Food for thought: Couple links to chow down on

Link one:

Jobs report. "Too good to be true"

Comment:

A bunch of statistical mumbo-jumbo. Over a period of 10 months during 2022, there was a LOSS of jobs of 10k. The job "gains" were part time jobs... Bloomberg chief economist Anna Wong said it was "too good to be true". Also, that the Fed won't put too much weight on this report. In other words, a report like this SHOULD cause inflationary pressures to increase, but the expectation is that it won't have much weight, and so the Fed won't raise interest rates on this one report...

Link two:

Egg yolk works to stop covid?

Comment:

Quite the coincidence that eggs are in short supply these days. Almost as if they don't want anybody to take advantage of this news to help themselves to some good ol eggs, and save themselves from the dreaded Kung Fu Flu.

Maybe the yolk is on us, ya'll. ( I know, groannnnnnn)

Lord of the Flies, film based upon novel

It's been fairly cold lately, and I decided to watch some videos. There was one about the book that was an assignment back in high school in the seventies, called The Lord of the Flies. I had a vague recollection of the novel, and have never seen a film version of it, so I watched it.

After watching it, I decided to do a post about it, but what should I say? Not everyone who could read this may be familiar with the film or novel, so this would lack some background. Rather than go over all that here, I think I should refer anyone who might be interested to check it out. You can find it easily enough on Google or any search platform of your choice. The book seems to have won an award, so it isn't like some obscure book or anything. Rather than watching the movie, you could read the Cliff Notes, for example. Or any of the other study aids in order to save time, if time is a bit short.

Of course the book is about the inherent savagery inside us all. There was a struggle against the savagery, which wasn't successful. Consequently, the book has some rather dark overtones about human nature.

There was an angle that I thought I might use in reference to what happened to the group of boys on the island, and it might well be a stark parallel with what is going on now in our time. In particular, the COVID situation, and the resultant power grab arising from it. You see, the boys were afraid of a "beast", but the beast was in their imaginations, and was not real. The fear of the beast was being used to manipulate the boys in following a power mad leader. The parallel is rather striking. COVID fear was put in the hearts of vulnerable people, and this fear was used in destroying the civil society upon which we depend. The same kind of thing happened in the novel, as the boys were in the process of destroying the basis of their own survival in their hunt for a dissident to the power mad leader's control over the boys.

Anyway, this is what I got out of it. Others may have different reactions. I noted in Spark Notes that there was something objectionable in their analysis. But I won't go over that here.

The person in the novel, who discovered that the "monster" was not real, was murdered. Fear was driving the behavior of the boys, and this particular boy actually had the courage ( for want of a better word) to find out about the beast. It was the ignorance and the fear that drove the irrational behavior ( in my opinion). It is rather disheartening to see that a voice of reason is likely to be ignored. Such was the case in the novel ( and film), and this is probably pretty close to being the case. Those who would push back against irratonal fear are in danger of being subjected to violence or murder.

The story does not speak well of our future. Let's hope that irrational fears will not lead to the end of us all. It may well happen that way.

PV= n R T

Some high school algebra on the gas law equation



Let's solve in terms of T ( temperature): Divide both sides by R times n. This yields this equation, which is equivalent to the Gas Law equation, or I don't know my algebra. That would be T= PxV / nx R ; So what does it all mean, Basil?

Let's use a concept in first semester calculus: Let's have n, which is the number of molecules, get really big. Like infinity big. What does that do to the number? It goes to zero, right? That's because the denominator gets bigger. As the denominator gets bigger, the number gets smaller, right? Again, what does that mean, Basil?

Let's swerve away from that for a moment, and look at it from a common sense viewpoint. If n is the number of molecules, then increasing n also increases the mass. To keep Temperature equal, you'd have to increase pressure times volume. But wait, one can get confused. That's why we need some common sense. You'd need more energy to heat more mass to the same temperature, would you not? It takes more heat to boil two cups of tea than one, right? So it means that to maintain temperature at a constant level, you'd have to add more heat when you increase n, or if you don't, you lose temperature.

Seems rather startling at first, but then you recognize that it is just common sense. More stuff to heat means more energy expended. It takes more heat to heat more stuff. Common sense. Does it make more sense then, that more stuff means that more heat can be stored? Wouldn't it also mean that it takes longer to cool off a lot of stuff, than just a little stuff? Just trying to make sense of this equation...

Some of this discussion wouldn't be scientific, but it does make sense. Or I hope it does. That could explain why Venus gets hot and Mars does not. Or part of why. Venus receives much more solar radiation than Mars. It's atmosphere is much thicker. It may be on the order of 10000 times thicker than Mars. Venus is hot, and Mars is cold. But both have a carbon dioxide dominated atmosphere. Therefore, referring to the equation again, in the comparison between planets, the number of molecules in the Venusian atmosphere is much higher than on Mars. It takes a lot more heat to warm it up, but once it does, it stays hot longer. Harder to cool off, let's say.

The idea I'm trying to get across is that it doesn't matter what kind of gas is in the atmosphere. It matters how much gas ( which also means how much mass of that gas) is in the atmosphere. More energy means higher temperature. It takes a lot more energy to heat up the Venusian atmosphere in the first place. If Mars had a thicker atmosphere, would it be hotter? Maybe. But only because there is a lot more matter there to retain the heat. It isn't because Mars would have a runaway greenhouse effect if it had an atmosphere like Venus.

Mars might even be colder than it is right now! That might "bake your bagels", as Bongino would say. Venus gets warmer than Mars because its blanket is a lot thicker. And tomorrow is Ground hog day. It's pretty cold, so break out those thick blankets.

AGW discussion

 

Whatever I write here, it is in the service of truth. I won't write something that I don't sincerely believe. While it is a fact that ANYBODY can say that, I can have no control over how people perceive what I'm saying. What I write therefore, is for my own conscience first. I have to satisfy myself first and foremost that it is right, or I'm not going to write it.

It can turn out to be wrong, and I'll recognize that later. If so, I would be willing to admit error. I believe that this is the only way to be in service to truth is to admit error. If somebody isn't admitting error, they are trying to say that they aren't ever in error. This makes them suspect, in my opinion. Whatever they are in service to, it isn't truth. Admission of error cannot ever be contrary to the service to truth. Indded, it is quite necessary. Otherwise, one can never admit error. That would mean the claim of perfection, which is in itself, is not credible.

A discussion about the subject of AGW occurred today. That is why I came here to write the first two paragraphs before I write anything else on the subject. The thing that came to mind today was the HUMAN FACTOR. The inability to admit failure or being wrong is one of those factors that make up the HUMAN FACTOR of any discussion on any subject.

Could it be that I won't admit error? I hope not. I strive for it not to do that kind of thing because I don't think that it serves the truth if I won't admit being wrong. If I am wrong, I want to admit my error ENTHUSIASTICALLY. I prefer to be corrected than otherwise, if that is truly the case. However, that is theory. The fact is that I, and anybody else for that matter, do not like to lose. This is true if it is a game of some kind, or a debate, or what have you. Nobody likes losing. "Show me a good loser, and I'll show you a loser." A person of some competitive spirit isn't likely to want to be wrong, and have it shown up as such. Such is the nature of the HUMAN FACTOR.

Therefore, nothing that I write here will convince somebody who is of the opposite opinion, if such opinion is a firmly held belief. Nevertheless, I can write about it in hopes that on some level, I can make my points in such a way that my opponent will find it worthy of consideration. This is also the HUMAN FACTOR, and sometimes it can be quite frustrating, but that is how things are.

After all of that, I will go back into the AGW discussion. It may not do much good, but it IS a firmly held belief of mind that I am right about this, and I won't back off unless I am 100% convinced that I'm wrong.

The thing about this AGW that I think is definitely wrong is this idea that carbon dioxide, in and of itself, and for that matter, ANY GAS, can be a cause of a greenhouse effect. No gas can trap heat by its very nature. The nature of gas is that it is FORMLESS. Gases cannot make a shape like a solid can. It cannot hold together like a liquid can. Gases are the most disorganized of the three basic phases of matter. And having been so, it cannot hold heat within itself, but only can disperse it. Proponents of AGW will tell you that a gas can trap heat. This is not so. It can only remove heat from a solid object, or a liquid object, and then disperse it into a larger area. Therefore, the addition of any gas into atmosphere, or more accurately, the change of its composition, cannot alter the climate at all.

Without a gas, there can be no atmosphere. Without an atmosphere, there can be no climate. If the Earth was like the moon, it would have no climate. The moon doesn't have a climate at all because there is no gases, and no atmosphere. It is the movement of gases within the atmosphere that makes a climate. This is nothing more than the dispersion of energy that it injected into it via the Sun. But that may seem a contradiction. The gases are trapping the heat, which is a contradiction to what was written above. But no, that is not the case. The gases within the atmosphere are not trapping the heat, but sending it in a different location away from its source. The source would be the reaction between the land and the sea, and the atmosphere above it. The sunlight goes through the atmoshpere, and some of the energy is absorbed that way, and lands and the seas absorb it, and reflect it back into the gases in the atmosphere. But all of this energy is going to be radiated out in any case, atmosphere or not.

This may be a ultra fine point that may seem hard to grasp, and seemingly contradictory. To illustrate further, try to observe a few things in relation to how heat is absorbed and radiated out. If you have an electric stove, you can observe how the heating element can turn bright red. You know it is pretty hot then, don't you? But notice that it stays hot for quite awhile afterwards. It release the heat much more slowly than in the case of a gas stove. The gas stove will have a flame. It is very hot, obviously. But notice that the heat goes away very quickly. It is being DISPERSED. The heat remains in the solid heating element, but the hot gases from the flame escape and very quickly dissipate.

In an internal combustion engine, the engine can get very hot. It will need to be cooled. But the gases that make it very hot are dispersed so quickly that you can put your hand in the exhaust of a running car at the tailpipe, and you won't be burned. But try to touch the exhaust manifold where the gases first enter into the exhaust pipe. If you try this, you will be burned. ( Don't try this, by the way. You will definitely be injured) I mention this is yet another example of how a solid object, like the exhaust manifold and the metal part of the engine, will stay hot. But the gases will cool rapidly.

Once again, it is the nature of gases that they don't hold heat, but disperse it.

There is an equation that illustrates further. It is called the gas law equation, and it goes like this: Pressure times volume equals the number of molecules of a gas times a constant, times its temperature=== or,

PV= nrT, where P is pressure, V is volume, n is the number of molecules, r is constant, and T is temperature

This is true for all gases, unless I am in error. Note also that this is in a system. This implies that it is a closed system, meaning that some force is holding the gas IN PLACE. Left to its own devices, the gas will expand into infinity. Only an external force, like the bonds in a solid object, or a liquid, will hold a gas IN PLACE. Gravity holds the gases in a planetary SYSTEM. The Earth's atmosphere is such a system. Gasses therefore, do not hold the heat. Gravitational forces is what holds the heat in a planetary SYSTEM.

Could there be excpetions? What about Venus? Venus is very hot, as many would know. The gas law equation explains WHY. The number of molecules of gas on Venus is much higher than on Earth. It is the MASS that holds the heat, not the GAS. Gravitational forces push the gases down closer to the surface. The atmospheric pressure on Venus is like being under THOUSANDS of feet of water. It will CRUSH YOU. Yes, Venus is hot. But its mass is why it is hot. Not that is is Carbon dioxide. Contrast that with Mars, which also has a similar percentage of carbon dioxide in its atmosphere. But what Mars has is a THIN atmosphere. It is like being 100,000 feet above the surface of the Earth. At that altitude, it is quite cold in Earth's atmosphere. It is the mass that holds the heat, not the fact of its composition. It would be true if it was nitrogen ( as on Earth), or carbon dioxide as on Venus or Mars. Mars is very cold, Venus is very hot. Both have similar percentages of carbon dioxide. The difference, in part, is from the number of molecules, which imparts its MASS.

In summing up, Einstein said if you cannot explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself. I've tried to cite it in such a way that maybe a kid would understand it. If not, then perhaps I should try harder. In any case, it is very simple. Simple enough, that I hope it would be understood.

But the HUMAN FACTOR may prevent that. Such is the case here, I believe. Either I'm right, or I'm wrong. But I don't think so.