@s4f_le @LittleAlex @wuffel @seachaint If you can get hold of a copy of the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society for January 1901 there's a paper by Nils Ekholm which gets the whole thing of CO₂ warming, a decent explanation of how it works (raising the level in the atmosphere where radiation to space happens), water vapour feedback, and the log effect (constant temperature increase for each doubling of CO₂).

Of course, it gets a lot wrong, too…

@edavies Also interesting part is that he discusses carbonic acid in the atmosphere and how it prevents energy loss of the earth.
Today, you'd like to call it carbon dioxide or CO2.
Tells us some parts how knowledge has improved over this century.

@s4f_le I'd think the carbonic acid/carbon dioxide terminology change is rather trivial from the climate pov.

But indeed, they got the basics right - improvement of knowledge (apart from the understanding of ocean buffering) has only been second order since then and the error bars on the climate sensitivity haven't been narrowed all that much.

@LittleAlex In the full article, they figure it's a good thing.

@mansr That's science. The more you know the more likely it is to change your opinion about the caused effects. The most important thing they got right: burning fossil fuel causes the climate to change

@LittleAlex mittlerweile ist schon so, hör ich Mensch, wird mir übel.
Ignoranz von vorn bis hinten.
So widerlich, zu der Spezies zu gehören, wo Ignoranz und Gier jedes Leben platt macht.

@hamjb Das sind nur ganz wenige Menschen, die so sind. Die Mehrheit ist noch übler, weil die lässt diese Minderheit agieren, wider besseren Wissen. Das finde ich wirklich schlimm.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

chaos.social – a Fediverse instance for & by the Chaos community