编辑-地球科学江南体育网页版堆栈交换江南电子竞技平台

你不是登录。你的编辑将被放置在一个队列,直到同行评议。

我们欢迎编辑,使读者更容易理解和更有价值。因为社区成员审查编辑,请尽量使文章更好比你怎么发现,例如,通过修正语法或添加额外的资源和超链接。

牧师

实验测试伪造的温室气体效应理论(复制)

无论如何接受任何科学理论恰好是通常值得思考可能的实验来测试理论和可能伪造它说。如果我们想做这个温室气体效应理论的哪些方面是值得考虑在设计这样的一个实验?我们会限制自己的辐射热量反应二氧化碳或者他们的更广泛的问题是我们需要纳入实验吗?

这个问题不是一个复制与温室气体的普遍性和专门问我们应该限制二氧化碳的辐射响应。因此一个可能的大道回答是考虑水蒸气和甲烷等更广泛的问题答案是显然的范围之外的二氧化碳被假定为复制的具体问题。

回答

为了澄清这一点。* * * *研究获取知识的目的。许多领域的科学研究领域。几乎所有的美国宇航局研究。NASA可能偶尔进行实验,但98% - -99%的他们做的是获取知识的特定目标,研究太阳系和宇宙。研究的重要性不可低估。许多领域的科学研究而不是尝试。天文学。地质学是另一个。一些生物学和生态学领域并不适合实验测试,但仍在研究。 An [**Experiment**][1], under proper control has enough test subjects to overcome any numerical coincidence in the outcome, and a set of fixed criteria with one specific thing changed. We can't run true experiments on climate change in the classical experiment sense because we have only one Earth. We'd need at least two identical Earths to run a proper experiment, and ideally, many more than two. That's obviously impossible. A **Research Study** can be an experiment or incorporate one or more experiments, but it also, often isn't an experiment. While an experiment is generally quite specific, a research study can be more broad. What your question seems to be asking is about research studies, not experiments. A good research study leaves an equal chance of either a "yes" and a "no" outcome. Bias research is possible, so lets get that out of the way. Unbiased research leaves the outcome entirely and fairly up to the results of the study. Now, a scientist can still have one outcome in mind. He can even intend to prove something, but that intention doesn't guarantee bias, so long as the study is well outlined and fair. Climate change has been subject to numerous research studies. I'll list a few. My list below is far from complete. - Measure heat in/heat out from space is a basic one. Satalites measure the heat coming off the earth and the heat coming from the sun. Changes in heat in/heat out are compared to temperature changes on Earth. This is a very basic study that could go either way. It supported greenhouse gas driven climate change. - Temperature change day vs night. If it's the grenhouse gas, then nights should warm faster than days. This was studied and nights did warm faster than days. Another study that supported the greenhouse gas theory. - The [cosmic ray/cloud formation][2] theory. That cosmic rays could indirectly heat the earth by cloud formation sounded nuts, but it's actually as good a theory as any and it was studied, [at CERN no less][3]. This study had some merit, but it's insufficient to explain the current warming. - [Urban Heat Island][4]. In what I consider a hilarious bit of failure, the Koch brothers' funded [Berkeley Earth Study][5] was designed specifically to avoid any Urban Heat Island warming and disprove climate change. As I said above, agenda driven research is fine, so long as the research fairly allows the undesired outcome. Well, that's exactly what their study gave them. Their research, designed specifically to debunk man made climate change theory produced results that the Earth is warming even faster than NASA's and the IPCC's results. - Studying heat at different altitudes. Again, if it's the greenhouse gas, more warming should occur lower in the atmosphere, less as you gain altitude. This is exactly what the study found. The high altitude temperature readings from UAH and RSS actually support, they don't dispute greenhouse gas driven climate change. Any one of these research studies could have made a case for or against. Every one of them, and every research study I've ever read about has supported the man made climate change theory. Climate change has so much attention, that lots of research has been done. This isn't a case of one study that everyone agrees with, without proper cross-checking. It's been tested a dozen different ways a dozen different times and gone over by thousands of scientists and skeptics. Many studies have been done with the intent to disprove it too. There's a lot of special interest money out there to oppose the theory and they've failed to provide a single good research study that backs up their alternative theory claim. There's not one study that produced results against the prevailing theory and many studies in favor. That's science, not bias. [1]: http://www.differencebetween.net/language/words-language/difference-between-study-and-experiment/ [2]: http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110824/full/news.2011.504.html [3]: https://home.cern/about/updates/2016/10/cloud-experiment-sharpens-climate-predictions [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth

编辑总结

取消

\ begingroup美元 @userLTK。请指出你认为我有什么地方”拒绝了实验室实验表明二氧化碳陷阱热”。(因为我没有)。我也没有不同意的问题进行实验二世。这是不证自明的你不能进行大气规模实验。然而很明显有一个窗口需要考虑。尺寸在中间。一个理论上进行大规模实验室实验,十米大小的如果不低100年代是可能的,我们可以找到一个大的仓库。也可能是(继续) \ endgroup美元
- - - - - -user7733
2017年4月30日22:19
\ begingroup美元现有的大气中可能进行的一个实验水平在许多公里给定一个安静的位置(无人居住的沙漠吗?)。公里大小的实验甚至不需要大气包围油管。所有这些可能性,我惊讶之前没有人想出了我们可以谈谈细节。需要测试什么不仅仅是二氧化碳的红外响应或其“捕获”的热量但总热量和辐射传输特性之间的大块样品2的一长列。 \ endgroup美元
- - - - - -user7733
2017年4月30日22:27
1

\ begingroup美元 @user7733下一次,也许你想领导与实验。这将是一个更清晰的起点。大型封闭实验在仓库里并不是一个坏主意。在低浓度和高体积测试二氧化碳。至于户外,就不会工作。第一个地方,第二个甚至封闭的天气将受到来自外部。局部和短期不相关的内容。拥有一个特定的想法但问一般问题与奇怪的参数,然后批评答案和评论不是路要走。 \ endgroup美元
- - - - - -userLTK
2017年4月30日23:10

添加一个评论 |

正确的小错误或错误
澄清的意思,而不更改它
添加相关资源或链接
总是尊重作者的意图
不使用编辑与作者回复

创建代码用引号”或式子~篱笆
' ' '
像这样
' ' '
添加语言标识符来突出显示的代码
”“python
def函数(foo):
打印(foo)
' ' '
把段落之间的回报
在结束linebreak添加2个空间
_italic_或* *的* *
报价将>开始的
做链接(尽量使用https)
< https://example.com >
(例子)(https://example.com)
< a href = " https://example.com " > < / >示例
MathJax方程罪\ \ ^ 2θ美元

格式帮助»
回答帮助»

MathJax帮助»