Talk:Svante Arrhenius

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
More information about this article... The following comments have been left for this page: 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)

	Portal 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.
Help with this template Comments: edit – history – watch – 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)

	Chemistry Portal 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)

[edit] Nobel naughtiness

Any truth to this fact?

In 1906, the Nobel committee selected Mendeleev to win the honor, but the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences stepped in and overturned the decision.

Why? The intervention was spearheaded by Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius, who’d won the chemistry prize in 1903 for his theory of electrolytic dissociation. Mendeleev had been an outspoken critic of the theory, and Arrhenius seized the opportunity as the perfect chance to squeeze a few sour grapes.

http://www.neatorama.com/2007/04/13/sour-grapes-some-of-historys-sorest-losers/

violet/riga (t) 07:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] question re formulae

Can anyone provide me a formula or the various formulae used by different people to calculate the increase in temperature caused by a given increase in atmospheric CO₂, with or without allowances for H₂0? Looking at the results it looks like temperature change might be related to (CO2 conc change)⁴ Thanks tonyjeffs at tonyjeffs dot com Tonyjeffs 10:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arrhenius graph

I have in front of me an "Arrhenius graph" of some electrical cable. Time (hours) is on the vertical axis and Temperature is on the horizontal axis. Any ideas what it means and whether Mr. Arrhenius was responsible? I think its some sort of cable endurance graph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.54.184.254 (talk) 21:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This is related to the Arrhenius equation and the Arrhenius plot which both show that for a chemical reaction, the logarithm of the reaction rate is a linear function of the reciprocal absolute temperature (1/T). The endurance time of a cable would presumably be inversely proportional to the rate of its corrosion, so would be also linearly related to (1/T). I think though that this is an extension of Arrhenius' work, not considered by Arrhenius himself.

And by the way, this article really needs a few lines on the Arrhenius equation, to add to the one brief mention in the intro plus a See Also note. Dirac66 (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)