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.
Joel Shore (12:24:50) :
I’ll help you a bit. Here the formula:
∆T = (α) (Ln 2 [CO2]) / 4 (σ) (K^3)
Now tell me, what is wrong in it, if any error is there?
No, what I am saying that all the authors of the books and articles who disagree with you are correct (including Hans Erren, who agrees with you on the larger point regarding the significance of AGW) and that YOU are wrong. All because you are misunderstanding and misapplying formulas does not make the people who you got these formulas from incorrect.
That formula is basically correct, assuming that you are using “K” to stand for the temperature in Kelvin and with the proviso that the “[CO2]” part should not be there and is presumably a typo. That formula also agrees with what Hans Erren wrote and is what he used to derive dT = 0.98 C. As Hans notes, however, this is the equation for α in the absence of feedbacks and is hence distinct from the α that, e.g., Schwartz is talking about or what the IPCC is talking about when they say that the sensitivity due to a doubling of CO2 is likely between 2 and 4.5 C. Those numbers represent a climate sensitivity that includes feedbacks.
It is also worth noting that the formula is not fundamental but is rather based on an empirical fit, as explained here: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/222.htm where they note that the formula for relating the radiative forcing to the CO2 concentration is an empirical fit to the results from more complicated radiative transfer calculations. Hence, it makes no sense to claim that α in that equation is not a constant…It is a constant BY DEFINITION. (You might question how well that empirical equation fits the results of the more complicated radiative transfer calculations but my impression is that it fits pretty well.)
Joel Shore (19:44:19) :
That formula is basically correct, assuming that you are using “K” to stand for the temperature in Kelvin and with the proviso that the “[CO2]” part should not be there and is presumably a typo.
Well… All has been said. You’re analyzing not the reliability of the formula, but its construction. The correct way of writing it is as follows: ∆T = (α) (Ln 2) / 4 (σ) (T^3)
That formula also agrees with what Hans Erren wrote and is what he used to derive dT = 0.98 C. As Hans notes, however, this is the equation for α in the absence of feedbacks and is hence distinct from the α that, e.g., Schwartz is talking about or what the IPCC is talking about when they say that the sensitivity due to a doubling of CO2 is likely between 2 and 4.5 C. Those numbers represent a climate sensitivity that includes feedbacks.
I had told Hans that it was the same formula which I applied into some of my calculations. However, the value α = 5.35 W/m^2 is spurious because, precisely, the IPCC and Schwarts are not considering Pp, E, e of CO2, and interactions of radiation with turbulence and emission induced.
As we include those factors for calculating α, we realize the value for α is quite lower than the value proposed by the IPCC and Schwartz.
It is also worth noting that the formula is not fundamental but is rather based on an empirical fit, as explained here: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/222.htm where they note that the formula for relating the radiative forcing to the CO2 concentration is an empirical fit to the results from more complicated radiative transfer calculations. Hence, it makes no sense to claim that α in that equation is not a constant…It is a constant BY DEFINITION. (You might question how well that empirical equation fits the results of the more complicated radiative transfer calculations but my impression is that it fits pretty well.)
The value of α was not deduced from experimentation, but guessed mathematically. When we evaluate α introducing real values, α stops being “constant”.
Do you know what model these units “W m^-2” stand for? If you know it, you’ll grasp that α is not a constant, either by definition.
Nasif says:
No…It is your value that is mistaken. The IPCC is getting the value of α by fitting to actual radiative transfer calculations that go way beyond anything you are imagining…i.e., they take into account the actual spectral absorption bands and such.
Schwartz is doing a completely different sort of calculation where he is deriving a value for the climate sensitivity after feedbacks are included by looking at empirical data on how much heat the climate system absorbs (almost all of it into the oceans) and how much temperature rise is induced.
Like I said, your statement makes no sense at all. α is constant and has the value of 5.35 W/m^2 by definition because the formula given in the IPCC report is an empirical fit to the results of more complicated radiative transfer calculations.
If you don’t believe me, why don’t you at least believe Hans Erren, Roy Spencer, and Richard Lindzen, all three of whom are on your side (at least qualitatively) regarding the larger issue of climate sensitivity once feedbacks are included but all of whom accept that the radiative forcing due to doubling CO2 levels is ~4 W/m^2. [The value for radiative forcing is given by given by α ln(2).]
Joel Shore (04:33:17) :
Like I said, your statement makes no sense at all. α is constant and has the value of 5.35 W/m^2 by definition because the formula given in the IPCC report is an empirical fit to the results of more complicated radiative transfer calculations.
Yes? Is α constant? Then tell me what the units W/m^2 describe… Waiting for your answer.
BTW, α changes with induced emission. So it’s not constant. Point.
Nasif
Alpha is defined by Myhre as the constant relating forcing factor to absorption band widening, it is without feedbacks.
For Climate Sensitivity you should be using Lambda, which is dependent on feedbacks.
http://www.sciencebits.com/OnClimateSensitivity
(To add to the confusion, Shaviv uses alpha for albedo.)
I don’t understand the question. Are you trying to imply that a number with units can’t be a constant? That’s just silly. For example, the speed of light in vacuum, c, is a constant and it has units of length over time. And, σ itself is another example of a constant with units.
The units W/m^2 represent the fact that α is a constant having units of Energy per unit time per unit area.
Joel Shore (18:02:50) :
I don’t understand the question. Are you trying to imply that a number with units can’t be a constant? That’s just silly. For example, the speed of light in vacuum, c, is a constant and it has units of length over time. And, σ itself is another example of a constant with units.
The units W/m^2 represent the fact that α is a constant having units of Energy per unit time per unit area.
Hah! Of course not… I’m not implying that a number with units cannot be a constant. In this case “W/m^2” are units for total emittancy, and TE it’s not constant.
Hans Erren (15:57:45) :
Nasif
Alpha is defined by Myhre as the constant relating forcing factor to absorption band widening, it is without feedbacks.
For Climate Sensitivity you should be using Lambda, which is dependent on feedbacks.
http://www.sciencebits.com/OnClimateSensitivity
(To add to the confusion, Shaviv uses alpha for albedo.)
Thanks for the link. Shaviv’s article is quite clear. I think it dispels most of the confusion on this issue. Regarding Myhre’s definition, I’d taken α for total emittancy, because it is defined this way by Potter’s in his book on thermodynamics.
Nasif says:
So, are we to take that to mean that you now understand that you were mistaken and accept Shaviv’s statement in regards to the sensitivity in the absence of feedbacks of 0.30 K/(w/m^2) and his statement “This sensitivity translates to an equilibrium CO2 doubling temperature of about 1.2°K”?
Joel Shore (05:08:03) :
So, are we to take that to mean that you now understand that you were mistaken and accept Shaviv’s statement in regards to the sensitivity in the absence of feedbacks of 0.30 K/(w/m^2) and his statement “This sensitivity translates to an equilibrium CO2 doubling temperature of about 1.2°K”?
No, λ is a constant, α = total emittancy is not a constant.
Nasif,
No empirical constant is a “constant” as they are all approximations from linearisations. Myhre’s alpha is robust on variations of CO2 in the range of 100 ppm to 2000 ppm and is tested on line-by-line spectral calculations, Shavivs lambda OTOH is highly dependent on temperature already: cold regions like Siberia have a higher climate sensitivity than warm regions like the Congo Basin.
The controversy is not about the value of alpha, the controversy is about the value of lambda.
Hans Erren (13:58:36) :
Nasif,
No empirical constant is a “constant” as they are all approximations from linearisations. Myhre’s alpha is robust on variations of CO2 in the range of 100 ppm to 2000 ppm and is tested on line-by-line spectral calculations, Shavivs lambda OTOH is highly dependent on temperature already: cold regions like Siberia have a higher climate sensitivity than warm regions like the Congo Basin.
The controversy is not about the value of alpha, the controversy is about the value of lambda.
Yes, it’s quite clear. I’ve got it from the reading of Shaviv’s article. I should have said: “λ is a constant, α, when it is for total emittancy, is not a constant. The confusion was generated from the various and different interpretations of α.