4 ms·

Crediting someone in 1938 with "discovering" anthropogenic global warming might be misattributing a bit? Climate change due to industrial emissions of CO2 has

Crediting someone in 1938 with "discovering" anthropogenic global warming might be misattributing a bit? Climate change due to industrial emissions of CO2 has been known and published in mainstream news articles since at least 110 years ago.[0][1] It's been known and discussed in public by professional scientists for over 140 years[2]. The great inaugural Nobel Prize winner, Arrhenius, wrote a paper on the topic in 1896[3] which cited Fourier's publication from 1827[4]. More generally, global greenhouse effect of CO2 has been known for at least 185 years[4], a decade before the last founding father of the United States died. ---------- 0: The Rodney and Otamatea Times (Aug 1912) https://www.livescience.com/63334-coal-affecting-climate-century-ago.html https://www.livescience.com/63334-coal-affecting-climate-cen... 1: Popular Mechanics (Mar 1912): https://books.google.com/books?id=Tt4DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA341&lpg=PA341 https://books.google.com/books?id=Tt4DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA341&lpg=... 2: Nature (1882): https://www.nature.com/articles/027127c0 https://www.nature.com/articles/027127c0 3: Journal of Science (Apr 1896) https://doi.org/10.1080/14786449608620846 https://doi.org/10.1080/14786449608620846 4: M ́emoire sur les Temp ́eratures du Globe Terrestre et des Espaces Plan ́etaires, M ́emoires d l’Acad ́emie Royale des Sciences de l’Institute de France VII 570-604 (1827): https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/Fourier1827Trans.pdf https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/Fourier1827Trans.pd... (English Translation)

baxtr 3y ago
Excerpt from your second citation Nature (1882) paper: From this we may conclude that the increasing pollution of the atmosphere will have a marked influence on the climate of the world. The mountainous regions will be colder, the Arctic regions will be colder, the tropics will be warmer, and throughout the world the nights will be colder, and the days warmer. In the Temperate Zone winter will be colder, and generally differences will be greater, winds, storms, rainfall greater.
- verisimi 3y ago
  Pollution is not co2, right? (The OP says co2, not pollution.) We also have both claims here - global warming and global cooling. Can't we also say, from broad claims such as the ones you hi light, that a sort of generic scientific alarmism has existed a long time? Scientific alarmism in itself justifies the valuable work those scientists raising the alarm do, of course...
  - Retric 3y ago
    Both global warming and cooling happen, just at different timescales. In the early Industrial Revolution when coal use was exploding exponentially due to cheaper mining and transportation the sort term net effect was cooling due to particulate emissions having a larger short term impact than CO2. However, the exponential growth slowed down as people didn’t need unlimited heating for their homes so the cooling leveled off as CO2 accumulated. Thus people in 1900 saw net heating from the exact same coal burned in 1800 that produced cooling back then. The same thing happened again with the explosion of automobile use globally before that growth curve slowed down. And it’s even part of climate models where if you stop all fossil fuel emissions you get a few years of additional warming before things stabilize.
  - reaperman 3y ago
    For that passage the authors were talking about hydrogen, marsh gas, and ethylene. They state "those have the property of a very high degree of absorbing and radiating heat, and so much so that a very small proportion, of only one thousandth part, had very great effect." Whether CO2 is referred to as "pollution" or not depends on the context. In this case they were talking about other industrial greenhouse gases.
    - antod 3y ago
      Anything can be a toxin at a high enough dose, likewise a pollutant depends on the concentration. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dose_makes_the_poison https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dose_makes_the_poison
  - CodeWriter23 3y ago
    No true Scotsman would say anything like that @verisimi
    - verisimi 3y ago
      I know the fallacy, but I'm confused! Whose is the fallacious reasoning then, in your opinion? Is it the OP who interprets pollution to be co2, or mine as you interpret me to be narrowing the scope somehow?
cs702 3y ago
Thank you for sharing this. I upvoted the OP so your comment would get more views!
graeme 3y ago
The article mentions Arrhenius
perrygeo 3y ago
I hadn't seen the Fourier paper before, nice. He doesn't really go into CO2 but focuses more on general atmosphere heating. I really appreciate the translator's notes. Eunice Foot (1856) and John Tyndall (1859) independently characterized how CO2 absorbs radiant heat, and both postulated on the potential climate impacts. Tyndall is often given the credit as the founder of climate science but Foot was first. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsnr.2018.0066 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsnr.2018.006...
- reaperman 3y ago
  Thank you for pointing that out. It was nice to have a reason to read the translation much more carefully. It's clear that Fourier understood there existed some greenhouse effects from the atmosphere, but didn't have a strong grasp on details of those effects. And as you say, it doesn't talk about CO2.

baxtr 3y ago

Excerpt from your second citation Nature (1882) paper: From this we may conclude that the increasing pollution of the atmosphere will have a marked influence on the climate of the world. The mountainous regions will be colder, the Arctic regions will be colder, the tropics will be warmer, and throughout the world the nights will be colder, and the days warmer. In the Temperate Zone winter will be colder, and generally differences will be greater, winds, storms, rainfall greater.

verisimi 3y ago
Pollution is not co2, right? (The OP says co2, not pollution.) We also have both claims here - global warming and global cooling. Can't we also say, from broad claims such as the ones you hi light, that a sort of generic scientific alarmism has existed a long time? Scientific alarmism in itself justifies the valuable work those scientists raising the alarm do, of course...
- Retric 3y ago
  Both global warming and cooling happen, just at different timescales. In the early Industrial Revolution when coal use was exploding exponentially due to cheaper mining and transportation the sort term net effect was cooling due to particulate emissions having a larger short term impact than CO2. However, the exponential growth slowed down as people didn’t need unlimited heating for their homes so the cooling leveled off as CO2 accumulated. Thus people in 1900 saw net heating from the exact same coal burned in 1800 that produced cooling back then. The same thing happened again with the explosion of automobile use globally before that growth curve slowed down. And it’s even part of climate models where if you stop all fossil fuel emissions you get a few years of additional warming before things stabilize.
- reaperman 3y ago
  For that passage the authors were talking about hydrogen, marsh gas, and ethylene. They state "those have the property of a very high degree of absorbing and radiating heat, and so much so that a very small proportion, of only one thousandth part, had very great effect." Whether CO2 is referred to as "pollution" or not depends on the context. In this case they were talking about other industrial greenhouse gases.
  - antod 3y ago
    Anything can be a toxin at a high enough dose, likewise a pollutant depends on the concentration. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dose_makes_the_poison https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dose_makes_the_poison
- CodeWriter23 3y ago
  No true Scotsman would say anything like that @verisimi
  - verisimi 3y ago
    I know the fallacy, but I'm confused! Whose is the fallacious reasoning then, in your opinion? Is it the OP who interprets pollution to be co2, or mine as you interpret me to be narrowing the scope somehow?

cs702 3y ago

Thank you for sharing this. I upvoted the OP so your comment would get more views!

graeme 3y ago

The article mentions Arrhenius

perrygeo 3y ago

I hadn't seen the Fourier paper before, nice. He doesn't really go into CO2 but focuses more on general atmosphere heating. I really appreciate the translator's notes. Eunice Foot (1856) and John Tyndall (1859) independently characterized how CO2 absorbs radiant heat, and both postulated on the potential climate impacts. Tyndall is often given the credit as the founder of climate science but Foot was first. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsnr.2018.0066 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsnr.2018.006...

reaperman 3y ago
Thank you for pointing that out. It was nice to have a reason to read the translation much more carefully. It's clear that Fourier understood there existed some greenhouse effects from the atmosphere, but didn't have a strong grasp on details of those effects. And as you say, it doesn't talk about CO2.