The problem with your 'experiment' is that a bottle is not an accurate model of the earth's atmosphere. You are comparing apples and oranges. It is not as simple as you are making it out to be. The bottle with gas heats because there is more room for the gas molecules to move around, which they do. The heating is caused by the excitation of the gas. Water is a very unique entity and there reallly is not much room for the molecules to move around. You also have to look at the thermal retention properties of gaseous CO2 versus liquid water (again apples and oranges).
And presenting a single case in which higher atmospheric CO2 caused certain plants to have issues, does not make a cause in the general sense. Remove all CO2 from the atmosphere and see the effects is has on plant life.
In order for a theory to be proven, it MUST be able to pass the "scientific method" which has been used for centuries. It MUST because the scientific method does not allow biased opinion (either scientific or political). Global warming cannot be proven because there is no way to "pass" step 4: Repeatability in a controlled way that can be measured accurately and PROVEN. This is why true scientists do not accept the politically charged debate. Pretty much the same as the debate about Darwinism. Where is the proof of step #4? Where is the "missing link"? Even Darwin doubted his own theory after it was published.
I have not read all the comments, but wanted to add that water vapor, which makes up a lot more of the atmosphere than CO2 is actually a larger driver in what the global warming alarmists believe in. I took an IR course a while back while working for a major defense contractor and what we learned in this course is that both CO2 and water vapor are IR opaque. So they keep IR out as much as they keep it in. Indeed, if CO2 levels are rising one might expect to see a cooling effect as solar IR would be blocked by the atmosphere. So I guess the next move will be to regulate water vapor in the atmosphere.
In addition, this so-called carbon sequestering sounds a lot like fracking, that the global warming alarmists are dead set against. What is the difference between injecting high pressure CO2 into the ground or injecting the fracting solution? If fracking is bad, then carbon sequestering cannot be all that good either. You can't have it both ways.
Finally, I always thought that skepticism was good for science. Isn't healthy skepticism, a questioning of the established norms, what pushes science and knowledge forward?
If you place two clear drink bottles side by side, one containing air and one containing CO2 there is a temperature difference of a few degrees that can be measured if a thermocouple is placed inside. This is a simple experiment anyone can do that proves CO2 retains heat more than air.
Also since the 80's there have been incidences in Africa where some food crops have become toxic. The reasoning was that as CO2 levels rise plant grow with less effort and put the energy saved towards producing cyanide containing chemicals. This has since then been shown to be the case with crops grown in green houses where elevated CO2 levels were created. It's not all food crops, but Casava and I think from memory Tapioca was the other one were affected. A large number of people survive on these 2 foods.
It is interesting that even among engineers and scientist there are some topics that we seem incapable of approaching with objectivity. Even defining the problem seems to tangle people up in some dark maze of religious and cultural preconceptions that is far away from how we normally would approach a practical problem of technology. The depth of the bias on both sides is revealed in these comments by how much of the discussion focuses on whether the potential for a globe changing environmental process is man made or a product of natural consequences.
What is it about humans facing a possible existential challenge that apparently requires us to respond by first arguing over who should be blamed. If it happens will it be our fault, the fault of a blind evolutionary process or some arbitray act of God?
If we could trancend these irrelevant distractions the answers to whether or not climate change threatens our existence could be discovered through the application of the same tools that are presently allowing a dedicated group of humans to drive a very sophisticated golf cart around the surface of Mars.
I live in South Texas, an area that definately watches the weather through the summer months. For all the warnings about how "Global Warming" is going to create fiercer and fiercer weather, the hurricanes during this supposed period of fiercer storms we have actually seen less severe storms and less damage due to storms.
Previous to moving to South Texas I lived in Northern Indiana. My boss ther had a fruit farm. The peaches that produced so well over the last 30 years were not producing any more because the winters were growing colder and the trees were freezing.
The big natural disaters of the past few years have had nothing to do with climate. As far as I know, earthquakes an tsunamis are not a climate effect. While there were a couple hurricanes that hit the USA, statistically, we were do to have a huricane or two hit the gulf and east coast becasue they happen to be populated areas that are in huricane prone ares. No supprise there. We put lots of people where storms hit. Peopple have problems with storms...
I know these are only anecdotal evidence, but if we looked at the weather trends I think we would find that the climate is very cyclic, and our evidence of such has been collected over a very short period of time. 80 years ago we had a severe drought. Got the name "The Dust Bowl". larger ares suffered because of a lack of precipitation and high temperatures. We have been able to reduce some of that effect by different farming practices, but when there is no rain the crops don't grow.
There are a number of us who look at the idea of a "cansensus" among scientists as a completely bogus argument. Over the centuries "scientists" have had a consensus about many things that were proved to be wrong. Earth Centered solar system, sponrtaneous generation of flies from rotten meat... If we looked at scientific history we might well find enugh evidence that when scientists form a consensus they are going to be found to be wrong. Let's rather look at all the models with as much skepticism as possible. Do any of those who have created the models have an agenda? have they been good prognosticators in the past? Are tehy willing to accept critical analysis of their work and be critical of their own results? Or are they going to be involved in suppressing the ideas of those who dissagree? Or are tehy doing poor science and using political pressure to accomplish what their evidence does not support. Unfortunately "science" has prostituted itself to politics and other sources of funding and has become a tool for control rather than knowledge.
"The demonization of carbon has really distorted everything we do," Happer told us. "If we could back off and say, 'CO2 is probably good,' it would change the way we do things. We'd like to get back to an honest economic discussion not based on carbon footprints or assumptions about 'evil CO2.' "
I was left to shake my head in dismay when, during the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the Hon. Rep. Pelosi bemoaned the huge amount of carbon pollution being released into the ocean. Totally ignorant that every living thing on this planet is a "carbon-based life form." Carbon isn't evil, releasing certain carbon compounds loose in the environment is a bad idea and others may be a problem when we upset the balance of transpiration, respiration, etc.
Yes Rob, but not only are people taking advantage of the opportunities that exist to avoid personal responsibility, they are actively seeking new ways to blame someone else for their own lack of forethought, ,or perhaps lack their of any thought .....
Lantronix Inc. has expanded its line of controllers for sensor networks with the release of a rugged controller that improves management of automation systems used in a number of industries, including manufacturing, oil and gas, and chemicals.
Inspired by the hooks a parasitic worm uses to penetrate its host's intestines, the Karp Lab has invented a flexible adhesive patch covered with microneedles that adheres well to wet, soft tissues, but doesn't cause damage when removed.
A quick look into the merger of two powerhouse 3D printing OEMs and the new leader in rapid prototyping solutions, Stratasys. The industrial revolution is now led by 3D printing and engineers are given the opportunity to fully maximize their design capabilities, reduce their time-to-market and functionally test prototypes cheaper, faster and easier. Bruce Bradshaw, Director of Marketing in North America, will explore the large product offering and variety of materials that will help CAD designers articulate their product design with actual, physical prototypes. This broadcast will dive deep into technical information including application specific stories from real world customers and their experiences with 3D printing. 3D Printing is