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.
Great find. It does not surprise me that many of these lost tidbits are resurfacing to the top of the pool of knowledge.
What does irk me is the comment: “Ironically, Arrhenius’ education and training were not in climate research, but rather electrochemistry”. This kind of rhetoric is deliberately present to immediately disqualify the source (Arrhenius, and others elsewhere). This is the way an unqualified individual, say one with no background in advanced science could possibly get their argument in an immediately digestable context by the followers of AGW.
I have observed it before on many venues.
‘No, what he demonstrated was that there was a very good reason why his paper could only see the light of day in an obscure Hungarian journal and that is because his assumptions make no sense at all”
Poor Miskolczi, pikers, like appeasers, suffer more invective than mortal enemies. His incremental ‘improvement’ of AGW meets more scathing vitriol than Lindzen’s demolitions. And from domestiques the like of programmers no less.
Oh, the humanity!
Nasif Nahle (15:59:09) :
I’d do prefer another reference to Arrhenius’ work better than Wikipedia.
How good is your german? You can read it from the horse’s mouth:
Svante Arrhenius, 1896a, Ueber den Einfluss des Atmosphärischen Kohlensäurengehalts auf die Temperatur der Erdoberfläche, in the Proceedings of the Royal Swedish Academy of Science, Stockholm 1896, Volume 22, I N. 1, pages 1–101.
Svante Arrhenius, 1896b, On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground, London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science (fifth series), April 1896. vol 41, pages 237–275.
Svante Arrhenius, 1901a, Ueber die Wärmeabsorption durch Kohlensäure, Annalen der Physik, Vol 4, 1901, pages 690–705.
Svante Arrhenius, 1901b, Über Die Wärmeabsorption Durch Kohlensäure Und Ihren Einfluss Auf Die Temperatur Der Erdoberfläche. Abstract of the proceedings of the Royal Academy of Science, 58, 25–58.
Svante Arrhenius, 1903, Lehrbuch der Kosmischen Physik, Vol I and II, S. Hirschel publishing house, Leipzig, 1026 pages.
Svante Arrhenius, 1906, Die vermutliche Ursache der Klimaschwankungen, Meddelanden från K. Vetenskapsakademiens Nobelinstitut, Vol 1 No 2, pages 1–10
Svante Arrhenius, 1908, Das Werden der Welten, Academic Publishing House, Leipzig, 208 pages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Bibliography
PS I wrote the bulk of the greenhouse topic in Arrhenius wikipedia article
I notice a number of posters have criticized my comments regarding the “climate sensitivity” arguing that the actual situation is much more complicated than I suggested.
Let me assure you that my post was never intended to be a complete exposition of everything that happens.
I merely pointed out a few inescapable realities about the “warming” effect of CO2 in the atmosphere.
I disagree with some of the posters about the “circulations”.
As far as I am aware, NO scientist ascribes ANY warming effect due to CO2 in the atmosphere; OTHER THAN as a direct result of the individual CO2 molecule absorbing infra-red photons in the roughly 13.5 to 16.5 micron band, which corresponds roughly to the range of the black body spectrum at the coldest temperatures (natural) observed on earth. That thermal energy is then transmitted to the ordinary atmospheric gases; mostly Nitrogen and Oxygen. Other than that CO2 has NO warming effect of any kind; although if one wanted to be pedantic one could argue that the 4 micron CO2 band has some effect on IR emissions from the very hottest desert areas, plus some tail end solar spectrum absorption. In the latter case, the CO2 exhibits both a warming effect (of the upper atmosphere) but a cooling effect of the ground as a result of the reduction (small) in ground level insolation. I refuse to call either of those tendencies a feedback.
Now I am fully aware that mass transport of both atmosphere and ocean waters distributes thermal energy from the tropics to the cooler polar areas.
But that process is convection and is unrelated to CO2 in any way.
And to claim that CO2 is responsible for the greater warming of the polar regions is just plain wrong as I have suggested. The surface emitted thermal radiation from those super cold areas is so low compared to the global mean, that even if CO2 absorbed 100% of it (it doesn’t), it still wouldn’t cause anywhere near as much atmospheric warming as happens over the hottest deserts.
And the basic reason why the polar regions have been and may continue to warm a bit faster than other places, is because the polar regions are so inefficient at cooling the planet, due to their very low temperatures, and therefore very low thermal emittance; that with all that convected heat, coming in with circulating ocean waters and the atmosphere; the polar regions simply cannot get rid of it fast enough.
Many times I have said that convection trums conduction; and in the case of the polar regions it also trums radiation.
Yes the whole darn thing is very much more complicated than the pencil sketches I have laid out. They are but skin and bones for others to build some meat onto.
If I were to try to attack it completely, there would be no room left on Anthony’s board; and I would be saying too much stuff that required presenting observed factual data; and I don’t have any means of obtaining such data other than what is available from sources that anyone can dig out for themselves.
I’m perfectly happy to have people poke holes through the sketchy skin; but to the extent of my knowledge of physics; I think my case is quite robust; but no, I never intended it to be exhaustive.
George
PS.
According to the theory of black body radiation; NO BODY can emit electromagnetic radiation having a higher spectral emittance AT ANY WAVELENGTH than that emitted by a black body.
Therefore BB calculations are valuable, in that they set an absolute limit to the rate of cooling due to radiation anywhere at any temperature; and the BB calculations say the polar regions suck when it comes to cooling the earth.
Ooops! I should have said a black body AT THE SAME TEMPERATURE. bb RADIATION DEALS ONLY WITH RADIATION THAT IS ENTIRELY DUE TO THE TEMPERATURE OF THAT BODY.
Lasers and other line sources may have different limits.
“to the extent of my knowledge of physics; I think my case is quite robust”
Having hung out in these parts for a couple years easy, I’d say your knowledge of the irradiative and thermal physics is beyond detraction. Not that we haven’t had an academic physicist poke their nose in, just so rarely it hardly merits a mention.
I suspect the foregoing critics were posing in front of a mirror. Well, talk is cheap.
George E. Smith (14:09:42) :
Let me assure you that my post was never intended to be a complete exposition of everything that happens.
I got that from what you’ve posted. It’s a double standard, however: your critics want to describe away everything you’ve said in one sentence while chiding you for not expounding on every point to the greatest of detail. Hypocrisy.
As far as I am aware, NO scientist ascribes ANY warming effect due to CO2 in the atmosphere; OTHER THAN as a direct result of the individual CO2 molecule absorbing infra-red photons in the roughly 13.5 to 16.5 micron band,
Indeed, if CO2 did not absorb those photons, there would be no heating due to CO2, period.
Mark
George,
I am quite sure that the simple outlines that you have posted here are closer to reality than anything ever imagined in the fevered minds of the modelers.
PS on GS:
I am aware that Nasif, among current frequenters, knows this thermal stuff well, and is probably an academic. I would certainly take correction from him as his white paper first turned me on to Hottel 1942.
Mark T:
No, what I am doing (in more than one sentence by the way, although admittedly while trying to be concise and to the point) is just briefly explaining why George E. Smith’s learned expositions do not trump the expositions and research findings of those who have spent decades studying these issues.
I respect George E. Smith’s manner of trying to figure everything out for himself without trying to deeply understand the literature that already exists in the field, but alas it is very difficult to do that in a field as well-developed as climate science now is unless one is not just very smart but extremely brilliant. Few of us can claim to have the sort of brilliance of an Albert Einstein (and even he probably did carefully study the papers in the fields that he revolutionized before he did his own work).
gary gulrud:
What Miskolczi “suffers” is what he deserves for publishing very poor quality work…which are critiques explaining exactly why his work is basically nonsensical. Science can be sort of rough in that way.
As for Lindzen, at least he is a very accomplished atmospheric scientist who has in the past come up with some interesting hypotheses in regards to AGW (even if they ultimately do not seem to have been verified by his fellow scientists), although unfortunately he seems to be becoming less and less someone to take seriously as his arguments seem to become more and more desperate.
” although unfortunately he seems to be becoming less and less someone to take seriously as his arguments seem to become more and more desperate.”
You’re not looking in the mirror, are you Joel?
Reply: Tone it down Mike B ~ charles the moderator
“I respect George E. Smith’s manner of trying to figure everything out for himself without trying to deeply understand the literature that already exists in the field, but alas it is very difficult to do that in a field as well-developed as climate science now is unless one is not just very smart but extremely brilliant.”
George has a better understanding of climate science than any modeler does.
http://blog.wired.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/06/07/gamers06042.jpg
Modeler hard at work…
Nasif Nahle (15:59:09) :
How good is your german? You can read it from the horse’s mouth
Thanks for the references. Do you agree alpha = 5.35 W/m^2 is not constant?
Clear alpha from the algorithm taking deltaT = 6 K (deltaT deduced by Arrhenius) and tell me what the value of alpha you obtained.
Charles,
Sorry about that. It wasn’t smart and it wasn’t kind, even though it was IN kind.
Mike
It should be remembered that Knut Ångström kicked Arrhenius’s ass with respect to his extinction coefficient, and hence, his CO2 driven global warming postulate.
a nice read from 1920.
http://books.google.com/books?id=qphDAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA566
Joel Shore (17:55:37) :
No, what I am doing (in more than one sentence by the way, although admittedly while trying to be concise and to the point) is just briefly explaining why George E. Smith’s learned expositions do not trump the expositions and research findings of those who have spent decades studying these issues.
No, actually, in response to George’s summation you said:
Note, however, that the issues determining where the warming is greater or less are much more complicated than George E. Smith suggests. That is because the change in radiative balance is due to the change in CO2 is fairly small in percentage terms…and thus where more or less warming occurs is dominated by issues of transport in the atmosphere. I.e., it is a very poor approximation to try to figure out where the warming will occur just by looking at the radiative balance locally while neglecting the transport of heat around the globe.
which does not explain “why George E. Smith’s learned expositions do not trump the expositions and research findings of those who have spent decades studying these issues.” You simply added a two sentence rebuttal to what is admittedly a summation, not meant to be the gnat’s ass explanation. Double standard, Joel.
Mark
Joel Shore:
“…as his arguments seem to become…”??
When climate alarmists like Shore are reduced to falling back on ad hominem attacks like that, it is the alarmist contingent that is truly desperate.
Mathematical way of reasoning of Svante Arrhenius:
Complete Algorithm:
∆T = (α) (Ln 2) / 4 (σ) (K^3)
Clearing α:
α = ∆T/ [Ln2 /4 (σ) (K^3)]
First Arrhenius’ guess:
α = 6 K / [0.693/3.77 W/m^2 K] = 6 K / (0.184 W/m^2 K) = 32.6 W/m^2
Second Arrhenius’ guess:
If ∆T = 1.6 K Arrhenius latter correction to his deduction from doubling CO2, α= 5.5 W/m^2, which is an exaggerated value, indeed.
Modern guess:
In 2007, Schwartz found that the climate sensitivity equivalent to equilibrium temperature for doubling CO2 is 0.6 to 1.6 K. It’s not too different from Arrhenius’ deduction of α, though Schwartz amplified the range. α depends on partial pressure and emissivity of CO2 and it refers to flux of energy.
From the calculations above and given that α changes with the magnitude of ∆T, I conclude that α is not a constant value and it could be deduced from observation-experimentation.
Considering the current partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere and its emittancy, α = 0.423 W/m^2
Perhaps exaggerated values of α depends on one’s inclination to AGW?
On the other hand, carbon dioxide is as valuable for life on Earth as water is. Biologists know this for sure. If someone is concerned about deforestation, this person must be more concerned about the unwise attempts for diminishing the concentration of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
DocMartyn (19:23:02) :
It should be remembered that Knut Ångström kicked Arrhenius’s ass with respect to his extinction coefficient, and hence, his CO2 driven global warming postulate.
Unfortunately Knut didn’t get it right.
Stephen Wilde (01:19:04) :I suspect that ocean changes, unless affected in some way by the changes in GCRs are the real driver of air temperatures and responsible for both amplification and suppression of solar variability.
The cosmic ray theory, even if right (especially if right), needs some refinement.”
I don’t think the oceans can gain and lose heat on their own, so things like the PDO are necessarily no more than heat redistributions unless some external factor is involved.
The Argo floats are now measuring ocean temperature to a significant depth, and can be argued to be a good clue to total ocean heat content. Papers from the likes of Willis, Cazenave and Leuliette suggest ocean temp was rising from ? date to around 2000, then rising more slowly to around 2003, then about flat to 2006, and falling since then.
ie, these changes are not redistribution of heat within the oceans, but changes in total heat content. In which case, something outside the oceans must be involved.
It just so happens that the Earth’s albedo was decreasing from the 1980s to around 2000, then increased again and has stayed up.
http://start.org/journals/pip/jd/2008JD010734-pip.pdf
It is reasonable to hypothesise that it was albedo driving the ocean temp (I use “hypothesise” carefully – a hypothesis is not a theory until tested), given that albedo relates to rate of change of ocean temp (by letting more/less sunlight through) not absolute ocean temp.
The albedo could in turn have been driven by the PDO, and/or it could have been driven by GCRs as per Svensmark, and/or it could have been driven by something else. Dr Roy W Spencer has told me he thinks that natural cloud variations, driven partly by ocean circulation changes, are the main driver of climate. If he’s right, then we can both be a bit right. The abrupt change in albedo rate-of-change in 2000 from-ve to +ve also appears to tie in accurately with the change of PDO phase from warming to cooling – but what mechanism and which is the driver?
No matter what, it all needs “some refinement”.
Hmm wasn’t gut feeling called a hypothesis once?
May I ask someone to lead me to a colorful drawing, obtained from computer simulation, which shows that the atomosphere above the tropical region and at a height around 10 km is to undergo most pronounced warming due to increased CO2, according to the AGW theory.
I want to use that drawing in combination with a UAH mid-troposphere temp graph, to demonstrate that the AGW prediction is in total contradiction with satellite observation.
Thanks.
Nasif Nahle says:
And in 2008, in response to comments on his original paper (see http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/pubs/BNL-80226-2008-JA.pdf ), Schwartz updated his estimate of the sensitivity to be between 0.9 to 2.9 C which, while still on the low side of most estimates, does have a considerable amount of overlap with the IPCC “likely” range of 2 to 4.5 C.