Talk:Svante Arrhenius

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

CO2 calculation[edit]

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)

http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/arrhvsmodtran.gif

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.

http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/arrhrev.htm http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/howmuch.htm

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?

http://www.john-daly.com/forcing/hug-barrett.htm

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 [1896] 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)

MIT's Emanuel gives Arrhenius a big thumbs up in recent talk. empirical_bayesian@ieee.org

Fisher iris versicolor sepalwidth.svg This user is a member of WikiProject Statistics.

21:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Paucity of Citations[edit]

This article should include many more citations than it does. I'm surprised it doesn't have a health warning above it.86.181.46.23 (talk) 14:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Place of birth?[edit]

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[edit]

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.

Thanks, Richard Treadgold. 122.61.169.170 (talk) 09:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC) 122.61.169.170 (talk) 09:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Arrhenius applied Stefan-Boltzmann calculations incorrectly[edit]

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. 202.172.115.20 (talk) 20:41, 12 November 2016 (UTC)