Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Lynn McGuire Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written Subject: Re: Whoops! The Atlantic Makes Trump Look EPIC In Cover Intended as a Smear Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2024 19:08:18 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 81 Message-ID: References: <20240913a@crcomp.net> <20240915a@crcomp.net> <20240916a@crcomp.net> <92767bb42bc741f813f2a5a131e0ce5e@www.novabbs.com> <7mCGO.45460$xO0f.10030@fx48.iad> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2024 02:08:19 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="08c8d33650c99d4d78664ffbf758ba19"; logging-data="286996"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/GUopVtnamgVlYCzc3kpBVmwxaHtTvBCU=" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:VZXMPk7b9g0GhY1Y/uybif2QcXY= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 5440 On 9/18/2024 2:49 PM, D wrote: > > > On Wed, 18 Sep 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote: > >> Lynn McGuire writes: >>> On 9/17/2024 6:11 PM, quadibloc wrote: >>>> On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 16:29:18 +0000, Don wrote: >>>> >> >>>> Global warming is not an imaginary spectre. The science involved is >>>> really basic stuff. >> >>> >>> Any Global Warming is not caused by humans so your basic thesis is >>> wrong. >> >> You claim to be a process chemist, yet you make such >> speciously _wrong_ statements.   Svante August Arrhenius proved the >> effects of CO2 on the atmosphere over a century ago (and earned >> a Nobel prize in Chemistry). >> > > Why was Svante Arrhenius wrong about CO2? > > Introduction to Arrhenius’ Work Svante Arrhenius, a Swedish physical > chemist, is often credited with the early scientific foundation of the > greenhouse effect and global warming due to carbon dioxide (CO2). In his > 1896 publication, he posited that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 could > lead to an increase in global temperatures by approximately 5 to 6 > degrees Celsius. This assertion was based on his calculations regarding > the heat absorption properties of CO2 compared to water vapor. > > Overestimation of Temperature Increase One of the primary reasons > Arrhenius was considered wrong about CO2’s impact on temperature is that > he significantly overestimated the effect of a doubling of CO2 > concentration. His initial calculations suggested a temperature rise > between 5 and 6°C; however, later revisions indicated that this figure > was too high. By 1906, after further analysis and feedback from > contemporaries like Knut Ångström, Arrhenius revised his estimate > downwards to around 1.2°C directly and up to 2.1°C when accounting for > feedback effects from water vapor. > > Errors in Absorption Coefficient Arrhenius’s original calculations were > heavily reliant on his estimates for the absorption coefficient of CO2. > The absorption coefficient is crucial because it determines how > effectively a gas can absorb infrared radiation (heat). Ångström > challenged Arrhenius’s values, suggesting they were inaccurate. This > discrepancy highlighted that Arrhenius had not fully accounted for the > complexities involved in how different gases interact with infrared > radiation. > > Neglecting Water Vapor’s Dominance Another critical factor in > Arrhenius’s miscalculations was his underestimation of water vapor’s > role as a greenhouse gas. Water vapor constitutes a much larger portion > of the atmosphere compared to CO2 and has a more significant impact on > climate due to its higher concentration and ability to absorb heat > across various wavelengths. While Arrhenius recognized CO2 as an > important greenhouse gas, he did not adequately emphasize that its > effects would be overshadowed by those of water vapor. > > Advancements in Climate Science The understanding of climate dynamics > has evolved significantly since Arrhenius’s time. Modern climate models > incorporate complex interactions among various greenhouse gases, > including feedback loops involving clouds and aerosols, which were not > part of Arrhenius’s simpler models. These advancements have led to more > accurate predictions regarding temperature increases associated with > rising levels of CO2. > > Conclusion: Legacy and Misunderstandings While Svante Arrhenius laid > important groundwork for understanding the greenhouse effect, subsequent > research revealed that his initial estimates were overly optimistic due > to errors in calculation methods and assumptions about atmospheric > chemistry. His work serves as both a historical milestone in climate > science and an example of how scientific understanding can evolve over > time through rigorous testing and validation. Chemical saturation limits EVERYTHING but is rarely taken into account. Lynn