Remember me
▼ Content

In China we believe Anstrom, not Arrhenius.


In China we believe Anstrom, not Arrhenius.15-03-2019 16:27
Tai Hai Chen
★★★☆☆
(837)
Not since the days of Galileo has belief triumphed over experiment in science.

https://youtu.be/feFw8Ygn3fk

Arrhenius is not the caliber of Angstrom, who has the physical unit of wavelength named after him.

Experts could dismiss the hypothesis because they found Arrhenius's calculation implausible on many grounds. In the first place, he had grossly oversimplified the climate system. Among other things, he had failed to consider how cloudiness might change if the Earth got a little warmer and more humid. A still weightier objection came from a simple laboratory measurement. A few years after Arrhenius published his hypothesis, another scientist in Sweden, Knut Ångström, asked an assistant to measure the passage of infrared radiation through a tube filled with carbon dioxide. The assistant ("Herr J. Koch," otherwise unrecorded in history) put in rather less of the gas in total than would be found in a column of air reaching to the top of the atmosphere. The assistant reported that the amount of radiation that got through the tube scarcely changed when he cut the quantity of gas back by a third. Apparently it took only a trace of the gas to "saturate" the absorption — that is, in the bands of the spectrum where CO2 blocked radiation, it did it so thoroughly that more gas could make little difference.(7*)

https://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm
15-03-2019 16:47
Longview
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Not since the days of Galileo has belief triumphed over experiment in science.

https://youtu.be/feFw8Ygn3fk

Arrhenius is not the caliber of Angstrom, who has the physical unit of wavelength named after him.

Experts could dismiss the hypothesis because they found Arrhenius's calculation implausible on many grounds. In the first place, he had grossly oversimplified the climate system. Among other things, he had failed to consider how cloudiness might change if the Earth got a little warmer and more humid. A still weightier objection came from a simple laboratory measurement. A few years after Arrhenius published his hypothesis, another scientist in Sweden, Knut Ångström, asked an assistant to measure the passage of infrared radiation through a tube filled with carbon dioxide. The assistant ("Herr J. Koch," otherwise unrecorded in history) put in rather less of the gas in total than would be found in a column of air reaching to the top of the atmosphere. The assistant reported that the amount of radiation that got through the tube scarcely changed when he cut the quantity of gas back by a third. Apparently it took only a trace of the gas to "saturate" the absorption — that is, in the bands of the spectrum where CO2 blocked radiation, it did it so thoroughly that more gas could make little difference.(7*)

https://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm

That experiment would match what I have observed with CO2.
If only CO2 were in the tube, the first 15 um photons would excite the CO2
to 667 cm-1 energy level, once all the molecules were in an excited state,
or on the path back to ground state, they would be unable to absorb more 15 um
photons. Randomly a few molecules at a time would be available for new absorption, but the vast majority of the gas would stay in an average state of
population inversion.
15-03-2019 16:51
Wake
★★★★★
(3903)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Not since the days of Galileo has belief triumphed over experiment in science.

https://youtu.be/feFw8Ygn3fk

Arrhenius is not the caliber of Angstrom, who has the physical unit of wavelength named after him.

Experts could dismiss the hypothesis because they found Arrhenius's calculation implausible on many grounds. In the first place, he had grossly oversimplified the climate system. Among other things, he had failed to consider how cloudiness might change if the Earth got a little warmer and more humid. A still weightier objection came from a simple laboratory measurement. A few years after Arrhenius published his hypothesis, another scientist in Sweden, Knut Ångström, asked an assistant to measure the passage of infrared radiation through a tube filled with carbon dioxide. The assistant ("Herr J. Koch," otherwise unrecorded in history) put in rather less of the gas in total than would be found in a column of air reaching to the top of the atmosphere. The assistant reported that the amount of radiation that got through the tube scarcely changed when he cut the quantity of gas back by a third. Apparently it took only a trace of the gas to "saturate" the absorption — that is, in the bands of the spectrum where CO2 blocked radiation, it did it so thoroughly that more gas could make little difference.(7*)

https://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm


Where do they find "journalists" who are almost entirely unaware of the science and will publish nonsense in one continuous string. The experiment performed by Angstrom had NOTHING to do with atmospheric humidity and CO2 absorption bands being overlapping. It had to do with the ACTUAL absorption of UV-A by CO2. The amount of energy in the very narrow absorption bands of CO2 is so little that it becomes saturated at very small amounts of CO2. What's more - at higher altitudes, CO2 is at so small an actual volume that it can have no effect whatsoever.

History indeed!
15-03-2019 18:44
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3313)
Wake wrote: It had to do with the ACTUAL absorption of UV-A by CO2. The amount of energy in the very narrow absorption bands of CO2 is so little that it becomes saturated at very small amounts of CO2.


Gotcha! Only a scientifically illiterate moron would make the above statement. All I have to do is look for the word "saturated" and I know I'm reading the words of a loon who is preaching the religious dogma he was ordered to regurgitate.

You can't "saturate" any matter with energy, either electromagnetic or thermal. What you call science is just WACKY religious dogma. It must be embarrassing to not be able to discern religion from science.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
15-03-2019 20:17
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7003)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Not since the days of Galileo has belief triumphed over experiment in science.

(I'll ignore the use of the word 'experiment' for now.) That's been continuous since BEFORE the days of Galileo. It is still true today.

With any new theory that comes along in science that holds up to testing, it changes something. It changes how science views nature. For those that accept the new theory, their own reality changes. For them, the Universe changes.

A lot of people fight this change. It's different than it was before. To accept it means to change what you know about the way the world works.

This is why science is so powerful.

But one must be careful. Not just any theory that comes along is science. Not just any viewpoint is science either. Anyone can come up with a theory, but what makes it a scientific theory?

The property that the theory is falsifiable. It can be tested to try to destroy the theory, and the theory survives nevertheless. Those tests must be available to conduct, practical to conduct, be specific, and produce a specific result.

As long as a theory can withstand such tests, it is more than just an opinion. It has all these failed tests to stand upon too. THAT is what gives a scientific theory greater weight than any other theory.

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Arrhenius is not the caliber of Angstrom, who has the physical unit of wavelength named after him.

Again, you attack Arrhenius by pointing out a falsified theory of his and mentioning nothing else about him. This is bulverism. It is a fallacy. Arrhenius was a talented scientist. He just happened to get the theory of CO2 warming the Earth wrong.

He did measure the absorption spectra of many gases and other substances. We still use that information today. You can't just discard that contribution to science and engineering.

He also created the theory of molecular disassociation during electrolysis. We still use that theory today too. Must of today's battery and plating technologies depend on it. Arrhenius won the Nobel prize for that one. He quite properly earned it.

Concentrating on one's failures, and ignoring one's successes is just bulverism.


The Parrot Killer
15-03-2019 21:36
Tai Hai Chen
★★★☆☆
(837)
Into the Night wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Not since the days of Galileo has belief triumphed over experiment in science.

(I'll ignore the use of the word 'experiment' for now.) That's been continuous since BEFORE the days of Galileo. It is still true today.

With any new theory that comes along in science that holds up to testing, it changes something. It changes how science views nature. For those that accept the new theory, their own reality changes. For them, the Universe changes.

A lot of people fight this change. It's different than it was before. To accept it means to change what you know about the way the world works.

This is why science is so powerful.

But one must be careful. Not just any theory that comes along is science. Not just any viewpoint is science either. Anyone can come up with a theory, but what makes it a scientific theory?

The property that the theory is falsifiable. It can be tested to try to destroy the theory, and the theory survives nevertheless. Those tests must be available to conduct, practical to conduct, be specific, and produce a specific result.

As long as a theory can withstand such tests, it is more than just an opinion. It has all these failed tests to stand upon too. THAT is what gives a scientific theory greater weight than any other theory.

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Arrhenius is not the caliber of Angstrom, who has the physical unit of wavelength named after him.

Again, you attack Arrhenius by pointing out a falsified theory of his and mentioning nothing else about him. This is bulverism. It is a fallacy. Arrhenius was a talented scientist. He just happened to get the theory of CO2 warming the Earth wrong.

He did measure the absorption spectra of many gases and other substances. We still use that information today. You can't just discard that contribution to science and engineering.

He also created the theory of molecular disassociation during electrolysis. We still use that theory today too. Must of today's battery and plating technologies depend on it. Arrhenius won the Nobel prize for that one. He quite properly earned it.

Concentrating on one's failures, and ignoring one's successes is just bulverism.


Errornius I mean Arrhenius was very careless. He was also a founding member of the board of eugenics. True, he was a scientist, but back in the day science was a gold mine. There were many people who were much higher caliber than him. Maxwell, Gauss, Planck, Einstein, Angstrom, Tesla. They all have physical units named after them. Errornius I mean Arrhenius was not a top level scientist. The only reason he's famous is because globalists use his hypothesis to justify moving manufacturing from the west to non western countries for cheap labor and profit.
Edited on 15-03-2019 21:36
15-03-2019 22:42
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7003)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Not since the days of Galileo has belief triumphed over experiment in science.

(I'll ignore the use of the word 'experiment' for now.) That's been continuous since BEFORE the days of Galileo. It is still true today.

With any new theory that comes along in science that holds up to testing, it changes something. It changes how science views nature. For those that accept the new theory, their own reality changes. For them, the Universe changes.

A lot of people fight this change. It's different than it was before. To accept it means to change what you know about the way the world works.

This is why science is so powerful.

But one must be careful. Not just any theory that comes along is science. Not just any viewpoint is science either. Anyone can come up with a theory, but what makes it a scientific theory?

The property that the theory is falsifiable. It can be tested to try to destroy the theory, and the theory survives nevertheless. Those tests must be available to conduct, practical to conduct, be specific, and produce a specific result.

As long as a theory can withstand such tests, it is more than just an opinion. It has all these failed tests to stand upon too. THAT is what gives a scientific theory greater weight than any other theory.

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Arrhenius is not the caliber of Angstrom, who has the physical unit of wavelength named after him.

Again, you attack Arrhenius by pointing out a falsified theory of his and mentioning nothing else about him. This is bulverism. It is a fallacy. Arrhenius was a talented scientist. He just happened to get the theory of CO2 warming the Earth wrong.

He did measure the absorption spectra of many gases and other substances. We still use that information today. You can't just discard that contribution to science and engineering.

He also created the theory of molecular disassociation during electrolysis. We still use that theory today too. Must of today's battery and plating technologies depend on it. Arrhenius won the Nobel prize for that one. He quite properly earned it.

Concentrating on one's failures, and ignoring one's successes is just bulverism.


Errornius I mean Arrhenius was very careless. He was also a founding member of the board of eugenics. True, he was a scientist, but back in the day science was a gold mine. There were many people who were much higher caliber than him. Maxwell, Gauss, Planck, Einstein, Angstrom, Tesla. They all have physical units named after them. Errornius I mean Arrhenius was not a top level scientist. The only reason he's famous is because globalists use his hypothesis to justify moving manufacturing from the west to non western countries for cheap labor and profit.


How does describing electrolysis have anything to do with where manufacturing is taking place? After all, he got a Nobel prize in chemistry for that theory.

How does measuring the absorption spectra of CO2 or any other gas have any thing to do with where someone decides to manufacture something?

Do you consider any scientist that doesn't have a unit named after him a lousy scientist? What about Galileo? What about Kepler?

Newton has a unit named after him, but he was in to alchemy and occult theories as well. He had no friends, and treated people with scorn. What about him?

You seem to have some very narrow and conflicting views about what makes a good scientist, and you have a particular dislike for poor ol' Arrhenius.


The Parrot Killer
16-03-2019 02:32
Wake
★★★★★
(3903)
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: It had to do with the ACTUAL absorption of UV-A by CO2. The amount of energy in the very narrow absorption bands of CO2 is so little that it becomes saturated at very small amounts of CO2.


Gotcha! Only a scientifically illiterate moron would make the above statement. All I have to do is look for the word "saturated" and I know I'm reading the words of a loon who is preaching the religious dogma he was ordered to regurgitate.

You can't "saturate" any matter with energy, either electromagnetic or thermal. What you call science is just WACKY religious dogma. It must be embarrassing to not be able to discern religion from science.


I will repeat this - go get a book and learn science.

At a specific level of energy, CO2 will re-radiate energy. At absorption levels below this it will only HEAT the gas and it will move the energy up only through the means of conduction. This is SLOW and not "Speed of Light". The time period for the heat from today's sunlight to travel into the upper stratosphere is probably measured in MONTHS. It is part of a pipeline - energy in = energy out and the emissions are limited by the size of the pipeline - the density of the atmosphere. If the pipeline is constricted (atmospheric density increases) it causes the flow to increase only by an increased pressure - that's Mean Global Temperature for the uninitiated.

The amount of CO2 that is heated from simple contact with warmer gases is hundreds of times larger than that which is heated from the very narrow absorption bandwidth of the gas. There is almost no energy there and so none for CO2 to absorb.

This also means that because CO2 has a lower specific heat it actually carries less heat into the upper atmosphere than O2 or N2. So increasing CO2 would theoretically theoretically heat the atmosphere by carrying LESS heat to the upper atmosphere but at the possible levels they are far too small to even be considered. Also that is hardly even a theory since we have no idea what the feedback might be.
16-03-2019 04:29
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3313)
Wake wrote:
I will repeat this - go get a book and learn science.

Your king is tipped. You lose again. Your science illiteracy will never end well for you.

Wake wrote: CO2 will re-radiate energy

Only a scientifically illiterate moron would regurgitate the "re-radiates" prayer. You don't have a clue what you're saying, you just have it memorized for recital on demand.

Wake wrote:
At absorption levels below this it will only HEAT the gas and it will move the energy up only through the means of conduction.

If this quote of yours weren't as long as it is I'd put it in my signature block below. This is the stupidest statement I have read since I've been back. And to think you of all people feel inclined to insult the science comprehension of others.

Wake wrote:
This is SLOW and not "Speed of Light". The time period for the heat from today's sunlight to travel into the upper stratosphere is probably measured in MONTHS.

I spoke too soon. THIS is the stupidest thing I've read.

1. Earth's radiance takes months to get from the surface to the upper stratosphere

2. Earth's radiance travels well below the speed of light.

3. Heat bubbles up through the atmosphere via conduction, not convection.

I am absolutely certain that you will be winning the Nobel prize any day now.

Wake wrote: It is part of a pipeline - energy in = energy out

Equilibrium requires no "pipeline."

Wake wrote: and the emissions are limited by the size of the pipeline - the density of the atmosphere. [/quote[
Nope. You still haven't gotten anything right.

[quote]Wake wrote:
This also means that because CO2 has a lower specific heat it actually carries less heat into the upper atmosphere than O2 or N2.

Sorry, "specific heat" isn't a thing, and it's not part of science. It's religious gibberbabble from your Church. You get a pass, though, since you apparently aren't expected to know any science.

Wake wrote:Also that is hardly even a theory since we have no idea what the feedback might be.

Sorry, "feedbacks" aren't a thing in science. In fact, they violate the 1st LoT

You should be embarrassed that you cannot discern religion from science.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
16-03-2019 16:46
Wake
★★★★★
(3903)
IBdaMann - Well, I should have simply read your screen name more carefully to realize that you are in fact either Dr. Michael Mann or an affiliate. That you are here in order to support his unsupportable position by trying to make anyone anti-AGM look silly or the entire idea look stupid.

Well, what you have done is to allow me to place the facts on the table for anyone to read. Anyone can now look it up and realize that you are a fraud. Why don't you attempt to sue me. American courts aren't like Canadian courts and I can recover a hell of a lot more than simple legal fees.

Or perhaps you are simply an illiterate fool who believes that he can be a hero of some kind. But since you are completely unaware of how you appear in postings that won't turn out well.
16-03-2019 16:51
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3313)
Wake wrote:
IBdaMann - Well, I should have simply read your screen name more carefully to realize that you are in fact either Dr. Michael Mann or an affiliate. That you are here in order to support his unsupportable position by trying to make anyone anti-AGM look silly or the entire idea look stupid.

Well, what you have done is to allow me to place the facts on the table for anyone to read. Anyone can now look it up and realize that you are a fraud. Why don't you attempt to sue me. American courts aren't like Canadian courts and I can recover a hell of a lot more than simple legal fees.

Or perhaps you are simply an illiterate fool who believes that he can be a hero of some kind. But since you are completely unaware of how you appear in postings that won't turn out well.


You got me. I completely underestimated your acute powers of observation and foolishly thought I could slip one by you.

How did you figure it out so quickly?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist




Join the debate In China we believe Anstrom, not Arrhenius.:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Angstrom is right. Arrhenius is wrong.218-03-2019 19:43
So what if Canada abolishes its auto industry? Canada has 30 million people. India + China + Bangladesh +516-03-2019 22:19
Would Errornius (I mean Arrhenius) admit his calculation error if he were alive today?316-03-2019 18:27
So if Angstrom already proven Arrhenius wrong, then what's the problem?314-03-2019 02:07
China takes advantage of climate change to take over the world.504-03-2019 02:00
Articles
Appendix C - China's Environmental Crisis
Appendix A - Tracing China's Climate Policy
Analysis - Explaining China's Climate Policy
The Dependent Variable - How Ambitious Is China's Climate Policy
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact