A second pair of white hands on the Italian peninsula

This sculpture was built in Venice in 2017, I don’t know if it is still there.

Giant Hands emerging from Grand Canal by Lorenzo Quinn “to raise awareness about climate change”

Some ways away, technically in Vatican City but pretty much also in Italy, is the famous Sistine Chapel which also has on it a artistic rendition a detail of which is two (white) hands. Commissioned by Pope Julius II in 1508, in it one hand was God’s and the other’s a man’s.

Michelangelo: Hands of God and Adam, Detail from The Creation of Adam, from The Sistine Chapel

To digress, my opinion is that those hands were also symbolism about the globe. The Columbus trip in 1492 had publicized the spherical Earth – I imagine Italian Catholic elites regretted it had been Spain and not anyone in nascent Italy who had commissioned the trip (the navigator was not Spanish). I imagine Pope Julius wanted to express it was specifically where the Vatican was that the super-special touching of fingers between the heavens and the round Earth was the most timelessly expressed.

Back to my point: the contrast could not be starker. The two hands in 1508 were optimistic, from above, and involved more than one being – each of which had faces. Compared to the 2017 hands which are negative, from below, and a single, faceless person. IMO these are the key differences – with the man’s being underwater expressing a profound existential loneliness of the artist & fans.

They would say, no, they are drowning in climate change — yet someone posted that the publicity material did not say it was specifically about any CAGW accelerated sea level rise (just about CAGW in general).

My framing is it is unconscious in them. In between the artist & sponsors. They are in denial they have drowned their own civilization by narcissism or, another way of putting it, by anti-human, materialist, nihilist BS. C.S. Lewis maybe around 1950 predicted this, calling it ‘the Abolition of Man’ (earlier William Butler Yeats also said much the same thing).

I assert this truth arrives in their conscious masked, in this case in inverted form. Much like in some REM dreams. Where the mask is something the dreamer also cares about, in this case the climate, but it still a mask, underlying is their sense of being drowned and being alone/dying alone.

Imagine a fool telling a psychiatrist, “Doc, I keep having the same dream about a train going into a tunnel, I think I should become a train conductor, that’s the meaning.” but here it “I keep having this dream about drowning alone, I think we all should start eating insects.”

I am not Lewis, of course, but imagine he was right, that Science cannot replace God. There would be a lot of people who nevertheless were sure it can and this statue is what would happen, exactly where it is, with vague reasons for the peculiar symbolism.


explaining the logarithmic part

Of GHGs.

I was shocked that few (if any) seem to get this. About what is only one of the most written-about topics (global temperatures).

Clive Best is an expert. And one of the saner ones. Yet in 2019 he wrote this:

The physical reason why increasing CO2 apparently produces a logarithmic forcing is that the central lines rapidly get saturated way up into the stratosphere, the strongest of which can then even cause cooling of the surface.”

‘apparently produces?’

I bet he started to type “Apparently the physical reason why …” then put the ‘apparently’ in the wrong spot. I say this because Best is certain CO2 produces logarithmic forcing. But not certain of why its logarithmic. If you read the quote above making this switch it makes sense. Even though it’s wrong (IMO).

My understanding has 2 parts. First: yes, of course, the IR photons zip around redirected in pseudo-random directions ‘all the way up to the stratosphere’. Why wouldn’t they?

Second: asfaik the cooler air does not then impact the whole thing for degrees of freedom of heat are not shared much in the sky between IR and kinetics.

Rather the logarithmic quality, observed since the 1920’s in graphs (whether via compression or increase in a GHGs) comes from the redirection itself. It is not linear because half the time the re-direction is up! Nor is it some relative value based on stratospheric temperatures.

It is measured to match E, the natural log. The logarithm arises as the relation between 3 dimension and the vectors. It’s mathematical. They could do lab tests with an old style pinball machine, changing the number of posts and using tiny balls and the results would also graph showing E.


one more on optical saturation

After that I will un-geek

in 2020 David Wojick explained it this way

In radiation physics the term “saturation” is nothing like the simple thing we call saturation in ordinary language, just as the greenhouse effect is nothing like how greenhouses work. Your paper towel is saturated when it won’t pick up any more spilled milk. In contrast greenhouse gases are saturated when there is no more milk left to pick up, as it were, but it is far more complex than this simple analogy suggests.

Which is the same as how I described it. … it only sounds different.

A August 2021 post by him.


MM and optical saturation

I may be venturing into Miles Mathis’ science opinions, and my last post was about optical saturation, so here is a post about the related concept of molecular vibration modes.

This is prime MM territory in that his model of the nucleus would likely have a different explanation.

First, the standard explanation of why molecules with more than 1 atom are observed to move between a finite set of shapes (with no in-between shapes). With emphasis on molecules with more than 2 atoms. Here it is:

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle argues that all atoms in a molecule are constantly in motion (otherwise we would know position and momentum accurately). … A diatomic molecule contains only a single motion, while polyatomic molecules exhibit more complex vibrations, known as normal modes.

Second, a bit of MM’s wild theory. He might say calling observed shapes ‘vibration modes’ is a dodge. Calling something a ‘normal mode’ but yet there are no abnormal ones? I imagine he would suggest the shapes represent the ways the nuclei of the middle atoms can channel his ‘charge field’ mini-photons between the connected atoms.

Here is his diagram (he uses disks for demonstrative purposes, indicating effective spheres which are spinning, the tips are the poles). The blue are alpha particles (two protons & 2 neutrons), the black are protons. = carbon’s six protons.

Imagine this whole thing connected to two oxygen atoms (with a their own structure). In his explanation they either are ‘channeling charge’ into the exposed tops of the two protons (their poles) – or maybe its out of the the four sides (their equators) of the two protons. ie: to intra-channeling is added inter-channelling.

In this theory ‘CO2 bending mode’ would be the normal intra & inter-channeling going on, with possibly flips in the inter-channeling.

He does not go into photon absorption. I will venture some super-wild extrapolation. OK, now imagine a approaching IR photon of those famous bands. He also says photons are not dualities but material objects both spinning & tumbling. With the frequency being either the spin speed or the tumble speed (I cannot recall). I guess under his theory something like the tumbling, the spin or both would have to be arrested, converted to ‘charge’, which flips the channel (bending the molecule momentarily) then the new IR photon is created when charge is upgraded with tumbling and/or with spin.

tldr vibration modes would then be a function of the structure of nuclei, the mainstream most of the time says they have no structure (so strong force math works out, or something).

Now, how many modes do these two theories predict?

QM vs MM

QM: has CO2 as a linear molecule and 3N-5 = 4 vibration modes. Here they are. Link has animations like belly dancers!

They say there are 4 and show 4 pictures but two of them are almost the same, making it seem like there on 3. Note:this is their first example (what with now being the world’s most famous triatomic molecule). And I distinctly remember Happer saying CO2 has 3 modes. Their formula (based on QM ‘uncertainty principle) says there are 4. What may be going on is they are inserting a molecularly meaningless ‘translational’ degree of freedom. Oh wow it turned around, how is that a 4th mode?

MM: If 4 possibly MM would have the same math: n for the number of atoms, and 3n-5. Then it may tend to favor QM. On the other hand if only 3 then this particular squabble is his.

time it takes for the jumps

Whether QM or MM asfaik the vibration would lose little or no energy but not take zero time, nor be moving at light speed(?). This would allow, inter alia the re-emitted photon to be same frequency.

optical saturation

Whether QM or MM is right I think this would happen. Because, as I said, the vibration shape switches cannot be moving at light speed.

It is accepted that full-size, infrared photons will very rarely be re-directed by any but one of the modes (which I guess is ‘OCO bending’). [see picture]. When in the other mode the infrared photon flies on by.

This explains (or perhaps I mean predicts) why how close the molecules are to each other increases redirection, but only up to a point — when the volume is ‘saturated’. I could be wrong on is point, at least. … The preference for redirection in just the one mode itself needs an explanation. My gut at this time finds MM more intriguing than QM on infrared absorption/re-emission.


The greenhouse effect : what optical saturation is


First, technically what matters is not PPM but parts per cubic area. PPM is a proxy. Except with discussion of saturation this does not matter. The density of the air in the future — whether you are taking about the surface or above — will effectively be what it is now. That is, average barometric pressure is pretty constant. It is easier to use PPM instead of referencing how close C02 molecules are to each other.

Experiments back in the 1920s showed this. Scientists measured the (heat) emissivity of enclosed tubes of air, then increased PPM then measured a second time – the emissivity went down. Then, they did a third test, they went back to the lower PPM but increased air pressure instead. The result was the same decrease in emissivity. The same Greenhouse Effect. QED it’s how close these molecules are to each other that matters.

Which makes perfect sense since the absorbed photon is re-emitted in a pseudo-random direction. And the closer the next C02 molecule is, the sooner there will another re-direction.

How fast, you ask? … I read somewhere an estimate that one of these infrared photons traveled about 10 meters before being absorbed again (not 10 meters between molecules but between actually getting reabsorbed, which requires specific conditions. Taking roughly 1 hundred-millionth of a second.

This was one some physics board, and was clearly nonsense. The tubes in labs are shorter than that. Let’s do a thought experiment of 10 cm — which would take 1 millionth of a millionth of a second. Elsewhere I have read this is the speed of the absorption-reemission. So that would be the distance of interest. For instance, if true now, in 2021, a lot of time the photons are arriving at the appropriate angle, even as the last one is leaving!

Before absorption the C02 molecule are triangular, after redirection they are momentarily linear – then they snap back (so to speak) . This temporary change of shape is the ‘vibration’. C02 has three shapes aka 3 ‘vibration modes’.

Why doesn’t top alarmist site SkepticalScience at least say this is wrong? .. probably because it isn’t. It is in textbooks. Maybe they don’t agree that the GHG absorption barely works with a flat triatomic molecule?

From where I sit it seems clear they pretty much need to be triangular in order to act as a GHG and thus to me it seems it is essential for climate models to know how long does it take for the molecule to snap back in shape?

My impression this varies based on the precise frequency of the photon and this is fractionally longer for the top end of the IR band so we want the correct average time. There is math and it called is called the Schwarzchild equation.

The point is, there will be a density such that when the photons arrives the C02 molecule wont be ready to receive it! This will happen everywhere effectively all at once because IR moves at the speed of light and this point is called ‘optical saturation’. As meaningless ghosts IR photons will fly by any CO2 molecule which has not yet snapped back.

After this point that moving the C02 molecules closer together (via increasing the famous PPM) cannot increase redirection. Because all the molecules will constantly be in the wrong vibrational mode. note: this saturation ceiling will arrive asymptotically.

According to Happer’s math this is what we get. Not the green but the difference between black and the red. [and notice that all the molecules involved are triatomic!]

If this is true it means there is absolutely no climate emergency.

Happer, by the way, is possibly the top atmospheric laser expert in the world… And one needs to understand everything about optical re-direction in order to design a laser. Which he did. His invention was declassified some years ago and is now used for new kind of earthbound astronomy.



“The Big Chill”, years later

One commenter on the PA blog post “The films of their respective generations” said “It would be interesting to hear a boomer, one is who fully red pilled, respond to those criticisms”. So I did. Then someone else said they liked it. Below is a copy with minimal edits.

— — —

I am a boomer and I consider myself fully red-pilled. Back in the day I very much enjoyed ‘The Big Chill’ at least twice. In the second viewing I remember waiting for the lines I especially liked, getting a flush of excitement.

A few years ago I tried again and could not stand the movie. I was amazed how self-indulgent I must have been to like it. Not that it is bad. The skill of character development is quite high. The various characters have different personalities and have different speech patterns, which even match their jobs. One very much gets to know them.

The reason the movie is so archetypal is this is also what the characters themselves luxuriate in. They love each other’s uniqueness like the viewers do.

The examples: the extrovert is a reporter for People magazine; the jogger starts a sneaker company; the OCD spouse is an accountant. The most motherly woman has a young child. It’s all felicitous. Even the dead guy, even in the opening credits: he gets his clothes perfectly laid out for what he is to wear in the coffin. Later he gets the funeral songs he would have wanted.

Watching the movie years ago felt like a magic triumph, my inner being hummed happily – feeling a contrast to much of the rest of history (where one was what one’s parents were and one married who one was told to). Mine was a flowering, that is how it seemed.

Ok. now about the red pill. I think this was all for one segment of one generation only. Oh, great some high-functioning, high-verbal types existed as atheists for 25 years, whoop-de-do! /s. Yeats was not wrong, the Sphinx has given birth in the desert to something awful .. Not even these very same people have kept it up. And not just the 1 child between eight of them (not just the sheer biology of it). More than that, even their self-satisfaction is gone. Nowadays they are global-warming religious fanatics and would be carping about carbon-neutral funerals. They no longer sing ‘Jeremiah was a bullfrog’ because what about the frog’s habitat? Their culture is the least sustainable ever and they worship sustainability of something they are not.

Compare this movie to the laws that just passed in Argentina or NZ. That they are for. The characters in the Big Chill barely ever needed to abort. One even wanted a baby. They certainly never needed to wait till the last week in the ninth month! They never figured out they held back what the Catholics used to call ‘libido dominandi’ precisely because their lives were so felicitous (as in the movie). A house of cards is all it ever was, it looks like.

What really caused the character Alex to kill himself just before the movie starts? They all seem to agree, but high verbal as they are they don’t know the words. All they can think he was ‘too idealistic’. [that how I remember it, anyway]. They cannot understand the rising Ahrimatic evil was what he would not adopt. Nor what that had to do with their pleasant wimpiness. If their way of life was the best why didn’t they fight for it? Why have they never even fought against political correctness?

The filmmakers unerringly portrayed a shadow rising over their own ideals without making any connection. A shadow that ain’t going away. That character in the Big Chill might slit his wrists even sooner now, or join Antifa.


The UK Guardian reaches out to the astrology crowd

Actually I kind of fibbed. This isn’t reaching out to the horoscope readers.. This is gaslighting at the highest [lowest] level. They make up their own Tarot cards and show them to their urban gamma readers – who the UK Guardian knows are not into astrology but instead, vain & scidolatrist.

It makes the readers feel themselves in a position of leadership. Look -even the horoscopes are following us now! reads the green-haired person with the tongue stud and wearing a mask on the London Underground.

The gaslighting is in the freedom card. See, they imply, they want freedom, but only if there is world peace.

[via WJT via WW]


The most likely heresy: what stars are (a rant)

My most radical opinion is that Pierre Marie Robitaille is correct on what stars are (and – re: the prior posts, how sunspots appear). The following isn’t his most direct video on this topic but his hypothesized intercalate zones are at the heart of what he suggests:

I give him a better than even odds for being right for quite a few reasons. One of the lesser ones being that right now mainstream scientists are disagreeing massively on the solar cycle that has just begun. This, even by itself, indicates how shaky their model is.

Stellar scientists will apparently do or think anything to a) not involve the planets b) have some ball of plasma all by itself act like that. It seems like upwards of 95% pretend plasma can do or act any way they want it to. ‘Oh it’s magnetized!’ they say.

Just in the last week there was some pimped story about how they ‘may’ have solved the ‘coronal temperature mystery’. I seriously doubt it. The basics of understanding thermodynamics is that energy is not necessarily bound. Vibrational degrees of freedom and kinetic [translational] degrees of freedom can be only loosely bound and taking ‘the temperature’ of something in that condition is going to be problematic at best. Even if it is at equilibrium. [Guys, it’s a non-problem generated by your wrong model]

Apparently that doesn’t matter because they say it is all plasma (they say gaseous plasma but internet gets on your case for being accurate) but then that does not work for other reasons.

Apparently the sun does not collapse by its own gravity because of million-year-old light emanating from the center and — as unlikely and unexplained as that is — it has seismology and differential rotation.

Also the sun creates a light spectrum just like from vibrational lattices. How do entirely loose ions generate sunlight? Each frequency is related to a electron ‘ring’ of an atom which is not yet ionized. Doesn’t that mean such atoms must exist on [in] the sun? … Meanwhile on Earth loosely-bound tungsten vibrational energy makes the most complete light bulb, and graphite is used for blackbody emitters. Lattices, both.

They should include the word ‘magic’ in the titles of all of today’s mainstream journals about the sun and stars and be done with it.

You can even, using solar telescopes, now look at sunspots from an angle (of the arc of the spherical sun they curve over). When this is done the light is different, exactly as would be from a lattice. Whereas with the claimed quasi-surface of plasma the angle of observation would make no difference: sunspots would look the same from all angles. The consensus cannot even admit that.

Their stellar model may be as crazy as the comets-as-snowballs claim astronomy has been clinging to for centuries.


If Nile records actually link with 88-year solar cycles

For EU fans, back in the 1920s a few scientists suggested the orbital period of Alpha Centauri actually affected the sun. you know, ‘Birkeland currents’, or whatever. Every 80 years or so the binary star’s collective width goes from Saturn distance to Pluto distance, and back.

Basically, scientists have scanned far & wide for an explanation for the ‘Gleisberg’ cycle itself, not just for explanations of any climatic effects.

— — —

Not that it’s the stuff of this forum just on the sun only and merely as cycles analysis is this.

I think music software generated the bottom, using a Fourier analysis, as a simplest solution (omitting the 11 years part, named 5 and 6).

The idea is “what simple functions, when added together, would produce the observed data?”[of TSI, actually not sunspots which of course are linked]

The hope was Alpha Centauri would be the source ~80yr sine wave, the green. And the other 3 would be big planets.


How XR shows nihilism leads to power issues

XR are a subset of the group “… who have the widespread conviction of the futility of [their] actual, experienced life; and a hatred of that nation and civilization which imposes such a life upon [them]; and the inner blankness, fear and despair resulting from such convictions.”

From Bruce Charlton. He then explains why, like polar bears or pandas in a zoo, they lose the desire to reproduce. What he does not say (in that particular post anyway) something important: that power relations take the place of the desire to have a biological family.

I would say it does, and that would be why for the new Left who rules is everything. Their nihilism reverts them to being un-civilized, and worse.


In absolute contrast, normal people largely think it should barely matter who governs in what should be a peaceful world, and progress should comprise of an increase in competence and prosperity.


Charlton goes on to say “Ultimately, the captivity of Modern Man is self-chosen, self-imposed; which is why they cannot see the obvious.” I would further, and get quite crass: XR and the new style bureaucrats are political allies (their motivations largely overlap), and therefore — both being new Left — have the urge to form a new couple. But what kind? What about those other expressions of power? Since their boundaries – self vs non-self – are damaged.

  • XR seem to unconsciously want pure tyranny. Over themselves. Some seem to want to be grabbed by the police. Some of them chain themselves to things. No question their mime is weird.
  • Meanwhile the latter are trying for two things. Control of everything in a sweet, bureaucratic type of way. And actually are trying to save the planet, albeit delusionally. Carrying off XR to make XR happy isn’t necessary to those ends.

In other words together they are like some asexual S&M couple with the bondee more enthusiastic. XR does resemble Fellini’s Satyricon images.


This may be why regular people on the sidelines just shake their heads at the oddness. Asking both ‘Why is XR doing that?’ and ‘Why aren’t they being arrested?’

So, yes, what they do is partly bullying, an infantile tantrum to get what they want, partly a way to kill time, but that is not the entire story.