Polar Opposites: Fox News And Science

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201202140012

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/



How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?


Filed under:

• Climate Science
• FAQ
• Greenhouse gases
• Paleoclimate

— eric @ 22 December 2004 - () () ()
Note:This is an update to an earlier post, which many found to be too technical. The original, and a series of comments on it, can be found here. See also a more recent post here for an even less technical discussion.
Over the last 150 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have risen from 280 to nearly 380 parts per million (ppm). The fact that this is due virtually entirely to human activities is so well established that one rarely sees it questioned. Yet it is quite reasonable to ask how we know this.

One way that we know that human activities are responsible for the increased CO2 is simply by looking at historical records of human activities. Since the industrial revolution, we have been burning fossil fuels and clearing and burning forested land at an unprecedented rate, and these processes convert organic carbon into CO2. Careful accounting of the amount of fossil fuel that has been extracted and combusted, and how much land clearing has occurred, shows that we have produced far more CO2 than now remains in the atmosphere. The roughly 500 billion metric tons of carbon we have produced is enough to have raised the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to nearly 500 ppm. The concentrations have not reached that level because the ocean and the terrestrial biosphere have the capacity to absorb some of the CO2 we produce.* However, it is the fact that we produce CO2 faster than the ocean and biosphere can absorb it that explains the observed increase.

Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means “same type”) but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.

CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases.

Isotope geochemists have developed time series of variations in the 14C and 13C concentrations of atmospheric CO2. One of the methods used is to measure the 13C/12C in tree rings, and use this to infer those same ratios in atmospheric CO2. This works because during photosynthesis, trees take up carbon from the atmosphere and lay this carbon down as plant organic material in the form of rings, providing a snapshot of the atmospheric composition of that time. If the ratio of 13C/12C in atmospheric CO2 goes up or down, so does the 13C/12C of the tree rings. This isn’t to say that the tree rings have the same isotopic composition as the atmosphere – as noted above, plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes, but as long as that preference doesn’t change much, the tree-ring changes wiil track the atmospheric changes.

Sequences of annual tree rings going back thousands of years have now been analyzed for their 13C/12C ratios. Because the age of each ring is precisely known** we can make a graph of the atmospheric 13C/12C ratio vs. time. What is found is at no time in the last 10,000 years are the 13C/12C ratios in the atmosphere as low as they are today. Furthermore, the 13C/12C ratios begin to decline dramatically just as the CO2 starts to increase — around 1850 AD. This is exactly what we expect if the increased CO2 is in fact due to fossil fuel burning. Furthermore, we can trace the absorption of CO2 into the ocean by measuring the 13C/12C ratio of surface ocean waters. While the data are not as complete as the tree ring data (we have only been making these measurements for a few decades) we observe what is expected: the surface ocean 13C/12C is decreasing. Measurements of 13C/12C on corals and sponges — whose carbonate shells reflect the ocean chemistry just as tree rings record the atmospheric chemistry — show that this decline began about the same time as in the atmosphere; that is, when human CO2 production began to accelerate in earnest.***

In addition to the data from tree rings, there are also of measurements of the 13C/12C ratio in the CO2 trapped in ice cores. The tree ring and ice core data both show that the total change in the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere since 1850 is about 0.15%. This sounds very small but is actually very large relative to natural variability. The results show that the full glacial-to-interglacial change in 13C/12C of the atmosphere — which took many thousand years — was about 0.03%, or about 5 times less than that observed in the last 150 years.

For those who are interested in the details, some relevant references are:
Stuiver, M., Burk, R. L. and Quay, P. D. 1984. 13C/12C ratios and the transfer of biospheric carbon to the atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 89, 11,731-11,748.
Francey, R.J., Allison, C.E., Etheridge, D.M., Trudinger, C.M., Enting, I.G., Leuenberger, M., Langenfelds, R.L., Michel, E., Steele, L.P., 1999. A 1000-year high precision record of d13Cin atmospheric CO2. Tellus 51B, 170–193.
Quay, P.D., B. Tilbrook, C.S. Wong. Oceanic uptake of fossil fuel CO2: carbon-13 evidence. Science 256 (1992), 74-79


—————————
Notes
*How much they can be expected to absorb in the long run is an interesting and important scientific question, discussed in some detail in Chapter 3 of the IPCC report. Clearly, though, it is our ability to produce CO2 faster than the ocean and biosphere can absorb that it is the fundamental cause of the observed increase since pre-industrial times.
**The development of continuous series of tree rings going back thousands of years by using trees of overlapping age, is known as dendrochronology (see the Arizona Tree Ring lab web pages for more information on this).
***There is a graph illustrating the sponge data posted here. Thanks to F. Boehm for providing this link.

 

You are basing your argument on a study paper from 2004-2005?

 

It is really warm in Boston this winter.

No snow.

Rain all the time.

The NH mountains suck for climbing.

One dead on Mt. Washington already, due partly to the crappy conditions.

It must be the global warming, right? I think I'm changing my mind about all this Al Gore crap. It's a lot warmer than usual. Just saying.

 

Believe what you wish.......

 

Global warming (weather pattern change), is it all man made or is it the natural cycle of the planet.

I believe it would be happening without the assistance of man, but we have contributed to it, does it make any difference if we go "green"? It would drop the emission rate but would it have any significant change on the climate, maybe a little but I still think we are going through a natural cycle of change and there is not a lot we can do about it.

How can we go green and still meet our energy requirements, re-usable sources like wind and tidal generators are not going to be enough, solar will help but all three together will not meet the needs of this and future generations. So we are left with coal, oil, gas and nuclear to make up the short fall, after the tsunami in Japan people are a little worried about atomic reactors and the other three sources will run out soon.
Maybe the answer is to revert back to the 17th century and use horses, except then our city streets would be jammed not only with carts but horse shit and there are only so many rose bushes that need fertiliser.
So until we can control cold fusion or get hydrogen from water cheaply we are stuck with what we have and just have to live with it, but reducing your carbon footprint can only help, not much but it can't hurt to recycle or save energy.

 

All of which begs the question, what do you plan to do when the fossil fuels run out? They are finite.

 

And oil especially is running out far faster than anyone is willing to admit even though we are pretty much down to strip mining tar sands now.

 

Bullshit Ace. What Whitey was proving to you is that yes scientists can tell the difference between naturally occurring CO2 and human caused CO2 from burning fossil fuels.

So that just blows your" its a natural pattern" right out the window.

 

I realise this, that is why I said we must learn to control cold fusion and get hydrogen from water on a cheaper basis, if the fossil fuel runs out then people will be forced to scale back on their energy needs.
I Didn't say I had the answer just what my thoughts on the problem are, others a little smarter than me will have to solve the energy problem, all I can do is try and reduce my energy needs, and now I am trying to think of the greenest way to dispose of my body when I die.

 

You leftists are pathetic,,you leftists can never think outside the box..

Where was the monitoring taken place at,,anyone can get the 'proper' test results if the monitoring was strategically placed to get the 'desired' results. Were those 'tests' taken near a industrial city, were those tests taken during a very busy flight pattern.

We just so happened to have gotten an ''EMISSIONS TEST'' facility in several cities, do you have any idea when the air quality was checked in the tri-county area,,,1 week after an ''AIR SHOW'' an air show that had about 40-45 planes flying in the air,,now I ask you,,what kind of CO2 was discharged from the airplanes?

There are so flaws in the 'man-made global warming'' theorists, and the studies can also be severely manipulated, to meet the desired goals.

 

Do you seriously believe that an airshow that occurred a week before an atmospheric measurement occurs has a significant impact on CO2 levels? Are you just making this up, or did someone ELSE come up with this ridiculous "outside-the-box" theory?

 

"Humanity is sitting on a time bomb. If the vast majority of the
world's scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a
major catastrophe that could send our entire planet's climate system
into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods,
droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have
ever experienced - a catastrophe of our own making."
- Al Gore,
An Inconvenient Truth​

Global Warming – Settled Science?​

With the continual bombardment of ‘climate doom’ stories today, it is hard to imagine a time when global warming was not a ‘top priority’ on the social, political and economic agenda. Everything from floods in England to poverty in the Third World is now being blamed on global warming. However, it is a relatively new phenomenon, barely discussed until 20 years ago, and established as a significant policy issue only in the past 15 or so years.

Usually a scientific theory takes many decades to become established, and only after the most rigorous testing under many different scenarios, does it achieve ‘scientific consensus’. However, when it comes to Global Warming its proponents claim that there is no argument or debate to be had. Their current crusade is to turn Global Warming into something that supposedly no honest and decent person can disagree about, as they have already done with ‘environmental sustainability’. Al Gore often says “Climate change is a moral issue.” In other words it is all about you, and your destructive behaviour.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has confidently announced ‘the science is settled’ on man-made Global Warming. Their most recent set of reports declares that “the debate over the science of climate change is well and truly over. Unified international political commitment is now urgently required to take action to avoid dangerous climate change.”

However, the science is not settled. Many renowned climatologists strongly disagree with the IPCC’s conclusions about the cause and potential magnitude of Global Warming. More than 20,000 scientists have now signed the Oregon Petition which criticises it as ‘flawed’ research and states that “any human contribution to climate change has not yet been demonstrated.” Dr Chris Landsea resigned from the IPCC because he “personally could not in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”

The IPCC claims that more than 2,500 respected scientists and policy makers collaborate to write its climate change assessments but less than a tenth of these ‘experts’ actually hold qualifications in climatology, most were in fact educated in the political and social sciences. The panel that edits and approves the reports are appointed by the United Nations, and more than half are actually UN officials. Dr Richard Lindzen, who is a genuine climate expert, resigned from the IPCC process after his contributions were completely rewritten by the panel.

"It's not 2,500 people offering their consensus, I participated in that. Each person who is an author writes one or two pages in conjunction with someone else. They travel around the world several times a year for several years to write it and the summary for policymakers has the input of a handful of scientists, but ultimately, it is written by representatives of governments, and of environmental organizations, each pushing their own agenda." - MIT's Professor of Atmospheric Science Dr. Richard Lindzen on the IPCC report.

Czech President Klaus stated “It is not fair to refer to the UN panel as a group of scientists. The IPCC is not a scientific institution. It's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavour. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists, and UN bureaucrats, who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment."

Asserting ‘the science is settled’ ignores the debate that still rages, and the constant shrieking by alarmists like Al Gore reveals that Global Warming is being used to push a hidden agenda. They are not really interested in the science at all. Even their much vaunted consensus is a myth. The Global Warming Petition Project has been signed by more than 31,000 American scientists, including more than 9,000 with PhDs. Signers include world renowned physicists such as Prof. Edward Teller and Prof. Freeman Dyson. Nearly 4,000 signers are scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.

The petition states: “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.” Proclaiming that “climate change is real” is a nonsensical statement and ignores the Earth’s continual natural warming and cooling cycles. Vikings settled in Greenland and raised crops and cattle 1000 years ago, while Britons grew grapes in England. Four hundred years later, Greenland froze and the Vikings starved. Europe was gripped in a Little Ice Age. The Thames froze all the way up to London. Another surge in temperatures saw widespread global droughts in the mid-1600s. Temperatures plunged again around 1700’s. The globe warmed in 1800-1940, cooled for the next 35 years, then warmed again. The 1940-1975 cooling period occurred despite the fact that industrial production and release of CO2 vastly accelerated during this time. This led to political and media scaremongering about Global Cooling, and the threat of a new ice age.

Again, this arose out of a misunderstanding of long term temperature fluctuations. Scientists have discovered that the sun not only has a regular 11 year cycle of sunspot activity. They have now discovered a significant 200 year cycle. Sunspot and solar radiation activity almost exactly parallel temperature changes on the Earth. It correlates well with the anomalous post-war temperature dip, when global carbon dioxide levels were rising very fast. The increase in solar radiation prevents the formation of clouds, which have a cooling effect on the planet, therefore the temperature rises.





Other recent studies, published in Nature and other leading journals, conclude that the sun’s radiant heat and solar radiation levels affect planetary warming and cloud formation more strongly than acknowledged by Global Warming alarmists. After all, why would natural forces that caused the climate to change in past centuries suddenly stop now? And how does man-made Global Warming explain why every planet in our solar system appears to be simultaneously warming up? Does this not suggest that Global Warming is a natural cycle as a result of the dynamic nature of the sun?
”Global Warming on Pluto Puzzles Scientists: Astronomers today said Pluto is undergoing global warming in its thin atmosphere even as it moves farther from the Sun on its long, odd-shaped orbit.” - Space.com

”Global Warming on Mars? A study of the ice caps on Mars may show that the red planet is experiencing a warming trend. If both Mars and Earth are experiencing global warming, then perhaps there is a larger phenomenon going on in the Solar System that is causing their global climates to change.” - National Geographic

“NASA says its Cassini spacecraft has found a hurricane-like storm at Saturn's South Pole, nearly 5,000 miles across - or two-thirds Earth's diameter.” - New Scientist

"Global Warming Detected on Triton: At least since 1989, Triton has been undergoing a period of global warming," confirms astronomer James Elliot, professor of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT. "Percentage-wise, it's a very large increase."

“New Storm on Jupiter Hints at Climate Change: The latest images could provide evidence that Jupiter is in the midst of a global change that can modify temperatures by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit on different parts of the globe.” - Space.com

“The Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research published in the prestigious science journal Nature.” - London Telegraph
In truth we still know [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]very little about how the Sun really operates. [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]This is one of the reasons why I cringe when global warming alarmists categorically state that the sun could not possibly be the cause of any slight warming that has been observed on earth. A new type of telescope developed by the Japanese has revealed all sorts of energy patterns and violent eruptions that could not previously be observed, and their effect on earth is unknown. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]“A Japanese space telescope called Hinode has achieved success in revealing certain surprising characteristics of the Sun, previously not known to humans. Among the characteristics revealed is the restless bubbling and frothing of the Sun's chaotic surface, which has astonished astronomers around the world. "Everything we thought we knew about X-ray images of the Sun is now out of date," scientists told a NASA press conference in Washington on Wednesday. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]According to Leon Golub from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts, US. "We've seen many new and unexpected things. For that reason alone, the mission is already a success." Hinode has sent back startling images of the Sun's outer limb. Where astronomers expected to see a calm region called the chromosphere, they saw a seething mass of swaying spikes. Another surprise sighting is that of giant magnetic field loops crashing down onto the Sun's surface as if they were collapsing from exhaustion, a finding that Golub describes as "impossible".[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]http://news.sawf.org/Health/34957.aspx[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Recently another unexpected solar phenomenon was observed:[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]“Astronomers have captured the first footage of a solar "tsunami" hurtling through the Sun's atmosphere at over a million kilometres per hour. Details were reported at the UK National Astronomy Meeting in Belfast. In a solar tsunami, a huge explosion near the Sun, such as a coronal mass ejection or flare, causes a pressure pulse to propagate outwards in a circular pattern. Last year's solar tsunami, which took place on 19 May 2007, lasted for about 35 minutes, reaching peak speeds about 20 minutes after the initial blast. Co-author David Long commented: "The energy released in these explosions is phenomenal; about two billion times the annual world energy consumption in just a fraction of a second.”[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7326097.stm[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Apart from ignoring the giant ball of fire in the sky, Global Warming alarmists also overlook a few other inconvenient truths. They ignore the fact the natural emissions[/FONT] of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere far exceed human contributions. In fact humans contribute a measly 0.035% of the total annual carbon flux. Any system that can be perturbed by such a tiny fluctuation would be very unstable indeed. They also ignore the fact that water vapour is by far the most dominant greenhouse gas. The atmosphere consists of 40,000 ppm of water vapour, whereas carbon dioxide weighs in at a miniscule 380 ppm. Instead they rely on dubious computer models that the IPCC itself admits exclude complex parts of the climate system that they don’t yet understand.

Sometime in the late 1990s activists decided to abandon the name Global Warming and switched instead to Climate Change. This has two advantages. It allows them to seize as ‘evidence’ the inevitable occurrences of unusually cold weather as well as warm ones. The climate is always changing, but now any storm, hurricane, tornado, flood, frost or drought is instantly used as “proof that our climate is changing!”

Global Warming has almost become religious dogma for many in the green movement. High priest Al Gore demands that we accept a "scientific truth" in which no doubt is allowed, blind faith and acceptance is our only option. They label anyone who questions their claims to be “climate deniers”, a cheap and quite despicable comparison to Holocaust deniers. There is a sustained campaign to prevent these heretics from having any sort of public platform for their views. Every scientist who manifests disbelief can expect to be the target of abuse from self-appointed protectors of the planet.

Al Gore’s Live Earth concerts were one of the most blatant attempts at mass manipulation and brainwashing that I have ever witnessed. The broadcast continually urged viewers to “Answer the Call” and “Save Our Selves”. Films clips were shown of New York City hundreds of feet under water. One clip was titled “A contract with Satan”. Another showed a man eating the last piece of ice on earth. Very subliminal!

As in other forms of mental conditioning, continual reinforcement is a necessary part of the process and that is where ritual comes in. Switching off our VCR’s at the wall every night, cycling to work, sacrificing our humble incandescent light-bulbs, anxiously calculating our carbon footprints, it all helps to soothe our guilt and makes us feel like we are doing our part.

In medieval times the Catholic Pardoner sold Papal Indulgences, which freed the prosperous from the consequences of sin. They were able to indulge in carnal pleasures as long as they could pay the price. Likewise, the new pardoners sell carbon offsets. Soon every time you commit the sin of driving your car you will be forced pay the price for ‘wounding the planet’. Some faceless company will agree to plant an imaginary tree to atone for your climate crimes.

The hoax of the man-made Global Warming is being imposed on the world by many methods, both subtle and blatant. Proponents of the Global Green Agenda have embarked on a programme of mass deception, while scientists who attempt to blow the whistle on the fraud are silenced, tarred, ridiculed and fired. The Gaian cult that has permeated the United Nations is using the hysteria of Global Warming to impose draconian control measures on society and centralise world power. They intend to use this fabricated crisis, and any other crisis that might arise, to further their plan for “a sustainable global human society living in harmony with Gaia.” They have declared "the science is settled" on the man-made origins of Global Warming. Real scientists know that science is never settled. We have seen it all before.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~​

”There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change and cool dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production - with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The drop in food production could begin quite soon. The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologist are hard-pressed to keep up with it.” - Newsweek, April 28, (1975)

“This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000.” - Lowell Ponte "The Cooling" (1976)

“The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population.” - Reid Bryson, Global Ecology (1971)

“The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer.” - Prof. Paul Ehrlich - The Population Bomb (1968)

“In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish.” - Prof. Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day (1970)

“This cooling trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.” - Peter Gwynne, climatologist, Newsweek (1976)

“If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000...This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.” - Kenneth Watt, Earth Day (1970)

http://www.green-agenda.com/science.html

 

LOL,,,the leftists head hunters are on your trail,,the got your scent........

 

Any scientific study that approached climate change from that perspective that you just described would be easily disproven and not be taken seriously or published.

 

It may surprise you that scientists have been studying global warming for more than 116 years now. In the case of of climate change, the first scientific paper on the effects of CO2 upon the climate was published in 1896 by Svente Arrhenius, a scientist from Sweden. He published several more papers for about the subject as well in German. Here is a list of his papers that date back 116 years. Joseph Fourier was studying the green house effect earlier than that.


Svante Arrhenius, 1896a, Ueber den Einfluss des Atmosphärischen Kohlensäurengehalts auf die Temperatur der Erdoberfläche, in the Proceedings of the Royal Swedish Academy of Science, Stockholm 1896, Volume 22, I N. 1, pages 1–101.
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, 1901a, Ueber die Wärmeabsorption durch Kohlensäure, Annalen der Physik, Vol 4, 1901, pages 690–705.
Svante Arrhenius, 1901b, Über Die Wärmeabsorption Durch Kohlensäure Und Ihren Einfluss Auf Die Temperatur Der Erdoberfläche. Abstract of the proceedings of the Royal Academy of Science, 58, 25–58.

Here's a link to a copy of his 1896 paper "On the influence of carbonic acid in the air uponthe temperature of the ground".

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/18/Arrhenius.pdf


Arrhenius developed a theory to explain the ice ages, and in 1896 he was the first scientist to speculate that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.[4] 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 infrared radiation by atmospheric 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. He touched the subject briefly in a technical book titled Lehrbuch der kosmischen Physik (1903). He later wrote Världarnas utveckling (1906), German translation: Das Werden der Welten (1907), English translation: Worlds in the Making (1908) directed at a general audience, where he suggested that the human emission of CO2 would be strong enough to prevent the world from entering a new ice age, and that a warmer earth would be needed to feed the rapidly increasing population:
"To a certain extent the temperature of the earth's surface, as we shall presently see, is conditioned by the properties of the atmosphere surrounding it, and particularly by the permeability of the latter for the rays of heat." (p46)"That the atmospheric envelopes limit the heat losses from the planets had been suggested about 1800 by the great French physicist Fourier. His ideas were further developed afterwards by Pouillet and Tyndall. Their theory has been styled the hot-house theory, because they thought that the atmosphere acted after the manner of the glass panes of hot-houses." (p51)"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°." (p53)"Although the sea, by absorbing carbonic acid, acts as a regulator of huge capacity, which takes up about five-sixths of the produced carbonic acid, we yet recognize that the slight percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere may by the advances of industry be changed to a noticeable degree in the course of a few centuries." (p54)"Since, now, warm ages have alternated with glacial periods, even after man appeared on the earth, we have to ask ourselves: Is it probable that we shall in the coming geological ages be visited by a new ice period that will drive us from our temperate countries into the hotter climates of Africa? There does not appear to be much ground for such an apprehension. The enormous combustion of coal by our industrial establishments suffices to increase the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air to a perceptible degree." (p61)"We often hear lamentations that the coal stored up in the earth is wasted by the present generation without any thought of the future, and we are terrified by the awful destruction of life and property which has followed the volcanic eruptions of our days. We may find a kind of consolation in the consideration that here, as in every other case, there is good mixed with the evil. By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind." (p63)He was the first person to predict that emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels and other combustion processes would cause global warming. Arrhenius clearly believed that a warmer world would be a positive change. From that, the hot-house theory gained more attention.

Nevertheless, until about 1960, most scientists dismissed the hot-house / greenhouse effect as implausible for the cause of ice ages as Milutin Milankovitch had presented a mechanism using orbital changes of the earth (Milankovitch cycles). Nowadays, the accepted explanation is that orbital forcing sets the timing for ice ages with CO2 acting as an essential amplifying feedback.

Arrhenius estimated that halving of CO2 would decrease temperatures by 4–5 °C (Celsius) and a doubling of CO2 would cause a temperature rise of 5–6 °C.[5] In his 1906 publication, Arrhenius adjusted the value downwards to 1.6 °C (including water vapour feedback: 2.1 °C). Recent (2007) estimates from IPCC say this value (the Climate sensitivity) is likely to be between 2 and 4.5 °C. Arrhenius expected CO2 levels to rise at a rate given by emissions in his time. Since then, industrial carbon dioxide levels have risen at a much faster rate: Arrhenius expected CO2 doubling to take about 3000 years; it is now estimated in most scenarios to take about a century.

 

You are one gullible, stupid, hysterical brainwashed parrot and you prove that almost daily around here.:excited:

A more up to date debunking of the Oregon Petition is available here:

http://debunking.pbworks.com/w/page/17102969/Oregon Petition

 

Secret papers turn up heat on global-warming deniers

Purloined, secret documents suggest the Heartland Institute could have lobbying plans, in violation of IRS rules

http://www.salon.com/2012/02/17/secret_papers_turn_up_heat_on_global_warming_deniers/

 

It's another one of those zombie claims, Stumbler. It doesn't matter how many times you kill it. It keeps coming back to life.