|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Svante Arrhenius article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Svante Arrhenius has been listed as a level-4 vital article in People. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Look William, I know you like present day computer models but Arrhenius absolutely misjudged the absorption of CO2 in the atmosphere in his first publication (present day value 350 atm cm)
He therefore OVERESTIMATED the greenhouse effect big time.
+ See the CKO experiment in The Netherlands which uses a climate sensitivity of 1 K/2xCO2
+ See the values Hansen uses for the ice ages.
Hans Erren 21:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
- Even your page says We see that Arrhenius gives us a temperature increase of 0.22 K for CO2 doubling..... That is *less* than the modern value. Hence, he *underestimated* CO2 effect - based on your page. Not that I trust your page, of course. William M. Connolley 21:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC).
- that is ONLY when you use modern values for emisivity and albedo in equation (3). The proper stefan boltzmann calculation can be done using this applet: http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/sb.htm
- And if you'd check other pages on my website, you'd notice that my preferred value for co2 doubling is 1K. http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/cooling.htm
- Sorry guv, your own pet value is of interest to you but to no-one else, and definitely not to wiki. William M. Connolley 20:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC).
- You probably have never heard of the debate in the peer reviewed Spectrochimica and Cosmochimica acta?
- Anyway, I removed my link in the text and changed it to strictly neutral point of view, just stating verifiable facts. Hans Erren 18:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
OK, I've modified it further, based on the AIP ref. There is a case for adding something like "of course he made several competing errors" or somesuch. In fact I've added something to that effect. William M. Connolley 20:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC).
I'll agree with the 5 although, table 7 http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/table7.gif clearly gives numbers for Wearts european lattitudes 5.5 (summer)to 6.1 (winter) However, Arrhenius writes in 1901 (page 699 bottom):
Nach dem damals  ausgefürten Berechnungen sollte ein sinken des Kohlensäuregehaltes der Luft auf 0,5 eine Temperaturerniedrigung von 5,3 °C entsprechen. Von diesen 5,3 entspringt ein viertel der Wasserdampfabnahme und 4,0° der directen Kohlensäurewirkung, während jetzt 3,2° berechnet wurden. Ebenso würde nach der alten Berechnung dem dreifachen Kohlensäuregehalt der jetzigen eine Temperatursteigerung von etwa 8,2 °C entsprechen, wovon 7° auf die directe Kohlensäurewirkung kämen, was den neuberechneten Wert (7,1°) sehr wohl entspricht. Die neue Berechnung führt demnach zu Ergebnissen die mit denjenigen der alten entweder gänzlich übereinstimmen oder jedenfalls annäherend gleich sind.
In English. A tripling of CO2 including water vapour feedback yields a 8.2 °C temperature increase, or 5.17°C (8.2ln2/ln3) for CO2 doubling, a halving of CO2 including water vapour feedback yields a 5.3 °C temperature decrease. A tripling of CO2 excluding water vapour feedback yields a 7 °C temperature increase, or 4.4°C (7ln2/ln3) for CO2 doubling, a halving of CO2 excluding water vapour feedback yields a 4.0 °C temperature decrease.
The 4 degrees mentioned in "Worlds in the making" is the dry CO2 value. The "somewhat lowered effect" of Weart is only for halving CO2, not for tripling, that is a "somewhat increased effect"(!). Hans Erren 22:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
21:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Paucity of Citations
Place of birth?
Place of birth can't both be in the vicinity of Uppsala (close to the east coast of Present-day Sweden and in Sogn og Fjordane (a western part of present-day Norway that did belong to Sweden when S.A. was born). As I don't have a reliable reference at hand, I just flag the discrepancy here. I do however suspect that Vik once referred to a now extinct article about the village in Uppland, was deleted due to lack of significance and later replaced with the article about Vik in Sogn, Norway. Rootmoose (talk) 20:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
The page Vik (disambiguation) lists six villages named Vik in Norway and one in Southern Sweden. So we need a reliable reference to determine which was his actual birthplace. Dirac66 (talk) 21:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Arrhenius' revision of climate sensitivity
The article contains the statement:
"In his 1906 publication, Arrhenius adjusted the value downwards to 1.6 °C (including water vapor feedback: 2.1 °C)."
The 1906 publication was "...Världarnas utveckling (1906), German translation: Das Werden der Welten (1907), English translation: Worlds in the Making (1908)"
I have located a copy of Worlds in the Making at http://archive.org/stream/worldsinmakinge00arrhgoog#page/n71/mode/1up/search/half scanned and posted by Google.
But on page 53 Arrhenius says "If the quantity of carbonic acid in the air should sink to one-half its present percentage, the temperature would fall by about 4°; a diminution to one-quarter would reduce the temperature by 8°. On the other hand, any doubling of the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air would raise the temperature of the earth's surface by 4°; and if the carbon dioxide were increased fourfold, the temperature would rise by 8°." just as the article says, with no revised figures.
Do you have a citation for the claim that he adjusted the sensitivity value downwards, please?
UPDATE 2 mins later: I've just noticed the previous question on the same topic. Perhaps I should assume the citation is in the Swedish or German edition. If anyone knows differently I'd appreciate hearing about it.
Arrhenius applied Stefan-Boltzmann calculations incorrectly
Nothing in physics indicates that it is valid to add totally different fluxes of radiation and use the total in Stefan-Boltzmann calculations to determine the temperature achieved. Yet NASA energy diagrams clearly imply that, to this day, they still incorrectly think the Stefan-Boltzmann Law can be used to explain a mean surface temperature of 288K supposedly explained by a net of 390W/m^2, that being the sum of solar radiation and atmospheric radiation, less non-radiative cooling. The first error is that they ignore the variability of solar radiation between day and night and at different latitudes. The Stefan-Boltzmann calculations are based on uniform flux from a single blackbody. Variable flux with the same mean always produces a somewhat lower temperature. Wien's Displacement Law also relates to a single source, so how can adding fluxes with totally different Planck functions have a distribution with a peak wavelength (and thus temperature) equivalent to that from a sun emitting about three times as much as our Sun? A simple experiment proves my point: place an electric bar radiator at a distance such that it warms your cheek to 42°C (315K) then see if 16 such radiators roast you at 630K, namely 357°C. Furthermore, if solar radiation and back radiation can be added anywhere on the globe, then the result where the Sun is directly overhead on a clear day would be over 120°C. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 20:41, 12 November 2016 (UTC)