Have you looked at the North Pole lately?

[Yamaha FG-840]

Regarding the chart, [it's the same one I just don't want it to confuse those not understanding about less light going in not making more come out]


https://info-solaire.fr/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Solar_energy_distribution.png

everything you see to the right in red, is the near-infrared spectrum out toward infrared and into far infra.

Obviously green is the human visible spectra, and to the left are the bluer spectra we can't see.

That was actually part of what I was gonna note on the first post about it.

 

[Yamaha FG-840]

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

From Wikipedia:

As described by social psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger, the cognitive bias of illusory superiority results from an internal illusion in people of low ability and from an external misperception in people of high ability; that is, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others."[1]

 

[mean mr.mustard]

If 100% came out there wouldn't even be a thread.

Where are you getting your science?

 

[Yamaha FG-840]

From the teachings of your leaders. They all tell you very clearly,

''The green house gases warm the planet not cool it. They make the planet 33 degrees warmer than if there were no atmosphere.''

If 100% came out there wouldn't even be a thread.

Where are you getting your science?

While on their own websites showing you,

them starting their calculation of the planet's temperature

starting with them cooling the planet's temperature 29ish %

the vast majority of that cooling created by the GHGs,

as shown you in all those Atmosphere top of Atm. vs sea level.

 

[mean mr.mustard]

That's what the atmosphere does.


The moon is without much of an atmosphere and seems to be a little colder without one.

 

[Yamaha FG-840]

Yes that is what the Atmosphere does. It cools the planet 29% as the very first step in calculation of planet surface temperature.

That's what the atmosphere does.


The moon is without much of an atmosphere and seems to be a little colder without one.

When they tell you taking away 29% makes more than 100% come out that's crass, open, transparent fraud.

Regarding the moon it doesn't have a giant thermonuclear generator inside it that's melted it's nickel iron core. Everyone in the thread's been over this when that guy tried to claim what you just claimed.

A planet with a cold light blocking nitrogen bath is warmer because of the nitrogen bath. No, it's warmer because of the giant thermonuclear generator inside it that's melted a huge glob of nickel till it's basically liquid molten metal.

 

[Yamaha FG-840]

Hopefully you were just putting us on about not knowing that.

https://goo.gl/oditgk

https://goo.gl/rKN9H6

https://goo.gl/gWGewK

https://goo.gl/ipc8YY

https://goo.gl/DncKpt



In any case it's no problem to let you know what's going on in that.

The interior of the Earth has a gigantic thermonuclear generator in it.

___________________________

Remember when that melted rock
oozed out of Hawaii?

 

[mean mr.mustard]

Again, if 100% leaves then we would have no thread.

I'm not truly sure that this is a thread anymore.

 

[igrowone]

Again, if 100% leaves then we would have no thread.

I'm not truly sure that this is a thread anymore.

despair not
the voice of ignorance may be loud and clamorous
but reality always has the last say
not to mention that ignoring is the next best thing to a mute button

 

[Yamaha FG-840]

Magical Gassiness websites worldwide announce this as a fundamental doctrine of their religion.

Go look it up. ''The ghg make the planet warmer than if there were no atmosphere to the point the planet today is 33 degrees warmer than if there were no atmosphere.''

Again, if 100% leaves then we would have no thread.

I'm not truly sure that this is a thread anymore.

The atmosphere they also all show you, stopping about 29ish% of sunlight from reaching and warming the planet at all.

As the very first step,
of resolving the planet's surface temperatures.

It's all over all their sites, those are fundamental doctrines of their church.

The same gases vastly predominate in making 29% less energy reach and warm the Earth,

warm the planet so far past the point of it being as if there is no atmosphere but leaving the planet surface and atmosphere directly in touch with it 33 degrees warmer than if there were no atmosphere.

You'll find it, check around on any and all of their websites. They're quite proud of it.

 

[Yamaha FG-840]

The recommendation to hide rather than discuss what you believed is well advised.

despair not
the voice of ignorance may be loud and clamorous
but reality always has the last say
not to mention that ignoring is the next best thing to a mute button

One doesn't even need to go to another website to find out if the magical gaissiness dun made a cold bath uh HeeDuR church teaches it.

Generally I just tell people ''Hey go over to one of your church's sites or side-bar strip-mall-of-the-internet mini-churches and see where they tell you boldly that - the same gases making 29% less go in,

make so much come back out,
by making it not go in,

that more than 100% of available sunlight energy's coming out.

The actual story is that

''Right now with the GHG levels at 25,000 ppm H2O, and about 410ish ppm CO2,''

the Green House Gases - the ones making about 23% of that energy never get here - make the planet 33 degrees hotter than if there were no atmosphere and the earth was reached and warmed by 100% of available spectra from the sun.''

They tell you those gases that cooled the planet that much, they admit it when they calculate the temperature correctly to that point

and take away the difference between top of atmosphere,

and @ mean sea level.

So when you come out ready to talk about how

every time they make less go into the planet - remember, their cooling is by far the largest part of that total 29% -

they make more come out - which is the story that more GHGs in the atmosphere will make the planet's surface ever more energetic thus raising it's temp -

It's not my story it's yours,

I really can't see why you're claiming that's not what all the websites say, every one of them.

Well actually, I obviously see exactly why none of you want to testify of the magicalness of the gassiness.

That makes more and more light come out of the planet

every time it makes less go into it.

I showed a graph about it before, the graduations aren't really on it but the before and after effect of the 29% cooling on you, the typical climatology student.

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

 

[Yamaha FG-840]

It's called the Dunning-Kruger Condensation-Saturation Cycle.

https://i.imgur.com/j6JugoE.png

just threw these together to show you how the cycle works.

 

[Yamaha FG-840]

Here's another way of looking at it.

https://i.imgur.com/RYGka4R.png

 

[1G12]

despair not
the voice of ignorance may be loud and clamorous
but reality always has the last say
not to mention that ignoring is the next best thing to a mute button

BINGO!

 

[trichrider]

Loitering in the Atmosphere: Wildfire Aerosols Linger Longer Than Expected

By Kelley Christensen | Published 10:03 a.m., October 2, 2018

Light-absorbing brown carbon aerosols, emitted by wildfires, remain longer in the atmosphere than expected, which could have implications for climate predictions.



Rising 2,225 meters into the air on an island in the Azores archipelago, Pico Mountain Observatory is an ideal place to study aerosols—particles or liquids suspended in gases—that have traveled great distances in the troposphere.



The troposphere is the portion of the atmosphere from the ground to about 10 kilometers in the air. Nearly all of the atmosphere’s water vapor and aerosol exist in the troposphere, and this is also where weather occurs. The Pico Observatory rises above the first layer of clouds in the troposphere, known as the atmospheric marine boundary layer. At that boundary the temperature drops rapidly, and relatively high humidity decreases as cooling air forces water to condense into cloud droplets.



Pico is often ringed in clouds, with its summit climbing above them. This feature allows scientists to study the aerosols above the boundary layer, including a set of three samples a research team at Michigan Technological University recently observed that challenges the way atmospheric scientists think about aerosol aging.


Pico Mountain rises 2,225 meters into the air on an island in the Azores archipelago. Image Credit: Lynn Mazzoleni



In “Molecular and physical characteristics of aerosol at a remote free troposphere site: Implications for atmospheric aging” published Tuesday, Oct. 2, 2018 in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (DOI: 10.5194/acp-18-14017-2018), Michigan Tech chemists demonstrate that some aerosol particles—those that originate from wildfire combustion—are existing for longer periods in the atmosphere undergoing less oxidization than previously thought.



“Previously, brown carbon was expected to become mostly depleted within approximately 24 hours, but our results suggested the presence of significant brown carbon roughly a week downwind of its initial wildfire source in northern Quebec,” says Simeon Schum, a chemistry doctoral candidate at Michigan Tech and the paper’s first author.

"If these aerosols have a longer lifetime than expected, then they may contribute more to light absorption and warming than expected, which could have implications for climate predictions."Simeon Schum​

This work builds on a previous paper published in the same journal, “Molecular characterization of free tropospheric aerosol collected at the Pico Mountain Observatory: a case study with a long-range transported biomass burning plume.”



Honey or marbles? Aerosol consistency explained

In order to determine where the molecules in aerosols originate, the team, led by the article’s corresponding author and associate professor of chemistry, Lynn Mazzoleni, used a Fourier Transform-Ion Cyclotron Resonance mass spectrometer, located at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, to analyze the chemical species of molecules from within the samples.



Aerosols, depending on their chemical and molecular composition, can have both direct and indirect effects on the climate. This is because some aerosols only scatter light, while others also absorb light, and others uptake water vapor, changing cloud properties.


Aerosols play a cooling role in the atmosphere, but there are great uncertainties about the extent of forcing and climate effects.

Understanding how specific aerosols oxidize—break down—in the atmosphere is one piece in the puzzle of understanding how Earth’s climate changes. Aerosols take on a variety of consistencies, called viscosities, depending on their composition and their surroundings. Some have a consistency similar to olive oil or honey, and these tend to oxidize more rapidly than more solidified aerosol particles, which can become like pitch, or even marble-like.



Model simulations that indicate the airmass histories for three pollution events: PMO-1 (June 28, 2013), PMO-2 (July 6, 2014) and PMO-3 (June 21, 2015). The model simulations show the column integrated residence times over a 20-day transport time and their vertical distributions at given upwind times. The labels indicate the approximate locations of the center of the plume for each of the transport days. Further description can be found in Schum et al. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 2018.


The three samples analyzed by the Michigan Tech team are named PMO-1, PMO-2 and PMO-3. PMO-1 and PMO-3 traveled to Pico in the free troposphere, while PMO-2 traveled to Pico in the boundary layer. Aerosols are less likely to occur in the free troposphere than in the boundary layer, but pyro-convection from wildfires can lift the particles higher up in the air. Though PMO-2 had been in the atmosphere for only two to three days, it had oxidized more than PMO-1 and PMO-3, which had been in the atmosphere roughly seven days and were estimated to be glassy in consistency.



“We were puzzled by the substantial difference between PMO-2 compared to PMO-1 and PMO-3. So, we asked ourselves why we would see aerosols at the station which were not very oxidized after they had been in the atmosphere for a week,” says Mazzoleni. “Typically, if you put something into the atmosphere, which is an oxidizing environment, for seven to 10 days, it should be very oxidized, but we weren’t seeing that.”



Cold and dry aerosols

Schum said the research team hypothesized that the first and third samples had oxidized more slowly because of the free tropospheric transport path of the aerosol after being injected to that level by wildfires in Quebec. Such a path toward Pico meant lower average temperature and humidity causing the particles to become more solid, and therefore less susceptible to oxidative destruction processes in the atmosphere.



That a particle would oxidize at a slower rate despite more time in the atmosphere because of its physical state provides new insight toward better understanding how particles affect the climate.



“Wildfires are such a huge source of aerosol in the atmosphere with a combination of cooling and warming properties, that understanding the delicate balance can have profound consequences on how accurately we can predict future changes,” says Claudio Mazzoleni, professor of physics, and one of the authors of the paper.



As wildfires increase in size and frequency in the world’s arid regions, more aerosol particles could be injected into the free troposphere where they are slower to oxidize, contributing another important consideration to the study of atmospheric science and climate change.


http://www.mtu.edu/news/stories/201...ire-aerosols-linger-longer-than-expected.html

 

[1G12]

From NASA's website on climate change:

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES
Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2


American Association for the Advancement of Science
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3

American Chemical Society
"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4

American Geophysical Union
"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5

American Medical Association
"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6

American Meteorological Society
"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7

American Physical Society
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8

The Geological Society of America
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9

 

[1G12]

More from NASA:

SCIENCE ACADEMIES

International academies: Joint statement
"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10


U.S. National Academy of Sciences
"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)11
U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

U.S. Global Change Research Program
"The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice." (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)12

INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODIES

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.”13

“Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.”14

OTHER RESOURCES

List of worldwide scientific organizations

The following page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.
https://www.opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-scientific-organizations.html

U.S. agencies
The following page contains information on what federal agencies are doing to adapt to climate change.
https://www.c2es.org/site/assets/up...daptation-what-federal-agencies-are-doing.pdf

 

[Yamaha FG-840]

The world's International Regulatry Climate Standards,

The International Standard Atmosphere
and
The American Standard Atmosphere,

the values against which all of our

heat,

pressure,

humidity, etc sensing instrumentation - including all our instruments for Aviation and Aerospace, are calibrated and ultimately warrantied,

the climatic values all our auto-pilots on all our craft operate against,



haven't changed since they were first calculated and published by the French in 1864.

These INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS weren't altered when they were adopted by the entire planet in 1952,

these INTERNATIONAL CALIBRATION STANDARDS weren't altered when they were published again,

by the Americans, who checked the International Standard Atmosphere's values by computer for many years, and who updated those global average climate data going up another couple of hundred thousand feet,

in 1976 as the American Standard Atmosphere.

From NASA's website on climate change:

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES
Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2


American Association for the Advancement of Science
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3

American Chemical Society
"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4

American Geophysical Union
"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5

American Medical Association
"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6

American Meteorological Society
"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7

American Physical Society
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8

The Geological Society of America
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9

No matter how many piles of ''agreement'' you present that less and less light into a rock has made more and more come out,

it's still a story about less and less energy in making more and more come out.

 

[Yamaha FG-840]

It's the same thing as claiming reams of information from governmental organizations worldwide agree pot's a gateway to opioids so we all have to get on opioids.


It's trash. From PhDs no less, telling you, the obviously gullible reader, that ''the atmosphere is a heater.''

That ''Venus has a 'runaway green house effect'' when it's known very well it has none, due to our landing 13 craft on the planet as part of the Venera series space missions.

There is no GHE on Venus, the calculations related to our instrument landings work perfectly there.

That's why there's not a single source on this planet that will tell you how much said magical gassiness has warmed Venus. It's fraud. From the very top levels of the very same organizations that told your grandpa that pot's like heroin,

and they've got the critical scientific peer review to put him in prison for denying the signts.

 

[Yamaha FG-840]

These are the same ones who were screeching that pot is a gateway to opioids so we all need to get on opioids as recently as 5 years ago.

From the list of sponsors of the Magical Gassiness Made uh Cold Bath a HeeDuR story:


"American Medical Association
"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)"


https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/11/20/ama-reaffirms-opposition-to-marijuana-legalization