How Many Can State the Relationship Between CO2 and?

Question

HEAT????

How many can name two technologies based on that type of relationship???

We seem to have made a little headway on this point, but clearly we aren't there yet.

Answer 1

Among others, Heinz Hug has produced some research which attempted to gauge the effect of doubling the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere using a column of gas with the same water vapour and CO2 as would be present in a column of gas with the same area, but streching from the ground to the sky and another test with double the amount of CO2.  

It's quite well understood that doubling the CO2 in this kind of experiment makes almost no difference to the infrared transmission, and Heinz Hug concluded from this that doubling the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere will not measurably effect the climate.

This made a lot of people very angry and they correctly pointed out that the real world is going to be different to his experiment.  But this applies to every experiment in the history of science.  A model is not the same as the real world and it's going to be a bit different.  Just because the real world is different to an experiment is not in itself reason to disregard the experiment.  

We can't take a look at how the IPCC calculated their estimates for radiative forcings of increased CO2 concentration because they never made their methods public, but instead implying that it would be too complicated for people to understand.  

Real climate have offered some discussion on the matter, a lot of which doesn't seem relevant to the discrepancy between Hug's calculations and the IPCC's calculations.  They assert that there is a layer of molecules in the upper atmosphere that makes the absorbtion happen without going into any details.  This sounds a bit illogical to me as satelite measurements have confirmed that virtually no 15micron IR radiation gets out of the Earths atmosphere, so there is presumably virtually no 15 micron radiation just below this magic layer.

Answer 2

i don't see how there would be any significant relationship your question is unclear to me, maybe there is something i am unaware of?

Answer 3

Quite a few can, actually. CO2 is an effective absorber in the 7-14 µm range, and the planet's radiative band peaks around 10.6 µm. So CO2 necessarily acts as a greenhouse gas. Unless you can find something wrong with radiative physics, it's pretty much settled science.

The mathematical relationship between an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature is logarithmic. That is, for each doubling of CO2, you'll get a smaller and smaller increase in temperature. In reality of course, it isn't as simple as that, since you have to factor in feedback mechanisms. Currently climate sensitivity estimates are around 2.5K for a doubling from about 300 ppm to 600ppm.