Third Century Of The Same Junk Science

Arrhenius promoted global warming junk science in the late 19th century.

“The Coming Exodus to Siberia and Canada

And now min is adding to the amount of burning coal ay nothing was ever burned on earth before since the fires of its glowing core were quenched by its crust. Up to 1845 man had burned 27,700, 000 tons in all history, In the one year of 1911 we burned not less than 500,000,000 tons! This is a terrific thing to contemplate—the Passengers engaged in such a tremendous robbery of the coal bunkers—but we are now concerned only with carbonic acid gas, and its effects on the climate,

If we keep up the increase to even half the extent. which seems certain, we shall pour into the air enough carbon dioxide to double the amount of it in the atmosphere in eight hundred years, The probabilities are that the amount will be tripled in less than a thousand years—and your children and mine will be here then!

One of the greatest scientists in the world is Arrhenius of Sweden, He is a chemist and physicist, and has studied this matter, He shows that this proportion of carbon dioxide in the air will make the climate warmer, by acting like the glass roof of a green house, With the carbon dioxide increased from two and one-half to three times, the temperature of the whole world will be raised 8 to 9 degrees centigrade—and Greenland will have a good climate for farming. All the good soil of Canada will be in a§ temperate a climate as that now enjoyed by Missouri.

Corn will be grown in the Peace River Valley. Oranges will be an orchard fruit in Arkansas and Virginia. The suburban residents of Chicago may literally sit under their own fig trees and seuppernong grape arbors, Cotton will be a stable crop in Iowa, Bananas will fringe the shores of the Gulf. Siberia will become the greatest farming country in the world, The great Antarctic continent—one of the greatest on Earth in extent—will be the Western Canada, the Scandinavia, the Siberia of that day, and will have millions of people, Alaska will be as warm as Maine now is, And the heat of all the tropics will be made hotter for thousands of years.”

The Pueblo Leader – Google News Archive Search

Five years ago Steven Hawking made the science even worse.

Stephen Hawking: Earth Could Turn Into Hothouse Planet Like Venus | Live Science

Arrhenius made a fundamental error in that he didn’t recognize  H2O is a greenhouse gas.  Knut Angstrom pointed this out in 1901, and showed experimentally that adding CO2 has very little impact on climate.

mwr-029-06-0268a.pdf

In 1941 the USDA explained why increasing levels of CO2 would not have a significant impact on the climate.

“IT WILL be news to many people that man, during his geo- logically brief existence on earth, has never known a “normal” climate. We are now at the tail end of an ice age and living in a period of crustal and climatic violence as great as any the earth has known. This is why we have to think so much about the weather. Such periods of revolution have occurred briefly several times in the history of the earth.”

“Much has been written about varying amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as a possible cause of glacial periods. The theory received a fatal blow when it was realized that carbon dioxide is very selective as to the wave lengths of radiant energy it will absorb, filtering nut only such waves as even very minute quantities of water vapor dispose of anyway. No probable Increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide could materially affect either the amount of insolation reaching the surface or the amount of terrestrial radiation lost to space.

Climate and Man: Part One – United States Department of Agriculture, US Department of Agriculture – Google Books

Rasool and Schneider at NASA confirmed this in 1971.

“It is found that even an increase by a factor of 8 in the amount of CO,, which is highly unlikely in the next several thousand years, will produce an increase in the surface temperature of less than 2°K”

“even an order of magnitude increase of CO, in the atmosphere by human activities, which at the present rate of input is not expected within the next several thousand years, may not be sufficient to produce a runaway greenhouse effect on Earth”

rasool_schneider_1971.pdf

I generated this graph using the RRTM-LW model, which shows how little impact CO2 and CH4 have on earth’s radiative balance.  Even a huge increase in CO2 or CH4  has minimal impact on climate.  H2O is far and away the dominant greenhouse gas on earth.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Third Century Of The Same Junk Science

  1. The surface temperature of Venus is caused by the adiabatic compression (pressure ratio of 409:1) of the atmospheric gases as they circulate in the atmosphere. Such circulation must take place because in the presence of a negative temperature gradient packets of gas are unstable under bouyancy forces. It is called the First Law of Thermodynamics; the temperature gradient is a consequence of the exchange of enthalpy with gravitational potential energy. There is no ‘greenhouse effect.’ All due respect to Stephen Hawkings brilliance in quantum mechanics and relativity, but he clearly knew nothing about aerodynamics (a mathematically messy subject). Yes, we can code a model for a phenomenon that does not exist, just as we can probably code up the assertions of astrology. That does not mean that the results represent reality.

  2. rah says:

    I have always wondered if the words were just attributed to him by his handlers or if in the last years before his death his cognitive function was destroyed by his condition. I just can’t imagine the Hawking who’s books I have read, would have made such a statement.

  3. Conrad Ziefle says:

    I understand a long term concern about CO2 increases, but Venus is not on the list of possibilities. Its atmosphere is 80% CO2 at a surface pressure of around 72 atmospheres. Ours is 4/10000ths CO2 of one atmosphere. So the partial pressure of Venus’s CO2 is .8x72x10000/4 times our partial pressure=144,000 times ours. I wonder how different the surface temperature of Venus would be if its atmosphere were 80% water vapor, instead of CO2? First, at that pressure, the temperature would have to be over 550 F just to have water vapor, roughly the temperature of saturated water at 1000 psi.
    At some point, burning fossil fuels might be a problem. Unfortunately, that same people who are frantic over fossil fuels are the same people, literally or in type, as those who stopped nuclear power back in the 1970-80s. We need to stop listening to them and start building nuclear plants again.

    • The effect of water vapour would be to reduce the temperature lapse rate, reducing the surface temperature, because part of the enthalpy would then be latent heat of condensation of the ascending flow in the upper region of the troposphere. This is the exact opposite of any ‘enhanced greenhouse effect’ due to the greater absorption of water vapour compared with CO2. The middle of the Sahara desert is much hotter than the middle of the Atlantic Ocean at the same latitude, so where is this famous ‘greenhouse effect’? It is folklore and thought habit, just like the once irrefutable belief that there were canals on Mars. It is a consequence of the ecologists talking to astrophysicists rather than aerodynamicists, when dealing with gas flow. Also, applying Wien’s displacement equation to the surface temperature of Venus, places the black body temperature well away from the 15 micron absorption band of CO2, so carbon dioxide cannot possibly be the cause of the high surface temperature, even if we were to accept the myth of the greenhouse effect. Even greenhouses don’t work by the ‘greenhouse effect’, they work by the suppression of convection.

  4. Joe says:

    Wow, this one post could single-handedly destroy the entire man-made warming argument overnight, if the mainstream media was onboard with it and made it viral.

  5. sofa king what says:

    Research dew points and their rising history as of late. It appears to agree with the h20 assertion in this article.

  6. Robert B says:

    A simple back of envelope and 7 w/m2 extra downwelling LWIR with a 10 fold increase is 2% more. This requires 2% more outgoing energy or 2% higher average T^4. That is a 0.5% higher T, if a constant, or 1.5°C.

    Somehow, it comes out to be 1.5 per doubling before the effect of amplification due to water.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *