Global warming paper published 150 years ago

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 28 Sep 2011, 21:50

http://tyndallconference2011.org/wp-con ... ecture.pdf

And a report about it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15093234

An Inspector Calls · Post by **An Inspector Calls** » 29 Sep 2011, 08:44

Strange, I couldn't find any reference to 'global warming' in Tyndall's paper.

snow hope · Post by **snow hope** » 29 Sep 2011, 22:09

Funnily enough, I searched the pdf for 'global warming' and 'warming' and there were 0 results for both searches. Strange how we can 'see' what we want to see.

Post by **clv101** » 30 Sep 2011, 09:59

This is an awesome paper, the experiment design ingenious, the results profound. Why not actually invest 15 minutes of your time to read the paper rather than just doing word searches? Then you might have come across:

Similar remarks would apply to the carbonic acid diffused through the air; while an almost inappreciable admixture of any of the hydrocarbon vapours would produce great effects on the terrestrial rays and produce corresponding changes of climate. It is not therefore necessary to assume alterations in the density and height of the atmosphere, to account for different amounts of heat being preserved to the earth at different times; a slight change in its variable constituents would suffice for this. Such changes in fact may have produced all the mutations of climate which the researches of geologists reveal.

An Inspector Calls · Post by **An Inspector Calls** » 30 Sep 2011, 19:42

Oh do come on, let's not have your tired high horse of 'reading the paper'. Leave that to Daddy.

Yes, it's a very fine piece of experimental work. And, a bonus, it says what you hope to hear. The paper reveals the possibility of radiative gases, predominantly water vapour, it seems. But where are the rages against Saffordshire's Satantic mills? Brunel's wheezing GWR? The farting of cows? What's the source of the radiative power of the gases? The merest consideration of the quantum mechanics involved here ask huge questions of the experiments.

There's no 'global warming' here. There's may be 'climate change'! And as I've been told before on these pages: it's not 'global warming' - it's supposed to be 'climate change' in proper greenie speak - that way, you've got all the angles covered . . .

You need to speak to your Dad for correction on correct green talk - that Ph.d stuff is screwing you up. All those steric solutions, geodetic modifications.

snow hope · Post by **snow hope** » 01 Oct 2011, 01:52

For goodness sake AIC, any chance you can show some humility? You are so hard hitting and disrespectful of other people's views, it is rather sad to see sometimes. Let's give a bit of leeway with folks irrespective of whether we think them right or wrong. Unless you are GOD, you can't say whether you are right or wrong either. On forums like this it is good to have discussion rather than downright condemnation. Lets be fair to each other can't we???

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 01 Oct 2011, 02:45

Thank you, Snow. Well said.

An Inspector Calls · Post by **An Inspector Calls** » 01 Oct 2011, 08:25

You mean we should respect the experience and knowledge of other posters? And Kenneal agrees - and I'll bet he didn't manage a blink of hypocrisy as he wrote that?

Well great! In that spirit of mutual respect let's remove the ban on RGR!

snow hope · Post by **snow hope** » 02 Oct 2011, 00:50

Hey AIC, I have met Ken and stayed in his company at his small-holding. I have a great deal of respect for what he has achieved. We agree on a lot of things, but we don't agree on everything and as you have no doubt picked up, we don't agree on all aspects of climate change and its causes. This factor makes no difference to my views of Ken, or I would hope his views of me. He may be right on this aspect or I may be right, I can't say for sure and neither can he.

You are an intelligent person AIC and you recall my impatience with RGR and his very negative impact on this site. I certainly argued for his ban, mainly because of his constant attempts/desire to ridicule the members and ethos/central views of this web site. In my opinion there comes a time when the freedom of one poster becomes less important than the freedom/desires of the majority of posters/members on a site. We had gone beyond this point with RGR and I argued that point. It seems to have been accepted and I see no reason why it should be reversed on the grounds you have suggested.

I merely suggested to you we should be a little less critical and a little more accepting of the validity of members opinions even when they disagree with what we may think. Provided it is backed up with sensible references or aguments, I really don't have a problem...... I hope you feel the same way and can see the benefit of being a little more tolerant.

Keela · Post by **Keela** » 02 Oct 2011, 07:20

Well said Snowhope

An Inspector Calls · Post by **An Inspector Calls** » 02 Oct 2011, 09:02

Snow hope I'm not sure why you're singling out Kenneal as the object of your support here.

I fully agree with the sentiments expressed, and I'll continue to respond to the posts of others here with same consideration and respect as is shown to me. However, it won't be long before Kenneal trouts out another silly cartoon, Biff repeats his troll mantra . . .

As for the ban on RGR, I can see no evidence that he was/is having a negative impact on this site. He expresses views that contradict or modify the concept of peak oil, and he does that in a very coherent way, obviously speaking with knowledge and experience gained during a long career in the oil business. It strikes me that he was banned more because of this viewpoint rather than any objections to his style. If you supported the ban on him, then shame on you for the censorship and stifling of free speech you have displayed.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 02 Oct 2011, 09:29

I started this thread because I came across the Tyndall paper and thought we might have an intelligent discussion about it, since it forms the foundation for all scientific work on global warming.

Unfortunately the thread has again been hijacked by AIC. The nine comments all relate to AIC and not to the Tyndall paper, except one from clv101 defending its importance.

I have made a comment to this effect on the Admin thread and sent PMs to two of the admins but there has been no response so far.

If one cannot start threads on this forum in the expectation of a serious discussion then PowerSwitch no longer performs any useful function.

An Inspector Calls · Post by **An Inspector Calls** » 02 Oct 2011, 12:37

I think your claim that this paper, which is a nice piece of work but not so remarkable in the context of 19C physics experimentation, forms the foundation of all scientific work on global warming is tenuous. Perhaps you can provide more context and evidence of the work the paper directly produced to support the claim? But there are many results in the paper which are quite simply wrong, such as the absorption of heat is directly proportional to the density of gas. And there's nothing exploring the spectral variation of absorption.

If the thread has been hijacked by me, as you claim, then that may be because you have done nothing to progress your new claim for Tyndall in the thread. Perhaps the title of the thread was somewhat over-the-top?

If you want serious discussion, then lay a foundation for it, don't just post and then run to admin.