Talk:Svante Arrhenius
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments | ||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| High | This article is on a subject of High importance within physics. | |
|
Comments:
|
||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, which collaborates on Chemistry and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. | ||
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh) I rated this as B-class because it's got a pretty good overall coverage of Arrhenius, and whilst it's not perfect, the greenhouse effect section is well done. Rocket71048576 20:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
[edit] CO2 calculation
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)
[edit] Learning to read
What is the meaning of the statement, "At the age of three, Arrhenius taught himself to read, despite his parents' wishes"? Is it truly intended to say that his parents didn't desire him to be able to read? Or what is the intent? How can a three-year old teach himself to read if his parents don't wish it? Clearly something is intended here, but it is not clear what. 144.213.253.14 05:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Arrhenius' painstaking calculations were later shown to be erroneous...
The article says Arrhenius' painstaking calculations were later shown to be erroneous. but doesn't justify this in any way William M. Connolley 09:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
