Weather data on a single area in a single year are not significant. Greenhouse effect is. And the global temperature measurements along century.

But other local phenomena may occur, which temporarily affect the world climate. E.g., vulcanic eruptions, spreading  dusts which affect the atmospheric temperature for years. Or the cyclical El Niño in the SW Pacifc Ocean.

http://www.elnino.noaa.gov/

Weather data on a single area in a single year are not significant. Greenhouse effect is. And the global temperature measurements along century.

But other local phenomena may occur, which temporarily affect the world climate. E.g., vulcanic eruptions, spreading  dusts which affect the atmospheric temperature for years. Or the cyclical El Niño in the SW Pacifc Ocean.

http://www.elnino.noaa.gov/

Ys, maybe I missed the point.

Anyway I was born just in 1938 ad I succeeded to survive. ;)

The Nobel laureate Arrhenius was not the first to propose that greenhouse gases could affect the climate. That honour should be given to John Tyndall who  was also the first to discover that only greenhouse gases absorb terrestrial radiation, not the main atmospheric gases oxygen, nitrogen or argon.

However, Arrhenius was the first of model the effects of changes in the concentration of greenhouse gases (long before digital  computer existed.) He was attempting to show that changes in the concentration of greenhouse gases could have caused the ice age. However, the data he used was invalid, based on absorption of near infrared radiation from the moon.

Moreover, it was shown to be wrong by Karl Angstrom, son of Anders Angstom after who the unit of  light wavelength is named. He and his PhD student John Koch showed that the absorption of CO2 in the atmosphere is saturated and so adding more will not alter the heat absorbed, and the greenhouse explanation for ice ages was abandoned.

Forty years later, an engineer Guy Callendar published a paper in the Royal Met Soc. journal where he modelled the effect of the the increase in CO2 since the Industrial Revolution an showed it was roughly the same as that which had occurred. His model was based the fct that doubling the concentration of CO2 will cause the terrestrial radiation to be absorbed in a layer of air of half the depth (Beer's Law.). So the heat going into the air where we live will be doubled.

His model is now neglected although he is recognised for reawakening interest in the greenhouse effect. Current models use the same invalid method of Arrhenius and he is lionised because his models produced similar results to those of today!

There is a description of Arrhenius's work here by an modern admirer, Dr Spencer Weart.. Needless to say he hardly gives Callendar a mention.

https://www.aip.org/history/climate/simple.htm#S1A

It is  important  to observe, that  CO2 is  returning  the  carbon to the  chain of the  biologyical production. Climate is a concept dogmatic. Never in the history of our planet did not exist stable environmental conditions. And there will no exist after the extinction of mankind too.

Ken,

I should have mentioned that you had attached Callendar's paper to your post. Sorry.

However, you have not provided a source for your assertion that there has been no warming in Tennessee, or other contiguous states. Where can these records be seen, preferably on the web? And the same for your claim that Callendar's sites also show no warming. Let's have the data.

Also you claim some of the contiguous states have shown no warming since ?  What about the contiguous states as a whole, or even the entire US. That would be more representative of the world as a whole.

And what has this got to do with Arrhenius?

If you have already done it I don't see why you are asking me to repeat your effort. I am asking you to show your workings. Is that too much to ask?

You are correct on both points, but they are not unrelated. I should be spending my time preparing a paper and not let myself be distracted in fruitless arguments about global warming.

I case anyone else wishes to follow up your arguments, it seems that the site you're obtaining your information from here: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/climatological-rankings/ but they will have to work out how you obtained that map.

I have a paper to prepare. Please forgive me if I do not reply further to you on this or any other thread.

I do not understand why the first reaction on a question on the way CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas gets as an answer that there was a freak year in the US?!

Massimilio

The first answer is: yes, Arrhenius had a good estimate of the importance of CO2.

For the full history I like to refer you and also KEN TOWE

to

https://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

even though I have the impression that his preference is to present old un-calibrated data-sets at every occasion that there is a question on how the greenhouse effect works

Ken

I just made the remark that whenever someone asks a question on how the greenhouse works you present soem old graphs

The question is about the NATURAL greenhouse effect of CO2 as expressed in his 1896 paper

I can add that, with recent unmelting of the permafrost in Siberia, huge quantities of methane are being developped to the atmosphere.

Methane's greenhouse effect is 18 times that of CO2...

 in the quoted Arrhenius work, higher ( permafrost ) latitude are also  associated to higher temperature variations as the CO2 atmosphere concentration level increases:   http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/122714#page/282/mode/1up

Giorgio

This is NOT recent meting, but melting that is predicted for this century

Ken

This is not the question here:

The question is about the theory WHY CO2 acts in the absence of the gasso that the temperature at living height is higher than in the absence of the gas

And as a sub-question: why are there deniers of the greenhouse effect 

Greenhouse effect is definitely proved, across the short range climate oscillations, and I believe that something should be done immediately to reduce, at least, the CO2 emissions from fossil fuels.

Great part of nations (USA, Germany, India, China) are burning coal. It is cheap. And they are not very favourable to investing money into cheap fuels like natural gas. But the CO2 produced burning methane is half of the CO2 produced burning coal for the same amount of energy, so moving from coal to natural gas would result into a 50% reduction of CO2 emissions. It would be an important first step.

The final solution of course would be to combine chemically hydrogen generated by water electrolysis with reneawable energies and recycled CO2, in order to produce liquid or gaseous fuels. It would be  more expensive, but it would be worth tryng, if we do not want a desertification of half world and a tropicalization of the other half.

 I think that short range climate oscillations were explicitly neglected in the analysis: "Likewise we will suppose that the heat that is conducted on the earth's surface or in the atmosphere in consequence of atmospheric and oceanic currents...remains the same"

http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/122714#page/270/mode/1up

Massimiliano (Ken)

You should make it clear what you mean with are his arguments still valid

Does this apply to

1. the natural greenhouse effect by the natural CO2

or

2. the additional effect of the CO2 that mankind has put into the atmosphere

Same applies for the deniers: there are people denying the natural greenhouse effect and those denying the extra greenhouse effect

As for Ken

The effect of extra CO2 is not a linear effect that can be expressed in a linear percentage factor; every meteorologist knows that it the effect is logarithmic. That means that the temperature response levels off and only percentage of the DOUBLING is meaningful

I refer to the recent studies of Vaughan Pratt; he averages out the short-term variations like nino' nina's AMO's and volcanoes by using a 60-yr running average and compare the trend with the LOARITHMIC increase in CO2.

http://judithcurry.com/2015/11/03/natural-climate-variability-during-1880-1950-a-response-to-shaun-lovejoy/

Harry,

Thank you for your answers. 

With reference to your request of clarification, I am interested in 1+2.  In the work there is also reference to mankind CO2 : " A process of contrary effect, which is caused by industrial development of our time, and which must be conceived of as being of temporary nature"  

http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/122714#page/287/mode/1up

 it is not listed among the source to the atmosphere while : " volcanic exhalation as the chief source of carbonic acid for the atmosphere " 

http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/122714#page/288/mode/1up

and the conclusion is :" if we pass the above-mentioned processes ...that any probability exists for the permanence of an equilibrium of carbonic acid in the atmosphere." 

http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/122714#page/289/mode/1up

Massimiliano

This is one of the first times CO2 / carbonic acid is mentioned as a greenhouse gas

In the mean time there has been improvements to his qualitative ideas. For instance in his time the extra CO2 produced by mankind was insignificant. 

The question is how deep do you want to study the greenhouse effect? This site goes from simple to very deep

http://scienceofdoom.com/2014/06/26/the-greenhouse-effect-explained-in-simple-terms/

 To: Massimiliano Nori

From: Jorge Luis De los Santos Rovira

 My opinion:

Regarding the influence of the formation of carbonic acid in the air and its effect on global temperatures it is from my point of view light regarding their influence to temperature, and I consider the following:

The contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere comes from major weather events mainly from volcanic emissions. Something that can be seen in the concentrations of the studied layers of ice in Greenland, since they have high concentrations of CO2.

The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is around 1%.

I believe that the main influence on global temperature mainly comes from the amount of oxygen as O2, since being a gas that supports a lot of moisture associated, and water in turn has high heat capacity and heat significant evaporation, is the most influential variable in the captivity of heat (as well as regulating the temperature of the atmosphere).

If you consider that combustion consumes oxygen to form CO2 and H2O in approximate ratio of 3 moles of O2 by one of C (carbon), oxygen consumption is a more direct factor, as it reduces the transportation of water in form of humidity .

It may reduce O2 in the atmosphere, either by combustion of coal derived or mining and industrial processes liquefying air and hydrogen peroxide production, are reducing the O2 concentration in the atmosphere.

I can assume that reducing the O2 concentration in the atmosphere is incident on an almost log reduction in the upper layers of the atmosphere and rarefy the gas production of O3 (ozone in the ozonosphere) it is diminished and increases insolation causing increase in infrared frequency in the lower layers of the atmosphere.

If I remember since the discovery of oxygen Lavoasier this reported a concentration of O2 25% in the air, and now 21% is reported, there may be accuracies of these measurements at the time, however 4% in the composition of the gases is much more representative than the concentration of CO2.

The reduction of polar ice, may be more related to the transport of moisture from the same air and oxygen being the main acceptor moisture directly affects rainfall and reduced polar ice, and hence the thaw thereof it is kept as it depends on the insolation received.

The wind speed depends on the temperature gradient between the different parts of the atmosphere, mainly the poles, as it is away from where the trade winds from the NE in the northern hemisphere, but also influences the gradient the presence of moisture relative, so that the variation of the concentration of O2 is where you can influence more.

He listened to the effects of greenhouse gases causes are derived from the combustion gases and freon type, those with damages in the ozone layer. If ozone holes are presented in large parts of the atmosphere of the southern hemisphere, perhaps industrial activities are not located in the northern hemisphere, and winds on the planet are the poles to Ecuador, as is the concentration of the gases freon gases or accumulated in the southern hemisphere, if any gas diffuses into the atmosphere on a regular basis.

Being the main oxygen gas of life is appropriate to review why is reducing the concentration of this gas. Some mention that the production thereof is reduced in the seas (main producer) and the amount of forest. They should take a broader view and other solutions to keep the concentration of that gas.

En relación a la influencia de la formación del ácido carbónico en el aire y su efecto en la temperatura del planeta es desde mi punto de vista ligero en cuanto a su influencia a la temperatura, ya que considero lo siguiente:

La aportación de CO2 a la atmósfera más importante proviene de los fenómenos meteorológicos principalmente de las emisiones volcánicas. Algo que se puede observar en las concentraciones de los estratos de los hielos estudiados en Groenlandia, ya que presentan concentraciones elevadas de CO2.

La concentración del CO2 en la atmósfera es del orden del 1%.

Considero que la principal influencia en la temperatura del planeta proviene principalmente de la cantidad de Oxígeno como O2, ya que al ser un gas que acepta una gran cantidad de humedad asociada, y el agua posee a su vez una capacidad calorífica alta así como un calor de evaporación importante, es la variable que más influye en la trasportación del calor (así como la regulación de la temperatura de la atmósfera).

Si considero que la combustión consume oxigeno para formar CO2 así como H2O en proporción aproximada de 3 moles de O2 por una de C (carbón), el consumo de oxigeno es un factor mas directo, ya que reduce la trasportación de agua en forma de humedad.

Es posible que la reducción de O2 en la atmósfera, ya sea por combustiones de derivados de carbón o procesos mineros e industriales de licuefacción de aire y producción de Péroxidos de hidrógeno, estén reduciendo la concentración de O2 en la atmósfera.

Puedo suponer que la reducción de la concentración de O2 en la atmósfera incida en una reducción casi logarítmica en las capas superiores de la atmósfera y al enrarecerse este gas la producción de O3(ozono en la ozonósfera) se vea disminuida y aumenta la insolación provocando un aumento en la frecuencia infrarroja en las capas inferiores de la atmósfera.

Si recuerdo desde el descubrimiento del oxígeno por Lavoasier, este reportaba una concentración de O2 del 25% en el aire, y ahora se reporta el 21%, es posible que existan precisiones de parte de estas mediciones en su época, sin embargo un 4% en la composición de los gases es mucho mas representativa que la concentración de CO2.

La reducción del hielo en los polos, puede estar mas relacionado con el transporte de humedad de parte del mismo aire y al ser el oxígeno el principal aceptador de humedad afecta directamente en las lluvias y reducción de los hielos polares, y por lo tanto el deshielo de los mismos se conserva ya que depende de la insolación recibida.

La velocidad de los vientos depende del gradiente de temperatura entre los diferentes puntos de la atmósfera, principalmente los polos, ya que es de ahí de donde provienen los vientos alisios del NE en el hemisferio norte, pero también influye en ese gradiente la presencia de humedad relativa, por lo que la variación de la concentración del O2 es donde puede incidir mas.

Escuchaba los efectos de invernadero tienen causas en los gases derivados de la combustión, así como los gases del tipo freones, los que presentaban afectaciones en la capa de ozono. Si los agujeros de ozono se presentaban en amplias zonas de la atmósfera del hemisferio sur, acaso las actividades industriales no están ubicadas en el hemisferio norte, y los vientos en el planeta van de los polos al ecuador, como es que la concentración de los gases de invernadero o los freones se acumulaban en el hemisferio sur, si cualquier gas se difunde en la atmósfera en forma regular.

Siendo el oxígeno el gas fundamental de la vida es conveniente revisar el por qué se está reduciendo la concentración de este gas. Algunos mencionan que la producción del mismo se ha reducido en los mares (principal productor)así como la cantidad de bosques. Es conveniente tener una visión más amplia u otras soluciones para mantener la concentración de ese gas.

 @Kenneth M Towe Your reply does not reflect at all well on the science standards at the Smithsonian

http://science-edu.larc.nasa.gov/energy_budget/

Stephen,

It appears that your view of Ken Towe is shared by ResearchGate. All his responses here and elsewhere have been deleted.