Slashdot Mirror


150th Anniversary of Greenhouse Climate Theory

An anonymous reader writes "It was 150 years ago that John Tyndall, one of history's truly great physicists, published a scientific paper with the far-from-snappy title On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connexion of Radiation, Absorption, and Conduction. The BBC has an article on John Tyndall and his contributions 150 years ago to the physics behind the study of climate change."

6 of 407 comments (clear)

  1. Doon't forget Fourier, Pouillet and Arrhenius by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 5, Informative

    Svante Arrhenius "was the first to calculate on the heating of the Earth in 1903. But, he refers to Fourier, Pouillet and Tyndall as predecessors. He was the first person to predict that emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels and other combustion processes would cause global warming. Arrhenius clearly believed that a warmer world would be a positive change. From that, the hot-house theory gained more attention. Nevertheless, until about 1960, most scientists dismissed the hot-house / greenhouse effect as implausible for the cause of ice ages as Milutin Milankovitch had presented a mechanism using orbital changes of the earth (Milankovitch cycles). Nowadays, the accepted explanation is that orbital forcing sets the timing for ice ages with CO2 acting as an essential amplifying feedback.

    Arrhenius estimated that halving of CO2 would decrease temperatures by 4–5 C (Celsius) and a doubling of CO2 would cause a temperature rise of 5–6 C.[5] In his 1906 publication, Arrhenius adjusted the value downwards to 1.6 C (including water vapour feedback: 2.1 C). Recent (2007) estimates from IPCC say this value (the Climate sensitivity) is likely to be between 2 and 4.5 C. Arrhenius expected CO2 levels to rise at a rate given by emissions in his time. Since then, industrial carbon dioxide levels have risen at a much faster rate: Arrhenius expected CO2 doubling to take about 3000 years; it is now estimated in most scenarios to take about a century."

    Some quotes:

    "To a certain extent the temperature of the earth's surface, as we shall presently see, is conditioned by the properties of the atmosphere surrounding it, and particularly by the permeability of the latter for the rays of heat." (p46)

    "That the atmospheric envelopes limit the heat losses from the planets had been suggested about 1800 by the great French physicist Fourier. His ideas were further developed afterwards by Pouillet and Tyndall. Their theory has been styled the hot-house theory, because they thought that the atmosphere acted after the manner of the glass panes of hot-houses." (p51)

    "If the quantity of carbonic acid in the air should sink to one-half its present percentage, the temperature would fall by about 4; a diminution to one-quarter would reduce the temperature by 8. On the other hand, any doubling of the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air would raise the temperature of the earth's surface by 4; and if the carbon dioxide were increased fourfold, the temperature would rise by 8." (p53)

    "Although the sea, by absorbing carbonic acid, acts as a regulator of huge capacity, which takes up about five-sixths of the produced carbonic acid, we yet recognize that the slight percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere may by the advances of industry be changed to a noticeable degree in the course of a few centuries." (p54)

    "Since, now, warm ages have alternated with glacial periods, even after man appeared on the earth, we have to ask ourselves: Is it probable that we shall in the coming geological ages be visited by a new ice period that will drive us from our temperate countries into the hotter climates of Africa? There does not appear to be much ground for such an apprehension. The enormous combustion of coal by our industrial establishments suffices to increase the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air to a perceptible degree." (p61)

    "We often hear lamentations that the coal stored up in the earth is wasted by the present generation without any thought of the future, and we are terrified by the awful destruction of life and property which has followed the volcanic eruptions of our days. We may find a kind of consolation in the consideration

  2. Re:What truly makes me sad however... by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Informative

    Show them this equation. Although it's a simplification, I've never found anyone who understands this equation who will deny the effects of CO2. It will reduce the amount of time you need to spend arguing with idiots (because they will soon no longer be idiots, or because you can ignore them immediately if they don't spend the time to understand it).

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  3. Re:The biggest issue isn't the science... by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Informative

    What are the causes of global warming? I don't think that it is settled that human activity is the SOLE cause.

    If you believe the IPCC report, then you can be assured that it IS settled that human activity is the primary cause.....or at least, very likely. Here is what it says:

    "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  4. Re:What truly makes me sad however... by shellbeach · · Score: 4, Informative

    What makes me sad is that one can ignore that some of the same people who are howling about global warming today were howling about a man-made ice age in the seventies, and expect the rest of us to blindly follow along. It's a bit disingenuous to claim that global warming was predicted 150 years ago, when a mere 40 years ago the alarmists were predicting the opposite.

    Um, no they weren't.

    My money is on "global warming" being listed as "discredited" in a few years as "global cooling" is now.

    Then you're likely to lose some money there, I'm afraid.

  5. Re:No, we cannot by CheerfulMacFanboy · · Score: 3, Informative

    Actually, look closer at your graph - we've done B, and we've gotten less than C.

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/01/20/rommcook-prosecute-themselves/

    The fact that when he "put the graph at the same scale as Hansen’s predictions", the measured temps of the past don't even remotely match up shows he's full of it. And if you fell for it, you are even dumber than I thought.

    --
    Fandroids hate facts.
  6. Re:Like all ignorant blowhards I oppose science. by scot4875 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Rev Al Gore

    Stopped reading here. You ask people to quit calling names like "truther" and "denier," then go on and do the same fucking thing. You're part of the problem you're complaining about.

    --Jeremy

    --
    Jesus was a liberal