Re: Whoops! The Atlantic Makes Trump Look EPIC In Cover Intended as a Smear

On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 18:12:04 -0400, William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:

D wrote:

 
 
On Wed, 18 Sep 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
 

On 9/18/2024 2:49 PM, D wrote:

>
>
On Wed, 18 Sep 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> 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
>

 
Certainly in this group, anything that even remotely contradicts the
narrative of man made global warming is never taken into account or ever
discussed.

>
"Never" is a long time. You've been here how long?
>
Actually there's been a great deal of discussion on this in the past.
More than there should have  been, given its off topic nature.

Oh, I don't know. A lot of what is said could be SF. Or provide the
premise for an SF story/book/movie/TV show/whatever. Both the
arguments made and the solutions proposed.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"