He didn't figure a doubling of CO2 would cause an increase of 1.6C in temperatures. He calculated that a doubling of CO2 would increase temperatures by 5C-6C.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.h...

http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_...

Caine: I usually prefer to include the water vapour feedback in possible scenerios. It would amount to 2.1C if, as you stated, water vapour feedback was included. This was his later estimate. And if you really want to have an honest discussion about this you have to learn to stop ridiculing others. You do have a tendency to piss people off. Perhaps this is why they see you as a denialist and not a skeptic.

Caine: I was not aware of his later calculations. I would not call them 'corrections' though as that is an absolute statement. Curious why you seem so sure of your stance of the subject as there is a broad range of possibilities. And my name is not GaryF or pegminer. And what I stated was perhaps that is why you were seen as a denier. You seem to be reading more into what was there. I was referring to your statements and anger at being called a denier as in plenty of your posts in the past have complained about that.

I can't speak for any climate denialists. In fact, I am not sure what they are. What is it that they deny, exactly?

Certainly, Arrhenius was one of the cleverer scientists. Let me take the warmist approach for a moment. The answer to your question would then be to point out that he was not a climate scientist. So he could be safely ignored.

Also, was this the same Arrhenius who thought that any warming caused by the increase of "carbonic acid" in the atmosphere would be beneficial and would increase crop yields?

Looking at his work on climate sensitivity it makes you wonder what climatologists have been doing for over a century. They are still arguing about the sensitivity and they no longer have to work it all out by hand.

So the question remains, what it the sensitivity of the climate to CO2? If it is small enough it will be no problem at all. It could all be happening as described but just be too small to be significant.

People say the climate is changing. I agree. Surely the real question is: Is it changing outside the historical bounds? All my investigations point to nothing new happening.

Smart move....

Now sit back and get schooled. The problem with your argument is that a 1.6 degree increase can be accomodated by adaptation. The IPCC and other groups also claim that we are OK up to 2 degrees. It's only a larger temperature increase which will cause trouble. And up until the last IPCC report, the equilibrium climate sensitivity was 3 degrees or so with a minimum of 2. The latest report lowered the minimum to 1.6 and did not give an best guess ECS.

They realized that the numbers were pointing to a scenario which we could live with- without radical change. I certainly don't deny Arrhenius's findings.

Do you???

Explain him away??? I agree with him still. He thought the climate sensitivity was far lower than the numbers given in the models and that overall any amount of warming would be neutral or good for mankind.

How do you explain away the fact that IF his climate sensitivity estimate were used, you would not have 95% of the models overestimating?

Jeff M,

Way to ignore his revised work, in which he accounted for water vapor and gave an estimate in 1906 of 1.2 for CO2 alone and 2.1 account for water vapor feedback.

Oops.

Jeff M,

As for what you are stating, you are using his earliest calculation, not his later corrections. If you want to quote Arrhenius, it is proper to use his latest calculations, not calculations that he has already corrected.

If you get pissed off about me correcting your statements, then I suggest you make sure your statements are valid and not subject to correction. As far as ridiculing you, LOL. You crack me up when you whine about this as two climate "scientists" pegminer and Gary F insult people and accuse people of lying in nearly every post. Cry me a river.

In fact, perhaps before you talk about me ridiculing, you just scroll down to Gary F's post and read.

http://applet-magic.com/arrhenius.htm

Oh wonderful, a Swedish scientist hallucinated a hundred and fifty or so years ago and now we must pay obeisance to its proven wrong theory. Watch closely there are no tricks here. No deception. No hiding data. The Earth's temperature has undisputedly declined for over a decade.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...

Look it up. Now please consider that during this same decade the CO2 level of the earth has undisputedly gone up.

Now do you see the correlation between CO2 level and the temperature? No? Well then give the man a cigar because the EARTH itself PROVED Arrhenius WRONG!

Just who are you going to believe? The Earth or some over paid scientists promoting an evil political agenda?

Graphicconception's response aside, most denialists pretend that no one ever talked about global warming before Al Gore released his movie, and certainly not before Margaret Thatcher or Maurice Strong supposedly invented AGW.

And they accuse realists of ignoring the past.

The typical low-level wannabe here is ignorant of Arrhenius's existence, just as he is ignorant of basic high school math, science, history, or how to write in English. Those deniers who have heard of Arrhenius are more often than not incurable liars, so, contradicting their tons of fossil fuel industry fables dumped all over this site, they will fail to claim that Arrhenius predicted global cooling, or global warming due to water vapor, or sun spots, or volcanic eruption or one of the other dozens of fossil fuel industry deceptions invented decades ago and dumbed-down since to their level of mental ability.

U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record...

“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpine...

“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”

http://www.physics.fsu.edu/awards/NAS/

“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes.

Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warm...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_...

http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/...

http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoi...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Revie...

http://nas-sites.org/climate-change/qand...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument...

CO2 is a green house gas and AGW is carbon credit tax scam. H2O is also a greenhouse gas.

Here we go again - "global warming has paused".