What papers is the CO2 climate change theory based on?

[physicsforman]

What paper is the CO2 climate change theory based on?

 

[renormalize]

What paper is the CO2 climate change theory based on?

Look at the vast list of references in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change.

 

[physicsforman]

Is Mitchell’s paper included in the list? As I recall, climate change theory is based on the idea that CO₂ in the upper atmosphere reflects heat. Do you accept that theory or has it change since the last time I looked?

 

[weirdoguy]

Is Mitchell’s paper included in the list?

Why don't you check yourself?

 

[Baluncore]

What paper is the CO2 climate change theory based on?

I think the earliest paper suggesting the CO₂ greenhouse effect, "On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground", was published by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.

 

[Ken Fabian]

Is Mitchell’s paper included in the list? As I recall, climate change theory is based on the idea that CO₂ in the upper atmosphere reflects heat. Do you accept that theory or has it change since the last time I looked?

That isn't correct and hasn't ever been correct. Any source claiming the greenhouse effect works by reflecting heat was and is wrong.

CO2 doesn't reflect infrared 'heat', it absorbs it and then re-radiates it, which means it can absorb from a source from one direction and will disperse that energy equally in every direction. A whole lot of different consequences arise from that compared to reflection. You need to better inform yourself about how raising CO2 results in global heating or else trust that those studying these things do understand them.

Sulfate aerosols - the other climate significant fossil fuel waste product - do reflect solar energy, with a resulting cooling effect from reduced solar irradiance.

 

[berkeman]

Unfortunately, due to many issues with the OP, they are on a permanent vacation from PF. I'll leave this thread open for a day or two in case folks want to post any follow-ups that may help others in the future with similar questions. Thanks.

 

[DaveC426913]

It seems it pretty academc now that the OP is struck out, but isn't Climate Change (still) on the PF list of verboten subjects?

 

[berkeman]

It seems it pretty academc now that the OP is struck out, but isn't Climate Change (still) on the PF list of verboten subjects?

No, it's definitely allowed to discuss based on the peer-reviewed literature. I'll find the post about that and update this reply of mine...

Edit/Add -- From the sticky thread at the top of the Earth Sciences forum (holy smokes, from 2014):

Before posting anything, please review the Physics Forums Global Guidelines.

CC/GW threads in this forum are intended for discussion of the scientific content of well-researched models of weather, climatology, and global warming that have been published in peer-reviewed journals and well-established textbooks.

Threads such "Is global warming real" or "Are humans the cause of global warming" are too broad and are subject to being locked. We want to encourage questions about specific research, news and events involved with climate science.

Due to the contentious nature of the subject of climate change, the following cannot be used as source material:

• internet blogs
• unpublished papers
• papers published in a small number of excluded journals (see below)

This forum may not be used to propose new ideas or personal theories. All threads of this nature that are started in this forum will be removed by Mentors.

Threads that discuss anything other than the science of weather, climatology, and global warming may be locked or moved to a more appropriate forum, at the discretion of the Mentors.

Threads on the policy / political aspects of climate change are forbidden.

Articles published in a small number of supposedly peer-reviewed journals are not acceptable in this forum. These journals include:

• Energy and Environment
• Pattern Recognition in Physics

This topic is under probation. It will be banned again if discussion isn't civil and well intentioned.
​

 

[berkeman]

One of the problems with this OP was that they made some pretty outlandish claims in one of their posts that was deleted by the Mentors as lacking references, so they were probably trying to find some references when they posted this thread. So this thread here was allowed since they were just asking for references, but their other thread starts piled up and they earned the ignominious PF ban.

 

[Ken Fabian]

I think the earliest paper suggesting the CO₂ greenhouse effect, "On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground", was published by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.

Don't overlook Eunice Foote, 4 decades earlier than Arrhenius - (pretty much everyone overlooked Eunice Foote.)

"Circumstances Affecting the Heat of the Sun's Rays" (1856)

 

[Nugatory]

It seems it pretty academc now that the OP is struck out, but isn't Climate Change (still) on the PF list of verboten subjects?

Back in 2014 we decided that we would allow science-based climate change discussions as described in the sticky that @berkeman posted above. Our thinking then (and it has held up pretty well over the years) was that the topic is important enough and PF is well enough-positioned to host rational discussion that we could justify the effort required to keep discussions productive. We wouldn't do the same with (for example) creationism - the value of the discussion just doesn't justify the moderation workload.

And a historical note, after the decision (which I agree with) was sealed my last word was:

Cool! But which reckless fool brave soul was blackmailed volunteered for the suicide mission task of moderating?

 

[Baluncore]

Don't overlook Eunice Foote, 4 decades earlier than Arrhenius - (pretty much everyone overlooked Eunice Foote.)

The husband and wife team of Elisha Foote and Eunice Foote both published their own papers on the Heat of the Sun in The American Journal of Science and Arts, 1856. Pages 377 and 382.
Their interest was experimental, and they did not publish any follow-up work. So yes, Eunice did recognise the importance of CO₂ well before Arrhenius. She did not, however, understand the relationship between heat and absolute humidity.

I quote the conclusion to her paper:
"An atmosphere of that gas would give to our earth a high temperature; and if as some suppose, at one period of its history the air had mixed with it a larger proportion than at present, an increased temperature from its own action as well as from increased weight must have necessarily resulted.
On comparing the sun’s heat in different gases, I found it to be
in hydrogen gas, 104°;
in common air, 106°;
in oxygen gas; 108°;
and in carbonic acid gas, 125°."
That involved an historical back-in-time assumption, not a forward in time prediction of future climate warming.

The couple were strong supporters of women's rights, which it seems, may have eclipsed their scientific work.

 

[Ken Fabian]

@Baluncore - a lot was not well understood at that time and explaining the average temperature of the world and in relation to the past - not prediction - was almost certainly the focus. The relevance to future climate would only have been implicit.

I'm not sure anyone in the 1850's could have reasonably foreseen the possibility of emissions growth at scales large enough to foresee measurable global warming and be motivated to seek to understand it - only a few nations were burning fossil fuels in any quantities at that time and it was dug up by manual labor, with very limited use of steam power. Only natural processes raising CO2 would have been seen as capable of it.

Not sure Arrhenius 4 decades after Foote could be confident coal burning was in fact already causing global temperature rise but it sounds like he thought so. Being from a nation with cold winters he saw that as potentially beneficial - which he may not have were he from somewhere with a hot climate.

An enduring 'not actually understood' assumption that stood in the way of predicting global warming from coal burning until a lot later was incorrect understanding of CO2 exchange with oceans (pre- Revelle and buffering). Assumptions seawater would absorb it rapidly the way freshwater did prevailed and thus prevent significant rise in atmospheric concentrations needed to be put to rest before Arrhenius and others could be taken seriously.