This article from NASA’s Earth Observatory came up in a reply prompted by one of Gore’s “presenters” who comment bombed a previous thread. I thought it interesting to present here because while Arrhenius is in fact credited with the CO2 LW trapping discovery, he also later went on to say that the end result be beneficial. This is something Gore’s “trained presenters” don’t mention in their AIT presentations. See the last paragraph. – Anthony (h/t to Tom in Florida)

A hundred years ago, Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius asked the important question “Is the mean temperature of the ground in any way influenced by the presence of the heat-absorbing gases in the atmosphere?” He went on to become the first person to investigate the effect that doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide would have on global climate. The question was debated throughout the early part of the 20th century and is still a main concern of Earth scientists today.
Ironically, Arrhenius’ education and training were not in climate research, but rather electrochemistry. His doctoral thesis on the chemical theory of electrolytes in 1884 was initially regarded as mediocre by his examination committee, but later was heralded as an important work regarding the theory of affinity. In 1891, Arrhenius was a founder and the first secretary of the Stockholm Physical Society, a group of scientists whose interests included geology, meteorology, and astronomy. His association with this society would later help stimulate his interests in cosmic physics-the physics of the Earth, sea, and atmosphere. In 1903, Arrhenius was awarded the Nobel Prize for Chemistry for his work on the electrolytic theory of dissociation. In the years following his international recognition, Arrhenius lectured throughout Europe and was elected to numerous scientific societies.
Arrhenius did very little research in the fields of climatology and geophysics, and considered any work in these fields a hobby. His basic approach was to apply knowledge of basic scientific principles to make sense of existing observations, while hypothesizing a theory on the cause of the “Ice Age.” Later on, his geophysical work would serve as a catalyst for the work of others.
In 1895, Arrhenius presented a paper to the Stockholm Physical Society titled, “On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground.” This article described an energy budget model that considered the radiative effects of carbon dioxide (carbonic acid) and water vapor on the surface temperature of the Earth, and variations in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. In order to proceed with his experiments, Arrhenius relied heavily on the experiments and observations of other scientists, including Josef Stefan, Arvid Gustaf Högbom, Samuel Langley, Leon Teisserenc de Bort, Knut Angstrom, Alexander Buchan, Luigi De Marchi, Joseph Fourier, C.S.M. Pouillet, and John Tyndall.
Arrhenius argued that variations in trace constituents—namely carbon dioxide—of the atmosphere could greatly influence the heat budget of the Earth. Using the best data available to him (and making many assumptions and estimates that were necessary), he performed a series of calculations on the temperature effects of increasing and decreasing amounts of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere. His calculations showed that the “temperature of the Arctic regions would rise about 8 degrees or 9 degrees Celsius, if the carbonic acid increased 2.5 to 3 times its present value. In order to get the temperature of the ice age between the 40th and 50th parallels, the carbonic acid in the air should sink to 0.62 to 0.55 of present value (lowering the temperature 4 degrees to 5 degrees Celsius).”

During the next ten years, Arrhenius continued his work on the effects of carbon dioxide on climate, and published a two-volume technical book titled Lehrbuch der kosmischen Physik in 1903; but this work was not widely read, as it was a textbook for a discipline that did not yet exist. A few years later, Arrhenius published Worlds in the Making, a non-technical book that reached a greater audience. In this book Arrhenius first describes the “hot-house theory ”of the atmosphere, stating that the Earth’s temperature is about 30 degrees warmer than it would be due to the“ heat-protection action of gases contained in the atmosphere,”a theory based on ideas developed by Fourier, Pouillet, and (especially) Tyndall. His calculations demonstrated that if the atmosphere had no carbon dioxide, the surface temperature of the Earth would fall about 21 degrees Celsius, and that this cooler atmosphere would contain less water vapor, resulting in an additional temperature decrease of approximately 10 degrees Celsius. It is important to note that Arrhenius was not very concerned with rising carbon dioxide levels at the time, but rather was attempting to find an explanation for high latitude temperature changes that could be attributed to the onset of the ice ages and interglacial periods.
By 1904, Arrhenius became concerned with rapid increases in anthropogenic carbon emissions and recognized 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.” He eventually made the suggestion that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide due to the burning of fossil fuels could be beneficial, making the Earth’s climates “more equable,” stimulating plant growth, and providing more food for a larger population. This view differs radically from current concerns over the harmful effects of a global warming caused by industrial emissions and deforestation. Until about 1960, most scientists dismissed the notion as implausible that humans could significantly affect average global temperatures. Today, however, we know that carbon dioxide levels have risen about 25 percent—a rate much faster than Arrhenius first predicted—and average global temperatures have risen about 0.5 degrees Celsius.
Internet References
Svante August Arrhenius, The Electronic Nobel Museum
Print References
Fleming, James Rodger, 1998: Historical Perspectives on Climate Change, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 194 pp.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Arrhenius was also a eugenicist.
Whether there is any connection between his work in physics/chemistry and in eugenics is debatable. However, state prerogatives and totalizing concepts often have sobering results. Many “scientists” of his era had little tolerance for variance in a population – whether of molecules or of people.
His doctoral thesis on the chemical theory of electrolytes in 1884 was initially regarded as mediocre by his examination committee, but later was heralded as an important work regarding the theory of affinity.
So important that he won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry for that work!
REPLY: Quite true, and an excellent demonstration of how peer review often fails in the immediate context of the publication – Anthony
It’s the Sun, stupid.
How does man know that?
Instinct.
A note on Arrhenius from Wiki which I posted on the previous thread: “Svante Arrhenius was also actively engaged in the process leading to the creation in 1922 of The State Institute for Racial Biology in Uppsala, Sweden, which had originally been planned as a Nobel Institute. Arrhenius was a member of the institute’s board, as he had been in The Swedish Society for Racial Hygiene (Eugenics), founded in 1909. Swedish racial biology was world-leading at this time, and the results formed the scientific basis for the Compulsory sterilization program in Sweden, as well as inspiring the Nazi eugenics in Germany.”
Eugenics was all the “consensus” in those days.
This webpage is down.
Internet References
Svante August Arrhenius, The Electronic Nobel Museum
Apparently, Arrhenius has been removed from the Nobel Museum. Maybe they are rewriting the article to remove a few inconvenient truths. I find it odd that NASA would publish this without scrubbing it of these politically incorrect facts.
Could there be a few rebels within NASA? Nahhhh. More likely just an oversight.
I wonder how much more precise Science is today in its understanding of CO2 effect on atmospheric temperature.
It seems the increases/decreases of CO2 concentration Arrhenius was writing about are much greater than what has been presently measured.
Also, if I read the article right, his work (mostly interpretation of other’s work) did not include consideration of other inputs into the climate energy budget, but rather examined CO2 concentrations in isolation.
Science now knows that there are many factors that effect global temperatures, and it’s the interrelationships of these many factors that drive global climate.
And it has been pointed out that most of today’s climate models fail to adequately address or identify all the potential factors driving global climate.
I agree with Robert 100%, although unscientific to some; instinct does tell us important, basic things.
I find that my own instinct/ gut feeling tells me it’s the sun. Which by the way is sleeping on at 601 spotless days…
I don’t know what skin product the sun is using, but I want some!
An interesting article though.
So even the foundations of the whole gore et al fiasco have been mis-used and misrepresented.
REPLY: Gut feelings are useless until quantified. – Anthony
Eugenics was all the “consensus” in those days..
Indeed. No doubt that in their minds, the “science was settled.”
Ferenc M. Miskolczi has already demonstrated the greenhouse effect is impossible:
http://miskolczi.webs.com/2007.pdf
http://miskolczi.webs.com/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/26/debate-thread-miskolczi-semi-transparent-atmosphere-model/
For those who haven’t discovered google books. You can read Arrhenius’ “Worlds in the Making” here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=w8QKAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=worlds+in+the+making&ei=qV_jSbDXNJrAM9fW7ZQN
The last chapter (8) gives detailed arguments for a theory of panspermia or the theory that life could have arrived on earth through outer space from other worlds.
“theduke (08:06:28) :
A note on Arrhenius from Wiki which I posted on the previous thread: “Svante Arrhenius was also actively engaged in the process leading to the creation in 1922 of The State Institute for Racial Biology in Uppsala, Sweden
That is before WWII. What an inspiring fellow. Who knows if the Most Sacred Prophet of the Global Warmers’ Green Religion believes himself a triple ALFA of the “Brave New World” his masters are planning for us, so expecting us to become His most faithful servants..:)
Here is the link to his Nobel Bio.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1903/arrhenius-bio.html
Excuse me, by ALFA I meant ALPHA
Mike Bryant: The Nobel Prize’s biography of Arrhenius is on their site. That “museum” site doesn’t have any biographies now; if you follow the links pointing at finding out about the researchers… you land outside the museum on the nobelprize.org Biographies page.
Phil. (07:51:10) :
So important that he won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry for that work!
Al Gore’s got one like that. Am I supposed to be impressed?
My gut instinct always told me that Arrhenius wasn’t a climatologist. 🙂
Fortunately, I firmly believe non-climatologists can make a substantial contribution to any field of science. However, I am quite willing to point out to the next AGW supporter who disagrees that he should consider Arrhenius’ and all derivative works suspect.
“Eugenics was all the “consensus” in those days.” More precisely it was the progressive consensus.
The bottom of the atmosphere is warmer than the top because of gravity. The air at the bottom is therefore at higher pressure and so contains more energy per unit volume and is at a higher temperature.
The ‘greenhouse’ explanation is not needed and don’t work.. Existing thermodynamic theories are sufficient to explain the atmosphere warming effect.
THe greenhouse theory is useful to climate scientists. They can play one gas off against others and get lots of grants to do it.
dearieme wrote: “More precisely it was the progressive consensus.”
Exactly:
http://blog.fair-use.org/category/eugenics/
“Gut feelings are useless until quantified.”
I might prefer ‘until articulated’. We’re at about 40 days speckless; since the November outbreak 23’s outnumber 24’s. March/April 2009 is at lower ebb, if anything, than July/August 2008. So our 600 days spotless looks to become 1200 by Rmax with ease.
Say goodbye to the 2008 ‘Minimum’, long live the 2009 Minimum.
REPLY: Gut feelings are useless until quantified. – Anthony
Granted. HOWEVER, educated “gut feelings” are often the basis of hypotheses, or even fortuitous accidents (vulcanization, teflon, etc.), often quite wacky, which yield quite stunning outcomes once they are “quantified”.
Paradoxically (and into a little ironically) the very best engineers, inventors and scientists tend to be highly intuitive. It drives the drones in those professions CRAZY, as they were led to believe (by their drone professors) that everything was in the numbers.
It ain’t.
(Parenthetically, highly intuitive engineers, inventors and scientists also drive the purely “creative” types nuts, as them folks are usually ill equipped to understand the underpinnings, usually mathematical. I guess this is an argument for “engineering within the liberal arts”. Or at least forbearance of the wacky amongst us.)
My intuition has been saying (for about a year) that we’re in a Dalton-like solar minimum. So far, my intuition has been more right than the “professionals” with their highly derivative data. See, for example, the 100 day moving averag chart of spotless days at http://solarcycle24.com/ today.
I beg forebearance, but y’all should buy coal.
Like those of today’s, Arrhenius’s model was also quantitatively wrong.
Such models on very complex systems are useful to understant processes (and how nature works) but they always fall on the quantitative aspect. It is true today and was true in Arrhenius’s times.
AnonyMoose,
This is from your link, “He took a lively interest in various branches of physics, as illustrated by his theory of the importance of the CO2-content of the atmosphere for the climate,”
This from the article above, “He eventually made the suggestion that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide due to the burning of fossil fuels could be beneficial, making the Earth’s climates “more equable,” stimulating plant growth, and providing more food for a larger population. This view differs radically from current concerns over the harmful effects of a global warming caused by industrial emissions and deforestation.”
It appears that history has been rewritten, or does that thought remain in the Nobel archives somewhere?
Mr Green Genes (08:47:12) :
Phil. (07:51:10) :
So important that he won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry for that work!
Al Gore’s got one like that. Am I supposed to be impressed?
Al Gore got a PEACE prize, NOT a science prize.
“So important that he won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry for that work!”
My PChem tome had a couple of transition tables named for Arrhenius but mentioned him only once, and only in passing, in the text.
I mention this only because of its apparent irony. His fame owing to vocational expertise will be swallowed up by his infamy over an unfortunate avocational conjecture.