Block, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, edit
14,282
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 27:
Line 27: − +
→The skeptics strike back
===The skeptics strike back===
===The skeptics strike back===
Arrhenius ignored water vapor in his calculations, leading him overestimate the effect of CO<sub>2</sub> by 96 percent, as Knut Ångström observed in 1901.<ref>"[https://realclimatescience.com/2016/12/climate-scientists-celebrating-115-years-of-debunked-science/ Climate Scientists Celebrating 115 Years Of Debunked Junk Science]"</ref> More controversially, Ångström questioned whether CO<sub>2</sub> could act as a greenhouse gas at all. He took a tube of carbon dioxide, shined black body radiation on it, and varied the pressure on the gas. Increasing the pressure led to only a slight increase in absorption. He concluded that radiation absorption by CO<sub>2</sub> is already nearly saturated, so the emission of additional gas into the atmosphere would have little effect. Ångström thus became "the first denier."
Arrhenius ignored water vapor in his calculations, leading him to overestimate the effect of CO<sub>2</sub> by 96 percent, as Knut Ångström observed in 1901.<ref>"[https://realclimatescience.com/2016/12/climate-scientists-celebrating-115-years-of-debunked-science/ Climate Scientists Celebrating 115 Years Of Debunked Junk Science]"</ref> More controversially, Ångström questioned whether CO<sub>2</sub> could act as a greenhouse gas at all. He took a tube of carbon dioxide, shined black body radiation on it, and varied the pressure on the gas. Increasing the pressure led to only a slight increase in absorption. He concluded that radiation absorption by CO<sub>2</sub> is already nearly saturated, so the emission of additional gas into the atmosphere would have little effect. Ångström thus became "the first denier."
Nils Ekholm, an associate of Arrhenius, had an answer to Ångström's point about saturation.<ref>Ekholm, Nils, "On the Variations of the Geological and Historical Past their Causes, ''Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society,'' January 1901. DOI: 10.1002/qj.49702711702.</ref> Ångström's tube was saturated because it was at ground level. High enough in the atmosphere, there must be an unsaturated layer of carbon dioxide capable of absorbing radiation. The greater the density of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the lower this layer would be. A lower layer would retransmit more radiation to the lower atmosphere and would therefore be responsible for greater warming. Ekholm's insight was lost on his fellow scientists. It was not rediscovered until the 1960s.<ref>"The Surface budget fallacy," ''The Warming Papers'', pp. 79-80.</ref>
Nils Ekholm, an associate of Arrhenius, had an answer to Ångström's point about saturation.<ref>Ekholm, Nils, "On the Variations of the Geological and Historical Past their Causes, ''Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society,'' January 1901. DOI: 10.1002/qj.49702711702.</ref> Ångström's tube was saturated because it was at ground level. High enough in the atmosphere, there must be an unsaturated layer of carbon dioxide capable of absorbing radiation. The greater the density of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the lower this layer would be. A lower layer would retransmit more radiation to the lower atmosphere and would therefore be responsible for greater warming. Ekholm's insight was lost on his fellow scientists. It was not rediscovered until the 1960s.<ref>"The Surface budget fallacy," ''The Warming Papers'', pp. 79-80.</ref>