Tyndall's climate message, 150 years on

 
John Tyndall John Tyndall: a neglected genius?

There's a welter of environmental anniversaries this year, notably the 50th birthday of WWF and the 40th of both Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth International.

Much less trumpeted, but in its own way more significant, is one that dates back to the middle of the 19th Century, which is being marked this week by a special conference in Dublin.

It was 150 years ago that John Tyndall, one of history's truly great physicists, published a scientific paper with the far-from-snappy title On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connexion of Radiation, Absorption, and Conduction.

Not a title to excite the senses at first sight, perhaps; but nowadays, the basis for a vitally important branch of science and a particularly noxious brand of political discourse.

What Tyndall had demonstrated for the first time was that gases in the atmosphere absorb heat to very different degrees; he had discovered the molecular basis of the greenhouse effect.

Its existence had been surmised by earlier generations of scientists, notably Joseph Fourier, who wrote in 1824: "The temperature [of the Earth] can be augmented by the interposition of the atmosphere, because heat in the state of light finds less resistance in penetrating the air, than in re-passing into the air when converted into non-luminous heat."

What Fourier could not do, but Tyndall could, was design and construct apparatus capable of demonstrating and measuring the effect.

Clear vision

Born south of Dublin in County Carlow in 1820, Tyndall moved first to England and then to Germany, which he saw as the leader in experimental sciences at the time.

Tutors included Robert Bunsen, one of the few scientists whose invention every school kid knows by name.

Tyndall public lecture John Tyndall's public lectures were held to be lively but compelling affairs

In the late 1850s, Tyndall decided to investigate heat absorption by various gases.

He conceived an experimental set-up that would send infrared radiation through a tube of gas and into a detector, a thermopile, which would translate temperature differences into electrical current.

Reading the paper - posted online by organisers of this week's Tyndall Conference - is to gain an insight into the sheer cleverness and persistence required to be an experimental physicist at the time.

The first practical obstacle was that the galvanometer, the instrument that would measure currents generated in the thermopile, performed very erratically.

Of all the possible factors you might think of, Tyndall eventually traced the disruption back to the colour of the silk thread covering the wires.

Green silk perturbed the machine, presumably because it had been coloured with a copper compound; exchanged for white, the galvanometer worked fine.

The tube containing the gases had to have transparent ends.

Glass wouldn't do, because it blocks infrared. So samples of rock salt were obtained, and after many trials and many errors it was kept gas-tight with washers made of "vulcanized india-rubber very lightly smeared with a mixture of bees-wax and spermaceti".

He also needed an infrared source that would remain at a stable temperature, which was far from easy to find.

"The course of the inquiry during this whole period was an incessant struggle with experimental difficulties," he wrote.

Eventually, Tyndall had an apparatus he was happy with, and he began to investigate the heat-trapping properties of various gases.

Tyndall's apparatus The experiment required tremendous dexterity as well as theoretical understanding

Oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen were all tried and found to have no impact.

But when a trace of ozone went in with the oxygen, Tyndall saw a significant absorption.

That was dwarfed, though, by results on "olefiant gas" - or ethene, as it's rather less poetically known today.

"More than seven-ninths of the total heat was cut off by the olefiant gas, or about 81%," he recorded.

The incredulity with which Tyndall noted these readings is perfectly transmitted in his later comments.

"Those who, like myself, have been taught to regard transparent gases as almost perfectly diathermanous (transparent to heat), will probably share the astonishment with which I witnessed the foregoing effects," he wrote.

"I was indeed slow to believe it possible that a body so constituted, and so transparent to light as olefiant gas, could be so densely opake to any kind of calorific (infrared) rays; and to secure myself against error, I made several hundred experiments with this single substance."

The result held true.

In understanding the nature of today's greenhouse effect, where the natural warming (dominated by water vapour) is amplified by traces of gas small enough to be measured in parts per million or even parts per billion, this paper made two important points:

  • tiny amounts of a highly absorbent gas can dominate much larger amounts of a less absorbent gas, as in the ozone example
  • increasing the concentration of an absorbent gas does not always produce a proportional increase in heat uptake, because there is progressively less to be absorbed.
History man

It's salutary to put Tyndall's paper in a historical concept.

The Tyndall Effect - light scattering Tyndall's work covered a huge range of issues, including showing that colloidal liquids scatter light - which came to be known as the Tyndall Effect

His discovery, description and analysis of the molecular basis of the greenhouse effect came more than 30 years before the discovery of either radioactivity or the electron.

Transport was predominantly powered by human or animal muscles rather than anything mechanical.

Charles Dickens was releasing Great Expectations chapter by chapter, Livingstone was exploring the Zambezi, and women were barred from voting in just about every nation that maintained elections.

So when you take into account Tyndall's other achievements - inventing devices to purify air (which co-incidentally led to a way of preserving food), explaining why light is scattered by particles (known as the Tyndall Effect), confirming that ozone is composed of oxygen atoms, improving understanding of heat production in chemical reactions, and many other things besides - it's perhaps surprising that he's not better known.

In scientific circles, his legacy is acknowledged. The UK's Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research bears his name, as does Ireland's Tyndall National Institute.

His love of the outdoors led to a glacier and a mountain being named for him too.

But public appreciation, it seems, remains dim by comparison with his peers (though London's Science Museum has taken something of a step forward by putting some of his equipment on public display, and explaining the key experiment online).

Equally perturbing - and perhaps not unrelated - is the persistence of the view that emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases cannot influence global temperatures because they are so small.

In the light of Tyndall's findings, amply replicated and refined and explained since, maintaining such a view is virtually the definition of anti-science.

Tyndall's lab experiments do not prove that humanity's CO2 emissions are warming the planet, any more than lab experiments being conducted now at Cern can prove that changes in cosmic ray flux are warming the planet - because in the real world, other factors can influence and outweigh those lab findings.

But Tyndall did show how man-made global warming can work; and he did so 150 years ago.

Time, perhaps, to accept the fact, laud the achievement, and deal with what it means.

Follow Richard on Twitter

 
Richard Black Article written by Richard Black Richard Black Former environment correspondent

Farewell and thanks for reading

This is my last entry for this page - I'm leaving the BBC to work, initially, on ocean conservation issues.

Read full article

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 101.

    67. The New Doctor "It[water] ALSO is a combustion product..." Yes water is a combustion product. Perhaps you would care to give us authoritative estimates as to what percentage of atmospheric water comes from combustion versus evaporation, transpiration and sublimation? Then compare to the percentage of CO2 from combustion versus respiration etc.
    cont.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 100.

    @93.Pagi
    Another popular idea ..went unquestioned for years .. Einstein may be wrong.
    wasnt unquestioned, loads of experiments to test it always being done & its always passed. IF the neutrino issue is real then Relativity may need adjustment or become a special case of a more complex theory (like Newtons theory), that doesn't mean it was wrong, it just (unsurprisingly) wasn't the complete truth

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 99.

    @82.Notrocketscience1
    u got a lot of papers to get thru, start with
    http://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/Arrhenius.html
    then
    Callendar, G.S. (1938). "The Artificial Production of Carbon Dioxide and Its Influence on Climate." Quarterly J. Royal Meteorological Society 64: 223-40

    Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming? Wallace S. Broecker Science, (Aug. 8, 1975), pp. 460-463

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 98.

    @82.Notrocketscience1
    No published peer reviewed paper in a scientific journal has said that man made CO2 is causing global warming.
    If the evidence is exists why not??

    not how science works, most climate scientists work on one tiny aspect, often, not always, the conclusion will say how their work fits or doesn't fit in,
    Look harder & you'll find general papers that look at the overall picture

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 97.

    All the papers I've read say man made greenhouse gas emissions "can in theory" warm the planet, similar to Tyndalls

    But climate models and climate policy are built on the premise that man-made greenhouse gases "do" warm the planet

    Its double speak, scientists say "can" and "possibly" but IPCC and AGW enthusiasts say "it does"

    Please send me a link to a paper that has proved AGW?
    If one exists?

 

Comments 5 of 101

 

Features

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.