The work on this is not new - a Swede called Arenheus (spelling) did the work around 1900. This from Wiki: Arrhenius developed a theory to explain the ice ages, and first speculated that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.[3] He was influenced by the work of others, including Joseph Fourier. Arrhenius used the infrared observations of the moon by Frank Washington Very and Samuel Pierpont Langley at the Allegheny Observatory in Pittsburgh to calculate the absorption of CO2 and water vapour. Using 'Stefan's law' (better known as the Stefan Boltzmann law), he formulated his greenhouse law. In its original form, Arrhenius' greenhouse law reads as follows: if the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression. This simplified expression is still used today: ΔF = α ln(C/C0) Don't mistake any of this with 'greenhouse science' - it's basic physics and chemistry and works at the bench in every experiment we do in stuff like how much heat comes out if we lob a sliver of magnesium in an acid etc. - stuff you will have done - and in stuff like creating Bose-Einstein Condensates in which to trap light as matter (Lene Hau). You should grok after a trip to Wiki. This question is at the level of trying to get 12 year olds into a chemical explanation of how rusting takes place, not at all easy as scientific understanding is as rare as rocking horse droppings.
On 21 Dec, 00:57, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > I'd start at New Scientist Chaz. > > On 20 Dec, 10:44, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I have searched in vain for any evidence that CO2 is a significant > > greenhouse gas. > > According to radiometric dating of Carbon isotopes it is thought the > > the amount of CO2 has increased from 0.028% - 0,038% in the last 100 > > years. > > Unless Carbon has some magical properties is seems unlikely that such > > tiny concentrations should cause any significant increase in > > temperature, even-though it is a greenhouse gas. > > Can any one help me find the scientific evidence? > > I don't want to the political answer, nor the circumstantial answer, > > nor any sceptic/denier/doubter information as I have heard it all. > > What I want is the basic physical science of carbon that suggests that > > a 0,01% increase can be held responsible for a proposed 1 degree > > increase in temperature. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
