Global warming

[Jacobshhs]

hey i'm doing a team project and we're done with everything except the abstract and the actual presentation so i was wondering how to best split up the presentation

thanks

p.s. I'd really like an answer asap cause the fair is on tuesday or wendsay.
here is my data and suff
Procedure
First, take three, 1-gallon bottles and empty them of all moisture. Buy approximately 10’ feet of 1/4” (OD) flexible plastic tubing. Also, buy 5’ of 1” (OD) semi-rigid plastic tubing. Drill a hole in the top of the 1-gallon bottle and drill a hole in the lid. Take the bottles that had previously been prepared and put the temperature probe in the hole. Then put a “t” in the end of the 1” and put the O2 and CO2 sensors in opposite sides of the “T”.

Put the bottle under a heat lamp. Meanwhile put the dry ice into water to produce CO2. Trap high concentration CO2 in syringes and allow it to equalize. When the CO2 is room temperature, put it into the bottle. Take the temperature, and CO2 levels every four seconds over a 10 minute period.

the conclusion

There is in fact a correlation between CO2 ¬and heat, but it is not significant enough to explain the major rise in heat, which means that CO2 is not necessarily the only, or most important, factor at play.

HYPOTHESIS:

There is no correlation between CO2 concentration and temperature.

[amyc]

Jacobshhs - I am sorry that your post didn't receive a reply. Is your science fair presentation now over?

The problem is that you appended your question to another thread, rather than making it a topic of its own. Most likely, Experts didn't see your question. If you still need help, please let us know.

Amy
Science Buddies

[ChrisG]

Hi Jacobshhs,
It sounds like a very interesting experiment. Regarding your conclusions:

There is in fact a correlation between CO2 ¬and heat, but it is not significant enough to explain the major rise in heat, which means that CO2 is not necessarily the only, or most important, factor at play.

the meaning is unclear to me. Are you saying that there was a major difference in temperature in your experiment, but that you don't think it resulted from CO2? If so, I'm curious how you came to this conclusion. I would need to see your results to be able to better understand the experiment & the conclusions.

Thanks,
Chris

[Jacobshhs]

sorry its semi complex here is my procedure

First, take three, 1-gallon bottles and empty them of all moisture. Buy approximately 10’ feet of 1/4” (OD) flexible plastic tubing. Also, buy 5’ of 1” (OD) semi-rigid plastic tubing. Drill a hole in the top of the 1-gallon bottle and drill a hole in the lid. Take the bottles that had previously been prepared and put the temperature probe in the hole. Then put a “t” in the end of the 1” and put the O2 and CO2 sensors in opposite sides of the “T”.

Put the bottle under a heat lamp. Meanwhile put the dry ice into water to produce CO2. Trap high concentration CO2 in syringes and allow it to equalize. When the CO2 is room temperature, put it into the bottle. Take the temperature, and CO2 levels every four seconds over a 10 minute period.
What is your email and i will send you a graph

[ChrisG]

Hi,
To protect people's privacy, we don't exchange emails or other personal information on this forum. If you can convert your graph to a raster graphic (like a jpeg image) then you can attach it to one of your posts for us to view it. You can also try to explain in words what you saw and why you interpreted it the way that you did. That can be more difficult, but it is also very good practice for explaining your project to an audience.
Looking forward to hearing more.
Chris

[Jacobshhs]

Ok here goes nothing
1st qestion have you seen the famous Hockey stick graph? the one with CO2 and heat? if you have you may have noticed co2 has increased by 88 ppm but the the heat by 1.75 degrees F but i pumped in 54,000 ppm of co2 but the heat in my biome only increased by .84 Degrees F how the heck does that work? so hence my conclusion "There is in fact a correlation between CO2 ¬and heat, but it is not significant enough to explain the major rise in heat, which means that CO2 is not necessarily the only, or most important, factor at play."

by the way I will be posting everythig on global warming discussion

[Jacobshhs]

hey i will be posting my qs on here from now on
(this message is mostly for chrisg)

[ChrisG]

Hi Jacob, I am going to post a reply in the original topic. i will ask a moderator of this forum to please split the topic so that your project has its own thread. Also, you might want to ask to have your topic moved to one of the physical or earth science forums (i can see this going in either one) so that it will get more attention.

It generally is most effective to keep all your posts in one topic. Otherwise, people won't be able to see the old information and they won't understand the issues behind your questions.

[ChrisG]

Hi,
Yes, I have seen that graph. I congratulate you on understanding the greater context of your work, and I understand that it is very tempting to use your work to draw conclusions about changes in temperature on the Earth's surface. Unfortunately, such specific quantitative conclusions can not be drawn about our planetary climate based on this laboratory microcosm. Consider the different time scales (decades versus minutes), the different sources of energy (the sun versus a bulb), the different spatial scales (thousands of miles versus inches), the different "boundary conditions" (glass vs outer space, a hollow jar versus a solid planet), etc.
I hope that helps. I'm glad to discuss more.
Chris

[MelissaB]

Hi,

I have split off the original posts and merged them with your new topic. Let me know if you want me to move it to a different forum as well.

[Jacobshhs]

but still a whole Degree? that i don't care 88 vs. 54,000 ppm it should show at least certain simmalarities not that big of a difference.

[Jacobshhs]

Hey that would be great can you put it under life sciences? thanks mellisab

[ChrisG]

Hi Jacobshhs,
What is your grade level, so that Melissa can move this thread into the correct forum?

but still a whole Degree? that i don't care 88 vs. 54,000 ppm it should show at least certain simmalarities not that big of a difference.

I would expect the opposite, that any similarity is a coincidence. This is based on my perception that you did not build a scale model of the earth, atmosphere and sun. Is that correct? For example, how did you choose your heat source, and the distance from the heat source to the jar? If you used a heat source with 10x as much heat output, how would your results differ, and which set of results would be most representative of the actual Earth? If you painted the far side of the bottle black and reran the experiment, how would the results differ, and which set of results would be most representative of actual warming? How would you simulate temperature gradients with elevation in the atmosphere? How would you simulate diurnal heating and cooling? Do you see what I'm getting at?

Looking forward to hearing more,
Chris

[Jacobshhs]

ok true but I am not looking for all inclusive results or anything like that i am just trying to show on a 10th grade level with limited resoures that there is a counter arguments to the Global Warming stuff there is only so much i can show
By the way i am in 10th grade

[ChrisG]

OK. I understand. That sort of presentation of counter-arguments could go in a brief discussion section where you could compare your results with the measurements of global warming and present different possibilities of why the results differ. For example, you could write that one possibility for the difference is that your model is not representative of the heat fluxes between the sun, earth, and atmosphere, and another possibility is that factors other than CO2 regulate the changes in temperature at the Earth's surface. You can cite previous research that supports either possibility. If you do this, be careful to give equal consideration all possibilities and try not to write in favor of any preconceptions or biases. This sort of discussion is not exactly standard science fair report style, but it might show judges that you are interested and enthusiastic in the project. However, I do not recommend presenting those arguments as your final conclusion, because they are highly speculative. Most scientists will want to see a conclusion that is closely tied to the hypothesis and data.
http://www.sciencebuddies.com/science-f ... ions.shtml