Music Break: Yellow Pain – My Vote Don't Count

February 9, 2020

9 Responses to “Music Break: Yellow Pain – My Vote Don't Count”

  1. Don Osborn Says:

    WOW!! Powerful and TRUE!! Yes we have got to dump Trump, BUT even more we must keep the House and take back the Senate this year in November. AND we need to work on the local and State races. That is where long term power and influence comes from. So if you care about Climate, about education, about poverty and economic fairness, whatever you key issues are, we have got the work the entire ballot and not jut the “names at the top”.

  2. grindupbaker Says:

    *** PART 3 OF 3 ***
    The tropospheric temperature lapse rate is required to cause the so-called “enhanced greenhouse effect”.
    The average altitude for LWR to ocean and land got lower (1,650 metres —> 1,550 metres in my example) which means LWR to the surface of the ocean and land is from warmer (faster) molecules on average because tropospheric temperature decreases with altitude and LWR to ocean/land is from lower-down-than-before molecules on average, so there are more GHG molecular collisions / second which leads to more MVE which leads to more LWR production. The quantity of LWR energy (power flux) provided by a mass of gas is proportional to its temperature(Kelvin)**4 (to the fourth power) so, as explained in detail above, the increasing of tropospheric GHGs ==must== cause more LWR than before to be passing downwards to the surface of the ocean and land. This latter is called “downwelling LWR radiation at the surface” and I’ve explained why it must increase and this must, of course, warm the land and ocean surface.
    That’s the lower end of how the so-called “enhanced greenhouse effect” works.
    ———
    Note 1: I haven’t yet found the collision MVE production & destruction spectra so I don’t know what %age make MVE and what %age destroy MVE. I looked a few hours 4 years ago but couldn’t find it (not for free anyway). It makes no difference to the description of the mechanism above but it would be needed to confirm the quantity of effect for doubling CO2.
    Note 2: Removed because I’ve gotten confirmation.
    Note 3: 80% of Earth’s atmosphere is in the troposphere (the top of which is 16 km in the tropics and 9 km in the polar regions, averaging ~12,000 metres). The “greenhouse effect” warming can only happen in Earth’s troposphere, there’s no effect in Earth’s tropopause and the effect is “backwards” in Earth’s stratosphere with =increased= stratospheric GHG gases causing =cooling= of the stratosphere because the stratospheric temperature lapse rate has temperature increasing with altitude (that’s how it’s known with total certainty that it’s increased “greenhouse gases (GHGs)” doing the global warming for the last several decades). Since there’s no temperature lapse rate in the tropopause then any change in the quantity/type of GHGs in the tropopause cannot have any warming or cooling effect on the tropopause or the entire atmosphere, ocean or land. No effect at all. If you follow my description of the effect above for the troposphere but apply it to the tropopause then you’ll clearly see that any change in the quantity/type of GHGs in the tropopause cannot have any warming or cooling effect That’s the reality. The increasing GHGs in the stratosphere are a slight -ve feedback to global warming because downwelling LWR radiation from the stratosphere decreases with increased GHGs, but it’s a very slight -ve feedback because only 6.3% of the well-mixed GHGs (and all molecules) are above the tropopause and they are initially colder than the average of the troposphere so they make even less LWR than the 6.3% factor. By the time the stratosphere warms more than the average of the troposphere there’s only 0.4% of Earth’s atmosphere’s molecules above, negligible.
    Note 4: FTIR power flux vs wave-length spectra recorded by the IRIS Infra-Red Interferometer Spectrometer instruments on the Nimbus-1 (1964 – 1964), Nimbus-2 (1966 – 1969), Nimbus-3 (1969 – 1972) satellites show which wave-lengths of LWR heading to space past the satellite came from the surface of the ocean and land and which wave-lengths came, on average, from the GHG molecules and surfaces of solid particles and water droplets in the atmosphere. From this atmospheric physicists have calculated the 91.5% of the LWR that Earth sends to space that is emitted by the atmosphere rather than by the surface of the ocean and land. Also, the MODTRAN tool on the internet can be used to play with a theoretical calculation of the FTIR power flux vs wave-length spectra by adjusting GHGs.
    Note 5: 2020-01-25 edited example altitudes. The Kevin Trenberth & other Earth’s energy budgets show 17% (40 w/m**2) in the atmospheric window but “Outgoing Longwave Radiation due to Directly Transmitted Surface Emission” of S.M.S. COSTA & K. P. SHINE 2012 states that as ad hoc and assesses instead 8.5% (20 w/m**2 +/- 4 w/m**2). I don’t attempt quantifying anything in the effect explanation but I made my examples for illustration as close to reality as is reasonable to do (Stefan-Boltzmann equation & average tropospheric temperature lapse rate).

  3. grindupbaker Says:

    *** PART 2 OF 3 ***
    Now the so-called “enhanced greenhouse effect” explanation that I think is clearest, obvious and difficult to challenge by mis-direction disinformation and subterfuge per the memes concocted by the coal/oil shills. 8.5% +/- 1.7% of the LWR that Earth sends to space is emitted by the ocean or land surface because the photons are in a wave-length band called “the atmospheric window” that doesn’t get absorbed by the GHGs. It’s my understanding that this will narrow slightly with increased GHGs, but this isn’t the prime “enhanced greenhouse effect” and I’m not addressing any additional warming it might cause. 91.5% of the LWR that Earth sends to space is emitted by the GHG molecules in the troposphere, tropopause and stratosphere (note 2). This 91.5% of the LWR is the part that gets reduced by increased tropospheric GHGs and causes an energy imbalance with insufficient energy going out, which causes global warming, ocean heating and ice fusion, which causes climate change, which causes a variety of nuisances that I haven’t studied.
    ——————
    The troposphere has an upper and a lower surface. The upper surface is the top of the troposphere (the tropopause) and the lower surface is the surface of the ocean or land. LWR produced in the troposphere that reaches the lower surface will warm that surface so it stays in Earth’s ecosphere but LWR produced in the troposphere that reaches the upper surface has a good chance to make it through the increasingly-thin tropopause, stratosphere and the ultra-thin extended atmosphere to space and be energy lost to Earth’s ecosphere, thus cooling it. LWR reaching the upper/lower surfaces was produced by GHG molecules, the surfaces of water droplets and the surfaces of solid particles (sea salt, ash, dust) throughout the troposphere sending photons upwards/downwards as described in detail earlier.
    – There is an average altitude in the troposphere of the LWR quantity that reaches space. If you could float at this altitude and watch/count photons with special eye balls and brain you’d see 50% of those photons that reach space are heading up from below you. If you counted it at 48% then you’d need to float upward to get more of the LWR photon production below you. If you counted it at 52% then you’d need to float downward to get more of the LWR photon production above you. This is obvious. When you float to the place where 50.0000000% of those photons that reach space are heading up from below you then you are at the average altitude in the troposphere of the LWR quantity that reaches space.
    – There is an average altitude in the troposphere of the LWR quantity that reaches the surface of the ocean or land. You could float and find that the same way as the preceding.
    These 2 altitudes in the troposphere are approximately for illustration only and as a global average (I’m not quantifying the so-called “enhanced greenhouse effect” in this comment, only describing its operation accurately):
    —- average — —- average global —-
    —- altitude — —- temperature —-
    5,700 metres -23.8 degrees 50% of the “shimmer cloud” of LWR photons that will make it to the tropopause are emitted by GHG molecules and the surfaces of cloud droplets and atmospheric particles below this altitude.
    1,650 metres 3.7 degrees 50% of the “shimmer cloud” of LWR photons that will make it to the surface of the ocean or land are emitted by GHG molecules and the surfaces of cloud droplets and atmospheric particles below this altitude.
    These values are approximate. They are to demonstrate how the so-called “enhanced greenhouse effect” works, not to provide quantities. They are approximately correct though. They are based on a global average ~12,000 metres height of the troposphere but it varies geographically from 9,000 to 16,000 metres.
    —————
    If tropospheric GHGs are increased then 2 changes occur per my explanations above since the start of my comment:
    1) More LWR than before is produced by the GHGs, and
    2) More LWR than before is absorbed by the GHGs because the LWR photons have to make it through more GHG molecules that might absorb them before they can reach their goal of going up past the top of the troposphere or going down past the bottom of the troposphere and being absorbed into the ocean or land.
    Note that I have not included “(3) The LWR photons emitted by the surface of the ocean and land have to make it through more GHG molecules that might absorb them before they can reach space” because I’m dealing with the 91.5% of the LWR reaching space that’s created by GHG molecules in the troposphere obtaining, then losing, MVE with spontaneous photon emission caused. I’m not dealing with the 8.5% of the LWR in a wave-length band called “the atmospheric window” that gets directly to space after being emitted by the surface of the ocean and land. If that 8.5% is reduced by increased tropospheric GHGs (I’m not sure) then that’s an additional, unrelated, means of the so-called “enhanced greenhouse effect” (there’s no particular reason why there has to be only one mechanism).
    —————
    The result of combined effects/changes (1), (2) above is that the average altitude in the troposphere of the LWR quantity that reaches the top of the troposphere gets higher, so perhaps it raises from the 5,700 metres to 5,800 metres (as an example). Also, the LWR quantity is reduced slightly (the so-called “enhanced greenhouse effect”) for reason of the tropospheric temperature lapse rate explained below.
    —————
    Likewise, identically, the average altitude in the troposphere of the LWR quantity that reaches the surface of the ocean or land gets lower, so perhaps it lowers from the 1,650 metres to 1,550 metres (obviously, it depends on the change quantity. I just showed a random example) because it has to get past more GHG molecules that might absorb the photon.
    —————
    In either case GHG photons were trying to reach their goal of the top or bottom of the troposphere but now there are more GHGs in the way so it needs, == on average ==, to be a bit closer to make it. So that’s why the “cloud” of LWR that will reach the top is a higher cloud than before and the “cloud” of LWR that will reach the bottom (ocean or land) is a lower cloud than before
    —————
    The tropospheric temperature lapse rate is required to cause the so-called “enhanced greenhouse effect”.
    The average altitude for LWR to space got higher (5,700 metres —> 5,800 metres in my example) which means LWR to space is from colder (slower) molecules on average because tropospheric temperature decreases with altitude and LWR to space is from higher-up-than-before molecules on average, so there are fewer GHG molecular collisions / second which leads to less MVE which leads to less LWR production. The quantity of LWR energy (power flux) provided by a mass of gas is proportional to its temperature(Kelvin)**4 (to the fourth power) so, as explained in detail above, the increasing of tropospheric GHGs ==must== cause less LWR than before to be passing upwards through the top of the troposphere.
    That’s the upper end of how the so-called “enhanced greenhouse effect” works.

  4. grindupbaker Says:

    *** PART 1 OF 3 ***
    This is how the so-called “greenhouse effect” in Earth’s troposphere causes warming. The so-called “greenhouse effect” effect is nothing at all like the effect that warms a greenhouse. A vast “shimmer” of transverse electromagnetic radiation (TER) in the long-wave band (LWR) is caused by molecules of water vapour (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (NO2) and some other gases in the troposphere due to their collisions (averaging 2,700,000,000 collisions / second) with other molecules, which are almost always going to be nitrogen (N2) or oxygen (O2) because they are almost all of the gas quantity in the troposphere. The H2O, CO2, CH4, NO2 and some other gases are being called “greenhouse gases (GHGs)” because the overall effect (not just this part) ends up causing warming of Earth’s troposphere. All except H2O are called “well-mixed greenhouse gases” because their boiling and freezing points are so low that they don’t condense or freeze in the troposphere, not even near the top, so they get spread out well mixed around Earth and well mixed vertically in the troposphere. The well-mixed GHGs now punch above their weight compared with water vapour (H2O) because the upper half of the troposphere is so cold that almost all H2O forms on dust/salt particles in liquid or solid form there rather than being a GHG but the others remain as GHGs. The lowest quarter or so of the troposphere where it’s warmer and water vapour (H2O) is king is already highly “saturated” without much additional “enhanced greenhouse effect” possible (still, H2O has such a broad absorption band that it still manages to match CO2 pretty much exactly 1:1 net as a 100% +ve feedback).
    ——————
    The GHG molecules don’t emit a photon (LWR unit) of LWR when they collide and they don’t later get to emit a photon of LWR after every collision, only after a few of them (note 1). What happens is that a collision might cause a GHG molecule to vibrate in a certain way (so with a certain energy) of which the GHG molecule has the capability of any one of a selection (called its “vibrational modes”). GHG molecules with more vibrational modes are more powerful GHGs because they have a broader absorption/emission band. The GHG molecule now has “molecular vibrational energy (MVE)” if the collision did cause it to vibrate. Energy cannot be created without destroying matter and matter doesn’t get destroyed by this. What happens is that one or both of the two molecules slows down such that the total “molecular translational energy (MTE)”, aka “molecular kinetic energy”, aka “heat”, is reduced by precisely the same amount as the MVE that the GHG molecule acquired, so (m1*v1**2 + m2*v2**2)/2 after collision is less than (m1*v1**2 + m2*v2**2)/2 before collision because either v1 or v2 or both was reduced, thus obeying the Law Of Conservation Of Energy. Effectively, the temperature of the 2 colliding molecules was reduced by an energy amount equaling the MVE that the GHG molecule acquired, what happened was energy transmutation from one form to another. When this vibrating GHG molecule hits another molecule it loses its vibration (note 1) and one or both of the two molecules speeds up such that the total MTE, aka “heat”, is increased by precisely the same amount as the MVE that the GHG molecule lost. So it just moved speed/heat from one N2 or O2 (almost always) molecule to another. However, ==here we go==, very occasionally/rarely and not very often at all compared with the 2,700,000,000 collisions / second that happen to this GHG molecule the GHG molecule with MVE will spontaneously emit a photon of LWR and lose its MVE. Now it has converted one-photon’s-worth of “heat” in the troposphere to one photon of LWR. It has cooled the troposphere by one-photon’s-worth of “heat” (one molecule is now in a global Mini Ice Age ?). This “relaxation time” of the covalent bond harmonic motion (with a photon emitted) happens over 10ths of one second (a very long time indeed).
    ——————
    LWR is also radiated from the surfaces of liquids & solids such as the surface of the ocean, the surfaces of water droplets in spray above the ocean, the surfaces of water droplets in clouds, the surfaces of any water droplets at all, the land surface, the surfaces of trees & grass, the skins of animals, the surfaces of dust, salt, volcanic ash, any ash and any surface whatsoever on the ocean or land or in the troposphere. Except for 5% of the LWR from the ocean+land surface whose photons happen to have wave-lengths in a band called “the atmospheric window” this LWR goes into the vast “shimmer” of LWR in the troposphere with a distribution of energy quantity at each wave-length in the LWR band that you’ve all seen hundreds of plots of all over the place.
    ——————
    GHG molecules also absorb LWR provided that the photon’s energy (which is its wave-length) perfectly matches one of that GHG molecule’s MVE mode energies and the photon goes through (or tries to go through) the area of the GHG molecule that absorbs that wave-length (obvious example, CO2 isn’t at all fussy what part of its molecule a photon of wave-length 15.00 microns goes through, it’ll swallow it and vibrate). Obviously, a GHG molecule neither knows nor cares whether a photon of a certain wave-length trying to go through it was emitted by the surface of the ocean, the surfaces of water droplets in spray above the ocean, the surfaces of water droplets in clouds, the surfaces of any water droplets at all, the land surface, the surfaces of trees & grass, the skins of animals, the surfaces of dust, salt, volcanic ash, any ash and any surface whatsoever on the ocean or land or in the troposphere, or emitted by another GHG molecule (H2O, CO2, CH4, NO2 and any other GHG molecule) because all photons of the same wave-length are the same. A GHG molecule with MVE that it got by absorbing LWR can, of course, ==here we go again==, very occasionally/rarely and not very often at all compared with the 2,700,000,000 collisions / second that happen to this GHG molecule (note 2) spontaneously emit a photon of LWR and lose its MVE. In this case the GHG molecule transmuted LWR back to LWR, it transmuted a photon to an identical photon, so it did nothing at all other than change the direction in which the photon is going. This is the cartoon that scientists show the public because it’s a simple analog that Earth tried to cool itself to space and failed, but since there are 2,700,000,000 collisions / second there’s just about a bat’s chance in hell that the GHG molecule will spontaneously emit a photon of LWR and lose its MVE before it collides and loses its MVE (note 1). The coal/oil shills use the highly-incorrect nature of this ludicrously-over-simplified cartoon to “disprove” the physics theory but it isn’t the physics theory that’s incorrect, it’s the cartoon that’s incorrect. It doesn’t describe the physics theory hardly at all as I’ve explained in detail above. This is why I dislike this cartoon. When a vibrating GHG molecule hits another molecule it loses its vibration (note 1) and one or both of the two molecules speeds up. This means that “heat” increased, what happened was energy transmutation from one form to another, energy transmutation from LWR to “heat” with MVE as the intermediary step.

  5. grindupbaker Says:

    This comment is for https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZhcnRe3qd8
    The usual coal/oil shill crap for the bit supposedly about WG1 climate science (except it isn’t because it’s unmitigated crap) at 10:57 to 20:13. At 12:33 the comparison is rubbish. The global warming of +1.05 degrees shown is absent 2 huge additional warming amounts so is a totally-meaningless comparison with either equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) which is reached after 350 years or with shorter-term initial climate sensitivity a couple of decades after CO2=556 ppmv is reached. The 2 huge (and definite) additional warming amounts are:
    – There’s 396,000 gigawatts that’s warming Earth’s ecosphere right now and the humans caused that by increasing CO2 + CH4, and this would continue if atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and Methane (CH4) remained steady right where they are now. It’s going to take another +0.66 degrees of global warming to balance that 396,000 gigawatts to zero and 50% of that +0.66 degrees of global warming is guaranteed to happen in the next 20-30 years, so that needs to be added to the +1.05 degrees shown.
    – Monckton’s claim with the +1.05 degrees shown that there has been ==zero== increase in air pollution caused by humans ==since 1750 AD== is an absurd lie, which, like all his other torrent of lies, is aimed only at giving his echo chamber of coal/oil shill-fuckwits what they want to hear with no interest in or regard for science whatsoever (the usual Monckton situation because his brain is 100% socio-political-his-own-wealth interest only and zero science interest, as I’ve just proved here). Best estimate for total stoppage of human air pollution is +0.65 degrees of human air pollution “global dimming” to add to that +1.05 degrees shown.
    ———–
    So Monckton’s absurd lie with the +1.05 degrees shown (a lie because he compares apples with spinach as I’ve clearly shown to all not-a-coal/oil shill-fuckwits) should correctly be:
    +1.22 +0.66 +0.65 = +2.5 +/- 0.30 degrees since an 1880-1900 base line because +1.3 degrees is already committed and “in the pipeline”, which is far above Monckton’s absurd lie with the +1.05 degrees shown. The +/- 0.30 degrees is the large humans’ air pollution effects uncertainty range.
    ———–
    Obviously, duh, this bit of my very good science totally debunking this bit of typical Monckton crap is not for this video because this is not a video made to explain WG1 climate science in the slightest. It’s the exact opposite and the audience here consists of 100% socio-political-his-own-wealth interest only coal/oil shill-fuckwits so there’s no science audience here. Obviously, this comment is for pasting against videos done by others to educate people about the WG1 climate science, such as the excellent ones by “potholer54” and good ones by some other persons.
    ——
    Immediate edit: Removed committed Arctic Ocean summer sea ice extent reduction and subtracted 0.30 degrees because that +feedback was already included in the 1st two present warming commitments.

  6. Gingerbaker Says:

    Well, alrighty then…………. ?!?

    • dumboldguy Says:

      “Well, alrighty then………… ?!?”, GB?

      Don’t you want to argue with GUB about his use of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation & average tropospheric temperature lapse rate in his presentation?

      Some people like to play with numbers and solve number puzzles—-I myself would rather just deal with words that describe what is obvious to anyone with eyes—–like “climate change is here, it is accelerating rapidly, and we are not doing enough to combat it—-catastrophic results loom. but we can’t yet put numbers as to when”.

  7. redskylite Says:

    Ludwig van Beethoven realized that music can change the world, and indeed this “Yellow Pain” wrap number will certainly inspire a lot of potentially apathetic young voters to use their vote wisely. Great number, and people living in a democracy must vote to keep the system alive and healthy.

  8. rhymeswithgoalie Says:

    Vote in the local elections, where it counts the most.
    Check out the down-ballot issues and candidates, where you have more influence.

    I once missed voting in the Clinton v. Dole election in the 1990s (went to the wrong polling station and didn’t have opportunity to track the right one down). That was when I realized that I regretted missing the vote on the bond and local issues than the national race (especially considering all of red Texas’ electoral votes would go to Dole anyway).


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: