2016 Arctic sea ice thread

[LaDexter]

OK RollingParrot, I've answered one of yours.

Try one of mine..

Why does one Earth polar circle, the Antarctic, have 9 times the ice of the other, the Arctic?

 

[RollingThunder]

For the 115th time...

Key Argument for Global Warming Critics Evaporates

"While surface thermometers have clearly shown that the Earth's surface is warming, (highly correlated) satellite and weather balloon (raw) data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was (microscopically) cooling."

LOLOLOLOL......you are SOOOOO retarded, you poor anti-science nutbagger.

From the article you cited....

"For the past 40 years, radiosonde temperature data have been collected from around the world twice each day, once during the day and once at night.

But while nighttime radiosonde measurements were consistent with climate models and theories showing a general warming trend, daytime measurements actually showed the atmosphere to be cooling since the 1970's.

Sherwood explains these discrepancies by pointing out that the older radiosonde instruments used in the 1970's were not as well shielded from sunlight as more recent models. What this means as that older radiosondes showed warmer temperature readings during the day because they were warmed by sunlight.

"It's like being outside on a hot day—it feels hotter when you are standing in the direct sun than when you are standing in the shade," Sherwood said.

Nowadays, radiosondes are better insulated against the effects of sunlight, but if analyzed together with the old data—which showed temperatures that were actually warmer than they really were—the overall effect looked like the troposphere was cooling."
***

And, BTW, LaDumbshit, you can shove those crackpot conspiracy theories of yours about all of the world's climate scientists back up your saggy ass where they belong.

 

[RollingThunder]

OK RollingParrot, I've answered one of yours.

Oh yeah? Where do you imagine you did that, LaDumbshit?

Everything you post amounts to retarded bullshit. You are mentally incapable of "answering" anything, you clueless imbecile.

 

[jc456]

Why does one Earth polar circle, the Antarctic, have 9 times the ice of the other, the Arctic? If CO2 is melting Arctic Sea Ice, why is Antarctic Sea Ice growing?

Your complete ignorance about science and dumbfounded disbelief in science do not actually constitute an argument, LaDumbshit. They just demonstrate what a clueless crackpot you are.

During the past million years, North America thawed while Greenland froze, all at the same time with the same atmosphere with the same amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, which proved what about CO2 and climate change??

Since that drivel is complete bullshit, it "proved" only that you are a delusional retard, LaDumbshit.

Being a PARROT does not mean one is intelligent, it means 180 degrees in the opposite direction...

One reason that everybody knows that you are an utter retard, you moronic parrot.


Meanwhile, on topic and in the real world....

Arctic sea ice melt “like a train wreck” says US scientist
Arctic feels like late June or July say experts as sea ice shrinks to what many believe will be a record low
ClimateHome
By Ed King
23/05/2016
(excerpts)
Arctic sea ice levels are on course to hit a new record low as warming at the North Pole accelerates. Snowmelt has started at the earliest date yet in 73 years, according to the US government’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “It looks like late June or early July right now,” said David Douglas, research biologist with the US Geological Survey. “Polar bears are having to make their decisions about how to move and where to go on thinner ice pack that’s mostly first-year ice.”

US climate agency: 2016 on course to be hottest on record

Veteran Arctic biologist George Divoky described the change as a “train wreck you can’t look away from” warning an early spring would impact wildlife and tundra plants. “You never know what you’re going to see and this year’s as big a mystery as any,” he added. Temperatures in Alaska hit 11C above average this winter. In December a storm sent what experts described as a “pulse” of heat to the region, spiking mercury from -30C to freezing. “Satellite photos from mid-May depict an early sea-ice breakup with an ominous series of openings, known as leads, extending deep into the Arctic,” said a statement from NOAA.

this is hilarious:
"Snowmelt has started at the earliest date yet in 73 years, "

Which therefore means it isn't the earliest ever. And means historically, the past was as warm or warmer than today. Ooops.....

Nope! It means that 73 years ago is when they STARTED keeping snow cover records at Barrow, Alaska. It also means that you are once again clearly demonstrating that you are an incredibly clueless retard, JustCrazy, too stupid to get the facts by simply opening the link in the article to the source of that quote. And no, you moronic nutjob, "historically the past was" NOT "as warm or warmer than today", or people would have noticed the ice melting or a score of other consequences if the recent past (before 73 years ago) had indeed been supposedly "warmer than today" . The depth of your stupidity still can astonish. Not to mention the instrumental temperature records that go back 137 years, or the proxy records that provide a good indication of the global temperatures for (at least) the last ten thousand years, all of which clearly indicate that temperatures now are hotter that they have ever been for at least 6000 years, or possibly since the last interglacial period over 120,000 years ago.

Arctic set for record-breaking melt this summer
NOAA
(excerpts)
The record heat baking Alaska is poised to smash a host of climate records in 2016, including the earliest snowmelt date at NOAA’s Barrow Observatory, the northernmost point in the nation. Staff at NOAA’s Barrow Observatory reported snowmelt occurred May 13, the earliest snowmelt date in 73 years of record keeping, beating the previous mark set in 2002 by a full 10 days. The early melting follows a record-setting winter that saw temperatures average more than 11 degrees above normal for the 49th State, shattering the previous record set in 2015. At 320 miles north of the Arctic Circle, Barrow is usually one of the last places in the United States to lose snow cover.

Snow’s not the only thing that’s vanishing. Preliminary data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center indicate 2016 will set the record for minimum winter sea-ice extent, eclipsing the 2015 mark. Satellite photos from mid-May depict an early sea-ice breakup with an ominous series of openings, known as leads, extending deep into the Arctic.

so since you have no records before that, you have no idea. So how is it I was in error? It still says exactly the same thing and does not prove anything.

So....you're still as retarded and clueless as always, JustCrazy. Too bad you're too stupid to comprehend what is said to you.

BTW, how old is the earth? have the oceans always looked like they do today? How is it you can't keep up with the changes that actually do happen on the surface? I cry bulls--t as often as I do because to date you haven't been able to ever prove your position. It pisses you off that you can't, you want to so badly, yet the material that would allow you to bang your chest just ain't there. Just like Greenhouse Effect. Has never been proven, ever. Since the universe was born btw. But you keep trying. If, as you believe, there was greenhouse effect, wouldn't there be something to show? I'm just saying when do you start wondering whether it is there or not? i mean sea level rise, no proof, ice in the arctics, no proof of catastrophe, just regular melt. So to date, nothing has ever once been verified by any human. Wow.

 

[LaDexter]

Highly correlated satellite and balloon raw data showed no warming in the atmosphere. You are obviously going to parrot the fudgers, but the raw data is documented. I answered your question. You won't answer mine, because mine requires you to THINK instead of PARROT...

 

[jc456]

For the 115th time...

Key Argument for Global Warming Critics Evaporates

"While surface thermometers have clearly shown that the Earth's surface is warming, (highly correlated) satellite and weather balloon (raw) data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was (microscopically) cooling."

LOLOLOLOL......you are SOOOOO retarded, you poor anti-science nutbagger.

From the article you cited....

"For the past 40 years, radiosonde temperature data have been collected from around the world twice each day, once during the day and once at night.

But while nighttime radiosonde measurements were consistent with climate models and theories showing a general warming trend, daytime measurements actually showed the atmosphere to be cooling since the 1970's.

Sherwood explains these discrepancies by pointing out that the older radiosonde instruments used in the 1970's were not as well shielded from sunlight as more recent models. What this means as that older radiosondes showed warmer temperature readings during the day because they were warmed by sunlight.

"It's like being outside on a hot day—it feels hotter when you are standing in the direct sun than when you are standing in the shade," Sherwood said.

Nowadays, radiosondes are better insulated against the effects of sunlight, but if analyzed together with the old data—which showed temperatures that were actually warmer than they really were—the overall effect looked like the troposphere was cooling."
***

And, BTW, LaDumbshit, you can shove those crackpot conspiracy theories of yours about all of the world's climate scientists back up your saggy ass where they belong.

so, the article you just posted contradicted everything it could. Even itself. WOW. Dude you should really read what you post. I did have a good chuckle though.

And it has nothing to say about arctic ice volumes. didn't see that anywhere in it. So do you think the ice in the Arctic should be melting today since it is summer? I do, the sun is actually hitting the area daily for a longer period of time, and unlike you, I know the sun is our energy source and it warms the surface, no matter if there is ice or not.

Oh, and I know what ever does melt, will refreeze. can you say OMG?

 

[LaDexter]

I understand that the purpose of the article was to say that Global Warming is real, regardless of what the data said.

The balloons have never shown any atmospheric warming.

Climate myths: The lower atmosphere is cooling, not warming


"Satellites and weather balloon measurements show that the stratosphere, the layer from 10 to 50 kilometres above the Earth, is indeed cooling (although this is partly due to the depletion of the ozone layer).

In 1992, however, an analysis of satellite data by John Christy at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, US, concluded that the lower part of the troposphere – the first 10 kilometres of atmosphere – had cooled relative to the surface since 1979, when the first satellites capable monitoring temperature measurements were launched. This trend seemed to continue into the late 1990s and also seemed to be supported by balloon measurements."


BTW - in 1998 when Surface Ground showed RECORD WARMING blah blah... from the surface of growing urban areas... the satellite and balloon data showed 1998 was a cooler than normal year in the atmosphere...

 

[ScienceRocks]

I am done reading about this off topic crap in my ice thread. I am putting you on ignore.

 

[RollingThunder]

Why does one Earth polar circle, the Antarctic, have 9 times the ice of the other, the Arctic? If CO2 is melting Arctic Sea Ice, why is Antarctic Sea Ice growing?

Your complete ignorance about science and dumbfounded disbelief in science do not actually constitute an argument, LaDumbshit. They just demonstrate what a clueless crackpot you are.

During the past million years, North America thawed while Greenland froze, all at the same time with the same atmosphere with the same amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, which proved what about CO2 and climate change??

Since that drivel is complete bullshit, it "proved" only that you are a delusional retard, LaDumbshit.

Being a PARROT does not mean one is intelligent, it means 180 degrees in the opposite direction...

One reason that everybody knows that you are an utter retard, you moronic parrot.


Meanwhile, on topic and in the real world....

Arctic sea ice melt “like a train wreck” says US scientist
Arctic feels like late June or July say experts as sea ice shrinks to what many believe will be a record low
ClimateHome
By Ed King
23/05/2016
(excerpts)
Arctic sea ice levels are on course to hit a new record low as warming at the North Pole accelerates. Snowmelt has started at the earliest date yet in 73 years, according to the US government’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “It looks like late June or early July right now,” said David Douglas, research biologist with the US Geological Survey. “Polar bears are having to make their decisions about how to move and where to go on thinner ice pack that’s mostly first-year ice.”

US climate agency: 2016 on course to be hottest on record

Veteran Arctic biologist George Divoky described the change as a “train wreck you can’t look away from” warning an early spring would impact wildlife and tundra plants. “You never know what you’re going to see and this year’s as big a mystery as any,” he added. Temperatures in Alaska hit 11C above average this winter. In December a storm sent what experts described as a “pulse” of heat to the region, spiking mercury from -30C to freezing. “Satellite photos from mid-May depict an early sea-ice breakup with an ominous series of openings, known as leads, extending deep into the Arctic,” said a statement from NOAA.

this is hilarious:
"Snowmelt has started at the earliest date yet in 73 years, "

Which therefore means it isn't the earliest ever. And means historically, the past was as warm or warmer than today. Ooops.....

Nope! It means that 73 years ago is when they STARTED keeping snow cover records at Barrow, Alaska. It also means that you are once again clearly demonstrating that you are an incredibly clueless retard, JustCrazy, too stupid to get the facts by simply opening the link in the article to the source of that quote. And no, you moronic nutjob, "historically the past was" NOT "as warm or warmer than today", or people would have noticed the ice melting or a score of other consequences if the recent past (before 73 years ago) had indeed been supposedly "warmer than today" . The depth of your stupidity still can astonish. Not to mention the instrumental temperature records that go back 137 years, or the proxy records that provide a good indication of the global temperatures for (at least) the last ten thousand years, all of which clearly indicate that temperatures now are hotter that they have ever been for at least 6000 years, or possibly since the last interglacial period over 120,000 years ago.

Arctic set for record-breaking melt this summer
NOAA
(excerpts)
The record heat baking Alaska is poised to smash a host of climate records in 2016, including the earliest snowmelt date at NOAA’s Barrow Observatory, the northernmost point in the nation. Staff at NOAA’s Barrow Observatory reported snowmelt occurred May 13, the earliest snowmelt date in 73 years of record keeping, beating the previous mark set in 2002 by a full 10 days. The early melting follows a record-setting winter that saw temperatures average more than 11 degrees above normal for the 49th State, shattering the previous record set in 2015. At 320 miles north of the Arctic Circle, Barrow is usually one of the last places in the United States to lose snow cover.

Snow’s not the only thing that’s vanishing. Preliminary data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center indicate 2016 will set the record for minimum winter sea-ice extent, eclipsing the 2015 mark. Satellite photos from mid-May depict an early sea-ice breakup with an ominous series of openings, known as leads, extending deep into the Arctic.

so since you have no records before that, you have no idea. So how is it I was in error? It still says exactly the same thing and does not prove anything.

So....you're still as retarded and clueless as always, JustCrazy. Too bad you're too stupid to comprehend what is said to you.

BTW, how old is the earth? have the oceans always looked like they do today? How is it you can't keep up with the changes that actually do happen on the surface? I cry bulls--t as often as I do because to date you haven't been able to ever prove your position. It pisses you off that you can't, you want to so badly, yet the material that would allow you to bang your chest just ain't there. Just like Greenhouse Effect. Has never been proven, ever. Since the universe was born btw. But you keep trying. If, as you believe, there was greenhouse effect, wouldn't there be something to show? I'm just saying when do you start wondering whether it is there or not? i mean sea level rise, no proof, ice in the arctics, no proof of catastrophe, just regular melt. So to date, nothing has ever once been verified by any human. Wow.

More incredibly retarded and very meaningless anti-science drivel from the retarded denier cult crackpot JustCrazy, who is still is deranged denial of the absolutely totally scientifically confirmed Greenhouse Effect.

Here is just the first page of the Google results for 'Greenhouse Effect'.

green·house ef·fect
noun

1. the trapping of the sun's warmth in a planet's lower atmosphere due to the greater transparency of the atmosphere to visible radiation from the sun than to infrared radiation emitted from the planet's surface.

***
The Greenhouse Effect | A Student's Guide to Global Climate Change | US EPA
US Environmental Protection Agency › basics › today
Mar 3, 2016 - Greenhouse gases keep the Earth warm through a process called the greenhouse effect. Play the ...
***

Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia › wiki › Greenhouse_effect
The greenhouse effect is the process by which radiation from a planet's atmosphere warms the planet's surface to a temperature above what it would be without its atmosphere. If a planet's atmosphere contains radiatively active gases (i.e., greenhouse gases) the atmosphere will radiate energy in all directions.
‎History · ‎Mechanism · ‎Greenhouse gases · ‎Role in climate change
***

What is the Greenhouse Effect? | Global Warming - Live Science
www.livescience.com › Planet Earth
Apr 12, 2016 - Carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases act like a blanket, absorbing IR radiation and preventing it from escaping into outer space. The net effect is the gradual heating of Earth's atmosphere and surface, a process known as global warming.
***

Greenhouse Effect: Background Material
UCAR - University Corporation for Atmospheric Research | Understanding atmosphere, Earth, and Sun › learn
This section provides an overview of the earth's atmospheric "greenhouse effect" by briefly exploring the atmospheres of ...
***

NASA's Climate Kids :: What is the greenhouse effect?
NASA (.gov) › climatekids › greenhouse...
A greenhouse is a house made of glass. It has glass walls and a glass roof. People grow tomatoes and flowers and ...
***

The Greenhouse Effect - HyperPhysics
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu › grnhse
The greenhouse effect refers to circumstances where the short wavelengths of visible light from the sun pass through a ...
***

FAQ 1.3 What is the Greenhouse Effect? - IPCC
IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change › faq-1-3
Without the natural greenhouse effect, the average temperature at Earth's surface would be below the freezing point of ...
***

The Greenhouse Effect - Thermodynamics, Heat, Climate Change - PhET
PhET: Free online physics, chemistry, biology, earth science and math simulations › simulation › g...
How do greenhouse gases affect the climate? Explore the atmosphere during the ice age and today. What happens ...
***

Greenhouse Effect - NOAA Research
www.oar.noaa.gov › html › greenhouse2
This Science with NOAA Research K12 site provides learning experiences that center on the Greenhouse Effect
***

The Greenhouse Effect - National Geographic
environment.nationalgeographic.com › g...
Learn about Global Warming at National Geographic. Get facts, news, wallpapers , watch videos, and learn about ...

 

[jc456]

Why does one Earth polar circle, the Antarctic, have 9 times the ice of the other, the Arctic? If CO2 is melting Arctic Sea Ice, why is Antarctic Sea Ice growing?

Your complete ignorance about science and dumbfounded disbelief in science do not actually constitute an argument, LaDumbshit. They just demonstrate what a clueless crackpot you are.

During the past million years, North America thawed while Greenland froze, all at the same time with the same atmosphere with the same amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, which proved what about CO2 and climate change??

Since that drivel is complete bullshit, it "proved" only that you are a delusional retard, LaDumbshit.

Being a PARROT does not mean one is intelligent, it means 180 degrees in the opposite direction...

One reason that everybody knows that you are an utter retard, you moronic parrot.


Meanwhile, on topic and in the real world....

Arctic sea ice melt “like a train wreck” says US scientist
Arctic feels like late June or July say experts as sea ice shrinks to what many believe will be a record low
ClimateHome
By Ed King
23/05/2016
(excerpts)
Arctic sea ice levels are on course to hit a new record low as warming at the North Pole accelerates. Snowmelt has started at the earliest date yet in 73 years, according to the US government’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “It looks like late June or early July right now,” said David Douglas, research biologist with the US Geological Survey. “Polar bears are having to make their decisions about how to move and where to go on thinner ice pack that’s mostly first-year ice.”

US climate agency: 2016 on course to be hottest on record

Veteran Arctic biologist George Divoky described the change as a “train wreck you can’t look away from” warning an early spring would impact wildlife and tundra plants. “You never know what you’re going to see and this year’s as big a mystery as any,” he added. Temperatures in Alaska hit 11C above average this winter. In December a storm sent what experts described as a “pulse” of heat to the region, spiking mercury from -30C to freezing. “Satellite photos from mid-May depict an early sea-ice breakup with an ominous series of openings, known as leads, extending deep into the Arctic,” said a statement from NOAA.

this is hilarious:
"Snowmelt has started at the earliest date yet in 73 years, "

Which therefore means it isn't the earliest ever. And means historically, the past was as warm or warmer than today. Ooops.....

Nope! It means that 73 years ago is when they STARTED keeping snow cover records at Barrow, Alaska. It also means that you are once again clearly demonstrating that you are an incredibly clueless retard, JustCrazy, too stupid to get the facts by simply opening the link in the article to the source of that quote. And no, you moronic nutjob, "historically the past was" NOT "as warm or warmer than today", or people would have noticed the ice melting or a score of other consequences if the recent past (before 73 years ago) had indeed been supposedly "warmer than today" . The depth of your stupidity still can astonish. Not to mention the instrumental temperature records that go back 137 years, or the proxy records that provide a good indication of the global temperatures for (at least) the last ten thousand years, all of which clearly indicate that temperatures now are hotter that they have ever been for at least 6000 years, or possibly since the last interglacial period over 120,000 years ago.

Arctic set for record-breaking melt this summer
NOAA
(excerpts)
The record heat baking Alaska is poised to smash a host of climate records in 2016, including the earliest snowmelt date at NOAA’s Barrow Observatory, the northernmost point in the nation. Staff at NOAA’s Barrow Observatory reported snowmelt occurred May 13, the earliest snowmelt date in 73 years of record keeping, beating the previous mark set in 2002 by a full 10 days. The early melting follows a record-setting winter that saw temperatures average more than 11 degrees above normal for the 49th State, shattering the previous record set in 2015. At 320 miles north of the Arctic Circle, Barrow is usually one of the last places in the United States to lose snow cover.

Snow’s not the only thing that’s vanishing. Preliminary data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center indicate 2016 will set the record for minimum winter sea-ice extent, eclipsing the 2015 mark. Satellite photos from mid-May depict an early sea-ice breakup with an ominous series of openings, known as leads, extending deep into the Arctic.

so since you have no records before that, you have no idea. So how is it I was in error? It still says exactly the same thing and does not prove anything.

So....you're still as retarded and clueless as always, JustCrazy. Too bad you're too stupid to comprehend what is said to you.

BTW, how old is the earth? have the oceans always looked like they do today? How is it you can't keep up with the changes that actually do happen on the surface? I cry bulls--t as often as I do because to date you haven't been able to ever prove your position. It pisses you off that you can't, you want to so badly, yet the material that would allow you to bang your chest just ain't there. Just like Greenhouse Effect. Has never been proven, ever. Since the universe was born btw. But you keep trying. If, as you believe, there was greenhouse effect, wouldn't there be something to show? I'm just saying when do you start wondering whether it is there or not? i mean sea level rise, no proof, ice in the arctics, no proof of catastrophe, just regular melt. So to date, nothing has ever once been verified by any human. Wow.

More incredibly retarded and very meaningless anti-science drivel from the retarded denier cult crackpot JustCrazy, who is still is deranged denial of the absolutely totally scientifically confirmed Greenhouse Effect.

Here is just the first page of the Google results for 'Greenhouse Effect'.

green·house ef·fect
noun

1. the trapping of the sun's warmth in a planet's lower atmosphere due to the greater transparency of the atmosphere to visible radiation from the sun than to infrared radiation emitted from the planet's surface.

***
The Greenhouse Effect | A Student's Guide to Global Climate Change | US EPA
US Environmental Protection Agency › basics › today
Mar 3, 2016 - Greenhouse gases keep the Earth warm through a process called the greenhouse effect. Play the ...
***

Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia › wiki › Greenhouse_effect
The greenhouse effect is the process by which radiation from a planet's atmosphere warms the planet's surface to a temperature above what it would be without its atmosphere. If a planet's atmosphere contains radiatively active gases (i.e., greenhouse gases) the atmosphere will radiate energy in all directions.
‎History · ‎Mechanism · ‎Greenhouse gases · ‎Role in climate change
***

What is the Greenhouse Effect? | Global Warming - Live Science
www.livescience.com › Planet Earth
Apr 12, 2016 - Carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases act like a blanket, absorbing IR radiation and preventing it from escaping into outer space. The net effect is the gradual heating of Earth's atmosphere and surface, a process known as global warming.
***

Greenhouse Effect: Background Material
UCAR - University Corporation for Atmospheric Research | Understanding atmosphere, Earth, and Sun › learn
This section provides an overview of the earth's atmospheric "greenhouse effect" by briefly exploring the atmospheres of ...
***

NASA's Climate Kids :: What is the greenhouse effect?
NASA (.gov) › climatekids › greenhouse...
A greenhouse is a house made of glass. It has glass walls and a glass roof. People grow tomatoes and flowers and ...
***

The Greenhouse Effect - HyperPhysics
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu › grnhse
The greenhouse effect refers to circumstances where the short wavelengths of visible light from the sun pass through a ...
***

FAQ 1.3 What is the Greenhouse Effect? - IPCC
IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change › faq-1-3
Without the natural greenhouse effect, the average temperature at Earth's surface would be below the freezing point of ...
***

The Greenhouse Effect - Thermodynamics, Heat, Climate Change - PhET
PhET: Free online physics, chemistry, biology, earth science and math simulations › simulation › g...
How do greenhouse gases affect the climate? Explore the atmosphere during the ice age and today. What happens ...
***

Greenhouse Effect - NOAA Research
www.oar.noaa.gov › html › greenhouse2
This Science with NOAA Research K12 site provides learning experiences that center on the Greenhouse Effect
***

The Greenhouse Effect - National Geographic
environment.nationalgeographic.com › g...
Learn about Global Warming at National Geographic. Get facts, news, wallpapers , watch videos, and learn about ...

dude, I don't deny that there aren't thousands of articles that state Greenhouse Effect, my question was can you find an experiment that actually proves it? Nope, one doesn't exist. face it, you won't find one. Oh and again, you'll find experiments and none of them prove anything of the sort. It is proving that GHGs, as you call them, will make a warm object warmer. hasn't been done, nadda, never.

Your theory is --you take CO2 and add it around any warm object and that object will get warmer by that CO2. That is it, that is greenhouse effect and you won't ever prove it.

 

[Olde Europe]

I understand that the purpose of the article was to say that Global Warming is real, regardless of what the data said.

Oh and again, you'll find experiments and none of them prove anything of the sort. It is proving that GHGs, as you call them, will make a warm object warmer.

You two should have a word with yourself. It's long been clear, and you should tell yourself in no uncertain terms, you don't have any capacity to understand scientific issues of any complexity. Moreover, make yourself understand your ignorance and incomprehension isn't any kind of winning argument. You even lack the capacity and understanding to pose a coherent question that would actually make sense. And even if those gentle souls on here, as they so very often do, make the extra effort to figure out what you might have meant, and answer what supposedly might have been your question, you still don't understand it. Worse yet, you don't even recognize the answer as an answer.

Really, seeing your self-humiliating struggle with the most basic scientific concepts, while you are parading around your ignorance-based certainty and running against the solid things that make up reality, spiky as that is, is just disheartening to watch, as that sure must hurt.

 

[Crick]

1) There is NO SUCH THING AS PROOF in the natural sciences.

2) There are thousands of experiments whose results support the greenhouse effect

3) In over a hundred years, it has never been falsified.

4) It is accepted by 99+ percent of all scientists in all fields

5) You have the science knowledge of a fifth grader

Get it?

 

[jc456]

1) There is NO SUCH THING AS PROOF in the natural sciences.

2) There are thousands of experiments whose results support the greenhouse effect

3) In over a hundred years, it has never been falsified.

4) It is accepted by 99+ percent of all scientists in all fields

5) You have the science knowledge of a fifth grader

Get it?

pull up one experiment that puts CO2 near a warm object and the warm object gets warmer. One, please, I've been asking since i got here three years ago. Crick, you fail. you have no evidence of a greenhouse effect. Even John Tyndalls's doesn't prove it. he never proved a warm object got warmer. NEVER!!!!!!!!! so just pop one up. That is the theory and that is why carbon credits and money is involved, so one should ask one self why there has never been that experiment? Because it doesn't happen. Funny though.

 

[jc456]

I understand that the purpose of the article was to say that Global Warming is real, regardless of what the data said.

Oh and again, you'll find experiments and none of them prove anything of the sort. It is proving that GHGs, as you call them, will make a warm object warmer.

You two should have a word with yourself. It's long been clear, and you should tell yourself in no uncertain terms, you don't have any capacity to understand scientific issues of any complexity. Moreover, make yourself understand your ignorance and incomprehension isn't any kind of winning argument. You even lack the capacity and understanding to pose a coherent question that would actually make sense. And even if those gentle souls on here, as they so very often do, make the extra effort to figure out what you might have meant, and answer what supposedly might have been your question, you still don't understand it. Worse yet, you don't even recognize the answer as an answer.

Really, seeing your self-humiliating struggle with the most basic scientific concepts, while you are parading around your ignorance-based certainty and running against the solid things that make up reality, spiky as that is, is just disheartening to watch, as that sure must hurt.

sorry for repeating but I did want to answer both posts, and the answer is the same.


"pull up one experiment that puts CO2 near a warm object and the warm object gets warmer. One, please, I've been asking since i got here three years ago. Crick, you fail. you have no evidence of a greenhouse effect. Even John Tyndalls's doesn't prove it. he never proved a warm object got warmer. NEVER!!!!!!!!! so just pop one up. That is the theory and that is why carbon credits and money is involved, so one should ask one self why there has never been that experiment? Because it doesn't happen. Funny though."

 

[Crick]

How many times have you been told "no proof in the natural sciences"? Are you ever going to comprehend what that means?

 

[LaDexter]

The Crick standard

PARROTING = PROOF

Why does the Antarctic Circle have 9 times the ice of the Arctic Circle?

LOL!!!

CO2 has precisely nothing to do with Earth climate change. We went to court in 2007, Crick's FUDGE side LOST on the two most important issues

1. 90% of Earth ice on Antarctica INCREASING
2. NO CORRELATION between CO2 and temps in the ice cores

As Crick is doing here, the Algore side was TOO CHICKEN to appeal, and resorted to petty insults and more fudging...

 

[skookerasbil]

1) There is NO SUCH THING AS PROOF in the natural sciences.


Get it?

That's just AGW spin s0n.......only started seeing this narrative about 1o years ago. Its makey-uppey stuff. No proof? Its not science!! This is not horsehoes or hand granades.

Oh....and Ledexter is still schooling you. No answer from the AGW alarmists about Antarctica.....like it is not part of the globe.........they only want to talk about the north pole. Ghey

 

[RollingThunder]

1) There is NO SUCH THING AS PROOF in the natural sciences.

2) There are thousands of experiments whose results support the greenhouse effect

3) In over a hundred years, it has never been falsified.

4) It is accepted by 99+ percent of all scientists in all fields

5) You have the science knowledge of a fifth grader

Get it?

pull up one experiment that puts CO2 near a warm object and the warm object gets warmer.

That bullshit has almost nothing to do with the Greenhouse Effect, imbecile.

That's not how it works. If you really are too stupid to understand how it works then your clueless questions are meaningless garbage.

greenhouse effect — noun

1. an atmospheric heating phenomenon, caused by short-wave solar radiation being readily transmitted inward through the earth's atmosphere but longer-wavelength heat radiation less readily transmitted outward, owing to its absorption by atmospheric carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, and other gases; thus, the rising level of carbon dioxide is viewed with concern.

One, please, I've been asking since i got here three years ago.

And you have been repeatedly shown lists of Greenhouse Effect confirmation experiments, fruitcake, which you always pretend you've never seen. Which is why everyone else identifies you as a fucking TROLL.

you have no evidence of a greenhouse effect. Even John Tyndalls's doesn't prove it. he never proved a warm object got warmer. NEVER!!!!!!!!! so just pop one up. That is the theory and that is why carbon credits and money is involved, so one should ask one self why there has never been that experiment? Because it doesn't happen. Funny though.

So, JustCrazy, why exactly do you pretend that you have never seen the list of experiments supporting the reality of the Greenhouse Effct that has been repeatedly shown to you on many threads? Are you just too stupid and crazy to understand what you are seeing? Or are you just a demented denier cult troll pushing a retarded and very fraudulent propaganda meme?

Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
July 23rd, 2010
***

In the real world....

First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface
Berkeley Lab researchers link rising CO2 levels from fossil fuels to an upward trend in radiative forcing at two locations
Berkeley Lab News Release
Dan Krotz
FEBRUARY 25, 2015
***

Papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties
by Ari Jokimäki
September 25, 2009
This is a list of papers on laboratory measurements of the absorption properties of carbon dioxide. In the context of these paperlists this is a difficult subject because only few of the papers are freely available online, so we have to settle on abstracts only (of course, interested reader can purchase the full texts for the papers from the linked abstract pages). However, I don’t think that matters that much because the main point of this list really is to show that the basic research on the subject exists. The list is not complete, and will most likely be updated in the future in order to make it more thorough and more representative.

UPDATE (September 23, 2012): Burch & Gryvnak (1966) added.
UPDATE (February 6, 2011): Miller & Watts (1984) added.
UPDATE (July 25, 2010): I modified the introduction paragraph a little to reflect the current content of the list. The old text was a little outdated.
UPDATE (June 22, 2010): Lecher & Pernter (1881) added.
UPDATE (March 31, 2010): Tubbs & Williams (1972), Rubens & Aschkinass (1898) and Ångström (1900) added.
UPDATE (March 6, 2010): Barker (1922) added.
UPDATE (November 19, 2009): Predoi-Cross et al. (2007) added.
UPDATE (September 25, 2009): Miller & Brown (2004) added, thanks to John Cook for bringing it to my attention (see the discussion section below).

Spectroscopic database of CO2 line parameters: 4300–7000 cm−1 – Toth et al. (2008)“A new spectroscopic database for carbon dioxide in the near infrared is presented to support remote sensing of the terrestrial planets (Mars, Venus and the Earth). The compilation contains over 28,500 transitions of 210 bands from 4300 to 7000 cm−1…”

Line shape parameters measurement and computations for self-broadened carbon dioxide transitions in the 30012 ← 00001 and 30013 ← 00001 bands, line mixing, and speed dependence – Predoi-Cross et al.(2007) “Transitions of pure carbon dioxide have been measured using a Fourier transform spectrometer in the 30012 ← 00001 and 30013 ← 00001 vibrational bands. The room temperature spectra, recorded at a resolution of 0.008 cm−1, were analyzed using the Voigt model and a Speed Dependent Voigt line shape model that includes a pressure dependent narrowing parameter. Intensities, self-induced pressure broadening, shifts, and weak line mixing coefficients are determined. The results obtained are consistent with other studies in addition to the theoretically calculated values.” [Full text]

Spectroscopic challenges for high accuracy retrievals of atmospheric CO2 and the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) experiment – Miller et al.(2005) “The space-based Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) mission will achieve global measurements needed to distinguish spatial and temporal gradients in the CO2 column. Scheduled by NASA to launch in 2008, the instrument will obtain averaged dry air mole fraction (XCO2) with a precision of 1 part per million (0.3%) in order to quantify the variation of CO2 sources and sinks and to improve future climate forecasts. Retrievals of XCO2 from ground-based measurements require even higher precisions to validate the satellite data and link them accurately and without bias to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) standard for atmospheric CO2 observations. These retrievals will require CO2 spectroscopic parameters with unprecedented accuracy. Here we present the experimental and data analysis methods implemented in laboratory studies in order to achieve this challenging goal.”

Near infrared spectroscopy of carbon dioxide I. 16O12C16O line positions – Miller & Brown (2004) “High-resolution near-infrared (4000–9000 cm-1) spectra of carbon dioxide have been recorded using the McMath–Pierce Fourier transform spectrometer at the Kitt Peak National Solar Observatory. Some 2500 observed positions have been used to determine spectroscopic constants for 53 different vibrational states of the 16O12C16O isotopologue, including eight vibrational states for which laboratory spectra have not previously been reported. … This work reduces CO2 near-infrared line position uncertainties by a factor of 10 or more compared to the 2000 HITRAN line list, which has not been modified since the comprehensive work of Rothman et al. [J. Quant. Spectrosc. Rad. Transfer 48 (1992) 537].”[Full text]

Spectra calculations in central and wing regions of CO2 IR bands between 10 and 20 μm. I: model and laboratory measurements – Niro et al. (2004)“Temperature (200–300 K) and pressure (70–200 atm) dependent laboratory measurements of infrared transmission by CO2–N2 mixtures have been made. From these experiments the absorption coefficient is reconstructed, over a range of several orders of magnitude, between 600 and 1000 cm−1.”

Collisional effects on spectral line-shapes – Boulet (2004) “The growing concern of mankind for the understanding and preserving of its environment has stimulated great interest for the study of planetary atmospheres and, first of all, for that of the Earth. Onboard spectrometers now provide more and more precise information on the transmission and emission of radiation by these atmospheres. Its treatment by ‘retrieval’ technics, in order to extract vertical profiles (pressure, temperature, volume mixing ratios) requires precise modeling of infrared absorption spectra. Within this framework, accounting for the influence of pressure on the absorption shape is crucial. These effects of inter-molecular collisions between the optically active species and the ‘perturbers’ are complex and of various types depending mostly on the density of perturbers. The present paper attempts to review and illustrate, through a few examples, the state of the art in this field.”

On far-wing Raman profiles by CO2 – Benech et al. (2002) “Despite the excellent agreement observed in N2 here, a substantial inconsistency between theory and experiment was found in the wing of the spectrum. Although the influence of other missing processes or neighboring bands cannot be totally excluded, our findings rather suggest that highly anisotropic perturbers, such as CO2, are improperly described when they are handled as point-like molecules, a cornerstone hypothesis in the approach employed.”

Collision-induced scattering in CO2 gas – Teboul et al. (1995) “Carbon-dioxide gas rototranslational scattering has been measured at 294.5 K in the frequency range 10–1000 cm−1 at 23 amagat. The depolarization ratio of scattered intensities in the frequency range 10–1000 cm−1 is recorded. The theoretical and experimental spectra in the frequency range 10–470 cm−1 are compared.”

The HITRAN database: 1986 edition – Rothman et al. (1987) “A description and summary of the latest edition of the AFGL HITRAN molecular absorption parameters database are presented. This new database combines the information for the seven principal atmospheric absorbers and twenty-one additional molecular species previously contained on the AFGL atmospheric absorption line parameter compilation and on the trace gas compilation.”

Rotational structure in the infrared spectra of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide dimers – Miller & Watts (1984) “High-resolution infrared predissociation spectra have been measured for dilute mixtures of CO2 and N2O in helium. Rotational fine structure is clearly resolved for both (CO2)2 and (N2O)2, the linewidths being instrument-limited. This establishes that predissociation lifetimes are longer than approximately 50 ns.”

Broadening of Infrared Absorption Lines at Reduced Temperatures: Carbon Dioxide – Tubbs & Williams (1972) “An evacuated high-resolution Czerny-Turner spectrograph, which is described in this paper, has been used to determine the strengths S and self-broadening parameters γ0 for lines in the R branch of the ν3 fundamental of 12C16O2 at 298 and at 207 K. The values of γ0 at 207 K are greater than those to be expected on the basis of a fixed collision cross section σ.”

Investigation of the Absorption of Infrared Radiation by Atmospheric Gases – Burch et al. (1970) “From spectral transmittance curves of very large samples of CO2 we have determined coefficients for intrinsic absorption and pressure-induced absorption from approximately 1130/cm to 1835/cm.”

Absorption of Infrared Radiant Energy by CO2 and H2O. IV. Shapes of Collision-Broadened CO2 Lines – Burch et al. (1969) “The shapes of the extreme wings of self-broadened CO2 lines have been investigated in three spectral regions near 7000, 3800, and 2400 cm−1. … New information has been obtained about the shapes of self-broadened CO2 lines as well as CO2 lines broadened by N2, O2, Ar, He, and H2.”

High-Temperature Spectral Emissivities and Total Intensities of the 15-µ Band System of CO2 – Ludwig et al. (1966) “Spectral-emissivity measurements of the 15-µ band of CO2were made in the temperature range from 1000° to 2300°K.”

Laboratory investigation of the absorption and emission of infrared radiation – Burch & Gryvnak (1966) “Extensive measurements of the absorption by H2O and CO2 have been made in the region from 0·6 to 5·5 microm. Two different multiple-pass absorption cells provided path lengths from 2 to 933 m, and sample pressures were varied from a few μHg to 15 atm. Approximately thirty new CO2 bands were observed and identified, and the strengths of the important bands determined. The H2O data provide enough information for the determination of the strengths and widths of several hundred of the more important lines. The wings of CO2absorption lines were found to be sub-Lorentzian, with the shapes depending on temperature, broadening gas, and wavelength in ways which cannot be explained by present theories. The absorption by H2O and CO2 samples at temperatures up to 1800°K has been studied from 1 to 5 microm. The transmission of radiation from hot CO2 through cold CO2 and from hot H2O through cold H2O has been investigated to determine the effect of the coincidence of emission lines with absorption lines.” Darrell E. Burch, David A. Gryvnak, Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, Volume 6, Issue 3, May–June 1966, Pages 229–240, Laboratory investigation of the absorption and emission of infrared radiation.

Line shape in the wing beyond the band head of the 4·3 μ band of CO2 – Winters et al.(1964) “Quantitative absorpance measurements have been made in pure CO2 and mixtures of CO2 with N2 and O2 in a 10 m White Perkin-Elmer cell. With absorbing paths up to 50 m-atm, results have been obtained from the band head at 2397 cm−1 to 2575 cm−1.”

Emissivity of Carbon Dioxide at 4.3 µ – Davies (1964) “The emissivity of carbon dioxide has been measured for temperatures from 1500° to 3000°K over the wavelength range from 4.40 to 5.30 µ.”

Absorption Line Broadening in the Infrared – Burch et al. (1962) “The effects of various gases on the absorption bands of nitrous oxide, carbon monoxide, methane, carbon dioxide, and water vapor have been investigated.”

Total Absorptance of Carbon Dioxide in the Infrared – Burch et al. (1962)“Total absorptance… has been determined as a function of absorber concentration w and equivalent pressure Pe for the major infrared absorption bands of carbon dioxide with centers at 3716, 3609, 2350, 1064, and 961 cm−1.”

Rotation-Vibration Spectra of Diatomic and Simple Polyatomic Molecules with Long Absorbing Paths – Herzberg & Herzberg (1953) “The spectrum of CO2 in the photographic infrared has been studied with absorbing paths up to 5500 m. Thirteen absorption bands were found of which eleven have been analyzed in detail.”

The Infrared Absorption Spectrum of Carbon Dioxide – Martin & Barker (1932) “The complete infrared spectrum of CO2 may consistently be explained in terms of a linear symmetrical model, making use of the selection rules developed by Dennison and the resonance interaction introduced by Fermi. The inactive fundamental ν1 appears only in combination bands, but ν2 at 15μ and ν3 at 4.3μ absorb intensely.”

Carbon Dioxide Absorption in the Near Infra-Red – Barker (1922) “Infra-red absorption bands of CO2 at 2.7 and 4.3 μ. – New absorption curves have been obtained, using a special prism-grating double spectrometer of higher resolution (Figs. 1-3). The 2.7 μ region, heretofore considered to be a doublet, proves to be a pair of doublets, with centers at approximately 2.694 μ and 2.767 μ. The 4.3 μ band appears as a single doublet with center at 4.253 μ. The frequency difference between maxima is nearly the same for each of the three doublets, and equal to 4.5 x 1011. Complete resolution of the band series was not effected, even though the slit included only 12 A for the 2.7 μ region, but there is evidently a complicated structure, with a “head” in each case on the side of shorter wave-lengths. The existence of this head for the 4.3 μ band is also indicated by a comparison with the emission spectrum from a bunsen flame, and the difference in wave-length of the maxima of emission and absorption is explained as a temperature effect similar to that observed with other doublets.” [For free full text, click PDF or GIF links in the linked abstract page]

Ueber die Bedeutung des Wasserdampfes und der Kohlensäure bei der Absorption der Erdatmosphäre – Ångström (1900)

Observations on the Absorption and Emission of Aqueous Vapor and Carbon Dioxide in the Infra-Red Spectrum – Rubens & Aschkinass (1898)“Our experiments carried out as described above on the absorption spectrum carbon dioxide very soon showed that we were dealing with a single absorption band whose maximum lies near λ = 14.7 μ. … The whole region of absorption is limited to the interval from 12.5 μ to 16 μ, with the maximum at 14.7 μ.” [For free full text, click PDF or GIF links in the linked abstract page]

On the absorption of dark heat-rays by gases and vapours – Lecher & Pernter (1881)Svante Arrhenius wrote in his famous 1897 paper: “Tyndall held the opinion that the water-vapour has the greatest influence, whilst other authors, for instance Lecher and Pernter, are inclined to think that the carbonic acid plays the more important part.”.

The Bakerian Lecture – On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connexion of Radiation, Absorption, and Conduction – Tyndall (1861) 150 years ago John Tyndall already showed that carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation. [Full text] [Wikipedia: John Tyndall]

Closely related

The HITRAN Database – The laboratory work results on the absorption properties of carbon dioxide (and many other molecules) is contained in this database.

 

[jc456]

How many times have you been told "no proof in the natural sciences"? Are you ever going to comprehend what that means?

Yeah, exactly why should poor people care about your simplistic science that doesn't have to prove the theory. Dude, that has to be the stupidest one yet. Spend your money then and leave the rest of society alone on your whacked out claim.

 

[jc456]

1) There is NO SUCH THING AS PROOF in the natural sciences.

2) There are thousands of experiments whose results support the greenhouse effect

3) In over a hundred years, it has never been falsified.

4) It is accepted by 99+ percent of all scientists in all fields

5) You have the science knowledge of a fifth grader

Get it?

pull up one experiment that puts CO2 near a warm object and the warm object gets warmer.

That bullshit has almost nothing to do with the Greenhouse Effect, imbecile.

That's not how it works. If you really are too stupid to understand how it works then your clueless questions are meaningless garbage.

greenhouse effect — noun

1. an atmospheric heating phenomenon, caused by short-wave solar radiation being readily transmitted inward through the earth's atmosphere but longer-wavelength heat radiation less readily transmitted outward, owing to its absorption by atmospheric carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, and other gases; thus, the rising level of carbon dioxide is viewed with concern.

One, please, I've been asking since i got here three years ago.

And you have been repeatedly shown lists of Greenhouse Effect confirmation experiments, fruitcake, which you always pretend you've never seen. Which is why everyone else identifies you as a fucking TROLL.

you have no evidence of a greenhouse effect. Even John Tyndalls's doesn't prove it. he never proved a warm object got warmer. NEVER!!!!!!!!! so just pop one up. That is the theory and that is why carbon credits and money is involved, so one should ask one self why there has never been that experiment? Because it doesn't happen. Funny though.

So, JustCrazy, why exactly do you pretend that you have never seen the list of experiments supporting the reality of the Greenhouse Effct that has been repeatedly shown to you on many threads? Are you just too stupid and crazy to understand what you are seeing? Or are you just a demented denier cult troll pushing a retarded and very fraudulent propaganda meme?

Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
July 23rd, 2010
***

In the real world....

First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface
Berkeley Lab researchers link rising CO2 levels from fossil fuels to an upward trend in radiative forcing at two locations
Berkeley Lab News Release
Dan Krotz
FEBRUARY 25, 2015
***

Papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties
by Ari Jokimäki
September 25, 2009
This is a list of papers on laboratory measurements of the absorption properties of carbon dioxide. In the context of these paperlists this is a difficult subject because only few of the papers are freely available online, so we have to settle on abstracts only (of course, interested reader can purchase the full texts for the papers from the linked abstract pages). However, I don’t think that matters that much because the main point of this list really is to show that the basic research on the subject exists. The list is not complete, and will most likely be updated in the future in order to make it more thorough and more representative.

UPDATE (September 23, 2012): Burch & Gryvnak (1966) added.
UPDATE (February 6, 2011): Miller & Watts (1984) added.
UPDATE (July 25, 2010): I modified the introduction paragraph a little to reflect the current content of the list. The old text was a little outdated.
UPDATE (June 22, 2010): Lecher & Pernter (1881) added.
UPDATE (March 31, 2010): Tubbs & Williams (1972), Rubens & Aschkinass (1898) and Ångström (1900) added.
UPDATE (March 6, 2010): Barker (1922) added.
UPDATE (November 19, 2009): Predoi-Cross et al. (2007) added.
UPDATE (September 25, 2009): Miller & Brown (2004) added, thanks to John Cook for bringing it to my attention (see the discussion section below).

Spectroscopic database of CO2 line parameters: 4300–7000 cm−1 – Toth et al. (2008)“A new spectroscopic database for carbon dioxide in the near infrared is presented to support remote sensing of the terrestrial planets (Mars, Venus and the Earth). The compilation contains over 28,500 transitions of 210 bands from 4300 to 7000 cm−1…”

Line shape parameters measurement and computations for self-broadened carbon dioxide transitions in the 30012 ← 00001 and 30013 ← 00001 bands, line mixing, and speed dependence – Predoi-Cross et al.(2007) “Transitions of pure carbon dioxide have been measured using a Fourier transform spectrometer in the 30012 ← 00001 and 30013 ← 00001 vibrational bands. The room temperature spectra, recorded at a resolution of 0.008 cm−1, were analyzed using the Voigt model and a Speed Dependent Voigt line shape model that includes a pressure dependent narrowing parameter. Intensities, self-induced pressure broadening, shifts, and weak line mixing coefficients are determined. The results obtained are consistent with other studies in addition to the theoretically calculated values.” [Full text]

Spectroscopic challenges for high accuracy retrievals of atmospheric CO2 and the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) experiment – Miller et al.(2005) “The space-based Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) mission will achieve global measurements needed to distinguish spatial and temporal gradients in the CO2 column. Scheduled by NASA to launch in 2008, the instrument will obtain averaged dry air mole fraction (XCO2) with a precision of 1 part per million (0.3%) in order to quantify the variation of CO2 sources and sinks and to improve future climate forecasts. Retrievals of XCO2 from ground-based measurements require even higher precisions to validate the satellite data and link them accurately and without bias to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) standard for atmospheric CO2 observations. These retrievals will require CO2 spectroscopic parameters with unprecedented accuracy. Here we present the experimental and data analysis methods implemented in laboratory studies in order to achieve this challenging goal.”

Near infrared spectroscopy of carbon dioxide I. 16O12C16O line positions – Miller & Brown (2004) “High-resolution near-infrared (4000–9000 cm-1) spectra of carbon dioxide have been recorded using the McMath–Pierce Fourier transform spectrometer at the Kitt Peak National Solar Observatory. Some 2500 observed positions have been used to determine spectroscopic constants for 53 different vibrational states of the 16O12C16O isotopologue, including eight vibrational states for which laboratory spectra have not previously been reported. … This work reduces CO2 near-infrared line position uncertainties by a factor of 10 or more compared to the 2000 HITRAN line list, which has not been modified since the comprehensive work of Rothman et al. [J. Quant. Spectrosc. Rad. Transfer 48 (1992) 537].”[Full text]

Spectra calculations in central and wing regions of CO2 IR bands between 10 and 20 μm. I: model and laboratory measurements – Niro et al. (2004)“Temperature (200–300 K) and pressure (70–200 atm) dependent laboratory measurements of infrared transmission by CO2–N2 mixtures have been made. From these experiments the absorption coefficient is reconstructed, over a range of several orders of magnitude, between 600 and 1000 cm−1.”

Collisional effects on spectral line-shapes – Boulet (2004) “The growing concern of mankind for the understanding and preserving of its environment has stimulated great interest for the study of planetary atmospheres and, first of all, for that of the Earth. Onboard spectrometers now provide more and more precise information on the transmission and emission of radiation by these atmospheres. Its treatment by ‘retrieval’ technics, in order to extract vertical profiles (pressure, temperature, volume mixing ratios) requires precise modeling of infrared absorption spectra. Within this framework, accounting for the influence of pressure on the absorption shape is crucial. These effects of inter-molecular collisions between the optically active species and the ‘perturbers’ are complex and of various types depending mostly on the density of perturbers. The present paper attempts to review and illustrate, through a few examples, the state of the art in this field.”

On far-wing Raman profiles by CO2 – Benech et al. (2002) “Despite the excellent agreement observed in N2 here, a substantial inconsistency between theory and experiment was found in the wing of the spectrum. Although the influence of other missing processes or neighboring bands cannot be totally excluded, our findings rather suggest that highly anisotropic perturbers, such as CO2, are improperly described when they are handled as point-like molecules, a cornerstone hypothesis in the approach employed.”

Collision-induced scattering in CO2 gas – Teboul et al. (1995) “Carbon-dioxide gas rototranslational scattering has been measured at 294.5 K in the frequency range 10–1000 cm−1 at 23 amagat. The depolarization ratio of scattered intensities in the frequency range 10–1000 cm−1 is recorded. The theoretical and experimental spectra in the frequency range 10–470 cm−1 are compared.”

The HITRAN database: 1986 edition – Rothman et al. (1987) “A description and summary of the latest edition of the AFGL HITRAN molecular absorption parameters database are presented. This new database combines the information for the seven principal atmospheric absorbers and twenty-one additional molecular species previously contained on the AFGL atmospheric absorption line parameter compilation and on the trace gas compilation.”

Rotational structure in the infrared spectra of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide dimers – Miller & Watts (1984) “High-resolution infrared predissociation spectra have been measured for dilute mixtures of CO2 and N2O in helium. Rotational fine structure is clearly resolved for both (CO2)2 and (N2O)2, the linewidths being instrument-limited. This establishes that predissociation lifetimes are longer than approximately 50 ns.”

Broadening of Infrared Absorption Lines at Reduced Temperatures: Carbon Dioxide – Tubbs & Williams (1972) “An evacuated high-resolution Czerny-Turner spectrograph, which is described in this paper, has been used to determine the strengths S and self-broadening parameters γ0 for lines in the R branch of the ν3 fundamental of 12C16O2 at 298 and at 207 K. The values of γ0 at 207 K are greater than those to be expected on the basis of a fixed collision cross section σ.”

Investigation of the Absorption of Infrared Radiation by Atmospheric Gases – Burch et al. (1970) “From spectral transmittance curves of very large samples of CO2 we have determined coefficients for intrinsic absorption and pressure-induced absorption from approximately 1130/cm to 1835/cm.”

Absorption of Infrared Radiant Energy by CO2 and H2O. IV. Shapes of Collision-Broadened CO2 Lines – Burch et al. (1969) “The shapes of the extreme wings of self-broadened CO2 lines have been investigated in three spectral regions near 7000, 3800, and 2400 cm−1. … New information has been obtained about the shapes of self-broadened CO2 lines as well as CO2 lines broadened by N2, O2, Ar, He, and H2.”

High-Temperature Spectral Emissivities and Total Intensities of the 15-µ Band System of CO2 – Ludwig et al. (1966) “Spectral-emissivity measurements of the 15-µ band of CO2were made in the temperature range from 1000° to 2300°K.”

Laboratory investigation of the absorption and emission of infrared radiation – Burch & Gryvnak (1966) “Extensive measurements of the absorption by H2O and CO2 have been made in the region from 0·6 to 5·5 microm. Two different multiple-pass absorption cells provided path lengths from 2 to 933 m, and sample pressures were varied from a few μHg to 15 atm. Approximately thirty new CO2 bands were observed and identified, and the strengths of the important bands determined. The H2O data provide enough information for the determination of the strengths and widths of several hundred of the more important lines. The wings of CO2absorption lines were found to be sub-Lorentzian, with the shapes depending on temperature, broadening gas, and wavelength in ways which cannot be explained by present theories. The absorption by H2O and CO2 samples at temperatures up to 1800°K has been studied from 1 to 5 microm. The transmission of radiation from hot CO2 through cold CO2 and from hot H2O through cold H2O has been investigated to determine the effect of the coincidence of emission lines with absorption lines.” Darrell E. Burch, David A. Gryvnak, Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, Volume 6, Issue 3, May–June 1966, Pages 229–240, Laboratory investigation of the absorption and emission of infrared radiation.

Line shape in the wing beyond the band head of the 4·3 μ band of CO2 – Winters et al.(1964) “Quantitative absorpance measurements have been made in pure CO2 and mixtures of CO2 with N2 and O2 in a 10 m White Perkin-Elmer cell. With absorbing paths up to 50 m-atm, results have been obtained from the band head at 2397 cm−1 to 2575 cm−1.”

Emissivity of Carbon Dioxide at 4.3 µ – Davies (1964) “The emissivity of carbon dioxide has been measured for temperatures from 1500° to 3000°K over the wavelength range from 4.40 to 5.30 µ.”

Absorption Line Broadening in the Infrared – Burch et al. (1962) “The effects of various gases on the absorption bands of nitrous oxide, carbon monoxide, methane, carbon dioxide, and water vapor have been investigated.”

Total Absorptance of Carbon Dioxide in the Infrared – Burch et al. (1962)“Total absorptance… has been determined as a function of absorber concentration w and equivalent pressure Pe for the major infrared absorption bands of carbon dioxide with centers at 3716, 3609, 2350, 1064, and 961 cm−1.”

Rotation-Vibration Spectra of Diatomic and Simple Polyatomic Molecules with Long Absorbing Paths – Herzberg & Herzberg (1953) “The spectrum of CO2 in the photographic infrared has been studied with absorbing paths up to 5500 m. Thirteen absorption bands were found of which eleven have been analyzed in detail.”

The Infrared Absorption Spectrum of Carbon Dioxide – Martin & Barker (1932) “The complete infrared spectrum of CO2 may consistently be explained in terms of a linear symmetrical model, making use of the selection rules developed by Dennison and the resonance interaction introduced by Fermi. The inactive fundamental ν1 appears only in combination bands, but ν2 at 15μ and ν3 at 4.3μ absorb intensely.”

Carbon Dioxide Absorption in the Near Infra-Red – Barker (1922) “Infra-red absorption bands of CO2 at 2.7 and 4.3 μ. – New absorption curves have been obtained, using a special prism-grating double spectrometer of higher resolution (Figs. 1-3). The 2.7 μ region, heretofore considered to be a doublet, proves to be a pair of doublets, with centers at approximately 2.694 μ and 2.767 μ. The 4.3 μ band appears as a single doublet with center at 4.253 μ. The frequency difference between maxima is nearly the same for each of the three doublets, and equal to 4.5 x 1011. Complete resolution of the band series was not effected, even though the slit included only 12 A for the 2.7 μ region, but there is evidently a complicated structure, with a “head” in each case on the side of shorter wave-lengths. The existence of this head for the 4.3 μ band is also indicated by a comparison with the emission spectrum from a bunsen flame, and the difference in wave-length of the maxima of emission and absorption is explained as a temperature effect similar to that observed with other doublets.” [For free full text, click PDF or GIF links in the linked abstract page]

Ueber die Bedeutung des Wasserdampfes und der Kohlensäure bei der Absorption der Erdatmosphäre – Ångström (1900)

Observations on the Absorption and Emission of Aqueous Vapor and Carbon Dioxide in the Infra-Red Spectrum – Rubens & Aschkinass (1898)“Our experiments carried out as described above on the absorption spectrum carbon dioxide very soon showed that we were dealing with a single absorption band whose maximum lies near λ = 14.7 μ. … The whole region of absorption is limited to the interval from 12.5 μ to 16 μ, with the maximum at 14.7 μ.” [For free full text, click PDF or GIF links in the linked abstract page]

On the absorption of dark heat-rays by gases and vapours – Lecher & Pernter (1881)Svante Arrhenius wrote in his famous 1897 paper: “Tyndall held the opinion that the water-vapour has the greatest influence, whilst other authors, for instance Lecher and Pernter, are inclined to think that the carbonic acid plays the more important part.”.

The Bakerian Lecture – On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connexion of Radiation, Absorption, and Conduction – Tyndall (1861) 150 years ago John Tyndall already showed that carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation. [Full text] [Wikipedia: John Tyndall]

Closely related

The HITRAN Database – The laboratory work results on the absorption properties of carbon dioxide (and many other molecules) is contained in this database.

Sure it does dumbo, ask Wiesel or whatever's his name. So much in so much out ask him. So, are you saying CO2 doesn't make the surface warmer than what incoming solar heats it to? Really? That's the entire theory stupid fk

BTW, it CO2 must emit to be greenhouse effect stupid.