I mean, the Japanese wanted to throw in the towel long before the bombs dropped. It was mostly the Soviets delaying things (so they could invade).

The US had been willing to accept surrender with conditions long before the first bomb dropped, but the Soviets wouldn't allow it because of the agreement under the Potsdam Declaration. So the Soviets were effectively sabotaging the negotiation while acting as a middle man (no doubt to buy time for an invasion).

You're absolutely correct about the Emperor's speech - but I wouldn't exactly say that speech defines everything that was happening. It ignores the fact that Japan - even after the drop of the 1st bomb - was still largely confident that they could broker peace via the Soviet negotiations:

>Japan’s leaders felt little urgency. The imperial military had amassed an astonishing number of troops for a desperate homeland defense, while politicians fantasized about a Soviet-brokered peace. Lacking a guarantee of his safety, the emperor supported the effort to reach out to Moscow and busied himself with protecting sacred relics. Even after the first A-bomb incinerated Hiroshima, he asked the government to seek Allied concessions, underscoring Gallicchio’s claim that Japanese officials “seemed uncertain of what they were doing.”
>
>With the Red Army suddenly deep into Manchuria, Japanese leaders were weighing evaporating options when the second bomb incinerated Nagasaki. What had been chimeric was now clearly delusional.
>
>The emperor finally intervened.

(Emphasis added)

https://cis.mit.edu/publications/analysis-opinion/2020/unconditional-japanese-surrender-world-war-ii

I think ignoring the declaration of war by the Soviets, and the rapid losses that were incurred by the Japanese to the Soviets over the period of less than 2 weeks overestimates the relevance of the bombings.

The Japanese were more concerned about the Soviet invasion than the 1st A-bomb, that's not really in doubt. It's a question of whether we think the 2nd A-bomb played a larger role than the Soviet betrayal.

It's at least possible that it didn't.

It's possible the bombs weren't even the reason Japan surrendered.

Japan waited almost a week after the second bomb before surrendering.

This also happened to be just 4 days after Russia invaded South Sakhalin. Japan had pulled forces away from the Russian front to help in the Pacific and were effectively caught off guard when Russia launched its attack on August 9th.

They captured Mongolia and Sakhalin (except for regions in the south of the island, where Japan was outnumbered 3 to 1), the Kuril Islands, and parts of Korea.

This was compounded by the fact that Japan had been relying on Russia to help negotiate their surrender with the allies.

It's at least plausible the bombs did little or nothing to effect the outcome of the war.

My understanding is that if you get called, you'll go for additional testing and most people won't match or won't be the best match after additional testing.

I think less than 1 in 100 are asked to donate. But you never know if it'll be you!

If you'd like to do something similar, you can sign up for a bone marrow registry. It's very quick and easy, usually done entirely through the mail.

I've been on one for years. They say most people will never get called but you could be helping save someone's life!

Again, you have a fundamental misunderstanding.

This is why you shouldn't get science from YouTube videos.

Yes, I watched and responded.

Increasing the albedo of the Earth is good - it's the same thing these particles are trying to do.

But there's not enough surface area on every house in the world for you to even make up for the albedo loss of just ice melting. In other words, installing this material on every house in every country on the planet will still result in more sunlight being absorbed than is being reflected right now, because the ice that's melting reflects more light than houses can.

Video 1 is complete nonsense.

The heat in your home is of a continuous wavelength (it'll be of all IR bands). You might have some material that can convert higher IR wavelengths to lower ones and then emit those, but it still kept some of the energy.

It can't convert lower wavelengths to higher ones (where is the energy coming from to do this!?).

But there's an entirely different problem. The ambient air is ALSO emitting all wavelengths of IR radiation. So while the panels may emit light of a particular wavelength, they're also absorbing it from the air. So the net exchange of energy is 0. In fact, the panels will likely absorb some of the heat, causing them to warm, and trapping more heat in your home.

If your house is the same temperature as the outdoors, you can't just "move" the heat from inside to outside without expending energy, no matter what you tape to your roof.

In the second video, they're talking about reflecting SUNLIGHT.

That's exactly the same process that emitting particulates in the atmosphere hope to accomplish. The only difference is, emitting particulates in the atmosphere can do it over a much much larger area, and do it above the cloud layer (EDIT: there's also a bunch of potential problems with emitting particulates that I haven't mentioned but exist).

So while you can put something on your roof to reflect UV and visible light (increasing the Earth's Albedo), the total surface area of the rooves of homes across the planet is much much much smaller than the surface area of ice on Earth - which is melting.

All of this is to say, while helpful to reflect more sunlight from our rooves, even doing this on every roof in the world won't even make up for the lost Albedo of ice melting (the Earth will still be absorbing more light than it reflects, even after you spend the trillions to install this everywhere).

If you feel like you're being picked on or something, I apologize, that's not my intent. I'm trying to provide you information to help you learn. I think you're fundamentally not understanding how these things work. For example, you said:

>reflect 99.99% of light on the condenser unit

The radiator - what I assume you meant - is emitting only a very tiny fraction of the overall heat as IR. Most of that heat is being transferred to the air via vibrations. This is because electrons much MUCH prefer to share their energy by bumping into things than by emitting light.

Let's take a step back.

"Temperature" is a measure of the total motion of the particles in an atom, especially the electrons where the vast majority of the motion is happening. So when we talk about "heat" and "temperature" what we really mean is "how much energy the electrons have."

Quantum mechanics gets it's name because electrons can't absorb just any energy. They have to absorb specific amounts of energy. When we talk about the energy that an electron can absorb as being non-continuous (IE. not any amount, only specific amounts) we refer to this is "quantizing." We are quantizing the amount of energy an electron can absorb, and saying that any quantities not of these specific quantities won't be absorbed.

That's where quantum mechanics gets it's name.

Photons are modeled in our system of physics two ways. One is as a particle called a photon. This is a fixed quantity of energy, a quantized amount of energy. The other method is as a wave, which has a wavelength and frequency. A photon is both a particle and a wave, it has properties of both. The wavelength (which is inversely proportional to the frequency) defines the amount of energy the photon has. The two are directly related and you can't have a photon of different energy but the same wavelength. If it's wavelength is x, it's energy is y - ALWAYS.

For an electron to absorb a photon, the photon has to be of one of the specific wavelengths it wants to absorb (it has to be the correct quantized amount of energy).

Once absorbed, the electron has 2 ways of getting rid of it:

1. Emit it back out - same energy released, same wavelength.
2. Vibrationally relax - bump into nearby electrons, give them some of the energy they absorbed.

Once 2 happens, the electron can no longer emit that same wavelength of light - it doesn't have that energy anymore. It can emit a longer wavelength of light (less energy), but it gave some of the energy to another electron, so it can't emit the same energy it absorbed.

For reasons I won't get into, electrons overwhelmingly prefer option 2. Option 2 is faster, it's less "violent" to the electron, it makes everything easier.

Option 1 only happens in extreme circumstances - usually when option 1 isn't available after a relatively long wait (think nanoseconds for option 2, and 1-2 seconds for option 1).

This is why a radiator won't emit IR radiation of a wavelength matching it's temperature. It'd much rather just bump into the air and warm the air up. And this is why heat pumps can warm your home, versus just shooting a bunch of IR light around while you're freezing.

You have to find a way to take that radiator, get it to emit IR light, and get that IR light to be of a frequency that will pass through the atmosphere (probably using some kind of stimulation to increase the frequency).

But that's not all you have to do. You then have to emit that light very specifically away from the Earth (if it just emits everywhere - not in a straight line like a laser - it'll hit trees and the ground and water and just get absorbed again).

This is a technologically monumental task, and one that is going to require massive amounts of energy (almost certainly more than you can emit in the laser).

What I quoted, follows what you quoted. It explains how they did it.

I'm not saying it is or isn't publication worthy, I'm saying it's not some new technology that you're going to see rolled out in the coming years. It's how DC motors have achieved over 90% efficiency decades ago.

Sure, more than 90% of climate scientists agree that humans are the largest drivers of climate change and global warming.

You fundamentally don't understand light emission, absorption, or reflection.

A material can't reflect light of a given wavelength if that wavelength is never hitting it. Reflection doesn't generate light, it just bounced the light that is there.

Emission generates light. To emit a wavelength higher than what the material is exposed to requires that heat be extracted from the material. This never happens except when a heat source is allowed to heat the material (which means you're emitting light from heat you created, not from ambient conditions) or as a result of a chemical reaction, like a glow stick.

To emit light of a lower frequency than what the material is exposed to requires vibrational relaxation, this is how heat becomes trapped on earth and means that less energy is being released from the material than it absorbed.

The earth can already release lower wavelength IR by covering it to radio waves through vibrational relaxation. You need to find a way to INCREASE the frequency of IR. How do you do that?

This is what the paper says in the abstract:

"A proportional-integral-differential (PID) controller converges the characteristically linear FV relationship of a DC motor to nonlinear Hill-type force outputs."

There doesn't seem to be anything new here. PIDs have existed for over a century. I've programmed PIDs and even more complicated control loops myself.

There's even more complex forms of PIDs like cascade controllers, where the output of one PID sets the setpoint for a second PID:

Inputs -> PID1 -> PID2 -> Output

Modern PLCs autotune PID loops for you. I've never seen an industrial motor controlled without an integrated PID loop, ever, in over a decade in the industry. Not one.

Edit:

Here's the Wikipedia link.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PID_controller

Further clarifying this is not a new control model.

PIDs were invented in the 1910s and implemented in the 1920s.

Today, VFD and servo controllers (what control most motors) come with PID controllers built in, and many can tune themselves.

This reminds me of the biologists that published a paper reinventing calculus.

Can you link me to a nanotexture material that increases the wavelength of IR light just by passing the light through it?

Heat pumps have efficiencies greater than 1 when moving heat on Earth, not into space.

You moved heat from one place to another (and generated some heat to do it), cool, now what?

Heat pumps don't produce light, they heat up a radiator and then blow air over the radiator, so you have to find a way to extract ambient heat from the radiator (energy intensive), then convert the light to a different wavelength (I'm assuming using some kind of stimulated emission process - again, energy intensive - which might help you with the next challenge), and then release that light directly out toward the atmosphere, probably with a laser. Plus you can't do it on cloudy days because of the broader IR absorption/reflection.

And you have to do all that more efficiently than just reflecting UV and visible light back into space.

I look forward to your Nobel prize winning research as you're either a genius in your field of physics, or you have no idea the technological challenges of your idea.

You didn't address my question.

I'm aware that heat pumps exist. I asked you how you plan to change the IR frequency of that heat.

Lol, I didn't over simplify, you did.

How do you plan to covert the earth's heat to a specific IR wavelength?

And how do you plan to do that in a way that's more efficient than simply blocking high energy UV or visible light from passing through the atmosphere to begin with?

How do you figure a hotter world improved food production?

The science showes that under increasing CO2, plants prefer decreasing temperature to grow more biomass. Under both increasing temperature and CO2, plants show no increase, or even a decreased growth of biomass.

This doesn't follow. If you capture the light, you generate heat proportional to the energy captured.

If you don't want the heat, you have to prevent the light from reaching the surface.

It explains little because PID control has been in use for at least 100 years.

You can't buy a motor and controller that doesn't have a PID style control loop. If you buy a VFD or servo controller, it will have an integrated PID control loop, and it will probably even self tune.

I'm not aware of any servo controlled or VFD controlled motor on the market that doesn't come with an integrated PID loop. Most even self tune.

This article is the equivalent of saying "hey guys, did you know if you use uncompressible liquids you can use high pressure to apply more force, I'm going to call it HYDRAULICS!!!

PID controllers have been in use since the 1920s.

There is no significant dissent that humans are the cause of the majority of warming since the 1950's. The latest IPCC report puts the certainty at over 99%.

There's no other explanation that can account for the current amount of warming other than human forcing.

Fyi, solar radiation is converted to heat in earth.

This wouldn't eliminate the earth receiving solar radiation, it would just reduce the amount we receive.

Why is this noteworthy?

PID control loops have existed for over 100 years. I started working in controls engineering about 10 years ago and PLCs could automatically tune PID control loops for you. You don't even have to program it, you just tell the PLC to tune the loop and it figures it out on its own.

I've owned a Tesla through 4 winters - including temperatures in the negative teens.

Yes, you can go out to your car and have 50% of the battery reserved.

By the time you've used 10-20% of the battery, it is now fully unlocked because it has warmed up.

Maybe there are inexperienced EV users who don't realize their batteries warm up by driving making complaints (this is the first time any F150e owner has ever had their truck in winter) but they will soon learn that it's a non-issue.

You can't possibly consume 30-40% of your car's battery and NOT warm the battery up. Your motors generate too much heat, it has to go somewhere or the motor will melt into slag.

Batteries warm up as driven. Heat from the motors, which can get over 200C, is fed into the battery.

In 10-15 minutes of driving, a cold soaked battery will be warmed to and back to 100%.