1/5. Stoichastich wrote, "He says quite clearly that the hothouse is warm because the glass absorbs dark rays from the ground (IR), which is clearly not why the hothouse is hot."
That's not what Arrhenius wrote. This is the paper:
iopscience.iop.org
This is the excerpt to which I think you must be referring:
"Fourier maintained that the atmosphere acts like the glass of a hot-house, because it lets through the light-rays of the Sun, but retains the dark-rays from the ground."
You've mistaken his meaning. In the first place, Arrhenius was summarizing what another scientist said. In the second place, the word "it" clearly refers back to "the atmosphere," not to the hot-house, as you've apparently supposed.
The main way that greenhouses retain heat is by preventing convective and evaporative cooling. That's why greenhouses made of plastic which is transparent to LW IR work just fine. (Glass greenhouses do get a small amount of additional warming effect by blocking outgoing LW IR.)
That's not what Arrhenius wrote. This is the paper:
iopscience.iop.org
This is the excerpt to which I think you must be referring:
"Fourier maintained that the atmosphere acts like the glass of a hot-house, because it lets through the light-rays of the Sun, but retains the dark-rays from the ground."
You've mistaken his meaning. In the first place, Arrhenius was summarizing what another scientist said. In the second place, the word "it" clearly refers back to "the atmosphere," not to the hot-house, as you've apparently supposed.
The main way that greenhouses retain heat is by preventing convective and evaporative cooling. That's why greenhouses made of plastic which is transparent to LW IR work just fine. (Glass greenhouses do get a small amount of additional warming effect by blocking outgoing LW IR.)
2/5. Stoichastich asked, "Where has anyone said that [Arrhenius] did use that term?"
You retweeted Dale Cloudman pointing out that "the greenhouse effect is a misnomer," in your tweet saying that Arrhenius' paper was "fundamentally flawed." So I thought that's what you meant.
You retweeted Dale Cloudman pointing out that "the greenhouse effect is a misnomer," in your tweet saying that Arrhenius' paper was "fundamentally flawed." So I thought that's what you meant.
3/5. Stoichastich asked, "Estimating it sounds interesting, but has it ever been measured?"
There've been some attempts both to calculate and to measure the "radiative forcing." I summarize them here:
sealevel.info
There've been some attempts both to calculate and to measure the "radiative forcing." I summarize them here:
sealevel.info
@Stoichastich @Ahaboreal @_ClimateCraze 4/5. Climate alarmists tend to shy away from measurement-based estimates of the warming effect, because they tend to come out too low to be worrisome.
5/5. I made an online spreadsheet to make it easy for people to calculate estimates of such things:
sealevel.info
Give it a whirl! Enter your best guesses for things like the warming to date, percentage of warming that's from human GHG emissions, etc., and it will calculate YOUR implied estimates for common climate parameters.
sealevel.info
Give it a whirl! Enter your best guesses for things like the warming to date, percentage of warming that's from human GHG emissions, etc., and it will calculate YOUR implied estimates for common climate parameters.
@Stoichastich @Ahaboreal @_ClimateCraze @ThreadReaderApp @Rattibha @threaddotblue unroll
@reSeeIt save thread
@reSeeIt save thread
* * * CORRECTION * * *
That was not the paper. That was an abstract of the paper, prepared the following year, by someone else.
This is the full paper:
sealevel.info
Sorry for the misinformation!
That was not the paper. That was an abstract of the paper, prepared the following year, by someone else.
This is the full paper:
sealevel.info
Sorry for the misinformation!
Loading suggestions...