
On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air Upon the Temperature (1896) [pdf] - apsec112
http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf
======
edejong
I'm not a climate-change denier, far from it, but it is worth noting that
Svante Arrhenius made conclusions based on assumptions which are seriously
flawed [1] [2]. The effects he described are at least four times exaggerated
when compared with modern measurements.

[1]
[http://members.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/arrhrev.htm](http://members.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/arrhrev.htm)
[2]
[http://members.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/arrhenius.html](http://members.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/arrhenius.html)

~~~
dogma1138
Nearly 150 year old science is not accurate and has been replaced by modern
theories, observations and measurements is surprising because...?

~~~
edejong
Very surprising! Look at the accuracy of the measurements of speed of light
[1]. Even Eratosthenes (2nd century BC) approximations on the distance to and
diameter of the sun is more accurate. The accuracy of scientific measurements
at the time was in the order of parts per thousand. He took some lucky
guesses, combined it with the science known at the time and presented it as
new facts.

[1] [http://www.speed-
light.info/measure/speed_of_light_history.h...](http://www.speed-
light.info/measure/speed_of_light_history.htm)

~~~
Terr_
Isn't that just the survivorship bias of "interestingly close" predictions?
How many _other_ predictions for the speed of light from 2000+ years ago do we
still know about?

~~~
edejong
That's proving my point: the CO2 measurements were 400% besides the mark and
shouldn't be categorised as scientific given the time-period. My comment tries
to place Arrhenius into perspective.

------
nonbel
>'Langley himself in a later memoir showed that the full moon, which certainly
does not possess any sensible heat-absorbing atmosphere, has a "mean effective
temperature" of about 45 C.'

This seems to be incorrect. The mean temperature of the moon is somewhere
between 104-215K:

>'The mean temperature at the equator is 215.5 K with an average maximum of
392.3 K and average minimum of 94.3 K ( Fig. 19 ), representing an average
change in temperature of ∼300 K. Average maximum and minimum temperatures in
the polar regions (poleward of 85 °) are 202 K and 50 K respectively with a
mean average temperature 104 K.'
[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103516...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103516304869)

~~~
phaemon
I believe he was attempting to find the temperature of the sunlit moon, so was
actually much too low.

If you're interested, there's some discussion of it here:
[http://www.jstor.org/stable/1638754](http://www.jstor.org/stable/1638754)

~~~
nonbel
Whats the headline number in that article? Btw, I get ~310-320K average for
the dayside, depending on albedo, etc assumptions. So 273 + 45 = 318 K is
pretty close.

------
friesen
Here's a pretty good one from 40 years earlier.
[https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6xhFAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA382#v=...](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6xhFAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA382#v=onepage&q&f=false)

------
yuhong
I wonder if the technology to convert sugar to ethanol exists in the 1960s,
which would probably involve yeast. Even turning it to charcoal using sulfuric
acid would be better. (background:
[https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-
in...](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-industry-
shifted-blame-to-fat.html))

~~~
edejong
This is a non-sequitur.

------
lngnmn
Is there anything about the Influence of Carbonic Acid and Temperature Upon
Vegetation?

~~~
fhars
Yes, it may increase it, but only it there is also enough water and nitrogene
and it doesn't get too warm, which is not the case in many situations:

[http://news.stanford.edu/pr/02/jasperplots124.html](http://news.stanford.edu/pr/02/jasperplots124.html)

~~~
vixen99
Not 'may' but 'does'. CO2 provides an important source of carbon for plant
growth. Commercial growers have used carbon dioxide to enhance greenhouse
production for many years. The effect is now continental due to the increase
in atomospheric CO2.

See “Human-induced greening of the northern extratropical land surface" Nature
Climate Change 6, 959–963 (2016)

[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268280922_Ground_an...](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268280922_Ground_and_satellite_based_evidence_of_the_biophysical_mechanisms_behind_the_greening_Sahel)

~~~
parhurs
It is not "does" but "may" since, as gp wrote, it "does not" when certain
conditions are not met.

~~~
vixen99
Apologies - my mistake! It's true that (not here!) in the rush to talk about
its warming effect, many choose to ignore the positive effect of CO2 in the
atmosphere <with respect> to its importance as a carbon source for plants.

Greening has of course taken place. To quote NASA, [ I think I've got this one
right ] ...

"From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant
greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric
carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature
Climate Change on April 25. An international team of 32 authors from 24
institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite
data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution
Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of
leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an
increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the
continental United States."

[https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-
fer...](https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-
fertilization-greening-earth)

This is not in the least surprising given extensive experimentation showing
enhanced profitable growth for many plants (not all) with increased CO2. There
will be upper limits of course.

~~~
epistasis
>in the rush to talk about its warming effect, many choose to ignore the
positive effect of CO2 in the atmosphere <with respect> to its importance as a
carbon source for plants.

I'm not sure if you're meaning to, but your diction comes across as extremely
biased. "Rush to talk" imputes a a hurriedness that does not seem justified
based on any discussion I've seen. Also, a "choice" to "ignore" a particular
effect, imputes a conscious decision to omit something that may be important.
This uncharitable framing seems to be in error, as your own link doesn't seem
very optimistic about greening countering climate change.

>“Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon
dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.

The actual paper is quite interesting!

[http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n8/full/nclimate30...](http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n8/full/nclimate3004.html)

And it's very important to study, but I don't understand the need to impute
bad motives to others not involved in the HN discussion.

