Treating a minor shift in a trace gas as a 'code red' planetary emergency—while ignoring the massive planetary buffer systems—is a failure of perspective.

The oceans are a vast thermal and chemical flywheel. Because they are so vast and deep, their capacity to absorb, store, and redistribute heat and gases operates on centuries-long timescales. This dwarfs the short-term models of centralised bureaucracies. For example, the oceans contain 86% of the world's global carbon reservoir; yet the atmosphere holds a mere 1% to 2%.

Science itself shows that human-produced CO₂ adds only around 3.4% to the full annual global carbon cycle. But natural climate variation has been enlisted by globalist power brokers to drive a campaign blaming CO₂ for a future catastrophe. The roles of water vapor, clouds and oceans are being bypassed. They don't suit the agenda. Yet oceans cover 72% of the Earth's surface to an average depth of 2.3 miles and contain 91% of all the world's retained heat energy. The atmosphere retains hardly any.

They are so vast that all variations in concentrations of soluble CO₂ are readily absorbed into the marine sink. As oceans warm they retain less CO₂; when they cool, they retain more. This is known as Henry's Law. Natural processes heavily influence how much CO₂ resides in the atmosphere at any given time.

The human contribution, while measurable, is a fractional perturbation within a massive, dynamic system dominated by water vapor, cloud albedo and the sheer thermal inertia of the oceans. This also overlooks the complex, self-regulating feedback of cloud albedo.

As evaporation increases, cloud cover expands, acting as a natural planetary shield that reflects incoming solar radiation back into space—a chaotic, balancing mechanism that a simplified, CO₂-centric model cannot fully capture.

Water vapor is the Earth's most abundant greenhouse gas, making up to 4% of the atmosphere by volume in the tropics. This is 40,000 ppm compared with CO₂ at roughly 420 ppm. Yet water vapor has been minimised by a simplified political narrative because, unlike well-mixed atmospheric gases, it is not uniformly distributed—its concentrations are constantly shifting over the vast expanses of the seas.

We seem to know more about the topography of the Moon than the geography and dynamics of the deep oceans. The tropics and rainforests are accepted zones of peak water vapor. These are also primary zones for storm activities—like monsoons and seasonal rainfall—essential to atmospheric turbulence and heat redistribution.

Basic physics reveals that water vapor and clouds account for a vast majority of Earth's natural greenhouse effect—roughly 70% to 85%—while CO₂ is a minor shadow at around 9% to 12%. Its role is important to the atmospheric mix, but this doesn't mean it runs the world's climate. Water absorbs and traps infrared radiation on a massive scale, playing the dominant role in weather, cloud formation and precipitation.

The 'global warming or bust' agenda minimises the importance of cloud albedo and regional complexity. By flattening water vapor into a simple mathematical slave to CO₂, global models ignore the chaotic, self-regulating dynamics of cloud formation (which reflects sunlight and cools the earth) and localised tropical dynamics.

A decentralised, water-dominated climate driven by regional ocean currents and chaotic cloud formations cannot be managed, taxed or centralised. This offers no financial leverage for global governance.

A well-mixed, uniform trace gas like CO₂, however, provides the perfect metric for a centralised system and a whopping (and unnecessary) $275 trillion grid duplication.

Image: The oceanic flywheel; Deep-sea thermohaline circulation currents that regulate global heat distribution over centuries. Source: ttsz / Getty Images

People are always pestering me for concrete examples of the cost of NRC style regulation. I turn them off by telling them it doesn’t work that way. It’s about incentives and motivation. What are the sticks and what are the carrots? Suppose you tell a football player, your overriding priority is not getting hurt. If you get hurt or do anything that might get you hurt, you are out of football for life. Now go out there and win this game.

When you go from a competitive environment where it’s build better/cheaper or die to an environment which is ruled by an autocratic regulator’s goal to prevent a release, everything goes to hell. Paperwork and process trumps substance erecting massive barriers to entry. Cheap becomes “unsafe”.

Everybody’s motivation gets wrong headed, not just the regulators. Incumbents work harder on protecting and deepening their artificial paperwork moat than they do on their product. Workers forced to follow ridiculous, wasteful procedures and sit around waiting for a series of sign offs on an obvious fix rationally decide if the bosses don’t care about doing the job right neither should they. Fixed price contracts become infeasible. The vendors’ goal becomes milk each project for as much money as possible for as long as possible. And the next thing you know, plants take three or four times as long to build as they should and cost five or more times what they should.

My inquisitor walks away shaking his head and saying to himself, where are the facts, he doesn’t have a real argument. //

But an important factor is that getting rid of open racking is at least three times as expensive as it should be because of the paper work required to build a simple steel and concrete can.

In short, NRC style regulation is the reason every nuclear power plant in the US uses dense-packing, which is by far the most likely, non-weapons path to a Chernobyl or larger sized release in the USA. Such a release coupled with the NRC’s immoral, indefensible defense of LNT will cause panic, evacuation, and exile that will shake the country to its roots. Is that a big enough cost for you?

If you don’t pursue safety in a way that is cost effective, you are killing people. -- [David Okrent, Past chairman, Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards]

Suppose early in 1979, you asked yourself what is the most definitive experiment we could do to learn about the radioactive harm associated with a nuclear power plant release. The obvious answer: a big release would be that experiment. But you would immediately reject that idea on both ethical and economic grounds. Since then we’ve inadvertently run that experiment three times. Let’s look at the results. //

Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima //

So we did the definitive experiment. The result: even in a very large power plant release, dose rates to the public are almost never higher than the dose rates our bodies know how to handle. Nature had to equip us with those repair systems to cope with the onslaught of DNA damage from our internal metabolic processes, which damage our DNA at a rate that is at least 25,000 times higher than the damage rate from average background radiation.

Nuclear power plant casualties are extremely expensive economically, which means it’s in the operators’ interest to build robust plants and operate them prudently. But from a public, radiation point of view almost all releases will produce no detectable harm, and the very worst releases are no worse than a bad refinery fire at killing the public.

This puts nuclear in the same category as wind and solar, when it comes to directly killing people per TWh of electricity, and orders of magnitude less directly deadly than coal plants. But it’s the indirect deaths that really count. The easiest way to kill a lot of people is to make them poorer. With a few exceptions, wind and solar will do that. Nuclear will too unless it is as cheap as coal. Nuclear has been cheaper than coal, and can be cheaper again; but only if we regulate nuclear in a way that eliminates barriers to entry and forces the vendors to compete on an even playing field. Right now we are doing exactly the opposite. We are killing people.

The Rockefeller Foundation and its allies decided to argue that radiation produced genetic damage and that damage was unrepairable. Radiation damage just keeps building up. Therefore, the harm was proportional to the total dose, regardless of how rapidly or slowly that dose was incurred. This is like saying taking 365 tablets of aspirin at once is the same as taking 1 tablet per day for 365 days. This no repair hypothesis is called the Linear No Threshold model or LNT.

If LNT is correct, then the Banners could aggregate the tiny increases in dose rate due to test fallout over hemispherical populations and over decades to argue that Bomb testing was invisibly killing millions of people worldwide. The Foundation expertly (and unscrupulously) promoted LNT with all its resources.

82 years later, Pointe du Hoc still teaches a hard American lesson: plans matter only until war wrecks them.

Mike Tyson had it right; all plans go out the window when you're punched in the face.

Courage shows itself when the map is wrong, the guns are missing, the commander is wounded, and the enemy still holds the ground. On D-Day, Rudder's Rangers didn't stop at the cliff; they went looking for the guns, found and destroyed them, and held the road.

“Rangers lead the way” wasn't a slogan in the morning; it was a record of what they had already done. Thank God for such men.

“The Iceman is not a static relic, but a dynamic biological interface,” wrote Sarhan and his colleagues. And that’s the great truth of existence: life’s short, then you die—and the whole time, you’re a dynamic biological interface.

voline Ars Scholae Palatinae
20y
853
fe3a8b63 said:
https://isaiprofitable.com/

Even if we ignore all other problems in regards to environment, pollution, water, electricity, etc. it still doesn't make sense.

It's just burning money to.... burn money to..... uh what? What's the goal. You ain't making money.
I think Signal CEO Meredith Whittaker had a good answer:

I’m going to give a sideways answer to this, which is that the venture capital business model needs to be understood as requiring hype. You can go back to the Netscape IPO, and that was the proof point that made venture capital the financial lifeblood of the tech industry.

Venture capital looks at valuations and growth, not necessarily at profit or revenue. So you don’t actually have to invest in technology that works, or that even makes a profit, you simply have to have a narrative that is compelling enough to float those valuations. So you see this repetitive and exhausting hype cycle as a feature in this industry. A couple of years ago, you would have been asking me about the metaverse, then last year, you would have asked me about Web3 and crypto, and for each of these inflection points there’s an Andreessen Horowitz manifesto.

It’s not simply that one piece of technology is overhyped, it’s that hype is a necessary ingredient of the current business ecosystem of the tech industry. We should examine how often the financial incentive for hype is rewarded without any real social returns, without any meaningful progress in technology, without these tools and services and worlds ever actually manifesting. That’s key to understanding the growing chasm between the narrative of techno-optimists and the reality of our tech-encumbered world.

— Meredith Whittaker, Signal CEO, to Derek Robertson. "5 Questions for Meredith Whittaker". Politico, 2023-12-01.
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/digital-future-daily/2023/12/01/5-questions-for-meredith-whittaker-00129677

"For the first time in more than four decades, a new privately developed non-light-water reactor has reached criticality in the United States. Thank you to President Trump for his bold leadership and thank you to the bold scientists and entrepreneurs at Antares and Idaho National Laboratory who helped make this moment possible. I look forward to seeing continued progress in the American nuclear renaissance." //

Hallen
10 hours ago
American nuclear spent decades going nowhere, buried under regulatory delays and cost overruns.
This is the most important sentence in the article. It's true.

America could have been running on clean, ultra safe, abundant, reliable nuclear power by now if it were not for the climate alarmists and people who loved the movie "The China Syndrome". The EPA and other agencies have made it so difficult, to the point of being almost impossible, to develop nuclear power that advances came at a snail's pace.

The climate alarmists and Democrat officials saw the huge potential for massive funding shifts that could be manipulated for both personal gain and to develop Democrat power bases in "sustainable" energy. What they deemed unilaterally to be solar and wind. In my opinion, they intentionally hamstrung both fossil fuel development and nuclear development.

Look at the cost now. All those data centers everyone are overreacting over would be a non-issue for power consumption issues if we had these reactors. (they really aren't a problem either way, but it wouldn't be a talking point either). Powering EVs wouldn't be a worry.

The left has caused this problem. Even a little win like this one seems huge because of it.

I hope this trend continues and we can see more of this.

The article also doesn't mention the type of reactor. It's very important.
It's a sodium heat-pipe-cooled advanced microreactor. It's cooling mechanism is self-contained and does not need external water supplies for cooling. It means it can be used on things like submarines and a spaceships. It's also going to be used to power military bases to keep them secure and off the civilian grid.

These types of reactors can also be used in clusters to power remote locations so they don't need to be connected to the grid. That means lower infrastructure costs and independence. It could drive development in remote, harsh areas where people could live if they could get power and water. These types of reactors could drive that kind of development which would be a huge benefit to housing costs.

The future could be that your home is way out in the desert with a grand view and few if any other homes visible from your location. You'd connect to the urban areas via high speed tunnels using your EV or even autonomous aircraft. Half an hour and you're in Phoenix or Denver or Boise or Reno. It could be pretty cool.

The British motor industry has always been brilliant at producing two types of people: engineering geniuses who could design a world-beating chassis on the back of a beer mat, and businessmen who couldn't sell water in a desert. John Tojeiro was a textbook example of the former. He was a quiet, back-shed wizard who built the skeleton for one of the most famous cars ever made, and in return, he got... well, not very much at all. This is the story of the man who did all the hard work, while someone else got all the glory.

For most of its time at Mars, the MAVEN spacecraft provided a relay for scientific data uplinked from NASA’s rovers and landers on the Martian surface. The relay allowed NASA to return significantly more data and imagery from rovers like Perseverance and Curiosity than would be possible through a direct-to-Earth radio connection.

With MAVEN out of the picture, NASA has four other orbiters it can use to provide this critical radio link. But officials aren’t sure how much longer they will last. Three of the four remaining relay orbiters are older than MAVEN, which played an outsized role in the relay network thanks to its higher orbit.

“Over the life of the mission, MAVEN supported more than 8 percent of all of our relay sessions planned by our rovers and landers, but it accounted for nearly 18 percent of all of the data returned, illustrating its usefulness when returning large data volumes,” said Tiffany Morgan, director of NASA’s Mars Exploration Program.

The network still has plenty of capacity to support the Perseverance and Curiosity rovers, with some minor caveats.

“We do have remaining assets, and those assets have adjusted the amount of data that they return, and the rovers have also adjusted their planning for how they connect to those assets,” Morgan said. “There is a slight delay on occasion, because we don’t have as many assets in view, to getting our science data back, and MAVEN was critical in returning science data versus operational data. But the Mars Relay Network is resilient enough at this point in time to accommodate, for the most part, the loss of MAVEN with the added delay.” //

jimlux Ars Tribunus Militum
12y
1,671

jlredford said:
It's interesting that they're able to use so many different orbiters to do this relay function. Interesting and resilient! It's great that it can handle dropouts like MAVEN. As the system gets upgraded, I hope they keep all this inter-operability to handle the next failure. The Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter is the main link these days, and it's now 20 years old, almost twice the age of MAVEN.

That’s because most of them (at least those launched after 2005) fly the JPL developed Electra software defined radio (they’re manufactured by L3, but the hardware design and the software is JPL). The landers also use Electra radios (or Electra Lite). MER was the first Mars lander to use relay ops with an orbiter to return data, and after a week or two, it had returned more data through the relay link than all previous Mars missions combined. It’s that effective (compared to basic X-band Direct to Earth at 8 kbps)

And as far as interoperability goes, that’s part of the Prox-1 standard from the Consultative Committee on Space Data Standards (ccsds.org) - most people flying a relay payload use it (as will the new Mars Telecom Network, and similar spacecraft planned for the Moon). 400 MHz UHF at Mars for now, but S-band is coming, as is Ka-band.

But in a majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court accepted the FCC argument that carriers could have obtained jury trials if they refused to pay the fines and the government tried to collect. Carriers could either pay the fines and challenge them in circuit appeals courts, or not pay the fines and wait for the government to collect in a process that ultimately would result in a jury trial for each carrier.

“The FCC’s forfeiture proceedings fit comfortably within” the Supreme Court’s Seventh Amendment precedents, Roberts wrote. “The orders at issue did not settle the carriers’ legal obligations because, stated simply, they did not create an obligation to pay. And the orders did not reflect the ultimate determination of any fact because, before the carriers could have been made to pay, the Government was required to prove its case to a jury.”

During oral arguments, justices expressed skepticism of AT&T and Verizon’s claims and seemed to agree that FCC fine decisions are nonbinding until enforced by a court. Justice Brett Kavanaugh described the case as a victory for carriers either way, because the government acknowledged its orders are nonbinding without a jury trial. //

“The Commission now agrees that AT&T and Verizon would have been entitled to a jury trial de novo in an Article III court had they declined to pay,” Thomas wrote. The majority, Thomas said, “accepts the Government’s newfound account that under the Act, the Commission’s self-styled ‘orders’ were mere nonbinding notices that the regulated parties were free to ignore.”

Thomas supports this interpretation and said it “should govern future proceedings so as to bring the Commission’s enforcement practices into harmony with the Constitution.” But as for the case involving AT&T and Verizon, Thomas argued that the FCC did not comply with the limits described in today’s Supreme Court ruling.

“If AT&T and Verizon did not pay, they arguably were subject to immediate statutory penalties for defying Commission forfeiture orders,” Thomas wrote. “The procedure for judicial review of the orders that is the basis for this Court’s jurisdiction treated them not as requests for voluntary payment, but as ‘final orders.’”

Thomas wrote that “AT&T and Verizon did what courts ordinarily encourage: They paid under protest and filed suit to get their payments back. Today, the Court punishes AT&T and Verizon for complying with a government order that they in good faith believed was obligatory, diligently preserving their objection to that order, and then litigating that objection so effectively as to cause the Government to change its position years later.”

When they’re being eaten, bean plants release chemicals that draw in parasitic wasps.

Nations are not economic zones.

That matters, because from a pure GDP standpoint the ideal citizen is someone who gets cancer, gets divorced, crashes the car, and hires a small army of professionals before dying.

Nobody contributed more to UK GDP this week than Henry Nowak’s killer.

Think about that.

Police response. Medical response. Detectives. Public affairs officers. Dozens of lawyers. Prison for life. All of it staggeringly expensive. Vickrum Digwa has already made up the entire lifetime GDP contribution of the man he killed. Probably a hundred times over.

Migration isn’t just about votes.

Consider yourself. A patriot who lives a simple life.

You are not a burden on society, so you contribute little to GDP. //

Your pastor told you that becoming an electrician, a plumber, a nurse, a firefighter, a teacher would contribute to society. He told you to live a simple life. To love and protect your family and your neighbors. He told you not to gamble or drink or have affairs.

Don’t you see why they hate the church?

Why they hate you?

In their eyes you are wasted space.

You may contribute enormously on the human scale, the only scale that has ever actually mattered, you may contribute non economic values like love, honor and duty. You might contribute locally on a micro-economic scale.

But in the big picture you are an economic loss. Because you contribute almost nothing to GDP.

You contribute far far leas than a criminal migrant with a mental disorder, gambling addiction and cancer.

You are a great American in the eyes of your church.

But on an economic GDP scale you are the very worst type of American.

The story of the Ecurie Ecosse Tojeiro at Le Mans is not a story of victory. It is something much more important than that. It is a perfect reminder of the spirit of the great privateer teams, a time when a small group of determined, passionate, and slightly mad enthusiasts could build a world-beating car in a shed, crash it, fix it, paint it in a field, and then turn up at the world's greatest race and give the giants a proper scare. It was a magnificent failure.

There is a wonderful and slightly awkward secret at the heart of the modern Aston Martin. For years, the company has cultivated an image of bespoke, blue-blooded, British excellence. The soul of that image has been its magnificent V12 engine. The problem is, this quintessentially British heart isn't entirely British at all. If you scratch beneath the surface, you'll find that its DNA is about as exotic as a Ford Mondeo. //

Aston Martin, now safely under Ford ownership, needed a world-class engine for its next generation of cars. Ford's accountants had a much cleverer and cheaper idea than a clean-sheet design. They looked at their excellent 3.0-liter Duratec V6 engine, found in countless sensible family saloons, and had a thought: what would happen if we just glued two of them together?

For anyone who's owned a classic British car, three words guaranteed to send a shiver down the spine: Lucas Electrical Systems. For decades, the products made by this Birmingham company became the source of endless, infuriating failures that turned British motorists into unwilling comedians. Headlights would dim to a romantic glow just as you needed them most. Indicators would flash with the random enthusiasm of a broken disco ball. Windscreen wipers would choose the exact moment of a downpour to take early retirement. It's for this reason that Joseph Lucas, the company's long-dead founder, earned the posthumous nickname "Prince of Darkness."

Which makes the story all the more remarkable, because Joseph Lucas himself built his business on exactly the opposite reputation: rock-solid reliability and genuine innovation. //

In the 1920s, Lucas signed cross-licensing deals with Bosch, Delco, and other major electrical suppliers that carved up the world between them. Lucas agreed not to sell in their territories; they agreed not to sell in Britain. By the 1930s, Lucas had achieved something close to a complete monopoly on automotive electrics in Britain.

If you were building cars in Britain, you bought your headlamps, starter motors, alternators, and wiring from Lucas. Austin, Morris, Jaguar, Rover, Triumph, MG - they were all captive customers. There was literally nowhere else to go. This should have been a recipe for excellence, with guaranteed demand allowing investment in the best possible products. Instead, it became a lesson in how monopolies breed complacency. //

The folklore that grew up around Lucas failures became part of British motoring culture. "The Lucas motto: Get home before dark." "Why do the British drink warm beer? Because Lucas makes their refrigerators." "Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone, Thomas Edison invented the light bulb, Joseph Lucas invented the short circuit." The jokes were funny precisely because they reflected real experiences shared by thousands of frustrated drivers.

jdhardy Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
15y
127
Subscriptor++

eoink said:
Voicing = Speaking about that? Asking as a European.

Yep. Classic English register split - "speak" is the native (low register) Old English/Germanic version, "voice" is the mid-register (Norman) French-derived version, and "communicate" would be the high-register Latin-derived version.

Lots of terms follow this pattern - hence the expression that English is really three languages in a trench coat.

Is it a hidden gem, a cult classic, or hopelessly dumb? We vote “all of the above.” //

Even operating at its most frantic peak in 1985 just before Challenger’s loss, the shuttle hardware managed a maximum of nine flights in one calendar year; for most of the 1990s, it performed at five or six flights per year. Civilians in space—to say nothing of Big Bird—would have to wait.

And into that post-Challenger disillusioned summer of 1986, Hollywood brought us SpaceCamp. It had all the right ingredients: A stacked cast with a solid leading duo (Kate Capshaw and Tom Skerritt), tons of real NASA location footage, and a big, brassy score by none other than John Williams. The film was completed before the Challenger disaster, leaving 20th Century Fox with something of a nightmarish choice on their hands—to shelve the film and lose millions, or send it to theaters and risk a PR disaster.

For better or for worse, Fox chose to release the film, which ultimately made about $9.6 million on a reported $25 million budget. Ouch.

What do British fantasy epics, Russian family dramas, ancient philosophy, and Christian apologetics have in common? This might sound like the setup of a joke or riddle, but it’s the premise of the latest book from philosophy professor and prolific author Peter Kreeft.

Now 89 years old, Kreeft has penned over 100 books on philosophical and religious topics. He’s been a professor of philosophy at Boston College for over 60 years. Over his scholarly career, Kreeft has taken an unusual position, namely, applying philosophy to Christian apologetics. As a Calvinist in childhood who converted to Catholicism during his college years, he believes in the unity of different denominations and often uses nonsectarian language which can apply to all Christians and non-Christians alike.
Last year his latest book was published: “The Two Greatest Novels Ever Written: The Wisdom of ‘The Lord of the Rings’ and ‘The Brothers Karamazov.’” In this simple yet profound book, Kreeft uses two renowned fictional classics to pierce the mysteries of philosophical truths and theological concepts.

While it may seem illogical to use two complex novels to delve into the even more complex fields of philosophy and religion, this brilliant scholar manages to simplify the books and the concepts in 15 short chapters. //

Anyone earnestly seeking the truth will likely be enriched by reading this thoughtful analysis. Wrapping such inspiring philosophy in an analysis of two fictional novels isn’t a gimmick. The very point of the book is that art is the most powerful vehicle for truth. In the Introduction, Kreeft writes:

“Beauty is the point of the arrow that first pierces the heart, which is also the first door we open to God, however anonymously. … The arrows of beauty enter the heart in order to break it. … The heartbreak is art’s holy task. It’s like digging: It creates a space for truth and goodness to fill.”

Covering most of America’s history, here are 10 single-volume books discussing the most important eras in US history.