Author Options:

Global Warming Experiment #1 Answered

(I slightly changed the instructable into a forum topic and an instructable)

The Instructable Half

"Global Warming" Experiment #1:
As you can tell by my quotes around "Global Warming", I personally don't believe that this theory is happening. Theres facts I can use to prove this. However, even I believe that no matter how you put it, there's going to be some bias. Also facts are boring :P

So, what I have planned, is to do a series of experiments on what global warming might cause if it were real.

I'm doing this because I've heard people claim some extraordinary things, which based on data won't happen.

I could post an instructable with a bunch of facts, and I might. But for now, I want to set up a couple collaborative experiments. One reason I want collaboration is I'm biased. The other, is so you can't complain about my methods.

I haven't done the experiment yet, I really don't know if this will help, or hurt, my case.

The experiment is to determine if "global warming" could melt glaciers, thus cooling the ocean. Notice here I'm assuming global warming is happening. It isn't. But when people make claims on the news and stuff, they are assuming that too.

Please comment if you would like to change my methodology, OR you want to do the experiment.

I'm going to describe how the Instructable (and hopefully the rest in the series) will work.

1) I, or anyone, proposes a framework for an experiments and writes up an Instructable. (Will be referred to as "I" in the following steps)
2) I monitor the suggestions, editing and fixing as needed. After about a week or so, I go onto step 3.
3) I preform the experiment to the best of my ability, and write up an additional 2 steps.
3a) The first outlines my changes. This could mean I didn't have a 4x8 loaf pan, and I had to use a 3x8. Or it was plastic. Whatever. These small details are important
3b) The second outlines the data and conclusion. This may have images of the experiment, graphs, tables, sensor data, Whatever. I also make a note of my previous bias.
4) Wait for more people to run through the experiment, adding them as collaborators.
5) Write up a conclusion to everything, OR do some more investigating.

Its not that bad, however the whole process might take a few weeks. (I don't know)

Scientific Method
There are seven steps to the Scientific Method, which we will follow:

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypotheses
7. Publish results

(Thanks Wikipedia!)

#1 was done in the introduction.
#2 I've already done, however you only have to look into data you'll need during the procedure.
#3 I've done it, but I'm not telling you (I don't want a bias, even though I've hinted towards my guess)
#4 - We're going to expand this out. More later!
#5 and #6 sort of come together in this format, will be done as we go along.
#7 is done as we go!

Okay, #4. Remember back to High School, remember Lab Reports? Well basically there will be a step for each segments (leaving some out). We sort of do this already in most instructables "What will happen", "What you need", "How you do it"; this time more formally. Due to Lab Reports being unstandardized, I'm breaking it down into:


Its shorter than your average one, due to the fact in Data, you have hypothesis and stuff I don't want to reveal yet ;-)

The following is the framework, you can also see my instructable:

(This is a framework, remember. Its not supposed to be "done" and perfect)


*Large basin of some sorts.
*Lamp + Light bulbs (100W & 40W)

1) Fill large basin/pan with water.
2) Take and record standing temperature of water.
3) Add ice off to one side of the pan.
4) Take temp. of water every five minutes until it starts to level out, at least 4 readings.
5) Replace water, and repeat steps 2&3
6) Shine lamp w/ 40W bulb off to the non-ice side of the pan, but allowing some light & warmth to reach the ice. (Roughly 20-35%)
7) Repeat steps 4&5
8) Repeat step 6 with a 100W bulb

Take pictures throughout!

What now?
Okay, I'll be updating this with your comments over the next week or so. If somethings wrong with it, POINT IT OUT!!! I'm going to add my thoughts in as well. (I still feel its missing some things, I can't put my fingers on them, though!)


Melting of glaciers does not 'thus cool the ocean' it makes the sea level rise the oceans heat up due to absorbed energy redirected from the earth's atmosphere because of the particles the heat of the ocean is what causes the glaciers to melt to say that melting of glaciers cools the ocean shows you have no knowledge on just the beginning of the science of global warming.

Umm... It's a lot more complex than that.

Firstly, the author didn't say "melting glaciers cool oceans", he said "do melting glaciers cool oceans?", a very valid question.

Secondly, sea-ice melted in at least three ways, to varying degrees; from below, by the warmer
oceans; from above, by the warmer atmosphere; from without - particulate
deposits from air pollution darken the surface of the ice and make it
absorb more heat directly from the Sun.

Melting sea-ice does nothing to sea levels. The melting of land-ice does cause a change
in sea levels, but the main issue is salinity - melting sea-ice dilutes
the oceans, and the resultant changes in density are expected to play
havoc with the various ocean conveyors that currently distribute heat
around the planet - for instance, the shut-down of the Gulf Stream would
dramatically reduce the temperature in Western Europe.

Global warming is a hoax.

science classes Ive taken, ive looked at several charts on temp changes spanning over the 1900's it only changed about 1/2 a degree, also people are worried about the hole in the ozone layer... which is over Antarctica. If it does exist i don't see it as a large problem.

Firstly, the temperature rise has been twice that level. Secondly, have you any idea how much energy it takes to increase the temperature of an entire biosphere by so much, so quickly?   A quick back-of-the-monitor calculation puts it at around 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000J - hardly an insignificant amount.

Plus, it is a little odd that your teacher restricted the data he gave you to just the last century. Where in the world are you? Texas?

Try this from Berkley (see also, and also the original report)

As for "if" the hole in the ozone layer is real, it's over more than just Antarctica, it is the cause of Australia's huge skin-cancer issues. It is also no longer restricted to Southern latitudes. There's one over the North Pole now, and its effects extend well over the North American continental plate. There is no "if" here - both holes are very real, and have been shown to be due to chemicals released by humans.

1 degree whoopee...

Ok i'll admit i didn't know that it was effecting Australia, and was it CFC that they tracked it to?

I do not live in Texas and i am homeschooling.

Your sarcasm shows you don't understand the scale of the issue. Six sextillion joules of energy is the energy of a dinosaur-killing meteorite.

Yes, it was (amongst other chemicals) CFCs that caused the hole - the chemical process is quite well understood now.

Check the links posted at 12:20 above, and then ask yourself why your sources downplay the problem so much.


I wish more GW skeptics would go and look at the actual data, rather than swallowing the deniers' spin.

then what happens at last in the experiment


11 years ago

Just remember: "There is no spoon"

but i'm looking at a spoon.....


11 years ago

I applaud your attempt and I think it's valuable to be skeptical and not believe everything you read, but you also ought to be open to letting the observations lead you where they may. You don't need to create a new experiment. Earth is the experiment. We've added carbon to the atmosphere and the observations clearly indicate that global warming is happening. There is also a global cooling effect that is the result of soot and airplane contrails. Your claim that scientists are only motivated by money is not credible in my opinion, and is not backed up with observations. I could mistakenly assert that the attention that you receive by taking this position is your motivation.

I'm not saying its their only motivation, but think about it. If you're a scientist, and you get funding from Eco-views to see how Co2 effects the environment, you want your experiment to prove Eco-view's points, for more funding ;)

but think about it. If you're a scientist, and you get funding from Eco-views to see how Co2 effects the environment,

think about this though... If there is an inkling that ANY of your motivation was for funding.... The scientific community will ream you a new one and you will utterly destroy your credibility... That is what is so great about peer review through academic publication (Journals et. al.). Additionally... that funding can't be used for personal items (you'd be booted as soon as the audit hit came off the printer).

The other thing to think about is what happens after a paper is published. Other scientists go out and repeat your method exactly. To verify or show flaws in your method, setup etc.

Honestly, one of the bigger conspiracy theories I have heard recently is exactly what you're talking about -- a majority of scientists making things up for money. Because honestly, there's enough wrong in the world to find something else worthy.

This is why I go back... 150+ years ago when this was published as theory... Not by a scientist, environmentalist or politician... But by a mathematician ;) It was then quantized a little later (with the publication of the Boltzmann constant)... by yet another mathematician :p

Just remember, if you're a scientist and you're not researching CO2 -- you're researching something else, and likely still getting funded :p

So what do you think happens when the concentration of CO2 goes up? I'm not getting any money from anyone but my conclusion is in line with what 99% of scientists are saying. I think there are conspiracys out there, but not by scientists, by goverments and the industries that pull the strings. What is the largest company in the world. I don't know but i bet it has something to do with oil.

What is the largest company in the world.
Exxon Followed By Walmart :p

Hehe! It worked :P I really didn't plan on carrying this out (I'd spend more time on it). I just wanted to see if I could get a buzz. Now, I want to post some published results. After all, there are some really stupid experiments I've heard of to "prove" global warming. (They're actually just showing effects, not proving its happening) And don't get me started about computer simulations :P I personally feel this is just eugenetics, nuclear winter, or whathaveyou.

Aren't you just measuring what the world world be like if the sun was larger? because global warming actually reduces the light that contacts the earth(CO2 blocks infra-red). The warming effect is the caused light that has actually reached the earth being re-emitted by the earth (lots of this is re emitted as infra-red) but not being able to escape as greenhouse gases block a large spectrum of infra-red light. anyway to do this experiment properly you would need a greenhouse gas simulation set up. which would be very hard to archive using CO2 seeing its barely a pollutant (other greenhouse effect simulators may work) you small set up would be unable to produce any relevant data. Ok hopefully that was legible so basically you will need to rethink your procedure before proving or disproving global warming.

I don't think that's what he wants to test... But yes -- assuming the ozone layer stays put and there's no more crazy magnetic field changes -- radiation will stay constant - so melting will occur via conduction. But, I think he only wants to measure water temperatures given different heat inputs ;)

What about ambient temperature? I could put some ice in a tray and make a scary, if unconvincing, argument for global warming.

I think you're still stuck on step 1: define the question. Are you asking whether global warming will melt glaciers or whether the runoff will cool the ocean? The first question is a bit odd since glaciers don't like warmer weather. As for the second, I'm not familiar with the idea of ocean's cooling as a result. That's a bit odd. If you want to have a discussion about the topic it would be much better to have a solid argument to begin with. To simply say that global warming isn't happening simply because it isn't is not very convincing. Doing so will make others think that you haven't thought this through very much. It's a safe thing to do because if you put forth no backing proof there's no way for others to find a weakness in your argument. It also makes you look like a bit of a stubborn fool even if you're right.

It's a safe thing to do because if you put forth no backing proof there's no way for others to find a weakness in your argument.

Except within the argument itself ;)

Well, really without any discussion points or an argument it is simply a statement with a black box of facts.

Scientific Method doesn't work when you're self professedly biased.... The same goes for engineering ethics :p But here's a modification to your framework... You need to have the same ratio of ice/water with the same surface area.... That's a really big deal considering how much surface area plays a role in radiation ;) Without thinking about the math much, I suspect heat capacity will be a big problem for validity...

Thought of something else.... This scale won't simulate local temperatures very well. Nor will it simulate the insulation that water provides from radiation.... This is why SCUBA divers may wear a wet suit in seemingly warm water (especially on deeper dives).


11 years ago

I don't understand. What is your hypothesis? "Ice will warm up when placed under a light?" My main concern is that you might believe that this is an accurate representation of the earth. A tub of water is not an equivalent scale model of the ocean. The earth is a complex thing, and doesn't act like a tub of water. Nor does a tub of water have an atmosphere. The idea is that pollution kicks up enough crap into the atmosphere that the earth traps more heat.

"(This is a framework, remember. Its not supposed to be "done" and perfect)" I don't think its accurate at all :P "I don't understand. What is your hypothesis? "Ice will warm up when placed under a light?"" The point I'm testing is if warming would make oceans hotter, or colder. This is one of the most idiotic theories of what will happen if the theory of global warming is happening. Its as if you need to melt ice before it can make the ocean colder. I just want to show this 1 point, no others (at this time). I find that this is pretty close for our purposes, as the "get colder" theory states that: The excess heat melts glaciers, dumping the waters into the ocean, thus cooling them. If this gets arguable results, we can try again with a different model.