In the 1800s the lakes in New Jersey would freeze solid to the point that there were companies who would cut ice in New Jersey and store it to be sold in New York in the summer. Nowadays the mid atlantic is lucky to get a few inches of snow at a time, and I doubt a single lake in New Jersey has frozen enough to walk on in 30 years. Even places like Upstate New York, famous for their snowfall and long winters, have long stretches of winter with above freezing temperatures where all of the snow melts. The effects are extremely pronounced and the climate is nothing like it was in the 1800s now.
> he showed [atmospheric CO2] at 315 parts per million in 1958; today it is 421 ppm; in the pre-industrial 19th century, it had rested around 280 ppm)
Wow, somehow I was unaware that we had raised atmospheric CO2 by 50% -- that's impressive in sense.
This would be clearer if the title said something like, “provided 1st definitive evidence of…“, in order to distinguish it from earlier attempts to propose or prove global warming effects of CO2.
Otherwise very cool link.
Link to the actual paper: https://www.rmets.org/sites/default/files/qjcallender38.pdf
what about that blurb from the 1912 newspaper article
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/08/13/fac...
or the 1896 paper ""On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground"
Is the lowercasing of his last name Callendar part of HN's automated butchery of titles?
> He also implied that a non-expert could not possibly understand atmospheric processes well enough to calculate the effects of solar radiation which Callendar had asserted was being absorbed in greater quantities by increased CO2 in the atmosphere.
Sounds like he posted his findings to HN.
It sure took us a long time to accept the evidence
Peer review was broken back then too. It is just too perverse and dismissive. Peer reviewers have a bias to discredit novel results that are true. I feel terribly for Callendar not being recognized.
If I was reading a fiction novel and the character making predictions for decades in the future had a last name “Callendar” I would chuckle and think the autor was unimaginative, over-literal.
Alas, reality is often more on the nose than one would expect.
See lithium batteries, a technology with many problems but probably our best bet for the energy transition, being invented by a guy named Goodenough.
'Callendar' should be capitalized in the title, as it's his last name. (I assume HN automatically changed it.)
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
LOL this fake persona is named Calendar! The global warming charade is a schedule for other plans or events. You have been warned.
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-cen...
1: Popular Mechanics (Mar 1912): https://books.google.com/books?id=Tt4DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA341&lpg=...
2: Nature (1882): https://www.nature.com/articles/027127c0
3: Journal of Science (Apr 1896) 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.pd... (English Translation)