Enshittification Lifecycle

09:25 Friday, 27 January 2023
Current Wx: Temp: 47.79°F Pressure: 1025hPa Humidity: 62% Wind: 9.22mph
Words: 13

The Enshittification Lifecycle of Online Platforms. Kottke links and comments. The marmot concurs.

✍️ Reply by email

Insomnia Notes

07:21 Saturday, 27 January 2024
Current Wx: Temp: 63.12°F Pressure: 1016hPa Humidity: 94% Wind: 1.01mph
Words: 872

I haven't been sleeping well with Mitzi away. While I'm not sleeping, I seem to do a lot of "thinking." It's always important to recall that the internal voice is an unreliable narrator, but every now and then it may offer something insightful.

As is probably clear from much of the marmot in recent months, if not years, I've been struggling with my emotions regarding the unfolding climate catastrophe. The cognitive dissonance of the world largely carrying on with business as usual while the collapse of this civilization slowly begins unfolding before us is hard to accept.

So the other night I somehow made a connection between the end of my marriage and the end of this civilization. My marriage ended, but I'm still here. This civilization may end, but people will still be here. Between now and then, there's a lot of suffering, to be sure. But there was suffering in my marriage already, and there's plenty of suffering already in this civilization.

My marriage failed because I, probably "we," but I can only speak for myself, believed things that weren't true. This civilization is ending largely for the same reason. I've been happier living "in truth," than in clinging to things that were instilled in me that aren't true. (For one example, no one is responsible for my feelings other than me. ("I"?) Popular culture tells us that others can "make" us happy, mad, sad, etc. That's a myth that we use to blame others, elevate others, control others, and deny our own responsibility.)

I'm aware that the "five stages of grief" are largely in disfavor today; but I happen to think they are closer to being right than wrong, although I agree that the concept of "stages" can be misunderstood. The boundaries may be smeared, and the process isn't strictly one-directional at all times. There can be plenty of moving back and forth between adjacent stages. And I believe the order I use may be unconventional. That is, some place anger before bargaining, but I believe it's the reverse. That is, "denial, bargaining, anger, depression and finally, acceptance."

We have been in the "denial" stage on climate for decades, since at least 1980. We are presently in the "bargaining" phase, as we half-heartedly embrace measures intended to address the damage we've done to our atmosphere. These will prove to be too little, too late and what follows then will be anger.

What is perhaps unclear to much of the world is that this isn't just an environmental disaster. The myths we believed that allowed us to foul our nest are the same myths that undergird much of our advanced technological civilization, and many, if not all, are the fundamental tenets of "western" civilization. Myths about "freedom," "growth" and "property." Capitalism itself, and many others.

So while the evidence is very clear that our climate system has entered a new, disordered phase as it transitions to some new equilibrium eventually; it's less clear that our civilization has entered a new, disordered phase on a course to "degrowth" or "collapse." (Depending on your degree of optimism.)

Efforts to broker peace agreements in the Middle East and eastern Europe represent efforts in bargaining. The crisis at our southern border is an example of ongoing denial (by both parties, though Republicans are crueler, and happily so).

It hasn't become clear yet that the trajectory of this civilization is one of decline and fall. Musk may actually land a Starship on Mars (and it'll probably fall over), but the course is set. Some elements will continue to rise before all, ultimately, fall. Like the wealth of billionaires.

We will reach the stage of "anger" during the violent collapse of this civilization. How violent it will be is uncertain. We should be very lucky if we can avoid any kind of nuclear exchange, though regional ones at least seem likely.

I don't think anyone can say with confidence when all this is likely to occur, only that the process is underway and it's irreversible. I'm inclined to believe it will be before the end of this century.

Billions of people will die.

What follows immediately will be depression, grief, sadness, remorse. I rather expect there will also be plenty of denial among some of the survivors. ("I was a good German!" An affect, not an aspersion against Germans as a people. A more contemporary example would be "I was a good Republican!" Again, not an aspersion against Republicans as people. They will suffer as much as everyone else.)

Eventually, acceptance. Life will go on. Humanity will not go extinct. I suppose it's possible it could; but I think that's highly unlikely and if it did, well, there'd be no one around to care. The question is, what will we remember?

The seeds of our destruction lie in our own nature. How will we avoid repeating the same mistakes? Perhaps we won't. But we also won't have enormous quantities of fossil fuels to accelerate our growth and hubris. Maybe we'll become wiser if we grow more slowly. I don't know.

But I do know it's not possible to live an authentic life believing in things that aren't true. Believing lies inevitably leads to disaster.

✍️ Reply by email

Further to the Foregoing

08:19 Saturday, 27 January 2024
Current Wx: Temp: 64.53°F Pressure: 1017hPa Humidity: 94% Wind: 0mph
Words: 194

It occurred to me that I didn't mention why the five stages were relevant in the preceding post. Rather than edit it, I'll just add this.

Chiefly, they describe the process by which we accommodate loss or profound change in our circumstances. We are habituated creatures, and profound change can be unwelcome or upsetting, even as it is often strongly desired at the same time.

Our climate is changing profoundly. Our civilization has changed and is changing profoundly. For the better? There are people who like to be "glass half full" contrarians, and who promote the notion that things have never been better! And yes, the trajectories of many metrics are positive, until they can no longer be sustained by the myths that fueled them. The myths have been frayed for quite some time, and now they've begun to unravel.

The five stages can offer a framework to understand what's taking place, and what is likely to come.

The old disclaimer from Groundhog Day was that I'm an authority on nothing. I make all this shit up. You're encouraged to do your own thinking.

That's still the case. I'd be happy to be wrong.

✍️ Reply by email

Misery Hall

08:32 Saturday, 27 January 2024
Current Wx: Temp: 64.89°F Pressure: 1017hPa Humidity: 94% Wind: 3.44mph
Words: 208

The infirmary at the Naval Academy was referred to as "Misery Hall." I only went there twice. Once when I had the flu, which caused me to miss my boxing final. And the other time was because of the makeup final in boxing. I couldn't count the number of fingers in front of me correctly.

Anyway, I refer to our house here, fondly, as "Saul Hall," because it's largely Mitzi's creation. But we're going to be hosting her recovering sister for a few weeks until she's fit enough to travel again. Hopefully not in "misery."

Mitzi has extended her time away until Monday, when she'll pick up her sister and bring her up here to continue her recovery. So I've got a few chores to do to get ready to receive her. Our spare bedroom also serves as Mitzi's office and she's been doing some consulting work in recent months. so I'm going to get her set up in the "dining room" (it's more of an "area") so her sister can have a space of her own while she's here.

And then there's the "tidying up." Mostly that means my "office." I'm blogging about it because that's more fun than actually doing it.

"Procrastination, thy name is marmot!"

✍️ Reply by email

More Reasons to Avoid Florida

08:50 Saturday, 27 January 2024
Current Wx: Temp: 65.5°F Pressure: 1017hPa Humidity: 94% Wind: 3.44mph
Words: 72

I happened to hear this radio program yesterday and I thought I'd share it here. It's The Florida Roundup, which is a weekly (Fridays) program on current issues in Florida. The main guest segment was about coastal migration, and I thought it was fascinating. The paper the guests authored is here.

Anyone who is contemplating retiring in Florida should take into consideration the changing dynamics of the state's climate, coastline and demographics.

✍️ Reply by email

Little Blue

12:56 Monday, 27 January 2025

Current Wx: Temp: 70.59°F Pressure: 1022hPa Humidity: 58% Wind: 12.66mph
Words: 53

The sun was out today, and I took a little walk this morning. This little blue heron flew up and perched on the fence just as I got to the back gate, and was kind enough to remain and pose a bit for me. The OM-5 with the 12-200mm super-zoom.

✍️ Reply by email

Chatting With R1 About Greenhouse Gases

13:00 Monday, 27 January 2025
Current Wx: Temp: 70.59°F Pressure: 1022hPa Humidity: 58% Wind: 12.66mph
Words: 1610

Even though there are better/"more important" things I ought to be doing, and since at least portions of the world seem to be losing their mind over R1, I download Ollama and installed the 14b R1 model on my iMac, unsure if it would run.

It does. Everything takes place in the Terminal. It responds slowly, like watching a 300bps modem text stream, if you're old enough to remember what that was like.

It doesn't just give you an answer, it walks through it's "reasoning," which I'm uncertain about at the moment. I haven't tried to do any deeper dives, and it doesn't seem to remember from one answer to the next.

If I do this very often going forward, I should probably find a way to display this in the text so it stands out.

Anyway, here are two questions I asked about CO2 and H2O as greenhouse gases. I'm reasonably certain the answers are correct. But just like AI, I'm an authority and I make all this shit up. You should do your own reasoning. Disclaimer concluded, here it is:

>>> Why is CO2 considered a "greenhouse gas"?

Okay, so I'm trying to figure out why CO2 is called a greenhouse gas. I know that greenhouse gases are important because they trap heat in the atmosphere and contribute to global warming, but I'm not exactly sure how CO2 specifically does this.

First, I remember learning about the greenhouse effect. It's like when the Earth's atmosphere traps some of the Sun's heat, preventing it from all escaping back into space, which keeps our planet warm. Without greenhouse gases, the Earth would be a lot colder and probably uninhabitable.

Now, CO2 is one of these greenhouse gases along with others like methane and water vapor. But why is that? I think it has something to do with how molecules absorb and emit infrared radiation. So, when the Sun's light reaches Earth, some of it is absorbed by the ground and converted into heat. This heat then tries to escape back into space as infrared radiation.

CO2 molecules in the atmosphere must interact with this infrared radiation somehow. I'm guessing that CO2 has a structure that allows it to absorb certain wavelengths of infrared. Carbon dioxide is made up of one carbon atom bonded to two oxygen atoms, right? The bonds between C and O might vibrate at frequencies that match the wavelengths of the infrared radiation being emitted by the Earth.

When this happens, the CO2 molecules trap the heat because they absorb it and then re-emit it in different directions. This trapping effect leads to a warming of the atmosphere. So, more CO2 means more absorption and emission of infrared, which results in a stronger greenhouse effect and higher global temperatures.

But wait, why isn't nitrogen or oxygen considered a greenhouse gas if their molecules are also absorbing? Oh, right! Nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2) have very strong bonds that don't vibrate at the same frequencies as the infrared radiation. So they don't absorb much of it, making them not effective greenhouse gases.

So, CO2's ability to absorb specific infrared wavelengths makes it a key player in trapping heat. This is why increasing levels of CO2 due to human activities like burning fossil fuels are causing global temperatures to rise and leading to climate change.

I think I've got the basic idea: CO2 traps heat by absorbing infrared radiation that would otherwise escape into space, contributing to the greenhouse effect and global warming.

CO2 is considered a greenhouse gas because it effectively absorbs and re-emits infrared radiation. This process traps heat in the atmosphere, leading to the greenhouse effect.

Here's a breakdown:

1. **Greenhouse Effect**: The natural trapping of heat by greenhouse gases like CO2 keeps Earth warm. Without them, our planet would be much colder.

2. **Absorption of Infrared Radiation**: CO2 molecules (CO₂) have bonds that vibrate at frequencies matching certain infrared wavelengths. This allows them to absorb heat energy emitted by the Earth after it absorbs sunlight.

3. **Heat Trapping**: Once CO2 absorbs this heat, it re-emits the radiation in various directions. Some of this radiation heads back towards space, while some is directed back towards the Earth's surface or higher into the atmosphere, trapping heat and raising temperatures.

4. **Comparison with Other Gases**: Unlike nitrogen (N₂) and oxygen (O₂), which don't absorb significant infrared due to their bond structures, CO2's molecular structure enables it to trap heat effectively.

5. **Impact of Increased CO2 Levels**: Human activities, such as burning fossil fuels, have increased atmospheric CO2 levels, amplifying the greenhouse effect and contributing to global warming and climate change.

In summary, CO2's unique ability to absorb infrared radiation makes it a key greenhouse gas, playing a significant role in regulating Earth's temperature.

>>> How does CO2 compare with H2O as a greenhouse gas?

Alright, so I'm trying to understand how carbon dioxide (CO2) compares to water vapor (H2O) when it comes to being a greenhouse gas. I know both are considered greenhouse gases, but I've heard that CO2 is often discussed more in the context of climate change. But why? Is it because CO2 has a stronger effect on the greenhouse effect?

First, I need to understand what makes a substance a greenhouse gas. From what I remember, greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere by absorbing and re-emitting infrared radiation. So, when the sun shines on the Earth, some of that energy is absorbed by the ground and then radiated back as infrared radiation. Greenhouse gases like CO2 and H2O absorb this infrared radiation and prevent it from escaping into space, thereby warming the planet.

But how do CO2 and H2O compare in their abilities to trap heat? I think it might have to do with their molecular structures and how they interact with infrared radiation. Water vapor is a molecule made of two hydrogen atoms bonded to one oxygen atom, while carbon dioxide consists of one carbon atom bonded to two oxygen atoms.

I recall that water vapor has a larger impact on the greenhouse effect because it's more abundant in the atmosphere compared to CO2. But even though there's more water vapor,

I've heard that CO2 is more effective at trapping heat per molecule. So, despite being less concentrated, CO2 plays a significant role in global warming.

Another thing to consider is how these gases respond to temperature changes. Water vapor concentration in the atmosphere depends on temperature—when it's warmer, there's more

water vapor. This means that as the Earth gets hotter due to increased CO2 levels, more water vapor is released into the atmosphere, which further enhances the greenhouse effect. It's like a feedback loop.

On the other hand, CO2 concentrations are more stable in the long term and aren't directly dependent on temperature like water vapor. This makes CO2 a primary driver of climate change because its effects last much longer without being as easily reversible.

I also think about the different wavelengths of infrared radiation each gas absorbs. CO2 has strong absorption bands that don't overlap with water vapor, which means they trap heat in different parts of the spectrum. This complementary effect can lead to a more significant overall trapping of heat compared to either gas alone.

But I'm not entirely sure how much each contributes compared to the other. I know that water vapor accounts for about 60% of the greenhouse effect, while CO2 is around 25%.

However, since water vapor concentrations adjust quickly with temperature, its contribution remains somewhat balanced, whereas CO2 accumulates over time and leads to a more persistent warming effect.

So, in summary, both CO2 and H2O are important greenhouse gases, but CO2 has a longer-lasting impact because it doesn't depend on atmospheric conditions like water vapor does.

Its ability to trap heat over extended periods makes it a critical factor in driving global climate change.

• Comparison of CO2 and H2O as Greenhouse Gases**

1. **Greenhouse Gas Definition**: Both CO2 and H2O are greenhouse gases that absorb and re-emit infrared radiation, contributing to the Earth's temperature regulation.

2. **Molecular Structure and Function**:

- **CO2**: Consists of one carbon atom bonded to two oxygen atoms. It has strong absorption bands in the infrared spectrum, trapping heat effectively.

- **H2O**: Made up of two hydrogen atoms bonded to one oxygen atom. Water vapor absorbs a broad range of infrared wavelengths.

3. **Concentration and Abundance**:

- **Water Vapor (H2O)**: More abundant in the atmosphere compared to CO2. It plays a significant role in the greenhouse effect due to its higher concentration.

- **Carbon Dioxide (CO2)**: Less concentrated than water vapor but more effective at trapping heat per molecule.

4. **Impact on Climate**:

- **Water Vapor**: Its concentration is highly dependent on temperature, leading to a feedback loop where warmer temperatures increase water vapor release, enhancing the greenhouse effect.

- **Carbon Dioxide**: Has a longer-lasting impact as its concentrations remain stable and accumulate over time, driving persistent global warming.

5. **Infrared Absorption**:

- **CO2**: Strong absorption bands that complement those of H2O, leading to a more significant trapping of heat in different parts of the spectrum.

- **H2O**: Absorbs a broad range of infrared wavelengths, contributing to the overall greenhouse effect.

6. **Contribution to Greenhouse Effect**:

- **Water Vapor**: Accounts for about 60% of the greenhouse effect but is more responsive to temperature changes.

- **Carbon Dioxide**: Contributes around 25% and has a more persistent warming effect due to its stability and accumulation.

In conclusion, while water vapor has a larger immediate impact on the greenhouse effect due to its higher concentration, carbon dioxide's longer-lasting effects make it a primary driver of climate change.

✍️ Reply by email

Keeps Me Busy

13:24 Monday, 27 January 2025

Current Wx: Temp: 70.61°F Pressure: 1022hPa Humidity: 57% Wind: 11.5mph
Words: 98

To the best of my knowledge, this is the only app that has ever indicated all cores running. I asked R1, "What causes CO2 to re-radiate IR radiation that it absorbs in the atmosphere?"

It spent a long time doing the little cursor animation. I went ahead and asked the online version from the iOS app and got an answer instantly. It took over 10 minutes to generate this answer, but I wasn't timing it. I'm going from the time of the screenshot and the time I heard the fans spin down.

I'll post the answers separately.

✍️ Reply by email

R1 On iOS

13:29 Monday, 27 January 2025
Current Wx: Temp: 70.63°F Pressure: 1022hPa Humidity: 57% Wind: 11.5mph
Words: 328

I installed the R1 app on my iPhone 16 and asked it, "What causes CO2 to re-radiate IR radiation that it absorbs in the atmosphere?"

The reply was nearly instantaneous:

CO₂ re-radiates infrared (IR) energy it has absorbed in the atmosphere due to its molecular properties and the principles of quantum mechanics. Here's a detailed explanation:

1. **Absorption of IR Energy**:

- CO₂ molecules have vibrational modes that can be excited by specific wavelengths of infrared radiation. When IR energy from the Earth's surface or the Sun matches these wavelengths, CO₂ molecules absorb the energy, causing their bonds to vibrate more vigorously.

2. **Excitation and Relaxation**:

- After absorbing IR energy, CO₂ molecules are in an excited state. According to quantum mechanics, these molecules cannot remain in this high-energy state indefinitely. They eventually return to a lower energy state by releasing the absorbed energy.

3. **Re-radiation**:

- The energy is re-radiated as IR radiation in all directions. This process is isotropic, meaning the radiation is emitted equally in all directions, including back toward the Earth's surface and out into space.

4. **Greenhouse Effect**:

- The re-radiation of IR energy by CO₂ and other greenhouse gases contributes to the greenhouse effect. Some of the re-radiated energy is directed back toward the Earth's surface, warming it. This process helps maintain the Earth's temperature at a level suitable for life.

5. **Thermal Equilibrium**:

- The Earth's climate system seeks thermal equilibrium, where the energy absorbed from the Sun is balanced by the energy radiated back into space. CO₂ and other greenhouse gases play a crucial role in this balance by trapping and re-radiating IR energy, thus influencing the Earth's temperature.

In summary, CO₂ re-radiates IR energy due to its ability to absorb specific wavelengths of IR radiation, become excited, and then release that energy as it returns to a lower energy state. This re-radiation process is fundamental to the greenhouse effect and the Earth's energy balance.

✍️ Reply by email

R1 14b in Ollama

13:31 Monday, 27 January 2025
Current Wx: Temp: 70.63°F Pressure: 1022hPa Humidity: 57% Wind: 11.5mph
Words: 1368

Same question as on iOS: "What causes CO2 to re-radiate IR radiation that it absorbs in the atmosphere?"

The difference in answers seems to show that the web-based version isn't "showing its work," or "reasoning." I don't know if there's a way I might have configured the model running under Ollama to skip showing its reasoning and just offer the answer. The answers are similar, but not identical. The long answer here does suggest additional lines of inquiry, though not necessarily within this R1 model itself.

I'm satisfied that the answer is probably mostly correct, which is to say that it doesn't contradict anything I'd read before. I'm troubled by the first part of Answer 3, "The absorbed energy leads to an equilibrium between incoming absorption and outgoing emission." I think it's poorly worded. What it is suggesting to me, is that absorbing IR energy leads to a temporary disequilibrium in the sense that other molecules of CO2 or other atmospheric gases are in a lower energy state (temperature), which ultimately permits that absorbed energy to be re-emitted to restore the local region to a state closer to equilibrium, increasing entropy.

Answer 4 contradicts the answer in from the iOS version. " - CO2 molecules re-emit IR radiation in all directions. Some of this radiation is directed back into space, while some is radiated downward towards the Earth's surface. The balance between these emissions determines whether the net effect is warming or cooling of the atmosphere."

The iOS version seems clearer: " - The energy is re-radiated as IR radiation in all directions. This process is isotropic, meaning the radiation is emitted equally in all directions, including back toward the Earth's surface and out into space."

I'm not clear exactly on either. If the IR energy is emitted from one CO2 molecule in an excited state as a single IR photon (i.e. a "particle"), then, that one IR photon has a direction, and it may be toward or away from earth. But if the energy is radiated as some number of photons (depending on the energy state), and the process is isotropic, then perhaps it just means all photons emitted have an equal likelihood of being emitted in any direction, and some go toward earth and some go toward space.

Anyway, here's the answer from the "lobotomized" model. I've asked the iOS model for clarification and I'll post that next.

===========

>>> What causes CO2 to re-radiate IR radiation that it absorbs in the atmosphere?

Alright, so I'm trying to understand why CO2 re-emits infrared (IR) radiation after absorbing it. I know that greenhouse gases like CO2 play a crucial role in trapping heat in the atmosphere, but the specifics of how they do this are a bit fuzzy for me.

First, I need to recall what happens when the sun shines on the Earth. The sun emits a wide range of electromagnetic radiation, including visible light and infrared radiation.

When this sunlight reaches the Earth's surface, some of it is absorbed by the ground or other surfaces. This absorption causes the molecules on the surface to heat up, and these heated molecules then emit infrared radiation as they return to lower energy states.

Now, greenhouse gases like CO2 in the atmosphere interact with this emitted infrared radiation. I think it has something to do with how the molecular bonds in CO2 vibrate when they absorb IR radiation. The bonds between carbon and oxygen atoms must be able to stretch or bend at frequencies that match the wavelengths of the incoming IR radiation.

But why does CO2 re-emit this radiation? Is it because after absorbing the energy, the molecules eventually lose it by emitting photons again? Maybe it's related to the thermal equilibrium process—molecules absorb energy until they reach a higher temperature, and then they release energy to return to lower states. But I'm not entirely sure about the exact mechanism.

I also wonder if there are other factors that influence how CO2 re-emits IR radiation. For example, does the concentration of CO2 in different parts of the atmosphere affect this process? Or is it more dependent on molecular properties like mass and bond strength?

Additionally, I recall something about greenhouse gases selectively absorbing certain wavelengths of IR radiation. Does this selection affect how they re-emit the energy they've absorbed? Maybe CO2 molecules emit radiation at specific wavelengths based on their vibrational modes.

I'm also curious about the direction in which CO2 re-emits the IR radiation. Do these emitted photons go back into space, or are they directed downward towards the Earth's surface? I think this might influence whether the net effect is cooling or warming of the atmosphere.

Furthermore, I wonder how the presence of other greenhouse gases like water vapor or methane affects the way CO2 re-emits IR radiation. Is there any interaction between these gases that influences their combined impact on the climate?

Overall, I need to break down the process step by step: absorption of IR by CO2 molecules, the molecular mechanisms behind energy storage, and the subsequent re-emission of IR radiation back into the atmosphere or space.

Maybe it's helpful to think about this in terms of quantum mechanics—how electrons in the molecules transition between energy levels when absorbing photons, and then how they return to lower levels by emitting new photons. This could explain why CO2 specifically is good at trapping heat.

I should also consider the concept of thermalization, where absorbed energy leads to increased molecular motion until equilibrium is reached, prompting the re-emission of radiation. Perhaps this process determines the overall efficiency of CO2 in trapping heat and contributing to global warming.

In summary, understanding why CO2 re-radiates IR after absorption involves looking at molecular vibrations, energy transitions, and the broader atmospheric dynamics that govern how these emissions contribute to Earth's climate.

• Understanding Why CO2 Re-Radiates Infrared (IR) Radiation After Absorption**

1. **Absorption of IR Radiation**:

- When CO2 molecules in the atmosphere encounter infrared radiation, their molecular bonds (specifically the C=O bonds) absorb this energy. This absorption occurs because the vibrational frequencies of these bonds match certain wavelengths of IR radiation.

2. **Energy Storage and Molecular Motion**:

- Upon absorbing IR energy, the CO2 molecules increase their internal energy. This results in increased molecular motion, such as vibrations and rotations, within the molecule.

3. **Thermal Equilibrium Process**:

- The absorbed energy leads to an equilibrium between incoming absorption and outgoing emission. As the molecules reach a higher temperature due to absorption, they eventually release energy by emitting photons (IR radiation) as they return to lower energy states.

4. **Direction of Re-emitted Radiation**:

- CO2 molecules re-emit IR radiation in all directions. Some of this radiation is directed back into space, while some is radiated downward towards the Earth's surface. The balance between these emissions determines whether the net effect is warming or cooling of the atmosphere.

5. **Quantum Mechanical Perspective**:

- From a quantum mechanics standpoint, electrons within CO2 molecules transition between energy levels when absorbing photons (IR radiation). These transitions are specific to the vibrational modes of the molecular bonds. As the molecules return to lower energy states, they emit new photons at these specific wavelengths.

6. **Effect of Molecular Vibrations**:

- The unique vibrational modes of CO2 contribute to its selective absorption and re-emission of IR radiation. This selectivity determines how effectively CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere.

7. **Interaction with Other Greenhouse Gases**:

- The presence of other greenhouse gases like water vapor and methane can influence the overall energy balance in the atmosphere. While CO2 primarily interacts with specific wavelengths, the combined effect of all greenhouse gases complicates the climate system's behavior.

8. **Thermalization and Climate Impact**:

- Thermalization refers to the process by which absorbed energy is distributed among molecules until equilibrium is reached. This process affects how efficiently CO2 traps heat, contributing to global warming by trapping IR radiation that would otherwise escape into space.

In conclusion, CO2 re-emits IR radiation after absorption due to molecular vibrations and energy transitions, influenced by quantum mechanical principles and atmospheric dynamics. This process plays a significant role in trapping heat and affecting Earth's climate.

✍️ Reply by email

Hello, I Must Be Going

14:03 Monday, 27 January 2025
Current Wx: Temp: 70.72°F Pressure: 1021hPa Humidity: 57% Wind: 11.5mph
Words: 406

It's the absorption and re-radiation of IR energy that makes CO2 a "greenhouse gas." I asked the iOS version of R1: "Is IR energy absorbed in a CO2 molecule re-emitted as a single photon, or some number of photons, depending on the amount of energy absorbed?"

Here's the reply:

When a CO₂ molecule absorbs infrared (IR) energy, the re-emission of that energy depends on the specific quantum mechanical processes involved. Here's a detailed explanation:

1. **Absorption and Excitation**:

- When a CO₂ molecule absorbs IR radiation, it typically excites a vibrational mode of the molecule. The energy absorbed corresponds to the difference between specific quantized energy levels of the molecule.

2. **Re-emission Process**:

- The excited CO₂ molecule can return to its ground state by emitting one or more photons. The nature of this emission depends on the energy levels involved and the selection rules governing the transitions.

3. **Single Photon Emission**:

- In many cases, the molecule will emit a single photon with energy equal to the difference between the excited state and the ground state. This is the most straightforward process and is governed by the principle of energy conservation.

4. **Multiple Photon Emission**:

- In some cases, the molecule may undergo a cascade of transitions through intermediate energy levels, emitting multiple photons in the process. Each photon emitted in such a cascade will have less energy than the originally absorbed photon, corresponding to the energy differences between the intermediate states.

5. **Energy Conservation**:

- The total energy of the emitted photons must equal the energy of the absorbed photon. This is a fundamental principle of quantum mechanics and ensures that energy is conserved in the process.

6. **Collisional De-excitation**:

- In the atmosphere, CO₂ molecules can also lose energy through collisions with other molecules (like N₂ or O₂) rather than emitting photons. This process, known as collisional de-excitation, transfers the energy to kinetic energy of the surrounding gas molecules, contributing to the warming of the atmosphere.

In summary, the IR energy absorbed by a CO₂ molecule can be re-emitted as a single photon or multiple photons, depending on the specific energy levels and transitions involved. The key point is that the total energy of the emitted photons (if any) will always equal the energy of the absorbed photon, ensuring energy conservation. Additionally, some of the absorbed energy may be transferred to other molecules through collisions rather than being re-emitted as photons.

✍️ Reply by email

Isotropic

14:10 Monday, 27 January 2025
Current Wx: Temp: 71.1°F Pressure: 1021hPa Humidity: 56% Wind: 8.05mph
Words: 382

I asked the iOS version for some clarification on what "isotropic" means in the context of a single molecule: "Is re-radiation of IR energy from a single CO2 molecule “isotropic,” and what does that mean in the context of a single molecule of CO2?"

Here's the response, it makes sense to me.

===========

The term "isotropic" in the context of radiation means that the radiation is emitted equally in all directions. When applied to the re-radiation of IR energy from a single CO₂ molecule, it implies that the molecule emits photons uniformly in all spatial directions.

1. Detailed Explanation:

1. **Isotropic Emission**:

- For a single CO₂ molecule, the re-radiation of absorbed IR energy is theoretically isotropic. This means that the probability of emitting a photon is the same in all directions. There is no preferred direction for the emission.

2. **Quantum Mechanical Perspective**:

- From a quantum mechanical standpoint, the emission of photons by an excited molecule is governed by the dipole radiation pattern. For a single molecule, this pattern is spherical, indicating isotropic emission.

3. **Practical Considerations**:

- In a real-world scenario, the presence of other molecules and the overall structure of the atmosphere can influence the directionality of emitted radiation. However, for an isolated single CO₂ molecule, the emission is isotropic.

4. **Implications for the Greenhouse Effect**:

- The isotropic nature of re-radiation means that when a CO₂ molecule emits a photon, it can do so in any direction, including back toward the Earth's surface or out into space. This isotropic emission is crucial for the greenhouse effect, as it ensures that a significant portion of the re-radiated energy is directed back toward the Earth, contributing to warming.

5. **Ensemble of Molecules**:

- While a single molecule emits isotropically, the collective behavior of many CO₂ molecules in the atmosphere can lead to more complex radiation patterns. The overall effect is a net transfer of energy that influences the Earth's energy balance.

1. Summary:

In the context of a single CO₂ molecule, isotropic re-radiation means that the molecule emits IR energy uniformly in all directions. This isotropic emission is a fundamental aspect of how CO₂ and other greenhouse gases contribute to the greenhouse effect by ensuring that a portion of the re-radiated energy is directed back toward the Earth's surface.

✍️ Reply by email

Taughannock Falls 1-27-26

14:09 Tuesday, 27 January 2026

Current Wx: Temp: 12.9°F Pressure: 1014hPa Humidity: 60% Wind: 12.73mph
Words: 712

I had to get out of the house today. The sun was shining and it was beautiful around 9:30 when I decided to drive to Taughannock and take some pictures of the frozen falls. It took me 30 minutes to get dressed. Two pairs of long underwear, three pairs of socks, insulated boots, sweatshirt, down vest, and winter parka. Felt like I was wearing a spacesuit once I was finished.

As these things go, the clouds had rolled in by the time I got to the overlook, where this shot was taken. They plow the driveway, but not the parking lot. Fortunately, there was only one other person there when I got there, so I just left the Maverick in the driveway.

You get to the overlook first, before you reach the lower falls entrance, and I wasn't sure the trail was going to be open. You could see footprints down below though, so after I took a few shots at the overlook, I drove on down to the lower park.

The ticket machine was out of order, and a park employee was there working on the bathrooms. He said it was my lucky day, so that saved me about $10.

I parked the Mav and began walking through the snow to the trail. There was about 14"-16" of snow in the field, but the trail itself had been plowed. My lower back was barking at me from yesterday's snow shoveling exercise, but I pressed on.

I only encountered one other hiker on the way to the falls, and he was carrying a tripod on his shoulder, so another photographer, naturally. Took some shots along the way. I'll put some up on Flickr later.

There were a few points where I left the trail and trudged through the snow to get a different composition. The clouds were disappointing, but the ice was amazing. There's a lot more water in the stream bed in winter, and most of it was frozen.

When I got to the falls, the bridge was cleared but the far side wasn't. A lot of folks had been there before, so it wasn't like I was breaking new snow. It was very cold, around 10°F, and the snow crunched underfoot. Other than that, it was silent except for the few places where you could hear running water.

I took several shots, and noticed the battery on the E-M1X was complaining that it was low. I noticed it was only about 60% when I left, and the cold kind of reduces the voltage as well. So I didn't mess around too much at the falls.

For some unknown reason, trudging through the snow near the falls seemed to stretch out the knots in my back. By the time I got back over the bridge, my back felt fine. There was a bench there, so I did a few stretches on it as well. It felt much easier hiking back than it did the other way. Ran into an old man trudging up the trail. Didn't look dressed enough for the cold, and he wasn't carrying a camera. But he said hello and kept on his way. Near the end I ran into a young couple just starting out. Other than that, it was a pretty solitary affair.

I had to do something for my mental health. I think if the sun had stayed out, I'd have enjoyed it more. But it was still good to be outdoors. The snow is still fresh and everything is beautiful. I'd been telling myself that I needed to get out there and get some shots while the falls were frozen before it warmed up again, and I'm glad I did. I'd be kicking myself if I hadn't.

I've got an appointment for a haircut tomorrow before lunch. After the haircut I plan to run over to Montour Falls with the E-M1X and get some shots there. I won't have to hike in a mile either, I could do it from the road, but it's a short walk to the base of the falls from the street. The I think I'll have some lunch at Jerlando's Pizza.

Clouds notwithstanding, it was a beautiful drive and hike. Glad I did it.

✍️ Reply by email