During the 19th century, Greta Thunberg’s ancestor said burning coal would boil earth and extinct the human race.
23 Oct 1902, Page 1 – The News-Herald at Newspapers.com
Steven Hawking picked up on that idea four years ago.
Stephen Hawking: Earth Could Turn Into Hothouse Planet Like Venus | Live Science
However, this idea was shown to be incorrect by another Swede – Knut Angstrom – 120 years ago. He pointed out some very fundamental errors in Arrhenius’ thinking.
“a layer so thick as to be equivalent to that contained in the earth’s atmosphere will absorb about 16% of the earth’s radiation, and that this absorption will vary very little with any changes in the proportion of carbon dioxide gas in the air”
“The remainder of Angstrom’s paper is devoted to a destructive criticism of the theories put forth by the Swedish chemist, S. Arrhenius, in which the total absorption of CO, is quite inadmissibly inferred from data which include the combined absorption of CO, and the vapor of water. On these incorrect premises Arrhenius has founded an hypothesis as to the cause of the Ice Age, attributing it to variation in the mount of atmospheric CO,. The geologists who have adopted Arrhenius’s views should recall that his hypothesis evidently fails in the light of present knowledge of the absorptive powers of carbon dioxide.”
– Knut Angstrom 1901
And 120 years later, the UN climate spokesperson’s father is named after his relative Svante Arrhenius. Greta says fossil fuels will burn us up, yet in the real world billions of people (including Greta) depend on fossil fuels to keep from freezing to death.
Democrats don’t always get their science from truant high school students, but when they do they get it from Greta Thunberg.
Greta says she won’t fly on airplanes, but another well known climate expert will be in the area soon to rescue us from global warming.
At first I thought that was Dr Jill Biden defending Joe’s border policies…
but no, it’s Greta
There is a far more fundamental reason why the greenhouse effect theory is nonsense, quite apart from the fact that greenhouses work by suppressing convection, not by ‘trapping’ heat, and that is Kirchoff’s Law. At equilibrium, every joule absorbed by greenhouse gases is re-radiated, and since molecules of CO2 don’t have a sense of direction it is absurd to imagine they radiate preferentially downwards. The idea of ‘trapping’ radiative heat is akin to believing you can catch sunbeams in a bucket to let them out at night.
Interesting – Have you heard what Dr. Pierre Robitalle has said about Kirchoff’s law?
Here is his great site with many videos on Kirchoff. Keep it up!
https://www.youtube.com/c/SkyScholar/videos
The world will improve slightly the second you leave it; you have one saving grace — you’re older than most of us, so you’ll be dead sooner than most of us.
You must be a wee cub if you think Greta is older than most of us!
We are all more than tired of the morons who reject the scientific method, and continue to push this anti-human and anti-science man made climate nonsense.
The behavior of climate alarmists closely mirrors that of every other hate group in history.
Crap! I was hoping another 5 or 10 years of failed predictions would shut them up. Now that I know their ridiculous doomsday predictions have been failing for more than 120 years…it appears we are doomed after all. No matter how ridiculous they look, they’re never going to shut up.
I have conducted experiments on the atmospheric heat trapping properties of CO2 in concentrations up to 2000 ppm. There was no measurable temperature differences of an atmosphere with with 410 ppm CO2 and one with 2000ppm CO2. The only factor that makes a difference in atmospheric temperature, when relative humidity is held constant, is solar radiation.
It is understandable that Arrhenius would think that the increase in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere might lead to an unstable temperature. The Arrhenius equation is fundamental to chemical kinetics and mathematically describes the exponential relationship of reaction kinetics on temperature. In combustion, for example, reaction rates increase exponentially with temperature, which in an exothermic reaction leads to increased temperatures which in turn leads to an increased reaction rate.
Thermal absorption of infrared flux from Earth’s surface by CO2 and other greenhouse gases is entirely different, and is, in fact, opposite in thermal stability. More CO2 results in a diminished effect.
Furthermore, as Gordon points out above, convection is what really regulates Earth’s temperature. Any increase in the radiative thermal resistance caused by additional CO2 is significantly diluted by convection. Radiation and convection transfer solar heat absorbed by Earth’s surface in parallel to the top of the atmosphere where it is radiated to space. Climate models assume only radiative transfer, or assume radiation and convection work in series. Either way, thermodynamic law is violated. Radiation alone is incapable of maintaining Earth’s surface temperature anywhere close to the 14 degrees Centigrade average. Without convection, Earth’s average temperature would be closer to 50 C!
The whole fiasco of climate change is based on unscientific idea that the sun does not warm the planet very much. The very basic model that Trenbeth et al uses reduces the solar input by 4. Yes this is probably close to the average solar energy flux but that average is the wrong parameter to use.
The sun shines on the daylight side of the planet and the warmth it creates flood over that side of the planet facing the sun, with the most concentrated around the equatorial region. It is this concentration of energy at the equatorial region that sets-up the temperature and pressure gradients from equator to poles and from sun lit side to night-side of the planet. These temperature/pressure gradients coupled with the fact the earth is spinning, that there is adiabatic movements of the atmosphere, that the sea surface warms putting water vapor into the atmosphere where it undergoes complex exchange of energy as it moves and precipitates out. Over land all this moving air has to contend with the varying land height. These are the major parameters that gives us weather and climate changes. Not some extremely rare gas in the atmosphere called CO2.
Remove the averaging of the solar energy input and the whole climate change nonsense disappears. Averaging the solar energy flux tells us nothing about the weather or climate. So, retain reality and work from the sun warming our spinning world (the way it does), and normality is restored, varying weather and climate effects take their proper place and CO2 becomes an irrelevance.
How could that ‘well mixed’ CO2 possibly do this?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Earth_Global_Circulation_-_en.svg/740px-Earth_Global_Circulation_-_en.svg.png
Not just Angstrom, but Planck, Boltzmann and Einstein said that Arrhenius was wrong.
Great one, Tony! You’re knocking ’em out of the park!
“Democrats don’t always get their science from truant high school students, but when they do they get it from Greta Thunberg.”
— What a crack up!!!
At http://geologist-1011.mobi/ and click the ‘Most Misquoted’ button on the left to see the history of sorry tale of misquotes , e.g.
Arrhenius about Fourier
And later —