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."
As an ignorant and probably racist member of the Republican party (aka Tea Bagger) I simply deny science.
If a scientist says that my state is becoming poorer and more unhealthy, I simply turn to Jesus and let the poor die in the streets.
Yours in Christ,
Rick Perry
Np!
What truly makes me sad when I see things like this, is that it ultimately makes me think that a bit of science has been lying around for 150 years - and there are still people who try to disclaim it, pretend it simply isn't true and make all manner of excuses as to why it doesn't mean what it clearly states. All to either keep making money, keep doing what they have been doing or because it is simply easier to not have to change the way things are done.
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
"why did Jones take such a large professional risk by asking other scientists to destroy documents?"
http://climateaudit.org/2011/09/02/nsf-on-jones-email-destruction-enterprise/
Yes, climate changes. Always has.
Yes, CO2 has some impact on climate. Always has.
No, it's not likely that climate changes are primarily controlled by human activity, as opposed to myriad non-human factors.
No, it's not likely that a warmer world will cause more harm than benefit to humanity or the biosphere as a whole.
No, I'm not going to do what you want just because you're super cereal.
The basic science of global warming isn't too tough or very modern(clearly), although most people don't understand it very well. This article seems to make things fairly confusing as well, although the quote from Tyndall himself is pleasantly concise and clear: "heat in the state of light finds less resistance in penetrating the air, than in re-passing into the air when converted into non-luminous heat." My favorite explanation, I think, is how Carl Sagan explained it in Cosmos, which is roughly as follows:
The idea is that visible light hits the earth, and warms it up. Some of that light is reflected straight back, so it leaves the atmosphere the way it came in and we're done. A lot of that light, though, gets absorbed by trees or rocks or walruses, causing them to heat up. They'll slowly re-radiate it out again because of blackbody radiation (all things radiate continually, even the universe itself) but it will be in the form of lower energy, lower frequency wavelengths. This means that energy from visible light gets absorbed and often radiated back out again as infrared.
CO2 and other "greenhouse" gases let light in the visible part of the spectrum pass unimpeded, but they don't let IR through as easily. So, energy comes in but it can't get back out again.
Video analysis and scene replication suggests that Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project fabricated their Climate 101 video “Simple Experiment”
What a fucking loser. And you guys worship this clown.. such sad little people.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/28/video-analysis-and-scene-replication-suggests-that-al-gores-climate-reality-project-fabricated-their-climate-101-video-simple-experiment/
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
Wanker AC buys corporate big lie, quotes fallicious utterly biased denialist site film at 11:00.
... for some it was never conceived!
We know that global warming is happening. We also know that it has happened in the past.
I think that we can agree that human activity is contributing to it.
The big questions are:
What are the causes of global warming? I don't think that it is settled that human activity is the SOLE cause. There is still more science to do on this.
How much of an effect can a change in human activity have in solving global warming? Is it enough?
Is it worth putting our society (democracy) in jeopardy over it as it puts us in a distinct disadvantage over non-democratic countries, such as China. This can and, in some ways, has lead to international power shifts.
In my opinion, most debates today are concerned with these questions and not whether global warming is actually occurring.
Yes, we should all focus on something so vast and out of our control that we don't really have to do anything except pose and 'be concerned' about it to be fashionably hip without actually making any personal effort.
Here's a clue. How about all those people feigning concern actually go show concern about something that matters.
"--3.5 percent of U.S. households experience hunger. Some people in these households frequently skip meals or eat too little, sometimes going without food for a whole day. 9.6 million people, including 3 million children, live in these homes." - http://www.worldhunger.org/
There's something they can all actually do something about, but they won't - because that would be effort. They would rather smile at peta pictures of emaciated 16 year old looking mostly nude models holding signs and act oh-so-concerned about global issues than help the poor bastard who lives 20 miles away.
As Penn and Teller would say, it's all Bullshit.
"No good deed goes unpunished"
I think that we can agree that human activity is contributing to it.
There you dismiss the heart of the argument. Are we contributing in any meaningful way? Some say yes, others say no. But it's sol politicized at this point you cannot trust anyone really.
When someone is able to predict roughly what the climate, not local weather, will do for a few years - then I might take them seriously. Until that point what I see is a lot of people making a lot of assumptions while ignoring a huge number of variables at play. People are treating climatology as a hard science when we are only just beginning to understand a very complex system with inputs (like the sun) that we know even LESS about!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Starvation is just going to get worse if current trends continue. One of the real problems with climate change is that if things do heat up or winds do change their patterns, there's the potential for many people to be starving, many of whom aren't presently starving.
This is insane, you cannot rationally be proposing that argument. Historical records have had the average temperature warmer than now, and the result was an INCREASE in arable land across the globe and growth of civilization as a result. Warming, through history, has been a boon to people - not a curse.
Now IF people were right about a huge temperature increase there might be problems. But forecasts are constantly being revised downward, and the runaway model is all but forgotten by the AGW crowd. Do you really think the ice caps will be gone in three years? Because just three years ago, people were claiming they'd be gone in six...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"Historical records have had the average temperature warmer than now"
That may be true in another world of the many-worlds multiverse. Not this one.
Not globally, not even for the Northern Hemisphere, not for any climatically meaningful interpretation of "now".
Really, people, this is not hard. Google for Spencer Weart, read his website, then google Skeptical Science and read John Cook's web site.
"the ice caps . . . just three years ago, people were claiming they'd be gone in six [years]..."
Aha. I see the problem: reading comprehension. It was not ice caps but Arctic sea ice that was exercising the imaginations of bloggers. Cryosphere researchers expect the ice caps to last thousands of years -- tens of thousands of years, in the case of the Antarctic ice cap.
Replace "science" in your statement with the word "religion" or "The Constitution" and re-read it. That was one perfectly written generic statement. I applaud you, sir, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
> it's a simplification
it's a simplification
oh god, slashdot is full of these global alarmist brainwashed people. i think you should all stop breathing if you're so concerned about co2
And then what do you get when you warm the air?
More water vapour.
Now, since 65% of the Greenhouse effect comes from water currently (with all those feedbacks) and something under 20% from CO2, if you increase CO2 you'll increase the water effect too. And that gives you 65/20 = 3.25 multiplier.
It's called "what we already get".
Your task, should you deign to take it, is to show how negative effects that didn't take place in the past will today negate this multiplier completely.
"I mean current temperature is BELOW James Hansen's zero emissions scenario of 20 years ago."
Wrong. You're repeating Monckton's lies. Scenario A is slightly under current temperatures and Scenario A is roughly what we did. Predicting the future actions of humans is not what a climatologist does. He predicts the climate based on an assumption of what people do in the future. And Hansen got it pretty darn right.
With a 3.2C per doubling of CO2e.
It seems that you can't any more wrong than your statements.
Doesn't the fact that the people promoting global warming today are the same ones who promoted global cooling 30 years ago bother anybody?
Cheap Ralph Lauren Polo Shirts On Sale in Ralph Lauren Outlet Online Ralph Lauren Outlet is special design and manufacture for the celebration of the official sponsorship Ralph Lauren Outlet Online of the Ralph Lauren Sale team with star player Nacho. This limit edition polo shirt for women is available on Polo Ralph Lauren Ralph Lauren Outlet Online Store,Ralph Lauren Polo Shirts is really worth collecting.
But doubling is a bigger increase in concentration each time you double.
Therefore the two cancel out and you get the same effect for each doubling.
THAT was a strawman, denier.
These are the same guys who habitually appoint the worst violators of human rights on the planet to their human rights bodies.
I'm personally not buying the whole "Global Warming" bit, and I felt Al Gore's film was based primarily on FUD and Guilt (there were parts such as the little "story" about his child... irrelevant) and known-massaged numbers. Before somebody jumps up and down and screams "denier" or some other goofy label - let's be clear that I think there is some "Global Climate Change" going on, which we may or may not contributing to. The evidence has been shown both ways, and honestly I'm having a REALLY hard time believing either side considering all the bogus political grandstanding they've both had. It's time to remove the vested interests and get some real science done to figure out if we're gonna cook, cool, or just have to do this thing we've been doing for a few thousand years called Adapt. That's my two hopefully unbiased cents.
Cheers, DH.
"If AGW has a similar body of evidence, it would not be hotly contested today."
Pop over here:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
And then wonder why you're using the fact that it is being hotly debated as PROOF AGW hasn't got the history of Evolution by Natural Selection.
If so, I agree. If not, shut up you pathetic little bagger.
Regardless if any of this shit is right or wrong, the problem is the solution currently is tax on carbon, and control of rights. This crap is so completely misguided, Who and what that money goes to, and what sovereign rights are stomped out along this on world UN government framework corrupt path.
Why isn't Gibson Guitars back in business with a clean slate by now? Huh?
How come after Solanaria we get this crap?
CRONY CAPITALISM: MASSIVE SOLAR LOAN BENEFITS NANCY PELOSI'S KIN
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/crony-capitalism-737-million-green-jobs-loan-given-nancy-pelosis-brother-law_594593.html
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SOLAR_ENERGY_LOANS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-09-28-19-59-35
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/solyndra-exec-board-737m-loan-gaurantee
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/184515-gops-solyndra-probe-threatens-to-ensnare-energy-sec-chu
It wouldn't be so bad if it was just recognition of a problem, and a pile of solutions presented, but it's also comes with the carbon tax and fuck your sovereignty legal solution with the fucking UN treaty attached, all at the little people's expense. Which is no surprise that the story's roots are seeded from the same source and everyone connected to this source is dirty. Things are the way they are because these scum want things this way.
It is an article of faith among many self-defined "skeptics" that climate models have so many free parameters that they can be tuned to show whatever you want. Yet even though several of these models are publicly available, no skeptic has ever managed to find a way to "tune" such a model such that it is consistent with the record of past climate, and yet does not predict substantial future warming.
To scientists, modeling is a discipline, a way of "sanity-checking" your ideas. It's easy to wave your hands and insist that something will or won't happen, but if the math doesn't work out, you are out of luck. So far, the skeptics have failed to pass the sanity check.
It sounds like you don't understand what a "null hypothesis" is. Some people seem to think that by declaring their own hypothesis the "null hypothesis," they automatically get a pass on the normal requirement to substantiate your hypothesis with plausible mechanisms and testable predictions. In reality, "null hypothesis" is a term from statistics, and it has nothing to do with mechanism. The "null hypothesis" specifically refers to the hypothesis of no change . So to talk about a "null hypothesis of natural climate change" is an oxymoron. The actual null hypothesis that climate does not ever change is readily excluded by fairly simple statistics. Once you are hypothesizing a change, natural or otherwise, then you do not have a null hypothesis--and you need to support your hypothesis in the scientific way: formulate a physically realistic model, describe it mathematically, and test it for consistency with observations.
...that after 150 years AGW theorists would actually be able to provide some *proof*....
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
Agreed. But the claim that this is true of climate models has no substance. While it seems to be an article of faith among self-styled skeptics that the models can predict whatever you choose, none of them have ever been able to provide any evidence to support this claim. The climate models are published; anybody can formulate their own or use one of the existing models. So if you believe that the hypothesis predicts every possible observation, there is a simple way to substantiate that claim:
Take one of the models, tweak the the parameters in any physically plausible way that you please, and show that you can come up with a version of the model that is consistent with the known climate record, and which does not predict warming.