Tyndall's climate message, 150 years on

Discussion in 'Environment' started by Matthew, Sep 29, 2011.

  1. Matthew
    Offline

    Matthew Blue dog all the way!

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2010
    Messages:
    49,738
    Thanks Received:
    4,607
    Trophy Points:
    1,885
    Location:
    Portland Oregon
    Ratings:
    +15,195
    It was 150 years ago that John Tyndall, one of history's truly great physicists, published a scientific paper with the far-from-snappy title On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connexion of Radiation, Absorption, and Conduction.

    BBC News - Tyndall's climate message, 150 years on

    Tyndall's climate message, 150 years on
    Comments (22)


    There's a welter of environmental anniversaries this year, notably the 50th birthday of WWF and the 40th of both Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth International.

    Much less trumpeted, but in its own way more significant, is one that dates back to the middle of the 19th Century, which is being marked this week by a special conference in Dublin.

    Not a title to excite the senses at first sight, perhaps; but nowadays, the basis for a vitally important branch of science and a particularly noxious brand of political discourse.

    What Tyndall had demonstrated for the first time was that gases in the atmosphere absorb heat to very different degrees; he had discovered the molecular basis of the greenhouse effect.

    Its existence had been surmised by earlier generations of scientists, notably Joseph Fourier, who wrote in 1824: "The temperature [of the Earth] can be augmented by the interposition of the atmosphere, because heat in the state of light finds less resistance in penetrating the air, than in re-passing into the air when converted into non-luminous heat."


    We're finding out that he may of been wrong because it goes against the law of thermodynamics.:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: You have to ask how great was this man as a physicist? I'm serious, where is the math and data for people trying to defend his theory to win people over to it?
     
  2. wirebender
    Offline

    wirebender Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,723
    Thanks Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    NC
    Ratings:
    +120
    Even though his paper was titled On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connexion of Radiation, Absorption, and Conduction, he like rocks, et al, seems to have stopped thinking at the absorption stage and completely neglected the radiation.
     
  3. Old Rocks
    Online

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,498
    Thanks Received:
    5,417
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,337
    LOL. No, Bent, I just am not impressed by cranks like you with your pseudo-science and math. The truth is that all of that work concerning the heat retention by the atmosphere, and the means by which that happens, was done long ago by physicists. You, and everyone reading this board, has been given sites where you can link to that work.

    The physicists work stands, that of an ananomous internet poster is relegated, rightly so, to the round file. And the predictions derived from the scientists work still stands. The oceans and atmosphere is warming, precisely as predicted. The cryosphere is melting, as predicted. Fourier, Tyndall, Callender, Suess, and Hansen have all been vindicated by events.
     
  4. gslack
    Offline

    gslack Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2010
    Messages:
    4,527
    Thanks Received:
    346
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +346
    Notice something... The title of the paper did not mention "greenhouse effect"... Yeah from my understanding he didn't like that term or its use regarding his work. Because the atmosphere does not act like a greenhouse and to call it such is a gross oversimplification which leads to misconceptions and sloppy research. And that gets confounded by ever more of the same.
     
  5. Old Rocks
    Online

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,498
    Thanks Received:
    5,417
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,337
    No, that title for the effect was given to it at a later date, and it is a misnomer. However, it has been used long enough that all know what it stands for. So why the quibling about it?
     
  6. gslack
    Offline

    gslack Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2010
    Messages:
    4,527
    Thanks Received:
    346
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +346
    The point is oldsocks, what actually happens is not like a greenhouse. A greenhouse traps the energy inside with letting only a small amount of light out and some heat. This gives a false impression of how the atmosphere works to keep some of the heat in. There is no reaction with moving gases of varying degrees of pressure, density and radiative properties in a greenhouse roof. The atmosphere is another matter altogether. The roof of a greenhouse is almost perfectly the same from one point to another, the atmosphere is not. The roof of a greenhouse does not move, the atmosphere does. By saying its a greenhouse effect because it traps some of the heat in is like saying everyone over 7 foot tall is an NBA star...
     
  7. Old Rocks
    Online

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,498
    Thanks Received:
    5,417
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,337
    You know what, G-string? You are still full of shit, and once again demonstrated your total ignorance of science.
     
  8. gslack
    Offline

    gslack Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2010
    Messages:
    4,527
    Thanks Received:
    346
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +346
    Thats its stomp your foot baby...:lol:
     
  9. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,200
    Thanks Received:
    1,071
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,448
    the theoretical increase is 1K per doubling of CO2. how long until we get to 2x390 ppm? I dont have a problem with 1K, certainly not to the point of crippling our economy.

    the guesstimated feedbacks built into the climate models are unrealistic except in the minds of the modellers as has been shown by many scientists working with real data instead of model projections
     
  10. Old Rocks
    Online

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,498
    Thanks Received:
    5,417
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,337
    At 0.7 K, the Arctic Sea Ice is melting. The same for the Continental Ice Caps. And the Alpine Glaciers. Add the permafrost and the vast amount of CO2 and CH4.

    Then the matter of the increase in climatic disasters. One has only to read what Swiss Re and Munich Re have to say on this subject to realize that things are changing, and not for the better.

    And then there is the little matter of the Stern Report.
     

Share This Page