Emphasis on oscillation: between various balancing acts like clouds, produced by atmospheric warming effects, reducing said effects via increased albedo, too hot or too cold, exists time. Human and terran life live in time. 3 months of wild oscillation can kill or miserabilize a whole buncha sentient life. 3 years that much more. 3 decades, whoo-ee!
Sadly, climate fears distracted us neatly from the real prob: a major population bloom amid Peak Oil expanded systems fragility via complexity. It takes a while to build a population of 8 billion. Not so long to kill off a major chunk of it. And, since the likeliest scenario is Too Cold not Too Hot, it's a shame we gotta burn off all the good stuff now just to feed our denialist delusions.
Sep 5, 2022·edited Sep 5, 2022Liked by The Underdog
I would think that the carbon-rich aeons of long ago were cool in great part because there was so much cloud cover. The idea that any concentration of CO2 makes a greenhouse effect is not a proven truth to my knowledge. Sometimes less is more; sometimes more is less; sometimes more is more, etc...
***
"I have always been baffled by the experiments showing CO2 blocks infrared as proof it allows infrared to get trapped in Earth, because it would also imply it blocks it from entering Earth in the first place."
But the gas itself has thermal mass and then re-radiates the heat via its own infrared blackbody emissions, physical conduction, and the wild variables of convection. Some concentrations would be like putting a black curtain on a car windshield on a sunny day; others would be like a silver curtain.
Until the heat drives enough moisture into the air to make for chronic extra cloud cover that reflects more heat than it absorbs, more CO2 is logically poised to make more heat down below where we live.
Weather EXTREMES are the deal. I'm sure there were ample droughts and wicked heat waves during the Little Ice Age too.
But it's them bigass volcano eruptions that tend to get the weather Jell-O really wiggling...
Couldn't open the video so just take this opportunity to remind the world that Big Pharma have NO legitimate reason to avoid LIABILITY for damages and DEATHS caused by their injected poisons (under the guise of Covid-19 protection). 'IMMUNITY' from LIABILITY' was supposedly a TEMPORARY condition to rush out a vaccine in 1997 for SWINE Flu. After 50 'post vax' deaths the 'experiment' was abandoned for being "TOO DANGEROUS. Covid 19 injections have cause THOUSANDS of DEATHS but still they keep peddling the DE-POPULATION experiment! Mick from Hooe (UK). Unjabbed and ready for Schwab, Gates, Fauci & friends)
The feedback is appreciated, and I must admit it is hard communicating novel ideas with almost no frame of reference. I'd like to remark however, a see-saw that alternates ups and downs - a wave function - is still a see-saw.
Imagine a pencil on each end of a child's see-saw pointing on a piece of paper and jumping up and down on the see-saw. You will see at least one wave function (in theory two; one from each end), and depending on the shape/length etc of the see-saw, the wave function may constructively interfere and get bigger, or it may destructively interfere and get smaller.
That said QBO isn't exact (quasi), and isn't the sole variable in-play.
In terms of GHG, I appreciate your feedback, and that adds clarity, but in terms of most common media, it is painted (incorrectly) as a one-way 'glass pane' that allows IR in, but not back out. In truth it doesn't allow IR in, as astronomers have found out:
"Most of the infrared radiation from the night sky is absorbed by molecules of water and carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere, though there are a few atmospheric ‘windows’, which allow observations by telescopes on the ground.
It is only from space that we can see the full splendour of the infrared sky."
In terms of visible light to IR conversion heating the planet, I refer back to the 25-50% CO2 Earth being cooler as a counter-example. Even if the other 75% was Nitrogen as justification, ours has 78% Nitrogen... and 0.04% CO2. If GHG drives heating, CO2 Earth should have been an inhospitable oven, and our time currently a ball of ice. If CO2 was to drop any lower, the life that depends upon it for respiration is likely to die.
Even if we ignore that, in terms of real world predictions, the Met office in 2009 used their Global Warming model to predict a 'BBQ winter' (switched to 'BBQ summer' to try to save face). I used QBO to predict a large snowstorm.
Their prediction was so inaccurate they lost their contract with the BBC, and ultimately they switched to using QBO to predict long-term weather trends. QBO is primarily solar driven. They've regained their contract with the BBC since, but their reputation has not recovered from that gaffe. Entire businesses rely on their forecasts being reasonably accurate, and this was 'Michael Fish' levels of bad.
In terms of your "I do not pretend to be an expert": you don't need to be. Follow the evidence. I'm happy to accept rebuttals and evidence. Just be aware I consider the exchange mutual. Any criticisms on evidence is not a criticism on your person.
That said, I won't say to have a complete working picture of weather, or, critically, climate. The number of variables involved is overwhelming. That said, I do not trust the computer models I've seen and I fear they're grossly oversimplified, over-focusing on certain variables and neglecting others, with no real world adversarial testing to see if they predict accurately (the Met office gaffe could have been avoided entirely with proper testing prior to use).
"A see-saw is a BISTABLE system and not self stabilising"
Law of entrophic decay. Averages to the middle. See-saw doesn't keep gaining energy, it can only lose it. Pendulum might be a better analogy, but it doesn't give the sense of counter-weight. As one goes up, the other goes down. Assuming my model still holds - this winter will be relatively mild. It is next winter (late 2023) where people might be a bit concerned.
You're more than welcome to reject my model or explanation, but that is how I comprehend it.
Your description is more accurate. I hope you do not consider it rude of me, I must politely exit our discussion for the time being due to time constraints.
Emphasis on oscillation: between various balancing acts like clouds, produced by atmospheric warming effects, reducing said effects via increased albedo, too hot or too cold, exists time. Human and terran life live in time. 3 months of wild oscillation can kill or miserabilize a whole buncha sentient life. 3 years that much more. 3 decades, whoo-ee!
Sadly, climate fears distracted us neatly from the real prob: a major population bloom amid Peak Oil expanded systems fragility via complexity. It takes a while to build a population of 8 billion. Not so long to kill off a major chunk of it. And, since the likeliest scenario is Too Cold not Too Hot, it's a shame we gotta burn off all the good stuff now just to feed our denialist delusions.
http://lh4.ggpht.com/-F1gkM_ukBpM/VBmZkB_uEDI/AAAAAAAAgq0/GE6izYQsm8w/1957%252520Union%252520Carbide%252520ad%252520about%252520nuclear%252520power-8x6.jpg?imgmax=800
And here we behold the all-seeing eye of the nuclear seraphim or something (image from Guardian anti-nuke hit piece):
https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/d3d1e8e0d29190d695c98e7af035a4d5cdb34be5/0_108_3646_2187/master/3646.jpg?width=1200&height=1200&quality=85&auto=format&fit=crop&s=e58b800642c09b2e78f534d24b47ce2f
I would think that the carbon-rich aeons of long ago were cool in great part because there was so much cloud cover. The idea that any concentration of CO2 makes a greenhouse effect is not a proven truth to my knowledge. Sometimes less is more; sometimes more is less; sometimes more is more, etc...
***
"I have always been baffled by the experiments showing CO2 blocks infrared as proof it allows infrared to get trapped in Earth, because it would also imply it blocks it from entering Earth in the first place."
But the gas itself has thermal mass and then re-radiates the heat via its own infrared blackbody emissions, physical conduction, and the wild variables of convection. Some concentrations would be like putting a black curtain on a car windshield on a sunny day; others would be like a silver curtain.
Until the heat drives enough moisture into the air to make for chronic extra cloud cover that reflects more heat than it absorbs, more CO2 is logically poised to make more heat down below where we live.
Weather EXTREMES are the deal. I'm sure there were ample droughts and wicked heat waves during the Little Ice Age too.
But it's them bigass volcano eruptions that tend to get the weather Jell-O really wiggling...
Couldn't open the video so just take this opportunity to remind the world that Big Pharma have NO legitimate reason to avoid LIABILITY for damages and DEATHS caused by their injected poisons (under the guise of Covid-19 protection). 'IMMUNITY' from LIABILITY' was supposedly a TEMPORARY condition to rush out a vaccine in 1997 for SWINE Flu. After 50 'post vax' deaths the 'experiment' was abandoned for being "TOO DANGEROUS. Covid 19 injections have cause THOUSANDS of DEATHS but still they keep peddling the DE-POPULATION experiment! Mick from Hooe (UK). Unjabbed and ready for Schwab, Gates, Fauci & friends)
The feedback is appreciated, and I must admit it is hard communicating novel ideas with almost no frame of reference. I'd like to remark however, a see-saw that alternates ups and downs - a wave function - is still a see-saw.
Imagine a pencil on each end of a child's see-saw pointing on a piece of paper and jumping up and down on the see-saw. You will see at least one wave function (in theory two; one from each end), and depending on the shape/length etc of the see-saw, the wave function may constructively interfere and get bigger, or it may destructively interfere and get smaller.
That said QBO isn't exact (quasi), and isn't the sole variable in-play.
In terms of GHG, I appreciate your feedback, and that adds clarity, but in terms of most common media, it is painted (incorrectly) as a one-way 'glass pane' that allows IR in, but not back out. In truth it doesn't allow IR in, as astronomers have found out:
"Most of the infrared radiation from the night sky is absorbed by molecules of water and carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere, though there are a few atmospheric ‘windows’, which allow observations by telescopes on the ground.
It is only from space that we can see the full splendour of the infrared sky."
https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/space-science/infrared-astronomy/
In terms of visible light to IR conversion heating the planet, I refer back to the 25-50% CO2 Earth being cooler as a counter-example. Even if the other 75% was Nitrogen as justification, ours has 78% Nitrogen... and 0.04% CO2. If GHG drives heating, CO2 Earth should have been an inhospitable oven, and our time currently a ball of ice. If CO2 was to drop any lower, the life that depends upon it for respiration is likely to die.
Even if we ignore that, in terms of real world predictions, the Met office in 2009 used their Global Warming model to predict a 'BBQ winter' (switched to 'BBQ summer' to try to save face). I used QBO to predict a large snowstorm.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1243994/BBC-dump-Met-office-complaints-BBQ-summer-mild-winter-forecats.html
Their prediction was so inaccurate they lost their contract with the BBC, and ultimately they switched to using QBO to predict long-term weather trends. QBO is primarily solar driven. They've regained their contract with the BBC since, but their reputation has not recovered from that gaffe. Entire businesses rely on their forecasts being reasonably accurate, and this was 'Michael Fish' levels of bad.
In terms of your "I do not pretend to be an expert": you don't need to be. Follow the evidence. I'm happy to accept rebuttals and evidence. Just be aware I consider the exchange mutual. Any criticisms on evidence is not a criticism on your person.
That said, I won't say to have a complete working picture of weather, or, critically, climate. The number of variables involved is overwhelming. That said, I do not trust the computer models I've seen and I fear they're grossly oversimplified, over-focusing on certain variables and neglecting others, with no real world adversarial testing to see if they predict accurately (the Met office gaffe could have been avoided entirely with proper testing prior to use).
"A see-saw is a BISTABLE system and not self stabilising"
Law of entrophic decay. Averages to the middle. See-saw doesn't keep gaining energy, it can only lose it. Pendulum might be a better analogy, but it doesn't give the sense of counter-weight. As one goes up, the other goes down. Assuming my model still holds - this winter will be relatively mild. It is next winter (late 2023) where people might be a bit concerned.
You're more than welcome to reject my model or explanation, but that is how I comprehend it.
Your description is more accurate. I hope you do not consider it rude of me, I must politely exit our discussion for the time being due to time constraints.