What would your experiment be?

Question

If you wanted to prove or disprove Man made global warming (AGW), what would it be?

Please remember that the ONLY thing we are trying to prove/disprove is man's involvement in global warming, not whether the earth is naturally warming. This means that icebergs melting is not a way to prove man's involvement (unless there are icebergs which only melt in man made global warming).

You do not have to get detailed as to describe the actual experiment. Just a well thought out hypothesis would be good.

For example, mine would be "To prove man made global warming, I would show that temperature is driven by CO2 levels." Please no comments as to what the possible outcome of your xperiment may be, just the starting point.

Answer 1

you confuse me

Answer 2

I'd measure the various things that COULD drive climate for the past 100 years.  I'd measure them a whole lot, by various scientists all over the world.  Greenhouse gas levels, solar radiation, volcanoes, sulfate emissions, etc.  Then I'd see what combination of them would give the observed warming.

Oh gee, that's exactly what they did.

Here are two summaries of the mountain of peer reviewed data that convinced the vast majority of the scientific community, short and long.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Ima...

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report....

summarized at:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report...

Answer 3

Ask all the environmentalists to hope on to a spaceship and stay off of earth for a 100 years. Then with the population so reduced then we could see if it makes a difference in "global warming". If nothing changes at least those of us who feel GW is a scam would have some peace and quiet. And if by chance it proves that they were right, well they sacrificed to save the planet they worship, so that should make them happy.

Hey its a win win in my estimation!!!!

Answer 4

Well, the only real way to prove this would be to make an identical earth, without any men in it, subjected to the exact same conditions as ours is and measure its temperature.

Answer 5

Real experiments have been done on a small scale, but AGW believers claim that these are invalid because they are too small.  

To do a scientifically valid experiment, you need a subject and a control, so in my experiment, you build two or more identical sealed domes as large as the budget will allow and put plants and animals in each.  One of them will have significantly more CO2 than the other.  These domes will be located close so they experience the same ground conditions and solar radiation.  

If there is a detectable difference between the two it can be studied to develop a theory of how CO2 effects climate.  

A negative result would not counter the theory popular among some believers that the dominant effect is something that occurs in the upper atmosphere (whatever upper means in that context).  That assertion seems to be intentionally impossible to test experimentally.

Answer 6

I'd simply burn 300 billion metric tons of fossilized carbon over a 100 year period, and see if the level of atmospheric CO2 rises significantly.

Oh wait. We've already done that one.

Okay then, how about this one? I'd increase atmospheric CO2 significantly by adding a lot of anthropogenic CO2, and see if (a) surface temperatures get warmer; AND (b) stratospheric temperatures get cooler; AND (c) the diurnal temperature range gets smaller, as greenhouse gas theory says it must.

Dang, you mean that one's been done too?

I guess it's been proven then.

Answer 7

do you know global warming is already happening we will start to see the real effects by 2009 and 2014 between between and 2009 and 2014 there will be a massive rise in global temperatures large amounts of Co2 will send the mercury rising again

here's the website this is true

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jh...

Answer 8

I would take all politicians, environmentalists,  Hollywood experts, Bob and Dana and tape their mouths shut for 10 years.

This way we would know for sure if it was a real "Man made" issue and not just a bunch of hot air.

Answer 9

I would monitor the ocean temperatures around undersea vulcanoes and follow the currents to the Arctic and Antarctic to see how much heat they lost to melt the ice. Also monitor undersea earthquakes and vulcanic action to see if there is any co-relation with the El nino and Al nino effects.

Answer 10

Your experiment wouldn't really be an experiment, just a look at what happened in the past when people weren't adding any CO2.   Maybe something has changed when we add in our own bit?   I'd try to show that CO2 does or does not allow short wavelength light to travel through freely, while possibly keeping longer wavelength heat in.   If it kept heat from exiting freely, then any CO2 we add IS causing some warming.   If it does not keep heat from exiting freely then we are NOT causing warming because of our increasing CO2 output by burning fossil fuels.

Answer 11

I'm still thinking about it.......

I'll update my answer as soon as I can.......

Out of curiosity: have you ever been or acted as a mediator/facilitator? Because it's a very NEUTRAL question (without apparent favoritism to either group) that allows both sides to equally elaborate on the answer.... I like it