Tyndall describes the apparatus used to study the radiative power of different gases as follows:
- air, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen: 0
- carbonic oxide: 12
- carbonic acid: 18
- nitrous oxide: 29
- olefiant gas: 53.
The experiments thus showed a definite measurable emissivity of high concentration of CO2, but no measurable emissivity for air with low concentration of CO2 (for a closer analysis see Text of Tyndall).
Yet the experiments by Tyndall are often presented as the first key evidence of the warming effect of atmospheric CO2 followed by On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature on the Ground (1896) by Swedish Nobel Laureate Svante Arrhenius (fearing a coming ice age by too little CO2).
Inlägg
Good find Claes! All scientists should be skeptical and check the basis of their assumptions for research, industrial application, client/employer advice and also teaching. Just because someone else, who maybe well known, says something that does not free anyone from doing their own research to find the truth. The well-known Sir William McBride committed scientific fraud in Medical research. The work over 25yrs of V J Gupta in Geology was regarded as one of the greatest scientific frauds of the century and set back geological research on the Himalayas by 30 yrs.
SvaraRaderaYou are demonstrating the traits of good professional engineers and scientists in ensuring you understand the science behind assumptions and that they can be justified.
It would appear that not only are there incompetent and unethical scientists in the so-called field of climate science but some are actually committing scientific fraud. At least one scientist (Wei-Chyung Wang re UHI) and one other (Al Gore in two films) have between identified and there is great doubt over much of the work of and contributors to the IPCC.
Keep up your good work for the world to see.
The consensus climate science is incompetent, plain and simple, and even those who are so-called "lukewarm skeptics" of it are incompetent to the extent they accept the underlying theory of the "greenhouse effect", or the radiative transfer theory supposedly underlying that (which you are properly attacking here), or even the universal popular conception among academic scientists that the atmosphere is warmed from the surface rather than from direct absorption of infrared solar radiation from the Sun. The latter is the key to freeing climate science from its mind-numbing, perverse view of the physics of atmospheric warming, and my Venus/Earth temperatures comparison the overwhelming, definitive evidence, of two detailed atmospheres, against the popular view.
SvaraRaderaI have also been studying the Tyndall experiment and have found a flaw. I have put together my discoveries in the following link.
SvaraRaderaO2 and N2 are non thermoelectric gases, they do not generate electricity with the thermopile and so are wrongly assumed to not absorb IR radiation. By the thermopile they do not radiate, convect, or conduct: this is a contradiction to thermodynamics. And they do radiate: this is a contradiction to greenhouse theory. Something is wrong. There is, its is the detectors. If we use Raman spectrographs to correctly observe the vibration activity of N2 and O2, and can also measure their temperatures. Kindly review.
http://www.fractalnomics.com/2015/04/reinterpreting-john-tyndalls-ghg.html
https://www.academia.edu/12043014/Reinterpreting_and_Augmenting_John_Tyndall_s_1859_Greenhouse_Gas_Experiment_with_Thermoelectric_Theory_and_Raman_Spectroscopy