Yes, of course, Arrhenius was not a scientist, but Rush Limbaugh is. And of course it was Sarah Palin who came up with the Theory of Relativity, but the liberal media attributes it to Einstein because he was a socialist.
EDIT
"Ronald Reagan use to be a Democrat and changed over to Republican. He wasn't very Conservative though. He ran our debt up as much as Carter did. The Bush's are also Socialists."
Other than Hitler, which politicians are sufficiently conservative for you?
He did a spectacularly good job of his estimations considering this was pre computers, pre calculators pre atomic theory pre quantum theory pre satellite data pre measurements of the stratosphere or higher. His predictions and efforts certainly were much closer to reality than most of the deniers on this site.
Since his time science has moved on in leaps and bounds. We now have a much fuller understanding of the issues and much more data to use. We also have computers to help us analyze the data.
We do not be any means have a complete understanding but we do know enough to make some fairly confident predictions. This is what the IPCC pulls together to give the best estimates currently available.
I'm going to go with the advice of the world's best and brightest on this one, not with deniers who are unable to provide alternative explanations for observed data.
A common argument from deniers is that the burden of proof be on the AGW side and they do not have to provide any. This is not actually the case. The established consensus is that AGW theory is the best theory available to explain observed data and provides the best forward estimates of what is going to happen. If you wish to be taken seriously as a denier then the burden of proof is on you. Provide actual evidence that negates AGW theory and suggest a viable alternative theory that is testable. If you cannot you will not be taken seriously nor should you be.
The sun did it, CO2 is not a GHG, CO2 causes cooling, its happened before by natural causes, its just a cycle etc. is all BS of the highest order, you know it, I know it, so why keep pushing it?
Early 20th century the consensus was that continents stayed put in one place. That consensus was challenged [successfully]. An alternative theory of continental drift was proposed and real evidence was presented. The new theory was resisted but the evidence kept building up. Eventually it was accepted. Note that a sensible [although at the time quite radical] theory was presented and real evidence was supplied to back it up. I have not seen anything of this type from the anti AGW lobby.
After the acceptance of the continental drift theory more evidence emerged that could not be explained by that theory and the theory morphed into plate tectonics. Plate tectonics accepts and explains continental drift, but also provides a mechanism and is far more detailed and comprehensive. This is how science works in practice. Not by spreading lies, misinformation and distortion.
Actually, in his book published in 1906, Svante Arrhenius said a doubling would increase temperatures by 1.6 degrees due to CO2 and by 2.1 with the water vapor feedback. He had adjusted his own calculations. Considering that with all the new research, measurements and understanding of past climate change, sensitivity is now estimated at about 3 degrees, Arrhenius' calculations were rather good though perhaps lucky. Likewise, Gilbert Plass hit on accurate calculations of about 3 degrees in the 1950s but only because he was too high in some calculations and too low in other calculations.
What you are pointing to is how long global warming has been generally understood by the few people who study climate. The depth and precision of that understanding has jumped in recent decades following the publishing of AR3 in 2001. Satellite measurements only go back to the 1970s. We now have vast tools that Arrhenius had, but we can still recognize that he was genius enough to figure out the basic physics and move ahead the cutting edge of human knowledge.
You are making a few mistakes here.
1. You do not take into account any lag effects.
2. You do not take into account any short term, natural variations within the climate that would mask any long term warming/cooling trends.
3. Arrhenius never stated that a 33% increase in CO2 levels would instantly relate to a 1.65C to 2C increase in global warming.
4. The global climate is difficult to force in any substantial way and in any direction over a short period of time unless some major, catastrophic event occurred.
Look at it this way. Should you place a quart pot containing a full amount of room temperature water onto a 450F flame then the water does not immediately boil off. Over a period of time and with the flame still being applied, then the water temperature will begin to approach the temperature of the flame until the water begins to boil and evaporate out. Even when you remove the flame, the pot of water does not instantly cool to the ambient temperature of the room.. This not what is happening with AGW. What is happening with AGW is more along the lines of a pot of water being heated to the water's boiling temperature and then quickly removed from the heat and covered with a lid. You would see the water taking a longer period of time to return to the ambient temperature of the room as compared to an equal pot of water left uncovered.
"Arrhenius observed humans burning coal and fossil fuels to feed our rapidly industrializing economies and wondered what effect the resulting carbon dioxide might have on regional and global temperatures. He then set out to construct by hand (there were no computers in Arrhenius' day) the first climate model of the Earth. Based on his calculations, in 1896, Arrhenius predicted that doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would raise Earth's average temperature by about 5°C (Arrhenius 1896). But he estimated that it would take humans about 1,000 years to release that much carbon dioxide; and if we did, he and other scientists speculated that the effect would merely prolong the growing season at higher latitudes--a change that would benefit humans, and farmers in particular."
Arrhenius's time frame is 1,000 years, not 3,000 yeas. We have a 40% to 50% increase in CO2 since 1896 - a much more rapid rise than Arrhenius expected. That often happens because looking 100 years into the future and guessing the results of technological change is tough. That is also a difficulty of the current effort. The precautionary principle attempts to address this some, but also has shortcomings.
You assume a directly proportion relationship between CO2 concentration and temperature (you state "If the Greenhouse Gas Theorist Arrhenius is right on his calculations, then shouldn't our global average temperatures be much higher (at least 1C higher) since current CO2 levels are 35% higher than they were in 1896?"). This is incorrect because the relationship is not linear and you must consider more than just the rise in CO2 . Scientists started just as you did, and said the same thing (shouldn't the mean global temperature be higher?). But scientists try to figure out WHY the temps are lower than expected. If a new relationship is found, they would add that relationship to Arrhenius model to generate better predictions.
I agree that looking at Arrhenius's work, you would expect higher temps (also pointed out in the article, but the early model does not consider some of the factors we are now able to consider then (that predicting technology thing).
Right on the calculations depends on what you know. Models are abstractions of reality. Their output is never "right." They reflect what changes can be expected if the predictive factors change, but observed accuracy of the change Arrhenius's is only quantitatively accurate if the primary factors that contribute to the change are included in the model. Scientists are still working on that, but some feel they have enough factors considered to get information that is accurate enough to be actionable.
Arrhenius's model reflects the state of the knowledge in 1896. Science builds. Arrhenius's model was a starting point, not an ending point. Models (theories) are constantly updated to reflect what has been learned. Is it correct to assume a model developed in 1896 will produce accurate values for 2013? The story was correct (the temperatures have risen as greenhouse concentrations have risen, and this is due to human influence), but magnitude of change smaller than the value you provided. You really need ranges to see if the difference is meaningful. Ranges take into account the variability in your data, but this is most often associated with empirical data. I'm not sure his model could produce a range for his estimates. And the difference is shockingly small (off by a factor of 2 to 3). Often, first modeling attempts are off an order of magnitude or more (10 times ). Remember, this was made in 1896 without a computer by hand, and are only off by 2-3 times after 100 years. Since then, we have walked on the moon, sent a probe to interstellar space, split atoms, life expectancy has increased, tractors and vehicles are common, the population has grown by billions. It is a very good prediction for that time. It shows that CO2 really is an important factor, and that alone explains a lot of the rise in temperatures.
But a model is something that changes with knowledge. Should more accurate that has been updated and reflect the current state of the science be dismissed because the first one in 1896 is off by only 2-3 times after 100years? George Box (I think) said "all models are wrong, but some models are useful."
Arrhenius's model was good in that is showed that changing the concentration of CO2 could alter mean global temperature, but in determining EXACTLY how much is would rise is not possible. I'm not sure on the upper and lower temperature ranges of his estimates were (or if he had some), but I'm sure they were far apart because of the difficulty in predicting this far in advance. As we incorporate more relationships in the models that explain some of the variation, we reduce the distance between high and low estimates and get what we hope are better predictions of mean change, but none will ever be exact.
The real question is are they accurate enough, and incorporate enough information to provide information that will allow us to avoid significant problems if we use them.
Arrhenius is regarded a major figure in science. The Greenhouse effect was only a small part of his long career. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrh...
What Ottawa Mike's mythical "alarmists" might think of Arrhenius is of little importance, since such "alarmists" (if they exist at all) have nothing to do with science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_...
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timel...
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index...
A nice and clever theory, until you realize that the climate is so much more complicated than just the amount of CO2 it contains, modern scientists realize that and are using super computer models to try and input all the different variations and effects positive and negative, so far they have been spectacularly wrong.
I'm surprised alarmists still quote Arrhenius. He was obviously a denier whackjob in the pocket of Standard Oil:
"He (Arrhenius) eventually made the suggestion that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide due to the burning of fossil fuels could be beneficial, making the Earth's climates “more equable,” stimulating plant growth, and providing more food for a larger population." http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Feature...
I was presented with this link http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm#L_Arrhen in reference to another question here at Y/A.
Arrhenius is well-known to the AGW crowd as a pioneer in the Greenhouse Gas Theory.
Here's a couple of quotes from the link:
"In 1896 Arrhenius completed a laborious numerical computation which suggested that cutting the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by half could lower the temperature in Europe some 4-5°C (roughly 7-9°F)"
"Arrhenius made a calculation for doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere, and estimated it would raise the Earth's temperature some 5-6°C (averaged over all zones of latitude).(3)
Arrhenius did not see that as a problem. He figured that if industry continued to burn fuel at the current (1896) rate, it would take perhaps three thousand years for the CO2 level to rise so high."
My question is this : If the Greenhouse Gas Theorist Arrhenius is right on his calculations, then shouldn't our global average temperatures be much higher (at least 1C higher) since current CO2 levels are 35% higher than they were in 1896?
