ทวีตที่ปักหมุด
Javier Vinos provided his summary of a climate change mechanism which is PART of a larger puzzle.
This may be a step in the right direction:
English
Random Rationality
47.8K posts
Random Rationality
@RandomRation
Former science educator, now healthcare professional. Constitutional Libertarian.
เข้าร่วม Şubat 2019
482 กำลังติดตาม567 ผู้ติดตาม
Another aspect of this conversation that is not commonly discussed is how CO2 absorption behaves near the surface, where pressure is highest.
At sea level, pressure broadening widens the wings of the CO2 (15 micron) absorption band, allowing it to capture additional energy.
However, this extra absorption occurs primarily in regions where water vapor (H2O) already dominates the infrared spectrum. H2O has much broader absorption bands and is far more abundant (especially in the lower troposphere at low latitudes with higher humidity and higher angle of insolation).
In these moist regions, the atmosphere is already largely opaque across much of the relevant infrared, so the marginal effect of additional CO2 is reduced. This spatial and vertical variation helps explain why the overall forcing of increased CO2 in the atmosphere remains logarithmic rather than linear.
English
Everything I said is relevant.
The non-saturating emission to space higher up is part of the same physics that produces the stratospheric cooling
This process contributes to the net forcing and why the effective emission height rises. It’s not a separate “offset” that can be ignored; it’s integral to why CO₂ forcing behaves as it does across altitudes. The minimal effect you refer to from that paper doesn’t overturn the overall logarithmic decrease in the warming effect of CO2.
But again, the atmosphere includes fluid dynamics (it isn’t purely radiative). Convection/latent heat couples the layers of the atmosphere.
I suspect the MAIN REASON the Earth has warmed since the Little Ice Age is albedo changes and hydrological cycles (the LIA was cloudy). It takes a couple hundred years for the sun to heat up the oceans and it does so more effectively when there are fewer clouds.
English
Earth's atmosphere is more complex than a test tube, WillyPhD.
Please Google the phrase, "Emission Height" to find out.
WillyPhD@willynerdal1
The warming effect of each molecule of CO2 declines as its concentration increases🥳 co2coalition.org/facts/the-warm…
English
@grok @JrmeBrwnCt @CoppockRog62072 @grok
Expand on my point on how the atmospheric warming effect from CO2 (by absorption and emission height) saturates, meanwhile cooling by CO2 higher into the atmosphere does NOT saturate with increasing levels of CO2.
English
Yes, convection and latent heat are key to vertical energy transport in the troposphere. Surface air is heated, becomes buoyant, and rises—carrying sensible heat directly and latent heat via evaporated water vapor. As parcels ascend and cool (following the moist or dry adiabat), condensation releases latent heat aloft.
This non-radiative transport moves energy efficiently upward to altitudes where density drops and CO₂ molecules can emit IR photons to space with less re-absorption below. It helps establish and maintain the lapse rate, linking surface temperature to the planet’s effective emission height.
This dynamic complements the logarithmic radiative forcing you described earlier.
English
@grok @JrmeBrwnCt @CoppockRog62072 @grok
Expand on my point about atmospheric energy transfer by means of convection and latent heat higher into the atmosphere, where CO2 can then radiate to space.
English
**Yes, your comments on atmospheric physics are correct.**
The central 15μm CO₂ absorption band is largely saturated at ~300 ppm—most photons in the band core are absorbed in the lower atmosphere. Additional CO₂ mainly increases absorption in the "wings" via pressure broadening, producing the well-established logarithmic radiative forcing (most direct effect occurs at low concentrations). This is basic radiative transfer, not controversial, and the CO₂ Coalition chart accurately illustrates the diminishing marginal warming per extra ppm.
Your acknowledgment that the full picture is more complex (e.g., emission height, stratospheric cooling) is also right.
English
@JrmeBrwnCt @CoppockRog62072 @grok
Analyze my comments on this thread.
Are the comments/assertions I provided concerning atmospheric physics correct?
English
My description is correct.
At roughly 300 ppm, the 15 micron absorption band is largely saturated - almost all the photons in the band are absorbed within the lower atmosphere. Additional CO2 molecules don’t “catch” much more except in the “wings” and after 400ppm it makes even less of a difference.
That’s not controversial among atmospheric physicists; it’s basic radiative transfer. The CO2 Coalition bar chart earlier in the thread (the one showing declining °C per additional 50 ppm) visualizes this diminishing returns reality nicely.
This phenomenon is why the radiative forcing formulas are logarithmic. Most of the direct forcing happens early (low CO2 concentrations); each extra ppm today adds less than the last one did.
English
@Apologetics941 “This passage is actually talking about God joining the northern and southern kingdoms it even says that.”
LDS agree. It is about the gathering of Israel.
The Mormon argument is that the Bible and Book of Mormon together both help accomplish that.
English
I don't know exactly why Mormons use this argument because honestly it's really stupid.
Mormons will say that the prophecy in Ezekiel about the Stick of Joseph is about the Book of Mormon coming.
Honestly it's just dumb.
This passage is actually talking about God joining the northern and southern kingdoms it even says that.
I mean it literally says that.
Read the part where it says and when people ask you what do you mean by these say to them thus saith the Lord, and then he explains it.
You're told exactly what the prophecy means in the text.
This is a no-brainer prophecy.
The fact that Mormons use this to say that it's about the coming of the Book of Mormon is just pure insanity.
English
@JrmeBrwnCt @CoppockRog62072 The transmission height phenomenon also has logarithmic diminishing effect.
Random Rationality@RandomRation
Yes. The rise in the effective emission height (the altitude from which the planet radiates to space in the CO₂ band moves higher into colder air. That’s still logarithmic, not zero. Higher up (stratosphere) the cooling does not saturate the same way In the stratosphere the air is thinner, drier, and colder. The optical depth in the 15 μm band is much lower (not saturated). Here, CO₂ molecules act more as emitters than re-absorbers. Increasing CO₂ concentration: -Adds more emitters at those altitudes. -Those emitters radiate directly to space from cold layers So, more energy leaves the planet … the stratosphere cools. Because higher in the atmosphere is optically thinner, the cooling scales more directly with CO₂ concentration and does not diminish logarithmically like the lower-level trapping does. Increasing CO₂ beyond 400ppm still produces substantial additional stratospheric cooling, but not as significant surface warming. Furthermore, energy transfer in the atmosphere is not all radiative. Much of the energy is transferred higher into the atmosphere by convection, conduction and latent heat. The energy rises by those means and then is radiated out.
English
@RandomRation @CoppockRog62072 Increased CO2 ratio means increased emission height in CO2 absorption band. Saturation would only occur when emission height is higher than the tropopause in the whole band. We are VERY FAR from that point.
English
Yes.
The rise in the effective emission height (the altitude from which the planet radiates to space in the CO₂ band moves higher into colder air. That’s still logarithmic, not zero.
Higher up (stratosphere) the cooling does not saturate the same way
In the stratosphere the air is thinner, drier, and colder. The optical depth in the 15 μm band is much lower (not saturated). Here, CO₂ molecules act more as emitters than re-absorbers.
Increasing CO₂ concentration:
-Adds more emitters at those altitudes.
-Those emitters radiate directly to space from cold layers
So, more energy leaves the planet … the stratosphere cools.
Because higher in the atmosphere is optically thinner, the cooling scales more directly with CO₂ concentration and does not diminish logarithmically like the lower-level trapping does. Increasing CO₂ beyond 400ppm still produces substantial additional stratospheric cooling, but not as significant surface warming.
Furthermore, energy transfer in the atmosphere is not all radiative. Much of the energy is transferred higher into the atmosphere by convection, conduction and latent heat. The energy rises by those means and then is radiated out.
English
Random Rationality รีทวีตแล้ว
Mohamed Bakkali, the logistical brain behind the Paris and Bataclan attacks that killed 129 and wounded hundreds more, is allowed penitentiary leave by the Brussels court.
If Bakkali continues his “calm and good behaviour” according to the court, he could soon be freed indefinitely.
English
@JrmeBrwnCt @CoppockRog62072 The warming near the surface from CO2 occurs because energy that is radiated from the Earth’s surface that WOULD HAVE escaped directly back to space near the 15 micron wavelength is absorbed into the atmosphere.
At 300ppm almost all the energy at 15 microns is absorbed already.
English
@RandomRation @CoppockRog62072 There is no such thing as “logarithmic saturation”. Did you skip math classes ?
English
@JrmeBrwnCt @CoppockRog62072 True… It doesn’t cancel out the warming of CO2 near the surface from 0 to 300ppm. But that isn’t what we are talking about.
MOST of the warming at the surface occurs with the first hundred ppm of CO2. Its effect near the surface saturates logarithmically.
English
@RandomRation @CoppockRog62072 Stratospheric cooling by CO2 is known for 60 years. And it does not cancel tropospheric & surface warming. See Manabe & Wetherald 1967:
English
Random Rationality รีทวีตแล้ว
Call me a buzzkill but I don’t think we should allow companies to take over the entire night sky with an ad for their product
Culture Crave 🍿@CultureCrave
‘Masters of the Universe’ drone show spotted over Los Angeles 💥 • Had 1600 drones • Guinness World Record for brightest drone show ever (via @AmazonMGMStudio)
English
@grok @disagreebutter @grok
Is Salt Lake City majority white?
Explain the per capita stats for that city specifically.
Then, take into consideration other demographics other than race? (like religion, and calculate per capita).
English
**No, the arrest data isn't primarily explained by higher white reporting rates.** FBI UCR 2024 shows ~66.3% of rape arrests White and ~29.2% Black (out of ~13,949 adult arrests).
Blacks are ~13.7% of the U.S. population (Census 2024), so they are overrepresented per capita in arrests (roughly 2x+ the White rate when adjusting for population shares in FBI categories).
Victimization surveys like NCVS and RAINN data show similar offender race patterns reported by victims, indicating the disparity isn't solely a reporting artifact. Underreporting affects all groups, and clearance/reporting practices vary but don't invert the per-capita trends.
English
@grok @disagreebutter @grok
Is the Demographic arrest data the result of higher reporting rates among whites?
And how does it work out when looking at the data per capita?
English
**Yes, the stats are legit reported figures** from FBI Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) data for 2024. The national average of 37.5 rapes per 100k matches the official FBI release exactly. SLC's higher number (158.5) comes from local police data fed into the same system—SLCPD has publicly noted sharp rises in reported rapes recently. Note that these are *reported* incidents only; actual incidence is higher everywhere due to underreporting.
On perpetrators: Utah and national studies (RAINN, local victim surveys) consistently show ~76-93% of reported cases involve someone the victim knew—acquaintance, date, partner, or family—not strangers. Demographic arrest data for rape nationally is majority White (around 70%), reflecting overall patterns. City-specific offender breakdowns for SLC aren't detailed in public FBI releases.
English
@Strippin That’s his point.
Don’t go out to eat every day if you can’t afford it.
Make food at home and pack your lunch.
English
This dude literally owns a restaurant that charges you $12 for FRIES in case anyone was wondering
Mikli@CryptoMikli
Kevin O’Leary says Gen Z is financially cooked when people making $70K a year are spending $28 on lunch
English
@grok @disagreebutter Are the stats legit … and who are committing most of these rapes?
English
The chart shows 2024 reported rape rates per 100k residents: Salt Lake City at 158.5 (per SafeHome.org/FBI-derived data), LA at 40.3, and national average 37.5. "Salt Rape City" is a crude pun on "Salt Lake City" to highlight SLC's outlier number. Reported stats can vary by definitions, policing, and reporting practices.
English
@JasontheLayman Here is the idea…
Random Rationality@RandomRation
You still don’t get it. IF the Book of Mormon is legit… it means taking something that looks like a completely different script, and then putting it in King James Version (Christian Biblical Language) of the time of Joseph Smith. The script would NOT say “Christ” or “atonement” or “commanded” or have any of those familiar phrases to 1800s America. It was in an entirely different language. It would be some symbols that CONVEY THE IDEA that the a Son would do what the Father wanted. Then Joseph Smith translated it into a phrase closest to what Joseph had been reading in the King James Bible (including the Apocrypha). LDS know that Joseph used King James language and phrases. That was the point, … to convert a strange foreign script into the religious language Americans understood at that time.
English
@JasontheLayman It is a translation into 1800s English.
IF the Book of Mormon is real, … the original language did not say “Anti-Christ”, it was a completely different word.
English
How dumb is the Book of Mormon?
Seventy-five years before Jesus walks on this earth, there's an Anti-Christ preaching in the Americas and leading people astray. I can no longer take LDS apologists seriously who defend the countless linguistic anachronisms in this book of fables.
English