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.

clouds mucking up consistent range of ECS

More on CMIP6 in ScienceDaily two days ago, kind of about clouds. But first their jibber-jabber about ECS

Through the decades, the range of ECS values has stayed remarkably consistent — somewhere around 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 to 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit) — even as models have become significantly more complex. For example, the models included in the previous phase of CMIP last decade, known as CMIP5, had ECS values ranging from 2.1 to 4.7 degrees C (3.6 to 8.5 degrees F).”

Ooh, they are so smart the range was consistent. Not the value. They are nothing if not vain. ‘remarkably’ my ass.

The CMIP6 models, however, have a range from 1.8 to 5.6 degrees C (3.2 to 10 degrees F), widening the spread from CMIP5 on both the low and high ends. The NCAR-based Community Earth System Model, version 2 (CESM2) is one of the higher-sensitivity models, with an ECS value of 5.2 degrees C.

Wait, you mean the one that uses ‘community’ in their name has one of the highest values? A ludicrously high value. And this one is singled out for mention? I am shocked, shocked I tell you 🙂

What does this small army turn to? Well it turns out they have been separately trying to model clouds. One group be like ‘model the noctilucents like this’, and another ‘do the cumulonimbi like this’ … Of course it all has to be hindcast, right?

GHGs & what equilibriums are

There are a small minority who say GHGs are impossible. Not just that they don’t happen, or have limited effect, but actual violation of the laws of physics.

This has all been debated before. Many times. The side I agree with, often with more skill or eloquence than I will now manage.

With any theoretical GHG all that happens is the equilibrium changes.

Here is an analogy. An empty kitchen sink. We turn on the faucet a little bit and all the water immediately goes down the drain. Then we turn the faucet more, just enough so the level starts to rise even though it is still draining. This rise will stop, because the water pressure at the bottom has gone up due to the weight of water. A new equilibrium has been reached.

The sink has three theoretical phases a) when all the water immediately goes down the drain. b) when it rises until reaches a new equilibrium c) when the faucet is putting out so much water pressure cannot increase at the drain and the sink overflows.

Phase b especially will be affected by the viscosity of water. You put something in the water to increase its viscosity. The water level will start to rise, until it reaches a new equilibrium. There is no water invented… no physics violation.

That’s the GHG claim, no heat is created – it’s just retained longer. That something has been put in to decrease the emissivity.

Everything is about the equilibrium. Not about flux, or linear correlations between anything. You put a coat on, you get warmer (it’s phase 2 – only up to a new equilibrium), heat is not created. The alarmists are right about that (and very little else). In my humble opinion.

The above argument does not mean GHG necessarily do this – it means if they do that would not be a violation of thermodynamics.

possible future topics: the multiple reasons why I am a very much a lukewarmist; PCAGW vs CAGW vs AGW; and maybe some impressions of highly technical material, like optical saturation, and pressure broadening.

And because it’s interesting, a very short video on CO2 vibration modes.

Tolkien, science, and the name of this blog

Some scientists these days are Smeagols. Like in the book (or the movie). They had a birthday moment and they suddenly wanted not The Ring of Power but the equivalent in their world. Which was a big grant and fame.

Amazingly, this can come out as a coveting, not just a desiring. Usually in the idiotic, unwholesome environment of academia. Yet much of the time, even there, they aren’t a Gollum. Their covetous alter ego is not sitting on their shoulders – instead it is back in the recesses somewhere. You can tell which they are by how much they seem to love humanity.

A spur for him to reappear can be when the news comes, the grant is not forthcoming. the public has refused them money they feel was rightfully theirs. Suddenly they hate humanity. How dare ordinary taxpayers hold the purse-strings! And, nowadays, How dare the public burn fossil fuels!

Of course they rarely say this out loud. That’s the point of Greta Thunberg – she does it for them. [Can I say she physically resembles a Gollum?]

Sometimes Smeagol and Gollum work together and produce garbage science that says ‘we are all going to die!’ Then the Gollum goes back to the recesses and they are all sweet again.

tldr: This is the context for this blog’ name’. Gollum, Smeagol, and hobbits all knew what taters were. “Po-ta-toes”, as Sam explained. Also maybe the children’s game ‘hot potato’. Don’t hold it too long! Finally, potatoes are mostly of carbon. It is not just a tater – it’s a carbontater.

Okay, the real reason was I had trouble finding a name that was not already taken.

Create your website with
Get started