Timeline for Is there any experiment to prove that CO2 with the atmosphere concentration can have greenhouse effect?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
31 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 4, 2018 at 5:23 | history | protected | hichris123♦ | ||
| Sep 15, 2017 at 16:34 | answer | added | RWT | timeline score: -4 | |
| Mar 2, 2016 at 1:10 | comment | added | naught101 | @IsopycnalOscillation: I asked meta.earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/1531/… instead. Also, meta.earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/273/… already exists. | |
| Mar 1, 2016 at 6:22 | comment | added | Isopycnal Oscillation | @naught101 maybe put that in meta? sounds like a good idea. | |
| Feb 29, 2016 at 7:41 | comment | added | naught101 | It's really annoying that these questions always seem to be asked by deniers (e.g. people who are not actually interested in the answer, just interested in "proving the science is wrong" or what ever). It means that the whole page gets tied up in stupid arguments that are irrelevant to the question... It would be nice to have some canonical questions and answers on these topics that don't devolve into that mess.. | |
| Feb 28, 2016 at 7:10 | answer | added | Peter Carson | timeline score: -11 | |
| Feb 17, 2016 at 15:29 | answer | added | Dikran Marsupial | timeline score: 8 | |
| Feb 17, 2016 at 14:41 | comment | added | Dikran Marsupial | Given that you spent less than 12 minutes looking, I am not greatly surprised, it is set out on pages 19 and 20 of Ekholms paper. The wikipedia page for Gilbert Plass gives references to several of his papers, which would take more than 10 minutes to read. The mechanism is also explained in the realclimate link I gave earlier in the discussion. I'm surprised you managed to get through Principles of Planetary Climate in less than 12 minutes! I think your responses have demonstrated that you are not really interested in the answers to your questions. | |
| Feb 17, 2016 at 14:37 | comment | added | Charlie Jiang | @Dikran Did not find your theory from your references. | |
| Feb 17, 2016 at 14:26 | comment | added | Dikran Marsupial | @Charlie No, that is the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect that has been well understood at least as far back as Ekholm's paper of 1901 (dx.doi.org/doi:10.1002/qj.49702711702), and implemented as a model by Gilbert Plass in the 1950s and 60s (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_Plass). Perhaps you would make more progress if you first read some background material on planetary climate, there are several excellent text books on this, e.g. cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/… . | |
| Feb 17, 2016 at 14:08 | comment | added | Charlie Jiang | @Dikran Marsupial "The greenhouse effect depends on the height from which outbound IR is not absorbed by the greenhouse gasses above." So you changed the greenhouse effect theory. What is wrong with the old one? | |
| Feb 17, 2016 at 9:50 | comment | added | Dikran Marsupial | The greenhouse effect depends on the height from which outbound IR is not absorbed by the greenhouse gasses above. The more GHGs in the atmosphere, the higher the layer becomes, the colder it is (due to the lapse rate), the less IR escapes. This creates an energy imbalance, and so the planet warms (starting at the surface) until the radiating layer warms sufficiently to restore balance. The upper atmosphere is cold and so very dry, so there isn't as much absorption by water vapour above the radiating layer realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/… | |
| Feb 15, 2016 at 19:50 | comment | added | hichris123♦ | I've deleted a lot of comments here as they strayed far from the original question. Please remember that comments are not for extended discussion; if you'd like to continue the discussion, see the chat room that was created. | |
| Feb 15, 2016 at 19:40 | answer | added | bon | timeline score: 6 | |
| Feb 15, 2016 at 16:42 | comment | added | Charlie Jiang | Let us continue this discussion in chat. | |
| Feb 15, 2016 at 13:49 | answer | added | 410 gone | timeline score: 11 | |
| Feb 15, 2016 at 11:42 | history | edited | Charlie Jiang | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
changed title
|
| Feb 14, 2016 at 8:54 | comment | added | Semidiurnal Simon | Leave open. Yes, the asker misunderstands the issue, and yes, many of us are very bored of rebutting these things Again And Again And Again, but it's a reasonable question that isn't currently addressed on this site. | |
| Feb 14, 2016 at 8:02 | comment | added | Pont | @DavidHammen I know that for those of us who've seen this exact claim raised and rebutted 100 times in different places, there's a strong temptation to ignore it or close it, and move on to something more productive. But the question is answerable, and a good answer now means that the next time it's asked on this site (as it surely will be) it can quickly be closed as "duplicate" with a link back to here. | |
| Feb 14, 2016 at 7:54 | comment | added | Pont | @DavidHammen I think the question should stay open. It's a common misconception and deserves a solid answer on this site. To my mind, the main problem was that the phrasing was loaded: it baldly stated "CO2 will not have a measurable contribution", which is an (incorrect) answer rather than a question. I've edited the question to rephrase that bit. | |
| Feb 14, 2016 at 7:49 | history | edited | Pont | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Slight rewording to reduce "loadedness"; added tags.
|
| Feb 13, 2016 at 22:10 | review | Close votes | |||
| Feb 14, 2016 at 8:54 | |||||
| Feb 13, 2016 at 22:05 | comment | added | Gimelist | " On average, about 2 to 3% of the molecules in the air are water vapor molecules. In the air the water content is about 50 times higher than CO2. So CO2 content increase in the air will not have any measurable contribution to global warming. " This is a very simplistic way to look at things that misses the point, is misleading and simply wrong. | |
| Feb 13, 2016 at 21:55 | comment | added | David Hammen | I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because this question is nonsense. | |
| Feb 13, 2016 at 16:41 | answer | added | Pont | timeline score: 42 | |
| Feb 13, 2016 at 14:50 | comment | added | user967 | @SimonW Or using two terrariums with different levels of CO2. This doesn't seem like a hard thing to test, so I'm wondering why no one has done so. | |
| Feb 13, 2016 at 3:01 | answer | added | Wolfgang Bangerth | timeline score: 8 | |
| Feb 13, 2016 at 0:44 | history | edited | Fred | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Changed formatting of CO2
|
| Feb 12, 2016 at 20:34 | history | edited | Charlie Jiang | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
grammar
|
| Feb 12, 2016 at 20:04 | review | First posts | |||
| Feb 13, 2016 at 0:44 | |||||
| Feb 12, 2016 at 20:00 | history | asked | Charlie Jiang | CC BY-SA 3.0 |