Tyndall's climate message, 150 years on

ScienceRocks

Democrat all the way!
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
59,455
Reaction score
6,754
Points
1,900
Location
The Good insane United states of America
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?
 

wirebender

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Messages
1,723
Reaction score
122
Points
48
Location
NC
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?
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.
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,392
Reaction score
7,252
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
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.
 

gslack

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
4,527
Reaction score
351
Points
48
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?
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.
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,392
Reaction score
7,252
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
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?
 

gslack

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
4,527
Reaction score
351
Points
48
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?
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...
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,392
Reaction score
7,252
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
You know what, G-string? You are still full of shit, and once again demonstrated your total ignorance of science.
 

IanC

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
11,064
Reaction score
1,315
Points
245
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
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,392
Reaction score
7,252
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
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.
 

wirebender

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Messages
1,723
Reaction score
122
Points
48
Location
NC
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.
You seem to forget that the ice has already melted back nearly 2000 miles in the past 14k years. All of that was, at one time permafrost and when it melted, none of the doom and gloom that you predict happened. What makes you think that the last bit of permafrost is gonig to produce a result that the previous 2000 miles of permafrost didn't?
 

konradv

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
28,516
Reaction score
4,554
Points
280
Location
Baltimore
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.
It's just a convenient term for mass consumption. I hardly think its use would have any effect on climate research. Whether its an over-simplification or nor, all factors and complications ARE considered, regardless of attempts to characterize the research as "sloppy".
 

gslack

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
4,527
Reaction score
351
Points
48
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.
It's just a convenient term for mass consumption. I hardly think its use would have any effect on climate research. Whether its an over-simplification or nor, all factors and complications ARE considered, regardless of attempts to characterize the research as "sloppy".
Yeah and it being "a convenient term for mass consumption" is what makes it even worse. When people have to come to grips with the realities of what is actually happening in the atmosphere and the models start to show their lack of correlation with reality (like they have been), people will start to take notice and realize they have been bullshitted in the name of "a convenient term for mass consumption"...

Now kornhole I have attempted in the past to treat you as an adult and give you a chance to articulate something of value, but every time I do you turn into a juvenile delinquent and act like no one's minding the home-schooled brat. As you should know by know I have zero tolerance for childishness and other peoples unattended children acting up. I personally have a 12 year old here who can act more like an adult than you, so please age is no excuse if you decide to hang out in a web forum such as this, you should damn well know how to act in the company you are with.

Now please do not revert to the child again, or you will get nothing but my disdain and scorn...
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,392
Reaction score
7,252
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
My, my, ol' G-string wants to know what is actually happening in the atmosphere. It is warming. As is the ocean. Not only that, the ocean is becoming more acidic. Not models, actual measurements and observations.
 

gslack

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
4,527
Reaction score
351
Points
48
My, my, ol' G-string wants to know what is actually happening in the atmosphere. It is warming. As is the ocean. Not only that, the ocean is becoming more acidic. Not models, actual measurements and observations.
Socks you are an idiot... Not just a run of the mill idiot either, but a true idiot of the highest order. So idiotic in fact, you actually believe something that has been shown even by yourself numerous times to be utterly and completely false.. ocean acidification? Seriously? One of your own posted articles discredited that and I showed you, but going by your logic it didn't happen...

So are you really this idiotic or is it just to push your windpower propaganda? Ya know what i think already don't ya fake...:lol:
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top