Scientists Suggest Earth Could Be Uninhabitable In 300 Years

[westwall]

We are currently experiencing an ice age. We are in the warm middle now. Earth normal so to speak. Global warming is the next stage not cooling.

I am not arguing the fact that humans have contributed to the C02. However you can not diffidently prove the it is the cause of global warming. Global warming is a natural process of the earth.

Save your breath syrenn hes a tried and true blind faither algorian... you could sooner educate my beagle on this.....

Come on, Suckee........ Post something from a real scientist.

You first old fraud!

 

[Old Rocks]

Sounds like ol' Walleyed is yapping again.

 

[westwall]

Sounds like ol' Walleyed is yapping again.

Yep, chasing you back into your hole....where you belong.

 

[gslack]

We are currently experiencing an ice age. We are in the warm middle now. Earth normal so to speak. Global warming is the next stage not cooling.

I am not arguing the fact that humans have contributed to the C02. However you can not diffidently prove the it is the cause of global warming. Global warming is a natural process of the earth.

Save your breath syrenn hes a tried and true blind faither algorian... you could sooner educate my beagle on this.....

Come on, Suckee........ Post something from a real scientist.

LOL, nah I will wait for you to do that and then I will explain what it means to you again.... Remember how this works? You post your twisted blogs take on what scientists say, and I take the data or their own words you post and explain it without the twisted BS your blogs add in.....

So... Whats up? Run out of new headlines to cry over? You been letting your socks and pals do all the work lately and they fail worse than you do...

I think you lost your heart for it... I think deep down you are questioning this.... kinda hard not to when you have had so many of your own posted articles shown for the propaganda and twisted agenda driven exaggerated nonsense they are.... kinda hard to fight it when your own aces in the hole show their agenda...

its okay buddy, i feel for ya.. Tough admitting you been lied to and taken...

 

[konradv]

I am not arguing the fact that humans have contributed to the C02. However you can not diffidently prove the it is the cause of global warming.
---------------------------

Well, if we've contributed to the CO2, then we've contributed to the warming. CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation, as is easily shown in a laboratory setting. That energy has to go somewhere and while half may be re-emitted into space, the other half would go towards warming the earth. To say different would be to throw out the principle of Conservation of Energy.

 

[gslack]

I am not arguing the fact that humans have contributed to the C02. However you can not diffidently prove the it is the cause of global warming.
---------------------------

Well, if we've contributed to the CO2, then we've contributed to the warming. CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation, as is easily shown in a laboratory setting. That energy has to go somewhere and while half may be re-emitted into space, the other half would go towards warming the earth. To say different would be to throw out the principle of Conservation of Energy.

You got that from a script or what? Seriously it has been said almost identically by you several times on this board now.....

Once again as was stated previously and you ignored it, prove it..

 

[konradv]

I am not arguing the fact that humans have contributed to the C02. However you can not diffidently prove the it is the cause of global warming.
---------------------------

Well, if we've contributed to the CO2, then we've contributed to the warming. CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation, as is easily shown in a laboratory setting. That energy has to go somewhere and while half may be re-emitted into space, the other half would go towards warming the earth. To say different would be to throw out the principle of Conservation of Energy.

You got that from a script or what? Seriously it has been said almost identically by you several times on this board now.....

Once again as was stated previously and you ignored it, prove it..

I have to repeat it, because so many have yet to understand it. You have anything to add? Your posts are becoming more and more worthless as you refuse to discuss the issues, preferring to make useless, snarky comments that add NOTHING to the discussion!

 

[gslack]

I am not arguing the fact that humans have contributed to the C02. However you can not diffidently prove the it is the cause of global warming.
---------------------------

Well, if we've contributed to the CO2, then we've contributed to the warming. CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation, as is easily shown in a laboratory setting. That energy has to go somewhere and while half may be re-emitted into space, the other half would go towards warming the earth. To say different would be to throw out the principle of Conservation of Energy.

You got that from a script or what? Seriously it has been said almost identically by you several times on this board now.....

Once again as was stated previously and you ignored it, prove it..

I have to repeat it, because so many have yet to understand it. You have anything to add? Your posts are becoming more and more worthless as you refuse to discuss the issues, preferring to make useless, snarky comments that add NOTHING to the discussion!

Uh huh, sure pal as i said before to you reading is a good thing.... i do pretty fair job of smashing you and your daddy oldsocks posts...

Cornholev you have been oldsocks parroting little bitch since the day you started here.... you have yet to post anything of value yet.... All you do is come in and play oldsocks yes bitch...

 

[konradv]

i do pretty fair job of smashing you and your daddy oldsocks posts...
-------------------------------

You do NOTHING of the sort. We have you at every turn. All you have is distractions and lies.

 

[gslack]

i do pretty fair job of smashing you and your daddy oldsocks posts...
-------------------------------

You do NOTHING of the sort. We have you at every turn. All you have is distractions and lies.

How am I lying cornhole? I take what your daddy posts and show the truth in it... If I was lying it would show.... If there is any distracting going on its from a guy who parrots another and shadows him....

 

[konradv]

How am I lying cornhole?
----------------------------

I don't know. I never said it, but since you brought it up, why is that???

 

[Old Rocks]

Ol Suckeee..... You have never addressed the issue at all. Just name calling and the posting of idiocy.

 

[syrenn]

I am not arguing the fact that humans have contributed to the C02. However you can not diffidently prove the it is the cause of global warming.
---------------------------
Well, if we've contributed to the CO2, then we've contributed to the warming. CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation, as is easily shown in a laboratory setting. That energy has to go somewhere and while half may be re-emitted into space, the other half would go towards warming the earth. To say different would be to throw out the principle of Conservation of Energy.

You got that from a script or what? Seriously it has been said almost identically by you several times on this board now.....
Once again as was stated previously and you ignored it, prove it..

I have to repeat it, because so many have yet to understand it. You have anything to add? Your posts are becoming more and more worthless as you refuse to discuss the issues, preferring to make useless, snarky comments that add NOTHING to the discussion!

And there is the problem. I do understand it. All of it. I am not just grasping at or cleaving to, one small part of what global warming truly is. Human contribution to the C02 is nothing but adding to the normal geologic process of Hot Warm Cold.

Now if you say we MAY be accelerating global warming that is a total different thing. Human contribution is not the single cause of global warming. The globe of is own accord, as science proves, will dramatically change temperature in a VERY short span of time.

 

[RollingThunder]

Occam's razor it is. The simplest presentation involves the knowledge that CO2 and other gases absorb infra-red radiation. Their concentrations, including some not found in nature, have been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution. Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.

Thanks for telling it like it is and settling the matter.

And if it takes 13,000 to 43,000 gigatons of CO2 and a million years to make a scenario of acidic oceans and devastating planetary warming, and we can only burn enough fossil fuels to make 5,000 gigatons of CO2 we cannot do it with burning fossil fuels....

Thank you for making it so clear.....

You are such a total moron, slack-jawed. You can't understand what you read because you are so stupid. You're quoting an article I posted that talked about a major extinction event millions of years ago. The article did not in any way suggest that it takes that much CO2 or that much time to create "devastating planetary warming", you flaming retard. Stop lying, troll.

 

[westwall]

I am not arguing the fact that humans have contributed to the C02. However you can not diffidently prove the it is the cause of global warming.
---------------------------

Well, if we've contributed to the CO2, then we've contributed to the warming. CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation, as is easily shown in a laboratory setting. That energy has to go somewhere and while half may be re-emitted into space, the other half would go towards warming the earth. To say different would be to throw out the principle of Conservation of Energy.

konradv,


Theoretically CO2 has been proven to absorb IR radiation. In point of fact however they have never been able to generate a heating of a controlled atmosphere because of it. Do you understand the difference?
Even with all of the parameters controlled and with the scientists able to play with all of the variables to their hearts content...they STILL havn't been abe to scientifically prove the theory. They have been trying for 100 years and still no joy. In real science that means the theory is a failure. Time to move on.

I can't make it any more simple than that buddy.

 

[westwall]

Occam's razor it is. The simplest presentation involves the knowledge that CO2 and other gases absorb infra-red radiation. Their concentrations, including some not found in nature, have been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution. Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.

Thanks for telling it like it is and settling the matter.

And if it takes 13,000 to 43,000 gigatons of CO2 and a million years to make a scenario of acidic oceans and devastating planetary warming, and we can only burn enough fossil fuels to make 5,000 gigatons of CO2 we cannot do it with burning fossil fuels....

Thank you for making it so clear.....

You are such a total moron, slack-jawed. You can't understand what you read because you are so stupid. You're quoting an article I posted that talked about a major extinction event millions of years ago. The article did not in any way suggest that it takes that much CO2 or that much time to create "devastating planetary warming", you flaming retard. Stop lying, troll.

Sorry Blunder but in the pantheon of trolldom you are way, way, way near the top. Take a bow old buddy

 

[RollingThunder]

I am not arguing the fact that humans have contributed to the C02. However you can not diffidently prove the it is the cause of global warming.
---------------------------

Well, if we've contributed to the CO2, then we've contributed to the warming. CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation, as is easily shown in a laboratory setting. That energy has to go somewhere and while half may be re-emitted into space, the other half would go towards warming the earth. To say different would be to throw out the principle of Conservation of Energy.

konradv,

Theoretically CO2 has been proven to absorb IR radiation. In point of fact however they have never been able to generate a heating of a controlled atmosphere because of it. Do you understand the difference?
Even with all of the parameters controlled and with the scientists able to play with all of the variables to their hearts content...they STILL havn't been abe to scientifically prove the theory. They have been trying for 100 years and still no joy. In real science that means the theory is a failure. Time to move on.

I can't make it any more simple than that buddy.

That's total bullshit, walleyed. Do you get your science info from comic books?

This is a list of papers on laboratory measurements of the absorption properties of carbon dioxide.

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.”

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 CO2 were made in the temperature range from 1000° to 2300°K.”

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]

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.

 

[RollingThunder]

And if it takes 13,000 to 43,000 gigatons of CO2 and a million years to make a scenario of acidic oceans and devastating planetary warming, and we can only burn enough fossil fuels to make 5,000 gigatons of CO2 we cannot do it with burning fossil fuels....

Thank you for making it so clear.....

You are such a total moron, slack-jawed. You can't understand what you read because you are so stupid. You're quoting an article I posted that talked about a major extinction event millions of years ago. The article did not in any way suggest that it takes that much CO2 or that much time to create "devastating planetary warming", you flaming retard. Stop lying, troll.

Sorry Blunder but in the pantheon of trolldom you are way, way, way near the top. Take a bow old buddy

Of course you would be wrong about this too, like everything else you're deluded and confused about. No wispywalleyed, you and the slack-jawed-idiot have me beat hands down when it comes to sheer moronic trolling. You guys are the champs.

 

[gslack]

How am I lying cornhole?
----------------------------

I don't know. I never said it, but since you brought it up, why is that???

LOL, just going to lie huh.... Okay... Your own words....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2321836-post129.html

You do NOTHING of the sort. We have you at every turn. All you have is distractions and lies.

Uh yeah.... Keep lying junior...

 

[gslack]

Occam's razor it is. The simplest presentation involves the knowledge that CO2 and other gases absorb infra-red radiation. Their concentrations, including some not found in nature, have been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution. Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.

Thanks for telling it like it is and settling the matter.

And if it takes 13,000 to 43,000 gigatons of CO2 and a million years to make a scenario of acidic oceans and devastating planetary warming, and we can only burn enough fossil fuels to make 5,000 gigatons of CO2 we cannot do it with burning fossil fuels....

Thank you for making it so clear.....

You are such a total moron, slack-jawed. You can't understand what you read because you are so stupid. You're quoting an article I posted that talked about a major extinction event millions of years ago. The article did not in any way suggest that it takes that much CO2 or that much time to create "devastating planetary warming", you flaming retard. Stop lying, troll.

Okay so then how much would it take? How long did it take before? Over a million?....

Your fucking done fraud.... post all the garbage you want, and it will not change what you did here... YOU posted garbage that dammed your entire theory.... Nice work, between you and oldsocks you just killed the AGW bullshit here.....LOL