least thats what youtube is saying right now.
I work for a technology company and can easily arrange for thermal camera to test it.
Dear Paul,
As I see my question is answered by 4 people who support global warming and none gave any real answer.
But if it was about how global warming effect us everyone would jump in and answer, where are all these people?
Whatever you say as part of your first answer I agree with you, but can you please edit your answer and give me the link where this is done and they have given unbiased answer? Please post the link for it, my question is about link.
Yes I looked at their report and in the additional information of this question I said, data is useless unless I see the source code of how this data is generated? Is it like a nuclear bomb secret? If its so accurate that world population have to change their "way of life" then it should be made public, why is it hidden in secret location with IPCC, make the source code public please.
If I ask you to go to church its something else but if I force you then it does matter that I bring proof of God.
Keith,
This 0.7 Deg Increase in temperature unique to our time? If no then is levels of CO2 in the atmosphere unique to our time? If no then who was running factories 65 Million year ago?
2. "Converting forcing, in W m^-2, into a climate effect is tricky because the climate is vastly complex" <- Your statement we couldn't predict that well into hurricane season and there isn't even a simple tropical depression, we can't even do that with the data we have and you're saying that we are able to tell that we'll have increase of 6 Deg C by 2050? How?
3. For first part of your answer, you should think about it what you're saying, 100 different models and none match? In particle physics if you get 100 different answers from a simulation and none match its called "garbage". For second part of the 3rd point I'll give you thumps up but I'm still trying to download the source code because when I go to download linux OS they ask me less questions than these guys and I dont need to get approval.
6 Answers
- Keith PLv 71 decade agoFavorite Answer
1. There is no such thing as "experimental proof" of anything, including the heliocentric theory of the solar system. If you're looking for an experiment that involves changing the global climate, the one we're running right now on our own planet will have to do. So far, we've dumped 2 gigatonnes of CO2 into the air, and the Earth's surface has warmed about 0.7° C.
If you're looking for experimental evidence of the smaller mechanisms that are part of the big climate machine, hundreds are available. Just tell me which part you're skeptical of. Do you disbelieve that CO2 is transparent to visible light? Do you dispute that CO2 absorbs in the infrared? Do you doubt that CO2 gets warmer when it absorbs energy? Do you question whether Earth radiates energy in the infrared? Do you understand black body radiation and Planck's Law? Give me a hint, and I'll show you the science.
2. Simplified expressions for determining the amount of forcing from CO2 and other long-lived greenhouse gases, in Watts per square meter, can be found here:
http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?s...
Converting forcing, in W m^-2, into a climate effect is tricky because the climate is vastly complex. Current best evidence indicates that the climate sensitivity is about 0.5 K W^-1 m^-2, but that number is based on past experience and is therefore uncertain when talking about future effects. We don't yet know where all the feedbacks in the climate system are, and what their magnitudes are. Thawing permafrost? Never seen it before, don't know how much excess CO2 it will release. Warming oceans releasing more CO2? Ditto. Peat bogs? Ditto.
3. The IPCC does not use any single model for climate change. They look at the peer-reviewed results from all models. Most groups don't publish their source code because the models are constantly being tweaked and improved. However, some do, such as CCSM. Here's a link to their model, but be warned: you will need a lot of c header files and standard scientific c packages to compile this on your machine. (And I hope you're running Linux.) The full model is composed of 9 submodels, 2 for land, 2 for ocean, 2 for ice, and 3 for atmosphere. And then, of course, you have to couple everything together.
- bubbaLv 61 decade ago
1). Here is a middle school experiment from the AGU to show CO2 is a green house gas.
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/2702414/Introduction-t...
2 & 3). This isn't as easy as a goggle search. You have to run a General Circulation (Climate) Model (GCM) for 2. The models take a supercomputer because simulations equations solve the atmospheric physics for every location on earth (divided in cells) for every layer of the atmosphere at once for each time step for the time horizon under consideration (for example it simulates hourly values for a 100 year simulation period for every 0.5degree by 0.5 degree cell on earth for 10 layers of the atmosphere). A PC aint going to do it.
I don't know how to gain access to the source code. Geophysics Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (NASA & NOAA lab) has information and some studies you can look at. You can ask them about publications that review their source code, model validation and such. Maybe they will provide source code if ask (or the governing equations, assumptions and initial values). The will probably be required t release information you want under the Freedom of Information Act since they are sponsored by tax payer money. I would not be able to follow it, but you might, or know people who can. They can help the most. They do have some output and other models that may be useful.
Source(s): GreenieMax, I think you probably did the experiment wrong. It is reproduced in junior highs throughout the country (my wife's class for example). Worked fine for them. Scientist since the 1800s have found it is true and this is now accepted as fact. Post your methods and findings so we can see them. Maybe we can figure out what you did wrong. Smoking cigarettes and blowing it into a jar and saying all the effect you see is from CO2 is NOT a valid way of doing this experiment. Use dry ice and give it a couple of days to reached equilibrium temperature or use a CO2 cartridge. There are to many contaminants in cigarette smoke to figure anything out. Or do you object to doing something that may give you an answer you don't want???? If you are unwilling to get into the equations and want them to "magically" understand them, you are out of luck. Knowledge takes a little effort - which you are obviously unwilling to give. It requires education and understanding, which you are obviously unwilling to obtain. And you are obviously unwilling to trust anyone who has put in the effort and time to understand the problem. This totally invalidates your claim to be a "skeptic. " You are a denier - you will never be convinced not matter how sound the science or clear the evidence- just like flat-earthers, creationist, moon-landing conspiracy theorist. You are irrelevant! - Anonymous5 years ago
It is Nature who creates international warming and every now and then Global cooling. Earthquakes, Tsunamies, Geysers, Volcanoes are all having a excellent have an effect on at the Climate. We little creatures don't have anything to do with it. These alterations took situation lengthy earlier than we ever had been in this Earth.
- DavidLv 71 decade ago
What do you mean by "Experimental proof to show through repeatable experiment how CO2 causes climate change." ? It sounds like you're asking if anyone has an experimental planet Earth lying around that they use only for testing the greenhouse effect.
To prove that CO2 is a greenhouse gas capable of absorbing infrared radiation, you need an infrared camera. Here is a simple experiment that you can do:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo
Besides that, satellites have shown that the radiation flux is out of balance--i.e., more radiation is coming in from the sun than is going out, which causes the planet to warm.
Source(s): edit: the video still works fine for me, maybe you just tried it at the wrong time. But go ahead and test it for yourself. By the way, you say you don't want data, you don't want simulations, you don't want observations. What on earth is left? You want to prove it like a geometry theorem? Because I have the feeling you can't use the 'Side-Angle-Side' postulate to prove AGW. - How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Sorry but I have been requesting similar information for more than 10 years now and none has ever been produced. Forced to do my own experiments for reliable information I discovered that co2 does not act as a green house gas unless its humidity (water vapor level) is close to saturation. Also discovered was that adding co2 to water increases its pH level instead of decreasing it as claimed. So catching them in 2 scientific lies I no longer believe one word they say.
- BBLv 71 decade ago
Good questions!
Please let us know when you find the information that you are seeking.
