Well, turns out that MIT in 2014 disagrees with the obscure explanation I found.
The CO2 is interacting with the longwave radiation, but simultaneously increasing the longwave radiation into space. The computer models show this but also show the net warming. Turns out the claim is the increase in H2O is what absorbs the short wave IR.
It makes me wonder exactly what assumptions the computer models are working with.
Ahh this is the story of the greenhouse effect in a nutshell. It sounds like it ought to exist… yet nobody has been able to demonstrate that it does! Lol.
I don’t think it is under dispute that CO2 absorbs some wavelengths of infrared light while allowing visible light through. Shouldn’t it therefore be the case that putting a bunch of CO2 in the atmosphere will allow sunlight through while ‘trapping’ the heat from the Earth?
It sounds plausible on the face of it… indeed we can observe that glass has this property too – glass will allow visible light through (obviously), and it does indeed absorb (& therefore emit) infrared light.
Therefore we can do a simple experiment to see if the purported effect exists… which is what R W Wood did in 1909:
note_on_the_theory_of_the_greenhouse.pdf (28.8 KB)
THERE appears to be a widespread belief that the comparatively high temperature produced
within a closed space covered with glass, and exposed to solar radiation, results from a
transformation of wave-length, that is, that the heat waves from the sun, which are able to
penetrate the glass, fall upon the walls of the enclosure and raise its temperature: the heat
energy is re-emitted by the walls in the form of much longer waves, which are unable to
penetrate the glass, the greenhouse acting as a radiation trap.I have always felt some doubt as to whether this action played any very large part in the
elevation of temperature. It appeared much more probable that the part played by the glass
was the prevention of the escape of the warm air heated by the ground within the enclosure.
Here is how he did it:
To test the matter I constructed two enclosures of dead black cardboard, one covered with a
glass plate, the other with a plate of rock-salt of equal thickness. The bulb of a thermometer
was inserted in each enclosure and the whole packed in cotton, with the exception of the
transparent plates which were exposed. When exposed to sunlight the temperature rose
gradually to 65 o C., the enclosure covered with the salt plate keeping a little ahead of the
other, owing to the fact that it transmitted the longer waves from the sun, which were
stopped by the glass. In order to eliminate this action the sunlight was first passed through a
glass plate.
His result was as valid in 1909 as it is today:
There was now scarcely a difference of one degree between the temperatures of the two
enclosures. The maximum temperature reached was about 55 oC. From what we know about
the distribution of energy in the spectrum of the radiation emitted by a body at 55 oC., it is
clear that the rock-salt plate is capable of transmitting practically all of it, while the glass plate
stops it entirely. This shows us that the loss of temperature of the ground by radiation is very
small in comparison to the loss by convection, in other words that we gain very little from the
circumstance that the radiation is trapped.
In other words… although it logically seems like this IR-stopping-and-re-emitting mechanism (“a transformation of wave-length”) should account for the heating and have a large effect… it doesn’t! Lol.
This experiment has been reproduced many times… for one example: Wood's 1909 greenhouse experiment, performed more carefully , where despite saying they perform it “more carefully” and that it “invalidates measurements” made under an “assumption” of Wood’s, reproduces his result:
i.e. “scarcely a difference of one degree”!
As the planetary greenhouse effect is said to cause a -18°C surface (240 W/m^2 equivalent) to get to +15°C (390 W/m^2), then the same magnitude for a 74.3°C surface (826.4 W/m^2) ought to get it to 1,342 W/m^2 equivalent or 119°C!
Yet it scarcely causes 1°C of difference!
And what do the warmists say about this experiment? Amazingly they say it doesn’t work cause… … the glass has to be colder to warm the surface more! I am not making this up, they think it only works if the top is colder – as in a thing being colder will heat something more than a warm thing!
This tells us a few things about how to do a new and improved Wood experiment. […] Third, the top should be colder than the bottom. […]
RW Wood and the Greenhouse Effect
Thus the story of the greenhouse effect is recycled ad infinitum… an effect that ought to work, should work, logically does work, now the scientific consensus says it is real… yet still, never has been demonstrated in a lab, and indeed has been falsified! For if the effect were real… it certainly ought to work for a greenhouse too!
Cheers,
Claudiu
P.S. Interestingly I found that Wood debunked another groupthink delusion of his time, one which apparently has not been resurrected – that of the "N-ray"s: N-ray - Wikipedia . Quite a story!
If Wood were around today no doubt he would be castigated as a climate change denier …
This touches on a key aspect of the whole thing BTW. Because indeed, we can’t all go around verifying everything we are told. It takes way too much time and effort. One should be able to rely on the experts to give accurate information that we can use to inform how we live our lives, and to inform how society should be, what steps governments should take to improve the lives of its citizens, etc…
Which is why it is so perfidious this groupthink scheme that has been concocted around this effect!
This is why it’s relevant to point out how the peer review process has been corrupted, viz.:
Because the way science should work is that of a healthy contest of ideas, where contrary opinions and theories are published and a debate can be had.
Yet when one sees that anything against the mainstream is criticized and cancelled, not only at the level of popular discourse and physics blogs/Q&A sites, but also at the published well-respected journal peer-review level… one can see that the last four decades has not been a steady progress of science becoming increasingly certain of the only plausible explanation for what is happening with the climate… but rather a research into, funding of, and publishing only of that evidence which appears to support the theory!
So the process is corrupted, and we cannot rely on it. It would be like finding out your dentist has performed “thousands of unnecessary procedures” on his patients, with the sole purpose of lining his pockets. You would not trust or rely on this dentist anymore… it is a similar thing just on a much larger scale.
It is truly a travesty! And it’s all too easy to perpetuate, as indeed most people don’t have the time to look into it and just defer to what ought to be the reliable scientific authorities…
Cheers,
Claudiu
@claudiu thanks for looking into all of that. I was intending to do more research as time and enthusiasm permits, not just dump and run!
That’s very interesting indeed.
Finally an actual experiment hey!!
So it would seem that a very slight difference is there, but nowhere in the magnitude claimed.
Which is the way it’s presented to and believed by me, my whole life. That there was a group of people, keenly, sincerely and honestly looking into various topics and working together.
It would seem the fact is not that at all.
Also I want to point out that this all started on the Cause of Bias? thread, where @JonnyPitt wasn’t actually able to provide any valid examples of Richard & Vineeto being biased (and when this was pointed out to him, his reply was that he “didn’t really need to establish any examples” anyway (!!!)).
On the thread you proposed some theories of why Richard & Vineeto are biased – despite not providing any examples yourself:
And what’s your response to Richard posting an article and over 265 posts discussing climate change in general and the points in the article in particular, including posts from someone that actually did look into it deeply?
Yeaup… ignoring it all and just going with what the consensus says anyway, besides which saying that that person (that didn’t take the article on belief and faith and actually looked into the points thoroughly) has daddy issues[2]! Lol.
All this is to say that, it is not unreasonable that you wouldn’t just take it on belief and faith that Richard is right about global warming, just because he is Richard. Indeed, that would be silly. And you can certainly make the choice to go with a carefully pre-selected subset of the experts (ie those that agree with the consensus), despite some of the rather obvious evidence that the consensus is corrupted…
But, you cannot make that decision yet continue to say that Richard & Vineeto are biased and “lack sufficient critical thinking”!
In other words, not agreeing with the consensus is not evidence in and of itself of lack of critical thinking! The obvious example of this is actual freedom itself – which flies in the face of all consensus, yet clearly requires much critical thinking to be able to succeed in becoming free!
This doesn’t mean that when Richard & Vineeto disagree with the consensus, they are automatically / by default right… but it also doesn’t mean that they are automatically / by default wrong in doing so.
To show they are wrong you need to actually make a case, take something they actually say, show explicitly where it is wrong, engage in a discussion about it, etc.
You don’t have the time to do it – which is completely understandable, and indeed there’s no moral requisite for you to take the time and do it. But by choosing not to take the time and to just agree with the consensus by default, you also relinquish your capacity to make a valid assessment as to the level of bias Richard & Vineeto actually have. To say otherwise is simply not sensible!
I will finish this thought by pointing out that despite over 481 posts (261 on Cause of Bias? and 265 here) on the topic of bias in fully actually free people (both in general and focusing in on a particular topic), still nobody has provided a valid example of them being biased!
It’s not unlike the greenhouse effect – people keep believing it despite there being no evidence to support it!
It is all rather funny lol.
That is all for now.
Cheers,
Claudiu
I have found a far more helpful level of thoughtfulness through this topic.
I can stand back from whatever drama is unfolding and simply look at facts. Or better said, I am aware that there are facts that I may currently not know.
That makes it far simpler to not spiral into a drama.
Drama requires certain beliefs remaining unchallenged. Knowing that a drama is dependant on a belief remaining in place, means the drama doesn’t have the momentum it used to have.
Although Richard and Vineeto (and others) have not said they engage in these topics for a purpose other than the topic itself; there is indeed a correlation between investigating AGW and anything else; leaping to the usual conclusion is generally a poor choice.
It’s still not impossible that AGW is a thing, however it’s more likely that the interaction humans have is well within the “skillset” of a planet such as ours.
I am more of a tree hugger than ever, but not for purely environmental reasons.
Humans are choosing their environment. Unfortunately, that choice is concrete, overpopulation and misery far too often.
I have been pondering what the motivation is for this grand Western movement.
It seems to me that in the vacuum left by Christianity in politics, some level of moral certitude is still required.
It’s hard to achieve agreement with these ‘knowledge war’ type scenarios. If both sides dispute the validity and integrity of the other sides interpretation, sources, methods, institutions and so on then you’ve got a stalemate that can’t easily be resolved.
So it’s accusations of mainstream scientific cronyism / lack of experimental data / burying of inconvenient facts vs. fundamental misunderstandings of basic physics / the cronyism of hoaxer culture / misconstruing the evidence - on the other.
Truth be told I’m not all that interested in this debate or who is ultimately right about GHE in the context of this forum. I’m more interested that forum members be able to discuss ideas freely - even controversial ones like global warming or the neutrality of actually free people (what does absolute neutrality or absolute unbias even mean?) without being taken to task or having to answer for themselves like these are court proceedings.
The internet probably amplifies polarities in discussions like this. I suspect things would be far less adversarial were we to have a chat about this in person or on video call instead.
Claudiu apologies for my ‘daddy issues’ dig. It was meant to be playful and a push back of your agenda. I really do think you have a misplaced sense of filial protectiveness towards Richard and Vineeto, when they don’t really require it and this has played out time and time again. Actual freedom stands on its own and is absolutely unimpeachable.
When and if actualism gains further currency in the world, people will have their own thoughts on all these issues mentioned in the AFT and there won’t be any controlling of how people think about it. There won’t be any asking people to justify themselves. I’d rather uncouple things like the physics of global warming, theoretical physics or cigarette smoking from what I see as the essential stuff that isn’t really up for debate - the actualism method and actual freedom - rather than present them as a package deal.
@Kub933 (and this applies to others here) rather than picking a side or deciding which authority to serve so as to minimise dissonance and discomfort, I would say to use it to be aware of how ‘you’ use the above to keep yourself in play. Use it to propel you towards pure intent and fuel the dissolution of self. Once you’re actually free you can make up your own mind about this stuff. My conclusion at this stage is that there are limits to knowledge and what can be known conclusively about matters like GHE. You may come to a different conclusion and that’s fine.
Well, Richard gave me something to believe in when everything else was gone.
I probably spent a week or 4 trolling, before realising that he was only saying something I wanted desperately to hear; enjoying life is the whole point.
So, exactly who has “daddy issues” is besides the point of it all anyway.
You may be interested to note that your essentially “no one can know anything for sure” position, is exactly the position the Kremlin has been ensuring is the status quo in our favourite ex Soviet nation.
Things can be known “for sure”, and when they can’t be, it’s utter disgusting arrogance to insist one is correct.
That isn’t a dig. God knows I have zero to prove against anyone here. It’s rather that things can be known which is the “war” being waged for millennia.
@Srinath Yes I can observe this aspect which you are pointing out, this (emotionally driven) need to know, to take a stand. It reminds me of what you wrote in your report of becoming free. Needing to believe in order to support ‘myself’. The side which is being put forward is only a reflection of ‘myself’ needing to be asserted. In short there is a personal agenda. And it happens so subtly, because in asserting ‘my’ worldview as correct ‘I’ gain some kind of certainty that ‘I’ so desperately need to alleviate that which is going on underneath.
I can see why in actual freedom it doesn’t matter, why it is no longer possible to argue, because this need to assert ‘myself’ in order to generate security is no longer required. And it is this freedom that ultimately matters.
@Andrew I’ve never said ‘nothing can be known for sure’. I’m not advocating some caricatured position of postmodern nihilism
Hmm.
It really comes down to a voice saying “don’t do that”.
The thing is definitely happening globally. A voice saying “don’t do that”, but it’s no longer about a concrete thing, rather an abstract thing; don’t put more carbon in the atmosphere!" Because.
The simple facts of stopping rape, stopping war, dismantling the nuclear weapons and otherwise being “nicer” have been usurped by the climate alarmist.
What use is a world with less carbon in the atmosphere if the are still starving children, rape, abuse and war?
The carbon debate is a smoke screen and everyone already knew that.
It’s exactly like talking about the weather at a family reunion when the real issues of why your brothers are dead never gets discussed.
There is no evidence that carbon in the atmosphere will warm up the planet.
There is overwhelming evidence that there is little to no point in being conscious of the shit show we are otherwise living.
Andrew, I’d have thought that most ideologically driven and impassioned climate alarmists would be just the sort of people to be marching down the street protesting rape, war, nuclear weapons and all sorts of things as well. But with a self still extant, this is all futile. And impassioned global warming sceptics are in the same boat.
You seem intent on turning actualism into ideology. This ‘Team Richard’ mentality is insidious and a dead end as far as actual freedom is concerned. Whatever your views on climate change it’s important to see that.
I do think climate alarmism is a problem too BTW. But not in the same way you do.
Agreed! You will observe there has been no moderation, censoring, or restricting of people’s freedom of choice, opinion, and expression, etc., with regard to discussing these controversial topics on the forum – and I would prefer to keep it that way.
Yet here comes the caveat…
Ahh so you want people to be able to expound upon their conclusions/evaluations/opinions, be they sensible or not/based on facts or not, without anybody challenging them?
You realize it can’t be both ways? If you want free discussion of ideas, you can’t just allow the stating of an idea and not the following critique of it. That would not be a free discussion of ideas. Plus that would then require judgement calls to be made upon which side should be censored – which judgement calls will inevitably lie according to the bias of the person making the judgement.
As an example only, I could just as well write that I want forum members to be able to discuss ideas freely - even controversial ones like global warming or the neutrality of actually free people - without being told that they have daddy issues or are a “Richardist” or are on “Team Richard” or are turning actualism into an ideology for coming to the same conclusions as Richard! 
Further as feeling-beings have had, do have, and will continue to have varying (from superficial to strong) emotional and (the deeper) psychic-current reactions to various topics discussed, and particularly on controversial ones, plus it being impossible to 100% reliably tell the degree to which someone else is emotionally involved (only that person themselves can know and they can fool themselves just as they can fool others) – then any censoring based on an evaluation of whether someone appears to be aggressive or angry or defensive etc., will have similar issues.
Additionally, as feelings are not facts, even if somebody is feeling worked up or aggressive or defensive or malicious or sorrowful, etc., when they write something out – that feeling does not change the factual content whatsoever of that which they are saying. It took me a while to get this at first, but if you observe Richard’s correspondences, he never judges, shames, castigates, criticizes, or discards what people say strictly and solely because of the feelings they may be feeling when they say it or their intent in saying it. He always addresses what they are actually saying (even if he may additionally point out possible underlying motivations and guesses at intent etc.). That is where valid critique lies, not in the internal (and thus inaccessible-to-others) state of the person writing it.
As such I really don’t want to get into any of that type of moderation nor would I want the forum to take that direction. It seems better to let people discuss things as they will so that a genuine resolution, if one is possible, can be reached – with whatever necessary conflict along the way as is unavoidable with contentious issues. If there be any moderation I would restrict it solely to the blatant and obvious trolls, i.e. those that violate common courtesy/general decency rules and are apparently there just to stir up trouble rather than engage in a genuine discussion. This will also require judgement calls, of course, and I prefer Richard’s method of not moderating but rather engaging with each and every one – but that takes a lot of time and energy which may not always be available.
Thus as it stands I don’t see any issue per se – people can and do criticize Richard and Vineeto etc., and they can and do say they are biased or lack critical thinking, and then other people can ask them for evidence of this, and other people can certainly freely point out where after ~2 months of discussion still no evidence has been provided, and people can definitely surmise therefrom that there still be no case to consider said fully free people to have bias as far as anybody has been able to determine, and others are free to read all that and shrug and think that they are probably biased anyway (lol).
Well this is nothing new, it’s just a new take on an old idea. It used to be that “Actualism is a cult” or “Actualists are all clones of Richard”. Now it’s “actualists have daddy issues” lol 
. Though I see you are resurrecting some old themes with the Team Richard and Richardist ideas.
They certainly don’t and actual freedom certainly does stand on its own – as do the facts.
But just because they don’t need protection doesn’t mean that it’s not worth engaging people who claim to have found flaws or faults with it. With that logic Richard should have just come out and reported his experience of becoming free, maybe a few thousand words on the topic, then left it up as a single web page on the internet, ignoring and not engaging with anybody who found a fault with it – because it didn’t need any protection!
That would be silly of course… and I’ll just refer you to the millions of words on the AFT site, a lot of which is indeed Richard, Vineeto, and Peter, engaging people in discussions about this very topic (possible flaws, faults, etc.)
How is challenging people on what they write, and critiquing, and pointing out not only that what they say isn’t valid but also the specific ways in which it’s not valid, equivalent to trying to control how people think about it?
If that were the case then you can say almost the entirety of Richard’s correspondence is his attempt to control what people think about actual freedom - by challenging people, not letting them get away with saying something is a fact when it isn’t, pointing out where they are completely and arrantly wrong, etc.
You’re saying a world full of actually free people will be one where everybody just says what they think, regardless of how well-considered it is, and everyone else just agrees with them without challenges or discussion? You realize that isn’t how (genuine) science works? People certainly will present ideas and others will challenge them, etc. That’s how ideas are developed and how the good ones win out – by surviving critical discussion. That is what critical thinking is! It’s in the phrase itself – thinking critically, as in, being critical of that which is being thought about!
I don’t see any issue with this. All the malice and sorrow that normally underlies and derails such discussions will be totally absent. It will all work much more smoothly and effectively. And will be much more fun for everyone involved!
Just to step back, what happens with these topics isn’t that they are being presented as a package deal per se. Rather, Richard or Vineeto or Peter etc., write something of what they think about a non-actualism topic. Then somebody challenges what they wrote. Then there’s further discussion on it. Just because what they write is successfully defended against contrarian arguments, doesn’t mean that it’s a “package deal”.
Basically anyone is completely free to ignore or not engage on these topics. Indeed, it doesn’t particularly matter with regards to becoming free – if it’s not an issue for someone then there’s no reason for them to take the time to look into it. But when it does become an issue for someone, and they do look into it, then it’s certainly worth having the discussion on it.
You may be asking why, or implicitly criticizing Richard, Vineeto, and Peter, for even publishing these things on the AFT site in the first place – to which I refer you to their rationale here: Discussion of Non-Actualist Topics .
Also you will observe these topics are in “The Watercooler” category and not the “Actualism” category – which seems like the right way to segragate the discussions (with some cross-posting about the meta aspects of the discussion like groupthink or peasant mentality in general, that may belong more in the “Actualism” category).
Ahh so only the conclusions of actually free people are valid? Okay. But this already presents a problem:
i.e. you are actually free, and you disagree with Richard and Vineeto, who are also actually free. All three of you can’t be right at the same time – one, or both, or all three of you, must be mistaken. Therefore just being actually free does not automatically make your conclusions valid.
A second problem presents itself – since we’re not free and therefore we can’t make up our own minds about it, what are we supposed to think until we are free? Shrug and say we don’t know? But then we’re just agreeing with you. Why not just agree with Richard or Vineeto instead, if we can’t make up our minds anyway? It amounts to saying that our passion-enfeebled minds prevent us from thinking for ourselves and we should all listen to Big Daddy Srinath instead of Big Daddy Richard.
But why believe you over some other actually free person? Well that’s the point – we are not to believe any of you! The only sensible thing is for each of us to evaluate the facts for ourselves, as best as we can – and indeed, with the explicit purpose of nothing other than becoming actually free ourselves!
To attempt to censor or constrain this free-thinking process by only allowing certain types of discussion on the only active actualism forum – seems to me to be nothing other than misguided!
———
As a final thought I will point out that literally the only basis for your Richardist, Pop, daddy issue, Team Richard, etc insinuations is for people agreeing with or coming to the same conclusion as what Richard wrote on this topic of global warming. If what Richard wrote is factual then it’s obviously ridiculous to disparage them for seeing the facts — Richard said the Earth is spherical (not flat), it doesn’t make us Richardists for agreeing with him. So the only way what you wrote holds water is if Richard wrote something not factual, either something wrong or an opinion. And the only rationale you gave for Richard being wrong about global warming being an unscientific groupthink fallacy — is that you will just go with the very people that would be perpetuating that groupthink fallacy since they do it for a living! Lol.
In short you didn’t give any good reason and thus your disparagements don’t have any valid basis.
It is of course entirely possible Richard is wrong and you are right — but you would have to show where he is wrong to make the case. And as you said you wouldn’t due to lack of time … it means your conclusions on the topic will remain without basis.
And to what end, I might say? As you said you yourself really don’t know any won’t take the time to find out for yourself - why assume Richard is wrong? Isn’t it an equivalent mistake to assuming he is right?
Cheers,
Claudiu
Claudiu, rather than expending energy mounting an impressive defence of your position, do you think there is something in this entire exchange - a seed, a realisation of whatever kind that may be the means to ending ‘you’ forever? Yes, you could write straight back to me with another formidable and sophisticated post in reply to this. You are more than capable. But that would be a wasted opportunity so it would be good if you could reflect on it a bit.
I’m keen to see more people here become actually free. And you most definitely too. This is one of the main reasons I still post here. And this is primarily why I said something on this global warming thread when I could have just minded my own business. It’s not to take a stand on global warming, to diss Richard, to insult you or even to create a ‘happy and safe’ space for all actualists. I do want you and others who may be close to self-immolation to stop mistaking the wood for the trees.
This could be the beginning of the end of ‘you’.
Yes, although not for the reasons you state here!
The seed comes in the shocking realization of how deep and perfidious this groupthink scheme is, how harmful it is to the citizens — it ended my belief that “all is well in the (Western) world”, it ended my belief that “everything will work out” in general (conveniently ignoring all the past wars and rapes and murders etc where it certainly didn’t “work out” for those victims!)
Plus trying my hardest to disprove even a small part of the argument / to prove the warmists right on that point 11 (the “cold can’t heat hot” aspect) and completely failing , and the way I went about it, totally shot a hole in the entire way I approach thinking and reasoning about these things in and of itself! It showed me that ‘I’ really have nothing to contribute, nothing to add, nothing of value, on top of what this actual body can already do anyway.
So indeed high time for me to allow myself to go out from control and ‘my’ inevitable demise to come sooner rather than later!!
So it’s been very fruitful indeed the deep dive I did into this topic — and makes a good case that it’s worth having the discussions here! Hence my ”defence” of my ”position” (which I’m pleased was “impressive” 
).
Hope you will have a chat soon with actual Claudiu haha.
Cheers,
Claudiu
Full disclosure: I’ve had a connection with pure intent for about 2 consecutive weeks now. I think just maintaining that connection is what it’s all about. Everything becomes clear. It’s so wonderful. Anyways my question is. Are you going to use this ‘Aha moment’ described in quotes to re-establish or maintain a connection to pure intent? If you do, all the best. And send me a line, I’m having the best of times. We could talk about how terrifying I am about losing this connection and being normal again. How my whole practice, I’ve cycled from being near the actual world to being far away from it. And how I perceive this one to be different. So many things.
Claudiu, that’s great and may it be so. The right answer is an existential one rather than anything else - that will ultimately spell the end of ‘you’. Just do it!
He mentioned the “scale” of the atmosphere. Which was why my mind went straight to looking for geological models for the starting point.
