Svante Arrhenius, 1896b, On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground, London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science (fifth series), April 1896. vol 41, pages 237–275
Svante Arrhenius wrote a complex paper* in 1896 on how carbon dioxide in the air is warming the earth's surface.
Here is how Wiki summarises it:
'Arrhenius developed a theory to explain the ice ages and first speculated that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect. He was influenced by the work of others, including Joseph Fourier. Arrhenius used the infrared observations of the moon by Frank Washington Very and Samuel Pierpont Langley at the Allegheny Observatory in Pittsburgh to calculate the absorption of CO2 and water vapour. Using 'Stefan's law' (better known as the Stefan Boltzmann law), he formulated his greenhouse law. In its original form, Arrhenius' greenhouse law reads as follows:
if the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.
This simplified expression is still used today:
ΔF = α ln(C/C0)
Arrhenius' high absorption values for CO2, however, met criticism by Knut Ångström in 1900, who published the first modern infrared spectrum of CO2 with two absorption bands. Arrhenius replied strongly in 1901 (Annalen der Physik), dismissing the critique altogether." (Etc - See here
for the rest)
It was nonsense then and it is nonsense now, with brass knobs on.
Arrhenius did some very solid science, but also talked other nonsense, as we all do. He proposed that some sort of complex chemical substance coated Mars and absorbed water every year. He was shot down on that one, unnoticed, when we got there with unmanned spacecraft and the maps from reality rolled in.
Here is where he went off the rails for this planet:
On page 10 of 22, he threw in this very curious
statement (I have emboldened part of the type):
"In our deductions we will assume that the heat that is conducted from the interior of the earth to its surface may be wholly neglected. If a change occurs in the temperature of the earth's surface, the upper layers of the earth' crust will evidently also change their temperature; but this later process will pass away in a very short time, in comparison with the time that is necessary for the alteration of the surface temperature, so that at any time the heat that is transmitted from the interior to the surface (positive in the winter, negative in the summer) must remain independent of the small secular variations of the surface temperature and in the course of a year will be very nearly equal to zero." (Note the royal plural)."
A spectacular set of guesses, based on a very scant appreciation of geology and, as the satellite data now very clearly shows, spectacularly wrong. Can't blame old Svante, he never launched a satellite in his life. But today we have no excuse. Other than religion.
Arrhenius 1896 reincarnated will be shot down again as soon as the world public and the carbonists come to terms with the vast amount of satellite data from this planet. From the far side of the next magnetic reversal, probably.
Now to the graphs being used to prop up the mummy:
Indoor science has a fixation with time-series graphs. I was very lucky to escape this. I did field geology, looking for gold and coal and suchlike. (No, they do not pay the bills and there is no particular sense of fellow-feeling or animosity now either. I am solely interested in the science and in what may be good or bad for ordinary folk, three-legged dingoes, brush turkeys and donkeys, those being the folk I spend most time with and care about.)
Anyway, when you do field geology, you need to be able to read maps or you get lost, keel over and desiccate, in the warmer regions, or freeze solid where it is cooler. So, we got into the habit of marking on the maps where the valuable or interesting rocks stuck out, so we could again find them and the way home, before either sunset or doom, whichever was appropriate. In hilly terrain, we use contour maps, so as not to drive or walk over cliffs. Lassiter, though on flat ground, got this wrong and we are still looking for his lost gold reef.
Then it gets tricky because the real world changes over time. Bridges wash out, rivers alter their courses, roads turn into forests. And the geology changes a little too, over millions or years. We learned to alter our maps, and our version of the time-series contour map was born. They are not easy on paper, as you have to have several maps, and look from one to the other, but the computer is a whizz at this. Map animations are wonderful things. They impart a lot of information. These things are unkown to most indoor scientists. But animations of contour maps are two orders of complexity more informative than a time-series graph, which is where one variable changes over time.
But, the entire climate-change furore (for it is not a debate) in support of Arrhenius (1896), now pivots around comparing just two (very ill-matched) single-entity time-series graphs. Those two are change in the level of CO2 in the air in the last 50 years, and the change in the average temperature of the planet (really just of the northern hemisphere near the measuring instruments) in the last 150 years.
OK, lets take it on their terms, a simple two-graph comparison. If you have any variable increasing steadily, without minor dips and bumps, either as a straight line or as a curve, and then you compare it with another graph that measures something else and is giving an exactly matching straight line or curve, you have proved nothing. There are millions of variables out there that vary in invariant straight or curved lines, and we have only one arrow of time. They all vary either in step or inversely. So what? That is why an infinite number of PhD's is possible - just compare any three variables, with the appropriate statistical jargon, tables and graphs attached.
To come even near to proving cause and effect, or simply linkage, you need there to be small variations in both curves, that match. You can have a time-slip, if the effect takes a while to kick in.
But, the greenhouse delusion's two pet graphs fail on every count. The CO2 graph from Mauna Loa, the big (biggest on the planet) (active) volcano in Hawaii, the famous 50-year Keeling Curve, is a steadily increasing curve that has had its original variations (from the local volcanic activity), quietly ironed out. It is paired by the carbonists with the average global temperature graph. That temperature graph, (though a bit dubious on many counts, but here accepted for the sake of argument), also climbs over time, but with very considerable variations. There have been long periods of cooling, as from about 1942 to 1976. Those variations invalidate the link, since the carbonists' claim is of a direct link, and you cannot hide heat in the oceans (the current lame excuse for the temperature plateau of the last decade), without it registering with the temperature monitoring satellites or the surface monitoring equipment. But it does not matter how you explain away the mismatches, even if you are dead right. When you introduce special pleading to explain the misfits, you are back to comparing two straight lines or steady curves. No proof of anything has been demonstrated. It is kindergarten nonsense.
Meanwhile, and two orders of complexity better, we have a very fine fit between where the planet is actually heating and when and where the deep geomagnetic field is actually changing. But who wants to know? Nobody in this debate, carbonist or solarist (the solarists mainly blame the sun and/or its magnetic field), will look at the time-static contour maps with their brains in gear, let alone at the time-series animations. Geomagnetics is a closed book, as yet. Meanwhile, the Church of the Holy Molecule anfd the Thin Air Burial Societies are very strident and make a vast amount of noise. And, people love a good loud rock concert, never mind that the lyrics are total garbage.
Click source for more [LINKS] Note link is from November 17, 2009