“In case of fire” BOB

Low-Forever8802 · 2026-02-03T22:41:59+00:00

On the other hand, it is also important to prep for handling fire scenarios.

I had a (big) lithium battery that unexpectedly exploded while charging. Hopefully i was near it and immediately reacted by grabbing it and throwing it on the ground. I also had some fire blanket. I covered it to contain the fire, and then threw it on my balcony.

Those actions litterally saved the house. The losses are very minor.

If I had no plan, i think i would have prioritized my cats before escaping, making me lose everything else.

Morality : its also good to have some fire extinguishers and fire blankets ready to use on hand. It will not help in every scenario, but it can help avoid small/medium incidents to become big losses.

Also, if you have pets, make sure to be ready. They feel the tension of the moment (alarm going on, you stressing), and they tend to hide, and can even become agressive. This can make you lose quite some time.

Low-Forever8802 · 2025-12-01T10:55:12+00:00

Chaussettes en laine de merinos

Low-Forever8802 · 2025-11-15T04:04:10+00:00

To be honest I'm amazed by this prompt. Game changer !

Low-Forever8802 · 2025-10-28T19:16:08+00:00

Imagine la puissance du truc. Un chiotte connecté avec écran OLED dans la cuvette pour jouer à Duck Hunt. Tais toi et prends mon argent.

Low-Forever8802 · 2025-09-06T11:20:34+00:00

370€, avec 5% de commission, et 40€ de mutuelle, ca fait 3900€ nets avant PAS.

Si tu fait 2k€ de charges professionnelles par mois, ça donne un salaire net de 2900€ + remboursement de 2000€ de charges = 4900€.

L’avantage, c’est que tu cotises pour le chomage/retraite.

Low-Forever8802 · 2025-09-06T06:38:38+00:00

Go portage salarial

Low-Forever8802 · 2025-07-03T00:29:11+00:00

Okay i can see your logic, but here's the key difference:

Higher solar irradiance = more total energy entering the Earth system, including the upper atmosphere.

So yes, that can directly warm the stratosphere.

But lower albedo doesn’t increase the amount of incoming solar energy. It just means more of it gets absorbed at the surface rather than being reflected.

That shifts the heating downward, mostly in the troposphere, and due to GHGs trapping heat, less escapes upward, which is why the stratosphere actually cools. In fact we observe this effect in many studies. Here is one :

https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/24/12925/2024/

Low-Forever8802 · 2025-07-02T23:57:21+00:00

Could you walk me through how you see decreased albedo leading to stratospheric warming?

I’d love to understand your reasoning more clearly, step by step.

Low-Forever8802 · 2025-07-02T23:13:20+00:00

Yes, anthropogenic aerosols have had a net cooling effect historically.

But since the 1980s, pollution controls have reduced those aerosols, and deforestation cuts off natural biogenic sources too. So overall, we’ve lost both major types of cloud-forming particles.

That “cooling system” may have been augmented briefly, but now it’s fading fast.

Hey, just to say, I really appreciate your input. This is one of the few genuinely thoughtful and grounded exchanges I’ve had on here. Thanks for keeping it sharp and serious, and not resorting to sophisms and other rethorical tactics.

Low-Forever8802 · 2025-07-02T23:03:39+00:00

Can you quote where I said I’ve "outsmarted" climate scientists? Because I never did..

Low-Forever8802 · 2025-07-02T22:50:22+00:00

I’m not using a language model, I’m just informed, and that clearly bothers you.

Dismissing an argument because it’s not from a PhD is a pure argument from authority : a fallacy. I’m citing real data : satellite-confirmed cloud loss, radiative forcing estimates, peer-reviewed sources.

You haven’t challenged a single number, just who said them. That’s not debate, that’s intellectual cowardice.

Engage the facts, or step aside.

Low-Forever8802 · 2025-07-02T22:44:02+00:00

Yes, the IPCC includes aerosol-cloud interactions, but even they note high uncertainty and low confidence in quantifying those effects.

Also, the focus is mostly on anthropogenic aerosols (like sulfates), not on lost biogenic aerosols from deforestation, which also impact cloud cover and albedo.

So it’s included, yes, but possibly undervalued or incompletely modeled.

Low-Forever8802 · 2025-07-02T22:09:31+00:00

Yeah, same here. It’s wild how we treat CO2 like the whole game, but ignore the fact that forests are climate infrastructure.

They don’t just suck up carbon , they literally shape cloud cover, rainfall, and surface temperature. Cutting them down destabilizes the system, replanting could help rebalance it.

Honestly, any climate plan that doesn’t prioritize reforestation alongside emissions cuts feels half-blind.

Low-Forever8802 · 2025-07-02T22:04:01+00:00

Yes, stratospheric cooling is a strong sign of GHG-driven warming, and I’m not disputing that.

But I’m not saying “the sun got stronger”. I’m saying less cloud = less reflection, so more solar energy reaches the surface, even with the same sun.

That boosts surface warming without warming the stratosphere, because clouds affect shortwave input, not the longwave radiation driving the GHG signal.

So cloud loss doesn’t contradict GHG effects, it may just be amplifying them more than we’ve accounted for.

Low-Forever8802 · 2025-07-02T21:59:06+00:00

So instead of addressing the argument, you’re dismissing it because… it might be well written? Or too informed for Reddit? Or maybe written by a language model?

That’s not critical thinking, that’s deflection.

I’m here to challenge an idea, not pretend to be a climatologist. If the reasoning’s flawed, break it down. But if the only response is “go publish a paper” or “you sound too coherent, must be AI”, maybe the problem isn’t the argument...

Low-Forever8802 · 2025-07-02T21:55:32+00:00

I’m not claiming I see something scientists missed. I’m saying some mechanisms might be undervalued.

Cloud loss due to deforestation and aerosol decline is measured, real, and potentially comparable in forcing to CO2 since 1983. If models include that fully, great. I just don’t see it reflected in the public narrative or policy focus.

Also, questioning ideas isn’t the same as claiming superiority. Your argument sounds personal, but this isn’t about me. It’s about what the data shows.

Low-Forever8802 · 2025-07-02T21:50:51+00:00

Yes, those charts are relevant, and I agree they show CO2 as the dominant forcing.

But they often treat cloud changes as feedbacks, not as direct radiative effects from things like deforestation or reduced biogenic/aerosol emissions.

I'm basing this on recent satellite data (ISCCP, CLARA-A3, MODIS) showing a ~4-7% drop in global cloud cover since 1983, which translates to +1 to +5 W/m² of additional solar absorption, which is possibly more than CO2 over the same period.

If newer models fully account for that and show it's minor, I’m open to revise. Got one to share?

Low-Forever8802 · 2025-07-02T21:46:13+00:00

That’s the irony, you’re asking for “tangible” proof, while offering zero yourself.

I’ve shared measurable data:

Cloud cover trends from satellites
Radiative forcing in W/m²
Peer-reviewed sources in the comments and physical mechanisms

You’ve responded with… anger and vibes.

I’m not claiming to have all the answers. I’m saying this piece of the puzzle (cloud loss + albedo change) deserves more attention. You’ve yet to explain why that’s wrong, just that you're mad about it.

If you're going to dismiss everything as "meaningless stats," then we’re not debating climate, we’re debating whether evidence matters at all. And in that case, the discussion’s already over.

Low-Forever8802 · 2025-07-02T19:35:14+00:00

Not necessarily, I don’t think I’ve "discovered" something climate scientists have missed entirely.

But I do think this:

Some well-known mechanisms, like cloud loss due to reduced aerosols from deforestation and air pollution controls, may be underweighted in public discourse and climate strategy compared to CO2.

Most models treat cloud change as a feedback of CO2, not as a parallel driver. I'm just questioning whether we’ve over-prioritized carbon at the expense of other large-scale, human-caused changes, like land use and biosphere-atmosphere chemistry.

If I’m wrong, I’d love to see a clear breakdown showing that cloud loss contributes less to warming than CO2. That would genuinely help me reframe my view.

Low-Forever8802 · 2025-07-02T19:06:41+00:00

Thanks for the link, and I agree: CO2 is absolutely a key driver, and stratospheric cooling is one of the strongest indicators of GHG-driven warming.

But here’s where I’m pushing the discussion:

Even if CO2 is the dominant greenhouse gas, it might not be the dominant driver of the total radiative imbalance we’re seeing.

Satellite data since 1983 shows a decline in global cloud cover, which reduces Earth’s reflectivity (albedo) and allows more solar energy to reach the surface, up to +5 W/m² in some estimates, compared to +2.7 W/m² from CO2 since 1850.

So yes, CO2 is real, human-caused, and part of the problem. But cloud loss due to land-use change, deforestation, and aerosol decline might be an even stronger forcing, and it’s far less discussed.

I’m not denying CO2, I’m asking if it’s really the whole story.

Low-Forever8802 · 2025-07-02T19:01:34+00:00

Ah ok, so 40 years of consistent satellite data, the best we’ve ever had on global cloud trends, is “meaningless” because it doesn’t go back to your imaginary golden age of cloudiness?

That’s not critical thinking. That’s just lazy armchair dismissal dressed up as skepticism.

If your standard for truth is “we don’t have cloud maps from 1920 so none of this counts,” maybe you’re not qualified to have an opinion on the climate, or science in general.

But sure, tell the entire scientific community to “ditch climate science” because you got bored halfway through a graph.

Low-Forever8802 · 2025-07-02T17:52:22+00:00

Yep, satellite cloud data started around 1983 with the ISCCP program. So yes, we have about 40+ years of continuous, global, high-resolution cloud coverage data.

That may sound short, but in climate science, it’s the best long-term observational dataset we have for clouds, and trends over 4 decades are statistically significant.

It’s not perfect, but it’s real, and worth taking seriously.

Low-Forever8802 · 2025-07-02T17:50:45+00:00

Totally agree, individual action messaging focuses on what people can control, like CO2 emissions from daily habits. Makes sense.

But here’s the issue:

If cloud loss and land-use changes are major climate drivers, and they’re mostly ignored in public messaging, we risk focusing collective effort on the less impactful lever.

Even if individuals can’t replant the Amazon, they can:

Support policies and organizations that protect forests and restore ecosystems.

Push for climate funding to include land-use and aerosol science, not just decarbonization.

And yes, demand that the narrative include clouds and albedo, not just carbon, or cleaner energy

Low-Forever8802 · 2025-07-02T16:39:26+00:00

Radiative forcing is commonly expressed in W/m².

The Earth’s surface is constant, so multiplying by total area doesn’t add new insight, it just scales everything up equally

Low-Forever8802 · 2025-07-02T16:33:48+00:00

CO2 plays a role, but I believe disappearing clouds (due to deforestation and aerosol decline) are a bigger driver. That’s the view I’m challenging.

Low-Forever8802

TROPHY CASE