Meanwhile the carbon dioxide content of the oceans will have doubled. This raises an incidental question about the welfare of sea organisms. We know that an increase in carbon dioxide concentration increases the acidity of water, and that many marine animals are extremely sensitive to changes in acidity. However, if the carbon dioxide content of the air were to increase sevenfold, the acidity (pH) of sea water would not rise more than .5 above its present value. Thus changes in carbon dioxide concentration, which have such a profound effect on climate, will probably not disturb future marine life. Perhaps only man will be uncomfortable.
We shall be able to test the carbon dioxide theory against other theories of climatic change quite conclusively during the next half-century. Since we now can measure the sun's energy output independent of the distorting influence of the atmosphere, we shall see whether the earth's temperature trend correlates with measured fluctuations in solar radiation. If volcanic dust is the more important factor, then we may observe the earth's temperature following fluctuations in the number of large volcanic eruptions. But if carbon dioxide is the most important factor, long-term temperature records will rise continuously as long as man consumes the earth's reserves of fossil fuels.
See what we're tweeting about
9 Comments
Add CommentOh god, get ready for a bombardment of proactive naysayers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLets see how many ways they can shoot down the statistical data yet again presented to them by unbiased minds.
That was a pretty cool article. Not only did it give us a unique look backward it gave us a fresh look forward; and it was enjoyable reading too. I was twelve years old when that was written. The streets of my home town were dusty and just about every vehicle and smoke stack was a choker. Those things a much improved now, none the less global co2 volume increases. In fifty years this scenario may repeat its self and a reader will write things are better now but co2 volumes continue to increase.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is good that mankind works to clean up the environment because it makes our earth a more enjoyable place to live regardless of whether we can put off the next ice age or not.
Great summary on the subject! .A good conclusion from it may be trying to reduce the amount of fuel spent on transport by bringing down the size of cars, and that of housing and industry by using isolation and more efficient heating and cooling systems. Fusion energy is on its way and the future may be not so bad. By the way: how about the decrease in gases solubility in water when sea temperature raises? Regards
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Science progresses, funeral by funeral." _ Max Planck
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease no more CO2. Before the time CO2 really does become a problem mankind will have switched to something else, hopefully fusion. Not to save the planet which in the words of George Carlin "ISN'T GOING ANYWHERE", but because we really need the energy - hundreds and thousands of times more than we are currently using. I hope when this global warming hoax is finally totally exposed and Al Gore receives his true title of CON MAN OF THE MILLENIUM that your readers remember how willingly Scientific American promoted this HOAX. Your publication doesn't have the journalistic integrity of the National Enquirer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCO2 can't be a green house gas on earth because it absorbs infrared radiation at wavelengths that are not radiated by the earths surface. In the article it says CO2 absorbs infrared radiation in the range 13-17 microns - this corresponds to a surface temperature of about -100 celcius to -73 celcius - there is nowhere that cold on earth. Most of the earths surface is at about 17 celcius - this radiates at about 10.5 microns, CO2 is transparent to infrared radiation at that wave length.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience doesn't change, politics changes science. It's refreshing to see that back in 1959, studies involving CO2 and temperature were not biased by current global warming alarmists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet's face it, the Earth are far more supreme an one step ahead of man. Let's focus on man's detrimental impact on the environment and not global warming.
From the Wiki link about John Tyndall:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"He was the first to correctly measure the infrared absorptive powers of the gases nitrogen, oxygen, water vapour, carbon dioxide, ozone, methane, etc.
He concluded that water vapour is the strongest absorber of radiant heat in the atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling air temperature.
Absorption by the bulk of the other gases is negligible.
Prior to Tyndall it was widely surmised that the Earth's atmosphere has a Greenhouse Effect, but he was first to prove it.
The proof was that water vapor strongly absorbed infrared radiation."
Now - how are they going to tax water vapor?
First, John Tyndall stated that water vapor was the main gas blocking photons from escaping into space. CO2 was in the "bulk of the other gases" with negligible absorption. Thus, CO2 has a negligible effect on global warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSecond, notice that CO2 blocks all 15-micron photons. This means that more CO2 cannot block more photons since they are all blocked already.
Third, we should not forget that photons in sunlight at 15-microns are also blocked, thus cooling the Earth's surface in the daytime.