Have you looked at the North Pole lately?

[Yamaha FG-840]

Scientists didn't make a mistake of 29% in their calculations. They fly aircraft by them and calibrate, regulate and warranty everything on this planet by their correct calculations.

The brazen frauds who told you 29% less light into rocks makes more than 100% out didn't make a 29% calculation - that's just till their fake claim brings the Planet surface back to 100% levels.

''Making 29% less go in brought energy levels back up to 100%''

isn't your church's story.

I ignored him so I don't see his posts. I've seen enough to know that he believes scientists made a 29% error in their calculations.

This of course he discovered working his parents Lab (I think he meant to say 'basement').

Your church's story is that the 29% less in,

makes MORE than that 29% come back out PLUS

so much energy the entire planet surface and cold Atmospheric bath are 33 degrees WARMER than 100%.

You're pretty slow on the uptake about this.

And that's not the only error YOUR church is dealing with,

SCIENTISTS don't have that problem.

Your church of ludicrous transparent frauds, ALSO,

come up 33 degrees SHORT, of the REAL, known-good,

average global surface temperature,

Science didn't make those errors, we take planes off and land them using auto pilots on our science all day everyday, 24/7/365.25

Your CHURCH

makes that error.

Science is when people review what you're saying and every time they do it, it matches known-good, globally accepted answers

the way the world accepts the International and Standard Atmospheres,

and ridicule your church,

for not even being able to get the temperature of the planet's surface right.

You've got way more problems than some mere 29%. One of em might be you're in such shock 29% less in can't mean made more than 100% come out, you forgot the other endless streams of drivel,

like how they don't need to refer to gas law to calculate the temperature of the planet, come up 33 degrees short, then say you can come up 33 degrees short when you calculate the temperature of the planet and still be right.

https://i.imgur.com/Nk8zT8X.png

Oh. That part. About you can't have two correct answers to a math problem,

and how ya can't resolve the temperatures of gases, without referring to gas laws at the proper points in the process.

 

[Yamaha FG-840]

Or you come up 33 degrees short for Earth,
many hundreds of degrees short, for Venus.

Oh. That part. About you can't have two correct answers to a math problem,

and how ya can't resolve the temperatures of gases, without referring to gas laws at the proper points in the process.

Which we know the correct temperatures of at various times because we've sent MORE than 25 craft there.

https://is.gd/b99Suu Here's a google return showing you the more than 25 total missions - they were named differently sometimes but the Americans and Russians collaborated on 25 of them.

Notice Venera 7.

Are you gonna tell us a story about how the Russians are hiding the truth about the crazy laws on Venus they were just by chance, able to land 25 craft on the planet with the Americans aid,

and the Americans and rest of the world find out the truth about how - let's just quote directly from the scam, ''Thim laws ain't evun no good fur nuthin ovur thair, it's way diffurnt than thim uthur fellurs, undurstands, what ain't clymittie an awl that.''

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venera#Scientific_findings


Notice the place there in ''Scientific findings'' it's awl dun bin

blanked owt

by BIG AWUL, what dun hid tha trewth.''

About the magicalness.

Of the gassiness.

what dun... yew no, made a cold nitrogen bath, uh HeeDuR.

I wonder what happened to that section about exciting scientific findings on Venus, all about the gaissiness and everything?

Who blanked it out? It couldn't be just the Russians,

It couldn't be just the Americans, so this means it's the Russians and the Americans hiding from you the exciting findings in that

blank spot for

''anything exciting discovered there pertinent to your church's claims''

DoH. What can I tell ya,

you should have believed people when they started telling you all over the planet it's a scam, and you figured out for yourself by going to their web sites that

29% less energy into a rock,
doesn't ever make anything come out of it,
but 29% less.

 

[Yamaha FG-840]

Big Oil has been caught defacing Wikipedia.

https://i.imgur.com/3xtblWM.png

 

[1G12]

Interesting new paper in
Earth and Planetary Science Letters
Volume 502, 15 November 2018, Pages 146-155
which shows the world’s ice is doing something not seen before.

In this warming world, some parts of the planet are warming much faster than others. The warming is causing large ice bodies to start to melt and move rapidly, in some cases sliding into the ocean.

This movement is the topic of a very new scientific study that was just published in the journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters. The Arctic is warming much faster than other parts of the planet and the ice there is showing the signs of rapid warming. This fact has serious consequences. First, melting ice can cause sea levels to rise and inundate coastal areas – it also makes storms like hurricanes and typhoons more destructive. Melting ice also causes a feedback loop, which can cause more future warming and then more ice loss.

It should be noted that there are different types of ice. Some ice floats on water and is called sea ice. When it melts, the ocean water level hardly budges because the ice is already in the sea displacing liquid water. But, sea ice is really important for this feedback loop I mentioned above.

Other ice is on land and may be a large ice sheet or a smaller glacier. These ice bodies sit atop the land and “rest” there. In some cases, they extend out off the land and into the ocean where they partly float on liquid water. When this land ice melts, the liquid flows into the oceans and can cause significant ocean level rising.

So, the importance of ice depends on what type it is, where it is located, and how fast it is melting. And this brings us to the new paper.

The researchers looked at a type of high latitude glacier in their study. These glaciers hold enough water to cause about 1 foot (about a third of a meter) in sea level rise. Typically, they exist in cold and dry areas, where snowfall is limited.

How do glaciers move? Well really by either sliding over the underlying bedrock or surface that they sit on, or by deforming and stretching under their weight. The colder glaciers tend to move by the deforming and stretching process. Glaciers that have wetter and more temperate regions involve more sliding. But regardless of how they move, these glaciers, particularly the glaciers that have both cold and temperate parts, experience surges in their motion. These surges are short duration times where the glacier moves a lot. During a surge, ice is redistributed from one part of the glacier to another region.

The authors in this study observed such a glacier surge. It happened at an outlet glacier that is mainly of the “cold” type in Russia. At the Vavilov Ice Cap on October Revolution Island, the authors find it “is undergoing extraordinary acceleration and thinning but displays no previous evidence of surging.” The authors write,

the 300-600 meter thick 1820 square kilometer Vavilov Ice Cap is frozen to its bed over the majority of its area, apart from a region along its western margin where basal sliding is potentially important for faster flow.

In 2010 the ice in the region began to accelerate and the next year, crevasses were observed that matched the patterns of ice acceleration. The researchers were able to watch this surge in ice motion in real-time using satellite images. They could track the motion and show the incredible speed of flow.

What caused the rapid motion? This is an important question because if the motion is caused by human warming, we can expect the behavior to be repeated elsewhere as temperatures rise. Importantly both air and ocean-water temperatures could be a factor. One potential cause is surface meltwater. The top of the ice can melt, and liquid water then can flow downwards, into the ice through cracks and holes. This flowing water can precondition the ice for rapid motion.

This fact may be a contributing cause to the motion. Basically, the melted water lubricated the ice/ground interface causing more sliding and more friction. The friction caused some of the bottom ice to melt and released more liquid water, and a cycle had begun.

The researchers also took measurements of elevation to better understand areas where ice was becoming thicker or thinner. In addition, they studied the forces that exist within the ice itself to help elucidate the cause of the increased speed. Obviously, this is an evolving area of study and all of the questions have not yet been answered. However, I was impressed when I read that even though these types of surges are becoming more common, what the researchers observed in Russia was still unique. They describe the rate of ice loss at Vavilov as “extreme.” The authors also point out,

 

[TychoMonolyth]

...then show the results of your discourse adding to this conversation...


more in, but less out.


you berate the man who gives you the formula, tells you who theorized it, and in what year, yet disbelieve...nah, more than disbelieve, you try destroying his credibility without ever producing contradicting evidence, or even catching the fact that he gave you the answer he was asking for.


you bots are sharp...not!

I'd rather believe the formula NASA and NOAA used before I used the formula a shoe salesman invented.

Formulate this.

 

[TychoMonolyth]

Stop ignoring reality.

 

[Yamaha FG-840]

https://i.imgur.com/XorlHia.png

View Image

View Image

View Image

View Image


Stop ignoring reality.

View Image

 

[Yamaha FG-840]

If you notice in there I misspelled the world periods I'll have to redo it.

LoL

 

[Yamaha FG-840]

Bah, I'm juggling my phone we're in the Acadia.

 

[Yamaha FG-840]

BWaH Hah Hah Ha I had to get my wife to pull over so I could re-do it!

https://i.imgur.com/asAWbLb.png

I think this one's a lot better I can't type well on the phone when in motions like that LoL.

 

[trichrider]

The Chill of Solar Minimum

September 27, 2018 / Dr.Tony Phillips



Sept. 27, 2018: The sun is entering one of the deepest Solar Minima of the Space Age. Sunspots have been absent for most of 2018, and the sun’s ultraviolet output has sharply dropped. New research shows that Earth’s upper atmosphere is responding.


“We see a cooling trend,” says Martin Mlynczak of NASA’s Langley Research Center. “High above Earth’s surface, near the edge of space, our atmosphere is losing heat energy. If current trends continue, it could soon set a Space Age record for cold.”

These results come from the SABER instrument onboard NASA’s TIMED satellite. SABER monitors infrared emissions from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances that play a key role in the energy balance of air 100 to 300 kilometers above our planet’s surface. By measuring the infrared glow of these molecules, SABER can assess the thermal state of gas at the very top of the atmosphere–a layer researchers call “the thermosphere.”


“The thermosphere always cools off during Solar Minimum. It’s one of the most important ways the solar cycle affects our planet,” explains Mlynczak, who is the associate principal investigator for SABER.


When the thermosphere cools, it shrinks, literally decreasing the radius of Earth’s atmosphere. This shrinkage decreases aerodynamic drag on satellites in low-Earth orbit, extending their lifetimes. That’s the good news. The bad news is, it also delays the natural decay of space junk, resulting in a more cluttered environment around Earth.

Above: Layers of the atmosphere. Credit: NASA

To help keep track of what’s happening in the thermosphere, Mlynczak and colleagues recently introduced the “Thermosphere Climate Index” (TCI)–a number expressed in Watts that tells how much heat NO molecules are dumping into space. During Solar Maximum, TCI is high (“Hot”); during Solar Minimum, it is low (“Cold”).


“Right now, it is very low indeed,” says Mlynczak. “SABER is currently measuring 33 billion Watts of infrared power from NO. That’s 10 times smaller than we see during more active phases of the solar cycle.”


Although SABER has been in orbit for only 17 years, Mlynczak and colleagues recently calculated TCI going all the way back to the 1940s. “SABER taught us to do this by revealing how TCI depends on other variables such as geomagnetic activity and the sun’s UV output–things that have been measured for decades,” he explains.

Above: An historical record of the Thermosphere Climate Index.


Mlynczak and colleagues recently published a paper on the TCI showing that the state of the thermosphere can be discussed using a set of five plain language terms: Cold, Cool, Neutral, Warm, and Hot.

As 2018 comes to an end, the Thermosphere Climate Index is on the verge of setting a Space Age record for Cold. “We’re not there quite yet,” says Mlynczak, “but it could happen in a matter of months.”


“We are especially pleased that SABER is gathering information so important for tracking the effect of the Sun on our atmosphere,” says James Russell, SABER’s Principal Investigator at Hampton University. “A more than 16-year record of long-term changes in the thermal condition of the atmosphere more than 70 miles above the surface is something we did not expect for an instrument designed to last only 3-years in-orbit.”


Soon, the Thermosphere Climate Index will be added to Spaceweather.com as a regular data feed, so our readers can monitor the state of the upper atmosphere just as researchers do. Stay tuned for updates.


References:
Martin G. Mlynczak, Linda A. Hunt, James M. Russell, B. Thomas Marshall, Thermosphere climate indexes: Percentile ranges and adjectival descriptors, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2018.04.004


Mlynczak, M. G., L. A. Hunt, B. T. Marshall, J. M. RussellIII, C. J. Mertens, R. E. Thompson, and L. L. Gordley (2015), A combined solar and geomagnetic index for thermospheric climate. Geophys. Res. Lett., 42, 3677–3682. doi: 10.1002/2015GL064038.


Mlynczak, M. G., L. A. Hunt, J. M. Russell III, B. T. Marshall, C. J. Mertens, and R. E. Thompson (2016), The global infrared energy budget of the thermosphere from 1947 to 2016 and implications for solar variability, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 11,934–11,940,
doi: 10.1002/2016GL070965

 

[1G12]

Also.........
There is direct evidence of the increase in the greenhouse effect because greenhouse gases trap heat nearer the surface and allow less heat to escape to space thus cooling the upper atmosphere and warming the surface. See the paper by Harries 2001 and confirmed by a second paper by Griggs in 2004 and then Chen in 2007.

 

[Koondense]

What are you talking about?
There is no such thing as man made global warming!
You're all sheep from the same GW church!


...


Obviously I'm just trolling a bit. This thread is empty without trolls.

 

[TychoMonolyth]

What are you talking about?
There is no such thing as man made global warming!
You're all sheep from the same GW church!


...


Obviously I'm just trolling a bit. This thread is empty without trolls.

Lol.

Ok. Tell the scientists from the Siberian Northeastern Federal University that the permafrost isn't really melting and those Mammoths being discovered don't exist.

 

[Cannavore]

...then show the results of your discourse adding to this conversation...


more in, but less out.


you berate the man who gives you the formula, tells you who theorized it, and in what year, yet disbelieve...nah, more than disbelieve, you try destroying his credibility without ever producing contradicting evidence, or even catching the fact that he gave you the answer he was asking for.


you bots are sharp...not!

i've been posting contradicting evidence from my first post in this thread. not my fault you clowns dont want to check it out.

https://youtu.be/52KLGqDSAjo?t=1m

there's your heedur explained in plain english in a minute by an actual scientific journalist.


if you guys are so smart i'd love to see you comment on potholer54's youtube comments section with your information. he routinely checks and answers posts by people. hell, he even pins criticisms to the top of the comments section so all can see him answer back and address whatever claim is being made.

 

[mean mr.mustard]

The lack of proper spelling in this thread has me questioning certain individuals' integrity.

 

[Yamaha FG-840]

No there's not.

Also.........
There is direct evidence of the increase in the greenhouse effect because greenhouse gases trap heat nearer the surface and allow less heat to escape to space thus cooling the upper atmosphere and warming the surface. See the paper by Harries 2001 and confirmed by a second paper by Griggs in 2004 and then Chen in 2007.

There is direct evidence they stop 29% less heat from ever reaching the surface of the planet though.

It's called the

very

first

step

in calculation of the average global surface temperature,

as shown to you on real scientific websites where people can properly calculate the temperatures of things and not end up saying cold baths are heaters,

and on your church's own websites.

The very first step in calculation of planetary temperature,

is that evidence of 29% cooling.

Any claims you're making are just those of baseless

KooK Brigade fraud.

That's why you aren't presenting any evidence for your fake claim.

 

[Yamaha FG-840]

Just think if you had the integrity to check and see if it's possible for 29% less light to go into a rock

The lack of proper spelling in this thread has me questioning certain individuals' integrity.

and make more than 100% come back out.

You wouldn't have wound up arguing with scientists that 29% less light into a rock makes more than 100%, come back out, if a

magical gassiness

made the 29% less

never to into it.

 

[Yamaha FG-840]

You've already had it explained to you, all you're doing is proving we're in a warm optimum.

Lol.

Ok. Tell the scientists from the Siberian Northeastern Federal University that the permafrost isn't really melting and those Mammoths being discovered don't exist.

The only way a global optimum can occur is if there is low ice, and general, global warmth.

Hence the REAL scientific term ''Warm Optimum.''

We know it galls you, but that's what you get for not checking with real science when clowns tell you warm optimums are anything but optima.

Again you've already seen the science, you know you're darkening science with faked alarm,

you know you're darkening science with your FAKED claims,

that Warm Optimum isn't what we're in,


and we all know you're lying when you say you have ANY evidence,

warmth does anything but create a MORE OPTIMUM period.

You're just lying, and you're doing it because you're fascinated at the concept of no accountability for your outlandish behavior.

Coming in telling us when you join a website and tell people to repent and be like you, and they don't do it, you have a hard time controlling yourself some weeks back -

that's not the behavior and disposition of an adult, it's the disposition of someone who's a lot more concerned about showing fake concern and hiding the truth about science.

For example if you were a real adult you'd be relieved warm periods are named optima.

What you're doing is willfully spreading fraud: because you know you can't find a SINGLE period in the past few million years when warmth and low ice, did anything but good for the planet overall.

It's fun inside your head,

to the people watching you from the outside: it's just pure fraud.

 

[Yamaha FG-840]

https://i.imgur.com/QlUAhEQ.png