Simulation of CO2 global warming under a greenhouse!

[Christophe]

Well I'm tired of reading bullshit (I think it is) in this genre, like what CO2 would not be a cause of warming: https://www.econologie.com/forums/post125238.html#125238

So it's been a while since I'm thinking about a simple experience that everyone could do: simulate global warming under a small greenhouse!

Necessary tools

- a "greenhouse" or a well-sealed container (a jar for example)
- a temperature probe (wireless if possible or entering the greenhouse)
- some wood or other carbon-based fuel
- matches or lighter
- the sun or other source of thermal radiation

The method would be pretty simple. It is to see the influence of the increase of CO2 when the greenhouse is subjected to a solar radiation (or other contribution of energy in the form of radiation)!

a) measure the internal T ° in the greenhouse during X day (or X hours)
b) the wood is burned internally to increase the CO2 content
c) the internal T ° is measured ...

We compare a) and c).

The only "delicate" trick will be to light the wood without opening the jar ...

Can we imagine injecting CO2 by another method by recovering it elsewhere?

What does it say to you?

[sspid14]

This bullshit also amazes me ... but hey.

For the experiment, it would take the same solar contributions and the same outside temperature so that the experiment is valid ... Taking into account that the heat of the fire will also increase the temperature. So you have to inject the CO2 at volume temperature.

[Christophe]

Oh good bullshit? I think it's rather interesting to the contrary ... if there is the expected result (+ CO2 = + T °) it will close the valve of all the negationists of CO2 = warming ... Frankly the experience n is not really complicated to do!

What worries me more is to simulate (and measure ??) a "low" concentration of CO2 ... because that risks rising very quickly!

But experience wants to prove what? That more CO2 = more T ° in the ground level of the greenhouse nothing more ...

On the other hand, if it does not rise by 1/10 ° C with let's say 50% of CO2 in the atmosphere of the greenhouse (something that I think is impossible but ...) it is because we are all in the process of make "pigeon" like gullible big idiots!

Nothing prevents the use of a radiator radiator for the experiment!
The measurement of the ambient T ° was planned ... sorry for having forgotten it ...

[nonoLeRobot]

I'm not sure it can work. If it is already under glass, the CO2 may not make much difference (greenhouse effect already provided by the glass). Moreover the quantity of C02 seems weak to me. Otherwise the CO2 would have to be brought to room temperature.

In fact if it works it's good but if it does not work it will not prove that it is not true.


Anyway we know the effect of CO2 and water vapor on the greenhouse since 1861! Wikipedia:

"Water vapor and carbon dioxide are identified as the main culprits of this greenhouse effect by John Tyndall in 1861"

There is no doubt about its potential effect apart from being bad times as are many. Only the proportions may vary a bit.

[Christophe]

Nono, I have absolutely no doubt that CO2 is a GHG, now I would like to see how much this can affect.

The experience will obviously be very rough: it will be very difficult to inject a small% CO2!

And the CO2 absorbing the radiation ... in the "2 senses", it is possible that too much CO2 will drop the T ° you think?

I want to try ... just for fun

[Did67]

The only "delicate" trick will be to light the wood without opening the jar ...

Can we imagine injecting CO2 by another method by recovering it elsewhere?

What does it say to you?

I suggest an "anti-American" method: shake a case of Coca-Cola bottles.

Belgian version (but which is a crime): shake a locker of Stella Artois ...

[Christophe]

Ah not stupid, it's under pressure but no I prefer to spoil coca beer (and pkoi not the Meteor huh?)! Do not make fun of it!!

Uh without laughing: how many grams of CO2 per L of coca do you think?

ps: I intend to experiment in a mini greenhouse or a jar, not a greenhouse on a human scale. I think I have not explained this point enough.

[Did67]

More seriously :

1) I think that the modifications are not as "sensitive" (uncertainties of thermometers compared to masses, thermal inertias, etc ...

2) in addition, the experiment takes place under the atmosphere (therefore under the "cover" that it represents for the earth); the terrestrial greenhouse effect we are talking about plays out against the empty ! There, you find yourself making a "sinkhole" which, in the absence of "cover" (greenhouse effect), immediately absorbs any calorie that passes through it!

And frankly, if someone hasn't noticed that on an overcast day it is hotter at night than on a clear day, who from then on cannot "extrapolate" that to an "invisible" gas (whereas clouds are visible), I don't know what will convince him! Nostradamus ???

[Christophe]

1) yes it is probable and I have an uncertainty on the fact that the radiation is absorbed (if too many CO2) ... in input and that it thus compensates largely the greenhouse effect ... thus + of CO2 = colder jar since the radiation would ... reflect!

2) Yes, but as I said: it's rude and ... for fun!

If it happens I will not get anything! But changing the atmosphere should still change something but in what sense: mystery!

[Christine]

a) measure the internal T ° in the greenhouse during X day (or X hours)
b) the wood is burned internally to increase the CO2 content
c) the internal T ° is measured ...

We compare a) and c).

Why not a control greenhouse with the same measurements at the same time? thus the conditions of T °, ​​radiation etc. would be the same. You would save time, the reading of the results would be faster and finer and you would have a good parade against the detractors.

PS: I'm not convinced that it works but it would be fun