Arrhenius had estimated that doubling the amount of the gas would cause global temperatures to rise by 5C-6C. Extraordinarily, that is almost exactly the conclusion reached by today’s scientists, armed with superfast supercomputers – which has led to the giant climate summit, to be attended by more than 100 heads of government, that opens in Copenhagen on Monday.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Recent Comments
John on The Price Of Telling The Truth… Don Gaddes on Seven Year Drought Killed 40%… Bill Sokeland on NSIDC : Arctic Was Ice Free In… Notes To Ponder on 45 Years Since Paul Ehrlich Wa… gator69 on A Proof That Greenhouse Gas Dr… gator69 on Toto Has Moved! Menicholas on Toto Has Moved! Sir Charles on A Proof That Greenhouse Gas Dr… Sir Charles on A Proof That Greenhouse Gas Dr… Ed Darrell on Phil Jones Removing The 1940…
Just think what other wonders the climate scientists could foretell if the US government gave them an extra 80 billion or so. One question though. Do we have to keep giving them money to keep the
disastercurrent agreementprojected warming? Or can we begin to pay for something else?Arhennius came to 5-6C warming effect in a theoretical Earth without water not a 5-6 C warming.
How is that different than the climate models theoretical earth? Are you playing favorites Michael?
Wonderful, Arrhenius was wrong just as big as the AGW bedwetters are wrong.
Stupid does not get any better with age! It’s not like a wine.
It was a drug induced fantasy then and probably the same now! What are now considered illegal designer drugs were in common use then.
Hi Michael well I think this indicates that the assumption of Arrhenius that temperature depended on 5.35 *ln (C/Co) which is not that different from what modern warmists believe is dead wrong. Graph that function and compare to actual temperature trends. The constant out front is obviously wrong and there are obviously other factors that impact climate trends besides levels of a trace gas. AGW is wrong down to it’s basic fundamentals.
Wikipedia’s entry on our old pal Svante describes him as an epic scumbag. It is ironic that the CACC movement proudly stands on the shoulders of this human putrescence.
For example-
-Svante Arrhenius was one of several leading Swedish scientists actively engaged in the process leading to the creation in 1922 of The State Institute for Racial Biology…Arrhenius was a member of the institute’s board, as he had been in The Swedish Society for Racial Hygiene (Eugenics), founded in 1909.
-About 1900, Arrhenius became involved in setting up the Nobel Institutes and the Nobel Prizes. Life member of the Nobel Committee on Physics and a de facto member of the Nobel Committee on Chemistry.
-He used his positions to arrange prizes for his friends (Jacobus van’t Hoff, Wilhelm Ostwald, Theodore Richards) and to attempt to deny them to his enemies (Paul Ehrlich, Walther Nernst). In 1901 Arrhenius was elected to the Swedish Academy of Sciences, against strong opposition.
In 1903 he became the first Swede to be awarded the Nobel Prize in chemistry.
To sum up, then-
Svante Arrhenius was a eugenics racist and political narcissist who is a revered pillar of global warming theory and the highly vaunted Nobel prizes, even though he awarded himself the chemistry Nobel.
No wonder Algore and Hansen hold Svante in such high esteem.
Yes, but at least he didn’t believe that there was a higher intelligence to the universe – like Spencer. The ultimate sin. (Or maybe he did?)
It might well be an urban legend but that is what I have read about him in many other locations also. Basically he was a self serving fruit cake like a lot of the Chicken Little Brigade promoting AGW now!
AGW has always been about eugenics, even more than it has been about money.
“AGW has always been about eugenics, even more than it has been about money.”
Wayne; Perhaps you can combine your speculations on AGW with this.
What’s the point Steve, when you don’t believe that a doubling of CO2 would give hardly any temperatures rise?
Here’s another joke to watch as it flies over your head:
http://bit.ly/1997terror
These non-replies are typical of persons who have nothing to say.
I think you meant “These non-replies aren’t hardly give no typical persons who don’t have nothing to says.” based on your previous syntax.
It would melt the planet