Debt Rattle August 28 2022
- This topic has 71 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
> It looks to me like depletion is real and is being “managed” by insrting artificial crises and shortages just before it becomes common-knowledge, so as to maintain initiative in the control-narrative war-room. <
That seems like a good fit with what can be clearly observed, in a time when creating an adequate model
of what’s happening is not easy.Long time between paydays now, isn’t it Chettt,
You must have made a bundle off of the tobacco companies in their heydays before their final fail.
Or with the pharmaceutic company making thalidomide for morning sickness, great salesmanship that.
Magnificent work there with the Roundup™ not causing cancer but that was a bust as well.
Now its the carbon dioxide ride until it too goes up in smoke.
But by mow you are far from broke.
Your credibility sucks.The movie ‘Melancholia’ from several years ago seems like a good one to
watch again soon. The latter half or
so of it felt pretty stereotypical- another metaphorical long car-chase scene, IMO- but
the first half with the wedding reception
and its stuck social relations, and Kirsten Dunst’s character trying to navigate all that while also dealing
with depression, somehow seems important.Chett.
As repeatedly stated, it has nothing to do with models. Yet the climate change denial camp persist with their failed strategy of attacking models. This absurdity continues because climate change deniers have no consistent narratives or even any consistent -or even coherent- explanations of their own!
The physics could not be much simpler.
Take a tube with no CO2 in it. Pass infra-red through it. Measure the amount passing through the tube.
Introduce some CO2 into the tube. Measure again. Less infra-red reaches the end of the tube because CO2 absorbs and re-radiates infra-red radiation. This is due to the bond energies of the atoms composing the molecules.
Add more CO2. More infra-red is absorbed and re-radiated, resulting in less infra-red reaching the measuring device at the end of the tube.
Exactly the same phenomenon applies in the atmosphere. Outgoing infra-red radiation is absorbed by CO2 (and other gases active in the infra-red band because of their molecular structure) and re-emits that energy downwards, resulting in greater temperature, as clearly demonstrated by the massive overheating of the oceans.
Look at the actual measured concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. 1958: 316 ppm. 2020 420 ppm. Up around 100 ppm in just 62 years! And do not forget that CO2 is extremely soluble in water and most of the COI2 emitted by industrial humans is in the oceans, where it is depressing pH, resulting in loss of ability of shellfish to form shells, due to disruption of the bicarbonate cycle.
I know this is all just too hard for non-scientists, who prefer to talk about models, despite models being unreliable and discredited. Indeed, models presented by the UNIPCC have been repeatedly demonstrated to be completely fake and irrelevant!
As has been discussed many times here and elsewhere, people believe what they want to believe, and disregard the facts.
I don’t have it to hand, but there is the famous cartoon of the man whose house is underwater (due to massive sea level rise) declaring that global warming is a myth.
I know it is a rather futile exercise to keep pointing out fundamental realities of the physical-chemical world to people who have no knowledge of those physical-chemical realities, and don’t want to know. But there is a moral imperative to do so.
Dr D said
However, none of the models worked and 40 years later it is still wrong and not happened. Where is the falsifiable part of your Scientific Theory?’
Afewknowthetruth said
This has absolutely nothing to do with models
No, it’s not my scientific theory. It is well established scientific fact. As per Tyndall’s research, remove the carbon dioxide from the tube and the infra-red energy passes through, unabsorbed and not re-radiated.
Your model is a tube of gas and on that basis you are making assumptions about a far more complex system called the earth’s climate? How do you go from a tube to the climate? I am interested to see how you superimpose the two in your science.
AFKNTT
I don’t want to discuss model at all. As you pointedly say “There’re useless”.
But unfortunately their output of dramatically rising sea levels and temperatures serve as the basis and justification for all kinds of stupid solutions being enacted by governments all over the world.You say “climate change deniers have no consistent narratives or even any consistent -or even coherent- explanations of their own!”. But this isn’t true. Most skeptics of the CO2 hypothesis are consistent in their belief that climate change is mostly a natural phenonium in which humanity plays a minor role. Don’t get me wrong. Humanity is responsible for an incredible amount of environmental damage but environmental damage and climate change are two different subjects that are far from completely overlapping. The resources required to enact the current solutions to fight climate change might just create the most destructive environmental damage in human history.
We are fortunate to have among us one of the “afewknowthetruth”.
I consider the “climate change” debate a non-starter, much like the debate about whether there was “natural immunity” to covid after you’d been infected. What a useless argument and waste of time.
The climate change argument (oh you awful awful climate change DENIERS!!) is done in a similar fashion (oh you awful awful ANTI-VAXXERS!!). There always appears to be no middle ground, which is patently false.
We have sorely depleted and completed trashed our food sources. Period. By the time we have to worry about whether NYC is under water, we’ll have starved to death. Note that starving does not necessarily mean we’ll be emaciated. There are other forms of malnutrition and we’re doing a bang up job with that right now.
Also – I probably wouldn’t use a story about China’s river drying up considering their use of fossil fuels eclipses most others at this point. And isn’t there something about dams over there?? Just saying.
John Day said
It looks to me like depletion is real and is being “managed” by insrting artificial crises and shortages just before it becomes common-knowledge, so as to maintain initiative in the control-narrative war-room.
Hilarious, so the billionaires are saving us! I knew they were good for something, all hail the billionaires. Of course, your “depletion is real” means nothing, every time someone uses some fossil fuel there is depletion, but are we running out? Overall, the answer is a resounding No. Why did TPTB decide to cut off our supply to fossil fues rather than let their free market just raise the prices and spur development in alternatives? Why did TPTB suddenly refuse to buy energy from the sources that they have been buying from for the past decade+? Why are they also shutting down nuclear? All to maintain the initiative?
I am fascinated to see how this artificially created crisis has encouraged people here to believe that there is a real crisis. It is fascinating to see how people yearn for someone to be their carer, that they yearn to believe that the billionaires are doing this to save humanity. History teaches people nothing, they talk about it, study it then emotions take over and they believe the complete opposite. Even WEF publishing their plans, infiltrating our political classes, killing us with fake vaccines etc makes no difference, we yearn to be cared for, we yearn to believe our government is good.
There is no saving western civilisation. The BRICS+ will flourish, the West will either cave into reality – buying gas from Russia, re-opening nuclear fueled power stations etc – and try to hang onto the BRICS+ coattails or they will decay into nothing.
Per Climate Change, as the diminishing of earth’s magnetic field accelerates and increases our vulnerability, the next well placed solar flare will push us back to the iron age. But wait, there’s more. The impeding magnetic reversal will leave a climate that has zero resemblance to any written history, and very few humans to surviving will be wondering… what happened? [no worries, increased taxes will fix this]
Kimo brings up a another valid point worth considering. I’ll go back to the master of targeted comedic humor, George Carlin. (paraphrasing) Humans have so much hubris they think they can change the planet.
Time we give it up. We humans ain’t no thing, baby. Doesn’t matter whether we use oil, gas, wind, water, sun … we’re just here, a small blip in the cycle of a planet. Good god are we arrogant.
Thumbs up to you upstateNY
However I might suggest that maybe the universe intended us to be this arrogant
Thank you, chett. Back at ya. 🙂
I agree. Humans are here, in this physical form, in this mental state, and in this spiritual space (or whatever someone wants to call it – I’m not trying to start another religion debate) … for a reason. Let the cards fall as they may.
‘Your model is a tube of gas and on that basis you are making assumptions about a far more complex system called the earth’s climate? How do you go from a tube to the climate? I am interested to see how you superimpose the two in your science.’
I know you are obsessed with the idea of models, even though none of this is about models! But is about about easily verifiable and easily measured chemical-physical phenomena -if you have the right equipment.
If it helps you get beyond the obsession with models, think of the atmosphere as a huge collection of vertical tubes (square in cross section, so there are no gaps) filled with a mixture of gases. Neither nitrogen molecules nor oxygen molecules are active in the IR, but other gases are very active in the IR.
Light and heat from the Sun enter the top of the tube and move down it [through the atmosphere] to the Earth’s surface. At the surface some of the heat and light are reflected but a lot is absorbed, raising the temperature.
Warm objects radiate heat (infra-red). So some of the incident energy moves back up the tube. When such outgoing IR energy encounters a CO2 molecule (or any of dozens of other IR-active molecules) it ‘excites’ the bonds of the molecule and puts them into a temporary high-energy state. The ‘excited’ molecules release the energy in all directions, including downward.
There is nothing mysterious about this, which is why, in 1896, Arrhenius was able to calculate the likely temperature rise over a time period from the continued burning of coal.
If you want to go back further, the brilliant mathematician Fourier calculated (from measurements of incident radiation from the Sun and known laws of cooling) what temperature the Earth would be at if something were not interfering with the loss of heat to space. He concluded it would be about 20oC below the actual temperature, and concluded that something in the air was blocking the radiation of the Earth’s from escaping into space .
That was about 40 years before Tyndall discovered what the cause was. CO2.
Clear, fundamental science, established long ago.
But we have now is a society in which the bulk of the populace has been carefully trained by corporations in to believing that genuine science doesn’t apply to the atmosphere, in order to maintain the sale and use of fossil fuels. And since government are agents for corporations, they were more than happy to go along with the corporate bullshit line.
But then they saw that their fake narratives were unravelling, so quickly did a flip and said global warming is real but we can fix it by ‘carbon sequestration’, ‘carbon trading’, ‘biofuels’, wind turbines, electric cars, electric planes etc. It’s all bollocks, what governments say.
The problem is, it’s such a complicated web that the controllers have woven that it takes considerable knowledge and intelligence to see through it. And most people have neither the knowledge nor the intelligence so see the whole picture, as you and others on TAE have repeatedly demonstrated.
Never forget, there are fortunes to be made (or maintained} via the promulgation of misinformation. And so that is exactly what governments -being agents of banks and corporations- do: promote misinformation.
By the way, I have written five published books on this all stuff and not been proven wrong once on any of it.
But that does not stop Internet trolls coming up with spurious arguments and repeating them ad infinitum.
The supreme irony of all of this is that people such as yourself are really keen on genuine science if it provides you with things you want -X-ray machines, scanners, telecommunications, microwave ovens, dental fillings, key-hole surgery, LED lighting…..an almost endless list, but don’t want anything to do with genuine science if it tells you things you don’t want to hear.
Us human have little effect
Our footprint is hard to detect
The planet will thrive
When we’re not alive
And mankind’s no longer erectThe universe wants you to be
An arrogant, proud SOB
And knowing this fact
Allows you to act
Yes truly the truth sets you freeA model can prove any theory
Without any physical query
If proof is your end
A model’s your friend
Empirical work makes one wearyTo anyone who is observant
They know billionaires are quite fervent
To care for each peasant
A task quite unpleasant
The greatest among us our servant“If you want to go back further, the brilliant mathematician Fourier calculated (from measurements of incident radiation from the Sun and known laws of cooling) what temperature the Earth would be at if something were not interfering with the loss of heat to space.”
Sounds suspiciously like modeling.
“The problem is, it’s such a complicated web that the controllers have woven that it takes considerable knowledge and intelligence to see through it. And most people have neither the knowledge nor the intelligence so see the whole picture”
Sounds like a model might help.
Did any of your books factor in a diminishing magnetic field, a wider distribution of incident cosmic particles, and the increase in cloud formation that they might cause? I mean, all that reflected light, might add to the complication of the model you don’t have, yes?
I’m betting that subtropics will know layering, before another two sun cycles pass.
And everyone will say, “See? Climate change!”Afewknowthetruth said
That was about 40 years before Tyndall discovered what the cause was. CO2.
Then why do ice-cores – which are the only way of backtesting your model, that I am aware of – show that your model is completely wrong, 100% wrong? Ice cores show us that past increases in CO2 are not the cause but are one of the effects of increases in global temperatues. In other words, historically, every single increase in CO2 came AFTER rises in temperature, not before. You claim that this dynamic has changed and all is different this time round but have no theory, no argument, nothing to convinvce us why this time is not the same as all the previous times. Why does your column of CO2 work differently this time, why not the same as all the previous times as shown by the ice cores?
It is worth bearing in mind that the Earth has undergone thousands of magnetic field reversals -roughly every 100,000 years- with no detectable effect on life.
These reversals are imprinted in volcanic rocks that emerge in mid-ocean regions where tectonic plates are moving apart. And have been very useful as geological markers.
That is not to say that a magnetic reversal will not have a very profound effect on industrial civilisation. A magnetic reversal would probably decimate industrial civilisation, if not completely terminate it.
However, there is no evidence a magnetic reversal will occur in the next ten years. And industrial civilisation will have terminated itself by 2032.
As for solar cycles, they are of miniscule effect -a change of 1 part in 1365 over an 11 year cycle. That is miniscule compared to previously discussed Milankovitch cycles. And a change of 1 part in 1365 is laughably miniscule compared to the 45% increase in atmospheric CO2 perpetrated by industrial humans in the last two centuries!
Denial of reality continues, whatever evidence is presented, as has been the case since the extreme danger of excess (and rapidly rising) atmospheric CO2 was identified over 50 years ago.
As previously discussed, industrial humans are changing the composition of the atmosphere at a rate far exceeding that which occurred during the Great Permian Extinction Event of 252 million years ago, cause by volcanic activity erupting under coal deposits. That took around 20,000 years. The Great Human Extinction Event has taken only around 300 (counting from Newcomen’s steam pump).
For the benefit of those with extremely short memories ( I covered this point just a few weeks ago ), prior to humans overwhelming the natural systems that recycle atmospheric CO2 by de-sequestering hundreds of billions of tonnes of sequestered carbon, the CO2 level did follow warming. But that was when the atmospheric CO2 level was in the normal range of 180 ppm to 260 ppm.
Once humans had pushed atmospheric CO2 above 320 ppm or so, industrial humans had destabilised and overwhelmed the natural mechanisms for recycling CO2, in particular the silicate-carbonate system, which converts silicate rocks into carbonate rocks. on geological times scales, not on human lifetime scales.
As I previously noted, no one has ever won and argument with me about this stuff because I know it to the nth degree, having studied it for decades, whereas those who argue have very little knowledge, if any.
I worked out more than a decade ago that those who argue the most are those who know the least.
It’s the same with jabs, or masks, or finances, or history or geography, or psychology. Those who know the least argue the most against who do know.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Anyway, it’s not going to matter soon, because the fascist police states that comprise the Empire of Chaos are on the cusp of the biggest collapse in history because they are fascist police states.
Interesting, I never said that solar cycles had any effect, much less profound. Just a convenient measure of time, so I am talking about >20 years, not ten. That’s two, er, mistakes, and I really haven’t said much.
Take note that the pole wondering commenced in earnest upon the Carrington event.
You may want to sharpen your pencil;https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/earths-magnetic-field-is-fading
Being from a mining family, I dig rocks! And them there rocks told me that the earth has warmed and cooled millions of times during Earth’s( history. So yeah, the climate is always changing. And if you disagree with me, then I am going to dump a big pile of rocks on you, until you come around!
Climate change is just another way TPTB are using, to control us serfs. There is no shortage of energy. TPTB are just creating energy shortages to better control us. If there was a real energy shortage the western TPTBs wouldn’t be expending tons of energy fighting endless wars to control the world.
In a real energy shortage there wouldn’t be enough energy to for TPTB to make bombs, etc. Western TPTBs are fighting eastern TPTBs to control the world. There is no shortage of energy for this battle.
And if you still disagree with me, then I will dump 30 cubic meters of rock, in under 30 seconds, on your head to straighten you out!
V.P. I eagerly await your picture words wisdom! Your trail of amusing word pictures haven’t gone unnoticed!
Afewknowthetruth said
As I previously noted, no one has ever won and argument with me about this stuff because I know it to the nth degree, having studied it for decades, whereas those who argue have very little knowledge, if any.
I worked out more than a decade ago that those who argue the most are those who know the least.
It’s the same with jabs, or masks, or finances, or history or geography, or psychology. Those who know the least argue the most against who do know.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
A self-proclaimed scientist, a chemist, so sure you are right, so sure you cannot be wrong … like Fauci and modern science. Your veneer of self confidence and lack of substantive argument but volumes of ideological bias persuades me even more that you are another modern pseudo-scientist, ready to ignore inconvenient reality in pursuit of your ideology: the billionaire’s tool. Your moniker signals your cult traits, the farmyard odour is overwhelming.
Well I’ll try one more time…A rather simplistic view of the scientific method is as follows: The arrogance and continued certainty in the face of failure
Chett- Open your mouth , stay on your knees, your masters have something they want to give you.
Fuck off you fucking retarded pos. Clear and vulgar enough for you?
I was going to say a lot, but let’s stick to science and start slow.
“20 years ago I genuinely believed it would take until the 2080s for the Earth to be rendered largely uninhabitable. But I must admit, 20 years ago I thought there would be some action to reduce the insanity of burning ever-increasing amounts of fossil fuels…
[Insert] But that was when the atmospheric CO2 level was in the normal range of 180 ppm to 260 ppm.
what we are witnessing now is just the early phase of planetary meltdown!
We can estimate what it will be like twenty years from now -a largely uninhabitable planet for most vertebrate species -which includes humans, of course.”What is this chart?
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/CO2-600-million-years.pngDunno. Looks like we’re at an all-time low for CO2. I think if PPM were 80 times higher, vertebrae, and the planet, would be fine, since they were for hundreds of millions of years that way. Plants grow best with CO2 like 5x presently, and are nearly suffocating at these levels. Since the earth and the mammals are fine, and the plants need more, not less, who are you worried for? Who are you saving? The earth’s fine. The people? The people seem fine, more than ever, that’s everyone’s complaint.
So if it’s not the earth and it’s not the people, is it the cars that need saving? The cities? Malls? Art galleries? Why are you hair-on-fire panicked? What are you saving? The food fields are way past Pittsburgh, far from the shore. The sea is rising so slow people don’t need to walk away, they could die of old age and let their children move.
We have a lot of ecological problems, but they have nothing to do with CO2. We have Oil problems, but nothing to do with running out, yet. Those problems are probably going to reduce the number of humans, but never to zero. There are thousands of mitigating actions we can take, personally and collectively. But what I see is fear, panic, and emotion, and not science, discussion, and practical action. It’s the indicator of a stampede. And you never want to be part of the stampede, the emotional mob; that’s not science.
And when there’s a stampede over clear skies, no reason, with sharp rocks, I want to stop, take a breath, and look for the little men with spears, hiding and laughing. THEY are the real problem. And your emotions.
If you’d like to talk science now, I’m ready, but we already presented 4-5 different avenues for you in the past few weeks, and you didn’t pick up any of them, nor the very simple observation that a glass tube is not the planetary weather system in which there * might * be more going on. I think we’re all still waiting for you to use and demonstrate science that you speak of, and it’s making us cranky.
CAN we stick to the science now?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.