Average temperatures across the Northern Hemisphere have breached the 2 degrees Celsius above Normal

[jc456]

Average temperatures across the Northern Hemisphere
Based on how many data points? Over what period of time?

"Recorded history"....A hiccup in the grand scheme of things.

How many trillions are needed to stop the increase? You have that documented?

Great. How many trillions will stop the increase?
Uninhabitable? A few degrees will do that?
Chicago moves up and down more than that, people still manage to live here.

The dimwitted, anti-science ignorance of the denier cultists, plainly revealed for all to see.

let me ask you, if there is less LWR, how is it that the earth can be warming?

 

[jc456]

It's warmer than it was when we came out of the Little Ice Age, quick, let's waste trillions on windmills. Durr.

Your ignorant stupidity only impresses your fellow denier cult retards, ToadtheParrot.

Quick, build more windmills.....the planet is dying!!!!!

Oh, Toad-the-Parrot, you imagine that you are being funny, but you are just being very pathetic!

Pathetic, but much less expensive than pathetic windmill builders.

Nope! Wrong again, you poor retarded fool. Wind turbines produce valuable energy that allows them to pay for themselves fairly quickly.

You, on the other hand, are a pathetic denier cult imbecile, wasting your time posting bullshit and lies on two-bit Internet forums, living in your mother's basement and paying for nothing.

 

[jc456]

Odd that there's absolutely no lab work, not one single repeatable experiment that shows how a 120PPM increase in CO2 can rise temperature 2C

That's your moronic myth, CrazyFruitcake, and you are sticking to it like grim death, no matter how many times you are shown the long list of such experiments. Like I have shown you several times now. Everyone gave up on your idiocy and deranged denial of reality a long time ago.

long list of experiments? hahahahahahahahahahahaha what a nerd. Dude, post up one.

 

[jc456]

Average temperatures across the Northern Hemisphere have breached the 2 degrees Celsius above “normal” mark for the first time in recorded history
Our Hemisphere’s Temperature Just Reached a Terrifying Milestone—Faster Than Expected

Since this post was originally published, the heat wave has continued. As of Thursday morning, it appears that average temperatures across the Northern Hemisphere have breached the 2 degrees Celsius above “normal” mark for the first time in recorded history, and likely the first time since human civilization began thousands of years ago. That mark has long been held (somewhat arbitrarily) as the point above which climate change may begin to become "dangerous" to humanity. It's now arrived—though very briefly—much more quickly than anticipated. This is a milestone moment for our species. Climate change deserves our greatest possible attention.

wow, but I guess it is all a fraud and bs, right?

So what? It's the sun stupid.

Nope! Wrong again, denier cult retard! The sun's irradiance has NOT increased....it has actually gone down a little. It is NOT the cause of the current observed abrupt rapid warming.

'No Sun link' to climate change
BBC
By Richard Black - BBC Environment Correspondent
July 10, 2007
A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change.

It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun's output has declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen.

It also shows that modern temperatures are not determined by the Sun's effect on cosmic rays, as has been claimed.

Writing in the Royal Society's journal Proceedings A, the researchers say cosmic rays may have affected climate in the past, but not the present.

"This should settle the debate," said Mike Lockwood, from the UK's Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory, who carried out the new analysis together with Claus Froehlich from the World Radiation Center in Switzerland.


Figure 1: Annual global temperature change (thin light red) with 11 year moving average of temperature (thick dark red). Temperature from NASA GISS. Annual Total Solar Irradiance (thin light blue) with 11 year moving average of TSI (thick dark blue). TSI from 1880 to 1978 from Krivova et al 2007 (data). TSI from 1979 to 2015 from PMOD (see the PMOD index page for data updates).

Average temperatures across the Northern Hemisphere have breached the 2 degrees Celsius above “normal” mark for the first time in recorded history
Our Hemisphere’s Temperature Just Reached a Terrifying Milestone—Faster Than Expected

Since this post was originally published, the heat wave has continued. As of Thursday morning, it appears that average temperatures across the Northern Hemisphere have breached the 2 degrees Celsius above “normal” mark for the first time in recorded history, and likely the first time since human civilization began thousands of years ago. That mark has long been held (somewhat arbitrarily) as the point above which climate change may begin to become "dangerous" to humanity. It's now arrived—though very briefly—much more quickly than anticipated. This is a milestone moment for our species. Climate change deserves our greatest possible attention.

wow, but I guess it is all a fraud and bs, right?

It is documented fact. Better to leave the denier cult in their drunken stupor, facts do not penetrate their bubble of ignorance.

Hey moron, those facts don't say what you think they say. The temperature is rising, so what? Prove that man has something to do with that. You cannot and you know it.

So says the denier cult moron who has NO facts to support his anti-science denial of reality.

so again, if the sun's output has declined, that means less LWR, so how can less LWR cause more warming?

isn't it LWR that is absorbed by CO2? If there is less, there is more?

 

[RollingThunder]

Nope! Wrong again, you poor retarded fool. Wind turbines produce valuable energy that allows them to pay for themselves fairly quickly.

"Wind turbines produce valuable energy that allows them to pay for themselves fairly quickly."

Really? How long? 50 years? 60? Longer? Why don't you show me your calculations?
Use the actual output, not the theoretical, best case output. TIA

Actually, you poor brainwashed retard.....
Land-based wind farms are ahead when it comes to amortization, or in other words how long it takes a wind farm to produce the volume of energy that it consumes over its entire lifecycle. For an onshore facility, assuming an average wind speed of 8.5 meters per second, the amortization period is only 4.5 to 5.5 months. This figure also takes materials, production, construction, operation, maintenance, dismantling and recycling into account. Offshore wind farms, on the other hand, take a little longer – between 9.5 and 10.5 months – to offset their energy requirements. The study therefore shows that even though wind farms are supposedly energy-intensive to set up, they make up for their energy consumption within just a few months – out of a total expected service life of up to 25 years.
(source - PhysOrg)
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-03-green-power.html#jCp

Durr.

What?....too many big words for you to understand, Toad-the-Parrot?

In short words then, you poor retard....a land based wind turbine produces enough energy in about the first five months of its operation to pay for all of the energy it takes to manufacture and operate the wind turbine. After that, for the next 25 years, the energy it produces is virtually free. And, as the article states..."This figure also takes materials, production, construction, operation, maintenance, dismantling and recycling into account."

"After that, for the next 25 years, the energy it produces is virtually free."

As long as you ignore the dollar cost, lots of things are virtually free. Durr.

You guys are even worse at economics than you are at science. Fucking morons.

Your posts are meaningless and specious, Toad-the-Parrot. You spew hot air with no backing, no evidence, and no substance.

When I say that....a land based wind turbine produces enough energy in about the first five months of its operation to pay for all of the energy it takes to manufacture and operate the wind turbine. After that, for the next 25 years, the energy it produces is virtually free. And, as the article states..."This figure also takes materials, production, construction, operation, maintenance, dismantling and recycling into account."....that is specifically INCLUDING, not "ignoring", "the dollar cost", as the article made very clear. You are a blind brainwashed moron!

Now find a source that shows the dollar breakeven point and I'll stop pointing out your idiocy.
At least this specific idiocy. LOL!

a land based wind turbine produces enough energy in about the first five months of its operation to pay for all of the energy it takes to manufacture and operate the wind turbine.

Why are you harping on this? Is it because some green energy idiocy never breaks even, energy wise?

..."This figure also takes materials, production, construction, operation, maintenance, dismantling and recycling into account."....

Yeah, I don't care how much energy it takes to recycle your money losing green boondoggles.

."....that is specifically INCLUDING, not "ignoring", "the dollar cost", as the article made very clear. You are a blind brainwashed moron!

Yeah, that's why your source doesn't even mention dollars. Durr.

You are just further demonstrating your ignorant idiotic blind denial of reality, Toad-the-Parrot. You are obviously too stupid to understand the information you were shown.....too stupid to 'get it' that when they say that: "a land based wind turbine produces enough energy in about the first five months of its operation to pay for all of the energy it takes to manufacture and operate the wind turbine.".....the word "pay" means 'in dollars', you poor deranged retard.

"a land based wind turbine produces enough energy in about the first five months of its operation to pay for all of the energy"

What kind of moron thinks "pay for all of the energy" means pay for manufacturing, installation, maintenance, operation, rent, etc etc etc of a stupid windmill?

Well, moron....since that study of wind turbine amortization specifically said that those cost factors were included in their calculations....and you just quoted that, so you obviously already know....it seems you are the imbecile here, Toad-the-Parrot!

..."This figure also takes materials, production, construction, operation, maintenance, dismantling and recycling into account."....

YOU ARE SOOOOO INSANE!

since that study of wind turbine amortization specifically said that those cost factors were included in their calculations....

Only the energy costs, fucktard.

Land-based wind farms are ahead when it comes to amortization, or in other words how long it takes a wind farm to produce the volume of energy that it consumes over its entire lifecycle. For an onshore facility, assuming an average wind speed of 8.5 meters per second, the amortization period is only 4.5 to 5.5 months. This figure also takes materials, production, construction, operation, maintenance, dismantling and recycling into account. Offshore wind farms, on the other hand, take a little longer – between 9.5 and 10.5 months – to offset their energy requirements.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-03-green-power.html#jCp

Energy it takes to run, energy it takes to manufacture, energy it takes build, operate, maintain, dismantle and recycle.

Not a single word in the entire article mentions dollar cost.
If they did, it might mention rent, interest and other financing costs.
But thanks for the laughs, idiot.

You're still cluelessly confused and full of bullshit, Toad-the-Parrot.

Large comnercial wind turbines produce enough energy - which is sold for money, moron..."dollars"...energy = money - in just 4 or 5 months to pay for all of the costs of producing, maintaining and disposing of the wind turbine.

"A land based wind turbine produces enough energy in about the first five months of its operation to pay for all of the energy it takes to manufacture and operate the wind turbine. After that, for the next 25 years, the energy it produces is virtually free. And, as the article states..."This figure also takes materials, production, construction, operation, maintenance, dismantling and recycling into account."

 

[jc456]

Odd that there's absolutely no lab work, not one single repeatable experiment that shows how a 120PPM increase in CO2 can rise temperature 2C

The world is our oyster and our lab. It's data shows quite clearly that an added 120 ppm can raise temps 2C.

where does the data show that?

 

[jc456]

Average temperatures across the Northern Hemisphere
Based on how many data points? Over what period of time?

"Recorded history"....A hiccup in the grand scheme of things.

How many trillions are needed to stop the increase? You have that documented?

Great. How many trillions will stop the increase?
Uninhabitable? A few degrees will do that?
Chicago moves up and down more than that, people still manage to live here.

The dimwitted, anti-science ignorance of the denier cultists, plainly revealed for all to see.

It's warmer than it was when we came out of the Little Ice Age, quick, let's waste trillions on windmills. Durr.

Your ignorant stupidity only impresses your fellow denier cult retards, ToadtheParrot.

Quick, build more windmills.....the planet is dying!!!!!

As a matter of fact, more windmills and solar farms being built every day.

and the percentage to the grid is?

 

[jc456]

Average temperatures across the Northern Hemisphere have breached the 2 degrees Celsius above “normal” mark for the first time in recorded history
Our Hemisphere’s Temperature Just Reached a Terrifying Milestone—Faster Than Expected

Since this post was originally published, the heat wave has continued. As of Thursday morning, it appears that average temperatures across the Northern Hemisphere have breached the 2 degrees Celsius above “normal” mark for the first time in recorded history, and likely the first time since human civilization began thousands of years ago. That mark has long been held (somewhat arbitrarily) as the point above which climate change may begin to become "dangerous" to humanity. It's now arrived—though very briefly—much more quickly than anticipated. This is a milestone moment for our species. Climate change deserves our greatest possible attention.

wow, but I guess it is all a fraud and bs, right?

And we're all still alive?

Go figure

And you are still as dumb as a rock, it figures. Will people like you ever tire of posting inanities and pretending it actually means something?

What's the matter?

Truth hurt?

The fact is the planet will be just fine if it's a little warmer and so will the human race

But then again you refuse to see the facts that wind and solar cannot an will not ever meet our energy demands and you continue to live in fear of our only viable option for emission free power

these fkturds want people in the northern hemisphere to freeze to death in winter months. Can't have warm, make it too convenient for mankind. I'd love a little warming. Damn can't get anything further than ten degrees or so warmer in January and february. Any fkn year assholes, I'd love it that there wasn't snow or ice on the roads to worry about. I'd love it.

 

[RollingThunder]

Odd that there's absolutely no lab work, not one single repeatable experiment that shows how a 120PPM increase in CO2 can rise temperature 2C

That's your moronic myth, CrazyFruitcake, and you are sticking to it like grim death, no matter how many times you are shown the long list of such experiments. Like I have shown you several times now. Everyone gave up on your idiocy and deranged denial of reality a long time ago.

long list of experiments? hahahahahahahahahahahaha what a nerd. Dude, post up one.

OK, little retard....one more time....one example of such lists of CO2 experiments....

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.

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]

And you have repeatable lab experiments linking a 120PPM increase in CO2 to a 2C increase?

Yep, and we've shown then to you many times. You just pretend not to have seen it, so you can go happily pound sand now. At this point, we "win" this argument simply by pointing out you're a patholgocally dishonest cult drooler. Sucks to be you, but you shit your own bed, so enjoy sleeping in it now.

Remember, trolling is supposedly not allowed in the Environment folder. Hence, you should stop doing it. Quit trying to deflect every discussion with the same big lies. I know the lies are all you have, given that all the science says you're full of shit, but if you have nothing to say, then just don't say it here.

well, more lies. Who'd have figured? Ask for an experiment and the warmturd answer is always we gave them to you. LOL. They keep giving us the experiments in secret code that never makes it to the message board. Where do I get one of those decoder rings that makes posts appear with the experiment in it? Cause dude/dudete they haven't made it to screen by me evah!!!!!!!

 

[jc456]

And you have repeatable lab experiments linking a 120PPM increase in CO2 to a 2C increase?

Yep, and we've shown then to you many times. You just pretend not to have seen it, so you can go happily pound sand now. At this point, we "win" this argument simply by pointing out you're a patholgocally dishonest cult drooler. Sucks to be you, but you shit your own bed, so enjoy sleeping in it now.

Remember, trolling is supposedly not allowed in the Environment folder. Hence, you should stop doing it. Quit trying to deflect every discussion with the same big lies. I know the lies are all you have, given that all the science says you're full of shit, but if you have nothing to say, then just don't say it here.

I think you're lying about the whole "we posted the experiment" narrative

you have to have the secret ring to see the posts. Otherwise, they don't exist. We're not allowed cause we asked.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Odd that there's absolutely no lab work, not one single repeatable experiment that shows how a 120PPM increase in CO2 can rise temperature 2C

That's your moronic myth, CrazyFruitcake, and you are sticking to it like grim death, no matter how many times you are shown the long list of such experiments. Like I have shown you several times now. Everyone gave up on your idiocy and deranged denial of reality a long time ago.

long list of experiments? hahahahahahahahahahahaha what a nerd. Dude, post up one.

OK, little retard....one more time....one example of such lists of CO2 experiments....

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.

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.

Did you not understand the request?

We're not asking, "Is CO2 a molecule?" or "what are the absorption properties of the CO2 molecule?"

We're looking for lab experiments testing for varying levels of CO2 up to 120PPM to see if there's anyway they can be responsible for the "warming"

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your posts are meaningless and specious, Toad-the-Parrot. You spew hot air with no backing, no evidence, and no substance.

When I say that....a land based wind turbine produces enough energy in about the first five months of its operation to pay for all of the energy it takes to manufacture and operate the wind turbine. After that, for the next 25 years, the energy it produces is virtually free. And, as the article states..."This figure also takes materials, production, construction, operation, maintenance, dismantling and recycling into account."....that is specifically INCLUDING, not "ignoring", "the dollar cost", as the article made very clear. You are a blind brainwashed moron!

Now find a source that shows the dollar breakeven point and I'll stop pointing out your idiocy.
At least this specific idiocy. LOL!

a land based wind turbine produces enough energy in about the first five months of its operation to pay for all of the energy it takes to manufacture and operate the wind turbine.

Why are you harping on this? Is it because some green energy idiocy never breaks even, energy wise?

..."This figure also takes materials, production, construction, operation, maintenance, dismantling and recycling into account."....

Yeah, I don't care how much energy it takes to recycle your money losing green boondoggles.

."....that is specifically INCLUDING, not "ignoring", "the dollar cost", as the article made very clear. You are a blind brainwashed moron!

Yeah, that's why your source doesn't even mention dollars. Durr.

You are just further demonstrating your ignorant idiotic blind denial of reality, Toad-the-Parrot. You are obviously too stupid to understand the information you were shown.....too stupid to 'get it' that when they say that: "a land based wind turbine produces enough energy in about the first five months of its operation to pay for all of the energy it takes to manufacture and operate the wind turbine.".....the word "pay" means 'in dollars', you poor deranged retard.

"a land based wind turbine produces enough energy in about the first five months of its operation to pay for all of the energy"

What kind of moron thinks "pay for all of the energy" means pay for manufacturing, installation, maintenance, operation, rent, etc etc etc of a stupid windmill?

Well, moron....since that study of wind turbine amortization specifically said that those cost factors were included in their calculations....and you just quoted that, so you obviously already know....it seems you are the imbecile here, Toad-the-Parrot!

..."This figure also takes materials, production, construction, operation, maintenance, dismantling and recycling into account."....

YOU ARE SOOOOO INSANE!

since that study of wind turbine amortization specifically said that those cost factors were included in their calculations....

Only the energy costs, fucktard.

Land-based wind farms are ahead when it comes to amortization, or in other words how long it takes a wind farm to produce the volume of energy that it consumes over its entire lifecycle. For an onshore facility, assuming an average wind speed of 8.5 meters per second, the amortization period is only 4.5 to 5.5 months. This figure also takes materials, production, construction, operation, maintenance, dismantling and recycling into account. Offshore wind farms, on the other hand, take a little longer – between 9.5 and 10.5 months – to offset their energy requirements.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-03-green-power.html#jCp

Energy it takes to run, energy it takes to manufacture, energy it takes build, operate, maintain, dismantle and recycle.

Not a single word in the entire article mentions dollar cost.
If they did, it might mention rent, interest and other financing costs.
But thanks for the laughs, idiot.

You're still cluelessly confused and full of bullshit, Toad-the-Parrot.

Large comnercial wind turbines produce enough energy - which is sold for money, moron..."dollars"...energy = money - in just 4 or 5 months to pay for all of the costs of producing, maintaining and disposing of the wind turbine.

"A land based wind turbine produces enough energy in about the first five months of its operation to pay for all of the energy it takes to manufacture and operate the wind turbine. After that, for the next 25 years, the energy it produces is virtually free. And, as the article states..."This figure also takes materials, production, construction, operation, maintenance, dismantling and recycling into account."

If you could build something that paid for itself, in full, in 4 months and then kept producing for 25 more years, that would be an awesome fucking investment. One of the best ever. You wouldn't need a single dollar of government subsidies. Does that sound like wind energy in 2016?

The electric companies must be making shitloads of cash, because a $10 million investment gives them $30 million a year, for 25 years. $10 million gives them a return of $750 million in the next 25 years.
The solar manufacturers must be bigger than Google, Amazon and Netflix.

Do you really believe that to be the case?
I've said it before, greens are even worse at economics, and in your case, simple reading, than you are at science.

A land based wind turbine produces enough energy in about the first five months of its operation to pay for all of the energy

Durr.

 

[flacaltenn]

Nope! Wrong again, you poor retarded fool. Wind turbines produce valuable energy that allows them to pay for themselves fairly quickly.

"Wind turbines produce valuable energy that allows them to pay for themselves fairly quickly."

Really? How long? 50 years? 60? Longer? Why don't you show me your calculations?
Use the actual output, not the theoretical, best case output. TIA

Actually, you poor brainwashed retard.....
Land-based wind farms are ahead when it comes to amortization, or in other words how long it takes a wind farm to produce the volume of energy that it consumes over its entire lifecycle. For an onshore facility, assuming an average wind speed of 8.5 meters per second, the amortization period is only 4.5 to 5.5 months. This figure also takes materials, production, construction, operation, maintenance, dismantling and recycling into account. Offshore wind farms, on the other hand, take a little longer – between 9.5 and 10.5 months – to offset their energy requirements. The study therefore shows that even though wind farms are supposedly energy-intensive to set up, they make up for their energy consumption within just a few months – out of a total expected service life of up to 25 years.
(source - PhysOrg)
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-03-green-power.html#jCp

Durr.

What?....too many big words for you to understand, Toad-the-Parrot?

In short words then, you poor retard....a land based wind turbine produces enough energy in about the first five months of its operation to pay for all of the energy it takes to manufacture and operate the wind turbine. After that, for the next 25 years, the energy it produces is virtually free. And, as the article states..."This figure also takes materials, production, construction, operation, maintenance, dismantling and recycling into account."

"After that, for the next 25 years, the energy it produces is virtually free."

As long as you ignore the dollar cost, lots of things are virtually free. Durr.

You guys are even worse at economics than you are at science. Fucking morons.

Your posts are meaningless and specious, Toad-the-Parrot. You spew hot air with no backing, no evidence, and no substance.

When I say that....a land based wind turbine produces enough energy in about the first five months of its operation to pay for all of the energy it takes to manufacture and operate the wind turbine. After that, for the next 25 years, the energy it produces is virtually free. And, as the article states..."This figure also takes materials, production, construction, operation, maintenance, dismantling and recycling into account."....that is specifically INCLUDING, not "ignoring", "the dollar cost", as the article made very clear. You are a blind brainwashed moron!

Now find a source that shows the dollar breakeven point and I'll stop pointing out your idiocy.
At least this specific idiocy. LOL!

a land based wind turbine produces enough energy in about the first five months of its operation to pay for all of the energy it takes to manufacture and operate the wind turbine.

Why are you harping on this? Is it because some green energy idiocy never breaks even, energy wise?

..."This figure also takes materials, production, construction, operation, maintenance, dismantling and recycling into account."....

Yeah, I don't care how much energy it takes to recycle your money losing green boondoggles.

."....that is specifically INCLUDING, not "ignoring", "the dollar cost", as the article made very clear. You are a blind brainwashed moron!

Yeah, that's why your source doesn't even mention dollars. Durr.

You are just further demonstrating your ignorant idiotic blind denial of reality, Toad-the-Parrot. You are obviously too stupid to understand the information you were shown.....too stupid to 'get it' that when they say that: "a land based wind turbine produces enough energy in about the first five months of its operation to pay for all of the energy it takes to manufacture and operate the wind turbine.".....the word "pay" means 'in dollars', you poor deranged retard.

"a land based wind turbine produces enough energy in about the first five months of its operation to pay for all of the energy"

What kind of moron thinks "pay for all of the energy" means pay for manufacturing, installation, maintenance, operation, rent, etc etc etc of a stupid windmill?

Well, moron....since that study of wind turbine amortization specifically said that those cost factors were included in their calculations....and you just quoted that, so you obviously already know....it seems you are the imbecile here, Toad-the-Parrot!

..."This figure also takes materials, production, construction, operation, maintenance, dismantling and recycling into account."....

YOU ARE SOOOOO INSANE!

since that study of wind turbine amortization specifically said that those cost factors were included in their calculations....

Only the energy costs, fucktard.

Land-based wind farms are ahead when it comes to amortization, or in other words how long it takes a wind farm to produce the volume of energy that it consumes over its entire lifecycle. For an onshore facility, assuming an average wind speed of 8.5 meters per second, the amortization period is only 4.5 to 5.5 months. This figure also takes materials, production, construction, operation, maintenance, dismantling and recycling into account. Offshore wind farms, on the other hand, take a little longer – between 9.5 and 10.5 months – to offset their energy requirements.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-03-green-power.html#jCp

Energy it takes to run, energy it takes to manufacture, energy it takes build, operate, maintain, dismantle and recycle.

Not a single word in the entire article mentions dollar cost.
If they did, it might mention rent, interest and other financing costs.
But thanks for the laughs, idiot.

The Big factor is -- they fall to bits in 15 years. Or become "uneconomical". But how did we get on wind turbines? Did they contribute to the dastardly 2deg "breach"??

Anybody ever figure out where this number came from?? And why the fear-mongers are taking a WHOPPING single month and pressing the PANIC button??

 

[jc456]

Odd that there's absolutely no lab work, not one single repeatable experiment that shows how a 120PPM increase in CO2 can rise temperature 2C

That's your moronic myth, CrazyFruitcake, and you are sticking to it like grim death, no matter how many times you are shown the long list of such experiments. Like I have shown you several times now. Everyone gave up on your idiocy and deranged denial of reality a long time ago.

long list of experiments? hahahahahahahahahahahaha what a nerd. Dude, post up one.

OK, little retard....one more time....one example of such lists of CO2 experiments....

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.

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.

so friend, there is quite a lot of material there. Each link requires purchase, so you have purchased all of these doc sets? No where in any of the abstracts do they get into what the 120 PPM of CO2 heat spectrum is. No graph laid out for increments of added PPM of CO2 and temperature. Nothing close. Absorption of CO2 is not being contested by anyone of us, it is the magic of heat that is in question.

One thought, do you know why it is cooler in the northern hemisphere than the southern hemisphere?

BTW, I only asked for one, and the one with the 120 PPM of CO2 temperature sets to see the change and rate of change. But nice try.

 

[RollingThunder]

Average temperatures across the Northern Hemisphere have breached the 2 degrees Celsius above “normal” mark for the first time in recorded history
Our Hemisphere’s Temperature Just Reached a Terrifying Milestone—Faster Than Expected

Since this post was originally published, the heat wave has continued. As of Thursday morning, it appears that average temperatures across the Northern Hemisphere have breached the 2 degrees Celsius above “normal” mark for the first time in recorded history, and likely the first time since human civilization began thousands of years ago. That mark has long been held (somewhat arbitrarily) as the point above which climate change may begin to become "dangerous" to humanity. It's now arrived—though very briefly—much more quickly than anticipated. This is a milestone moment for our species. Climate change deserves our greatest possible attention.

wow, but I guess it is all a fraud and bs, right?

So what? It's the sun stupid.

Nope! Wrong again, denier cult retard! The sun's irradiance has NOT increased....it has actually gone down a little. It is NOT the cause of the current observed abrupt rapid warming.

'No Sun link' to climate change
BBC
By Richard Black - BBC Environment Correspondent
July 10, 2007
A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change.

It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun's output has declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen.

It also shows that modern temperatures are not determined by the Sun's effect on cosmic rays, as has been claimed.

Writing in the Royal Society's journal Proceedings A, the researchers say cosmic rays may have affected climate in the past, but not the present.

"This should settle the debate," said Mike Lockwood, from the UK's Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory, who carried out the new analysis together with Claus Froehlich from the World Radiation Center in Switzerland.


Figure 1: Annual global temperature change (thin light red) with 11 year moving average of temperature (thick dark red). Temperature from NASA GISS. Annual Total Solar Irradiance (thin light blue) with 11 year moving average of TSI (thick dark blue). TSI from 1880 to 1978 from Krivova et al 2007 (data). TSI from 1979 to 2015 from PMOD (see the PMOD index page for data updates).

Average temperatures across the Northern Hemisphere have breached the 2 degrees Celsius above “normal” mark for the first time in recorded history
Our Hemisphere’s Temperature Just Reached a Terrifying Milestone—Faster Than Expected

Since this post was originally published, the heat wave has continued. As of Thursday morning, it appears that average temperatures across the Northern Hemisphere have breached the 2 degrees Celsius above “normal” mark for the first time in recorded history, and likely the first time since human civilization began thousands of years ago. That mark has long been held (somewhat arbitrarily) as the point above which climate change may begin to become "dangerous" to humanity. It's now arrived—though very briefly—much more quickly than anticipated. This is a milestone moment for our species. Climate change deserves our greatest possible attention.

wow, but I guess it is all a fraud and bs, right?

It is documented fact. Better to leave the denier cult in their drunken stupor, facts do not penetrate their bubble of ignorance.

Hey moron, those facts don't say what you think they say. The temperature is rising, so what? Prove that man has something to do with that. You cannot and you know it.

So says the denier cult moron who has NO facts to support his anti-science denial of reality.

let me ask you, if there is less LWR, how is it that the earth can be warming?

so again, if the sun's output has declined, that means less LWR, so how can less LWR cause more warming?
isn't it LWR that is absorbed by CO2? If there is less, there is more?

Because, JustCrazy, you super-ignorant retard, the sun emits short wave radiation (NOT long wave radiation or LWR)..... which the Earth absorbs, heating the Earth, which then re-emits some of the energy it absorbed as long wave radiation. The excess CO2, that mankind has added to the atmosphere, passes the short wave solar radiation inward without hinderence, heating the Earth, but the CO2 (& other greenhouse gases - methane, H2O, ozone, fluorocarbons, etc.) then absorbs a portion of the energy in the long wave radiation that is trying to escape into space, thus hindering the natural cooling process and retaining more and more heat energy inside the atmosphere, causing a net increase in heat energy that continues to build up every minute as the sun bathes the Earth in 120,000 Terrawatts of energy every 24 hour day. (Approximately 120,000 terawatts (TW or trillion Watts) of sunlight strike the earth’s surface)

Longwave and Shortwave Radiation
North Carolina State University
Everything that has a temperature gives off electromagnetic radiation (light). The sun is extremely hot and has a lot of energy to give, so it gives off shortwave radiation because shortwave radiation contains higher amounts of energy The earth is much cooler, but still emits radiation. Earth’s radiation is emitted as longwave because longwave radiation contains a smaller amount of energy.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Average temperatures across the Northern Hemisphere have breached the 2 degrees Celsius above “normal” mark for the first time in recorded history
Our Hemisphere’s Temperature Just Reached a Terrifying Milestone—Faster Than Expected

Since this post was originally published, the heat wave has continued. As of Thursday morning, it appears that average temperatures across the Northern Hemisphere have breached the 2 degrees Celsius above “normal” mark for the first time in recorded history, and likely the first time since human civilization began thousands of years ago. That mark has long been held (somewhat arbitrarily) as the point above which climate change may begin to become "dangerous" to humanity. It's now arrived—though very briefly—much more quickly than anticipated. This is a milestone moment for our species. Climate change deserves our greatest possible attention.

wow, but I guess it is all a fraud and bs, right?

It is documented fact. Better to leave the denier cult in their drunken stupor, facts do not penetrate their bubble of ignorance.

It is documented fact.

How many trillions are needed to stop the increase? You have that documented?

You don't understand, there is no alternative. There is only one Earth, if this one becomes uninhabitable for humans that's it. It will cost whatever it costs and take whatever it takes.

Who the hell are you to say today's climate is optimum? Let me drop you freaks off in Canada. If you morons were around 12,000 years ago you'd be freaking out about the tragedy of Great Lakes forming from the mile thick sheet of ice covering what is today Chicago.

 

[Weatherman2020]

"Recorded history"....

A hiccup in the grand scheme of things.

Everyone knows there were year round weather stations in the Arctic decades before man ever stepped foot there.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your posts are meaningless and specious, Toad-the-Parrot. You spew hot air with no backing, no evidence, and no substance.

When I say that....a land based wind turbine produces enough energy in about the first five months of its operation to pay for all of the energy it takes to manufacture and operate the wind turbine. After that, for the next 25 years, the energy it produces is virtually free. And, as the article states..."This figure also takes materials, production, construction, operation, maintenance, dismantling and recycling into account."....that is specifically INCLUDING, not "ignoring", "the dollar cost", as the article made very clear. You are a blind brainwashed moron!

Now find a source that shows the dollar breakeven point and I'll stop pointing out your idiocy.
At least this specific idiocy. LOL!

a land based wind turbine produces enough energy in about the first five months of its operation to pay for all of the energy it takes to manufacture and operate the wind turbine.

Why are you harping on this? Is it because some green energy idiocy never breaks even, energy wise?

..."This figure also takes materials, production, construction, operation, maintenance, dismantling and recycling into account."....

Yeah, I don't care how much energy it takes to recycle your money losing green boondoggles.

."....that is specifically INCLUDING, not "ignoring", "the dollar cost", as the article made very clear. You are a blind brainwashed moron!

Yeah, that's why your source doesn't even mention dollars. Durr.

You are just further demonstrating your ignorant idiotic blind denial of reality, Toad-the-Parrot. You are obviously too stupid to understand the information you were shown.....too stupid to 'get it' that when they say that: "a land based wind turbine produces enough energy in about the first five months of its operation to pay for all of the energy it takes to manufacture and operate the wind turbine.".....the word "pay" means 'in dollars', you poor deranged retard.

"a land based wind turbine produces enough energy in about the first five months of its operation to pay for all of the energy"

What kind of moron thinks "pay for all of the energy" means pay for manufacturing, installation, maintenance, operation, rent, etc etc etc of a stupid windmill?

Well, moron....since that study of wind turbine amortization specifically said that those cost factors were included in their calculations....and you just quoted that, so you obviously already know....it seems you are the imbecile here, Toad-the-Parrot!

..."This figure also takes materials, production, construction, operation, maintenance, dismantling and recycling into account."....

YOU ARE SOOOOO INSANE!

since that study of wind turbine amortization specifically said that those cost factors were included in their calculations....

Only the energy costs, fucktard.

Land-based wind farms are ahead when it comes to amortization, or in other words how long it takes a wind farm to produce the volume of energy that it consumes over its entire lifecycle. For an onshore facility, assuming an average wind speed of 8.5 meters per second, the amortization period is only 4.5 to 5.5 months. This figure also takes materials, production, construction, operation, maintenance, dismantling and recycling into account. Offshore wind farms, on the other hand, take a little longer – between 9.5 and 10.5 months – to offset their energy requirements.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-03-green-power.html#jCp

Energy it takes to run, energy it takes to manufacture, energy it takes build, operate, maintain, dismantle and recycle.

Not a single word in the entire article mentions dollar cost.
If they did, it might mention rent, interest and other financing costs.
But thanks for the laughs, idiot.

The Big factor is -- they fall to bits in 15 years. Or become "uneconomical". But how did we get on wind turbines? Did they contribute to the dastardly 2deg "breach"??

Anybody ever figure out where this number came from?? And why the fear-mongers are taking a WHOPPING single month and pressing the PANIC button??

The Big factor is -- they fall to bits in 15 years. Or become "uneconomical".

If they broke even in 4 or 5 months, they'd be wildly profitable, even if they only lasted a few years.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Average temperatures across the Northern Hemisphere have breached the 2 degrees Celsius above “normal” mark for the first time in recorded history
Our Hemisphere’s Temperature Just Reached a Terrifying Milestone—Faster Than Expected

Since this post was originally published, the heat wave has continued. As of Thursday morning, it appears that average temperatures across the Northern Hemisphere have breached the 2 degrees Celsius above “normal” mark for the first time in recorded history, and likely the first time since human civilization began thousands of years ago. That mark has long been held (somewhat arbitrarily) as the point above which climate change may begin to become "dangerous" to humanity. It's now arrived—though very briefly—much more quickly than anticipated. This is a milestone moment for our species. Climate change deserves our greatest possible attention.

wow, but I guess it is all a fraud and bs, right?

So what? It's the sun stupid.

Nope! Wrong again, denier cult retard! The sun's irradiance has NOT increased....it has actually gone down a little. It is NOT the cause of the current observed abrupt rapid warming.

'No Sun link' to climate change
BBC
By Richard Black - BBC Environment Correspondent
July 10, 2007
A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change.

It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun's output has declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen.

It also shows that modern temperatures are not determined by the Sun's effect on cosmic rays, as has been claimed.

Writing in the Royal Society's journal Proceedings A, the researchers say cosmic rays may have affected climate in the past, but not the present.

"This should settle the debate," said Mike Lockwood, from the UK's Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory, who carried out the new analysis together with Claus Froehlich from the World Radiation Center in Switzerland.


Figure 1: Annual global temperature change (thin light red) with 11 year moving average of temperature (thick dark red). Temperature from NASA GISS. Annual Total Solar Irradiance (thin light blue) with 11 year moving average of TSI (thick dark blue). TSI from 1880 to 1978 from Krivova et al 2007 (data). TSI from 1979 to 2015 from PMOD (see the PMOD index page for data updates).

Average temperatures across the Northern Hemisphere have breached the 2 degrees Celsius above “normal” mark for the first time in recorded history
Our Hemisphere’s Temperature Just Reached a Terrifying Milestone—Faster Than Expected

Since this post was originally published, the heat wave has continued. As of Thursday morning, it appears that average temperatures across the Northern Hemisphere have breached the 2 degrees Celsius above “normal” mark for the first time in recorded history, and likely the first time since human civilization began thousands of years ago. That mark has long been held (somewhat arbitrarily) as the point above which climate change may begin to become "dangerous" to humanity. It's now arrived—though very briefly—much more quickly than anticipated. This is a milestone moment for our species. Climate change deserves our greatest possible attention.

wow, but I guess it is all a fraud and bs, right?

It is documented fact. Better to leave the denier cult in their drunken stupor, facts do not penetrate their bubble of ignorance.

Hey moron, those facts don't say what you think they say. The temperature is rising, so what? Prove that man has something to do with that. You cannot and you know it.

So says the denier cult moron who has NO facts to support his anti-science denial of reality.

let me ask you, if there is less LWR, how is it that the earth can be warming?

so again, if the sun's output has declined, that means less LWR, so how can less LWR cause more warming?
isn't it LWR that is absorbed by CO2? If there is less, there is more?

Because, JustCrazy, you super-ignorant retard, the sun emits short wave radiation (NOT long wave radiation or LWR)..... which the Earth absorbs, heating the Earth, which then re-emits some of the energy it absorbed as long wave radiation. The excess CO2, that mankind has added to the atmosphere, passes the short wave solar radiation inward without hinderence, heating the Earth, but the CO2 (& other greenhouse gases - methane, H2O, ozone, fluorocarbons, etc.) then absorbs a portion of the energy in the long wave radiation that is trying to escape into space, thus hindering the natural cooling process and retaining more and more heat energy inside the atmosphere, causing a net increase in heat energy that continues to build up every minute as the sun bathes the Earth in 120,000 Terrawatts of energy every 24 hour day. (Approximately 120,000 terawatts (TW or trillion Watts) of sunlight strike the earth’s surface)

Longwave and Shortwave Radiation
North Carolina State University
Everything that has a temperature gives off electromagnetic radiation (light). The sun is extremely hot and has a lot of energy to give, so it gives off shortwave radiation because shortwave radiation contains higher amounts of energy The earth is much cooler, but still emits radiation. Earth’s radiation is emitted as longwave because longwave radiation contains a smaller amount of energy.

From the Einstein who claims that 0.5 inches of rain in SoCal proves the Climate Center got it right with the impacts of El Niño.