Yes. Thank you! I see it now. It is not the reflectivity of the surface, but the brightness (or lack of it) *underneath* the surface that is a concern. It is obvious now but I had missed it. (Ain't the mind wonderful!) Thanks again.

It seems to me, then, that "darkening" is the wrong word for the authors to use in describing what is happening. "Darkening" implies greater absorption and penetration which seems to be the opposite of what is happening (assuming that I understand what is being described). "Brightening" implies less absorption and less penetration, at least to me, but perhaps that isn't a good adverb either. What would be a less confusing word to describe the change in the ocean's reaction to light??

Maybe young people of this tendency should have to pass (by themselves) an IQ/aptitude test before being granted full citizenship on turning 16/18/21 years of age, otherwise it is off to El Salvador with them.

I have lost count of the number of times my own website has been scraped, sometimes by the big names and sometimes by bots that I didn't know existed. It's not just the html content that they scrape but often all of my original graphics (charts and diagrams) too. Of course my site is covered by copyright (Creative Commons, Attribution, Non-commercial, and Share-Alike 4.0) but I doubt that ChatGPT will ever tell you that this got this or that piece of information from me or my website. Some say that "search is dying" and I see some evidence of this in the falling number of organic visitors to my site. Maybe I should just take down my site, save a pile of money in domain registration and hosting fees, and move on to some other, more satisfying activity.

IIRC, Cygnus X1 was discovered by its very strong radio emission, as opposed to its visible light emission (although the visible spectrum might have been peculiar and provided an early clue). As a radio telescope operator/technician at the time (1963) at the Algonquin Radio Observatory, I did many runs on Cygnus X1 for the supervising astronomers. As you point out, this was long before gravitational wave detectors were available.

Yes. And anyone with a background in physics or related fields is probably bound by a strict definition of 'simultaneity' and the velocity of light. But journalists and some others, well, not so much.

Hmmm. Not by my definition.

What is there to implement??
My own website doesn't have any cookies, doesn't use JavaScript, doesn't serve any advertisements, doesn't collect any user information other than the IP address recorded by the hosting server that delivers my pages, and doesn't collect any other information except what the user might enter on the "contact me" page (if they use it).
So what is there to implement??

I use MOBI -- My Own Biological Intelligence.
Works every time (almost), costs me nothing except a little time, has a time-proven record (I'm over 60 years old now and still getting smarter every day, I think it's called wisdom), and does not hallucinate (except occasionally at parties).

Yeah, that's what they did to me recently on stackoverflow.
I would rather work with bonobos.

It's not the "theory" that physicists don't understand; it is quantum *mechanics* that is not fully understood. Each of the theories (mathematical models) was devised by physicists who understood perfectly well how the mathematics would work. But as pointed out in the body of the summary, not all of the models (theories) agree with each other, and none of them seems to agree exactly with all of the observations of quantum mechanics at work.

Quantum theories are understood; quantum mechanics is not.

How proof?

Honour, obviously. It is something that the cynical millennials here have probably only heard about in an old history class, as real honour seems so rare these days. Among honourable people a simple statement of claim is enough to trust. And, as has been pointed out, making the claim and then having it discovered to be false would ruin the claimant's career, and reputation.

No, I make no such claim about kids, so it is not so interesting.

But I do suppose that it is now bleedingly obvious that I should have qualified my initial statement by saying instead :

I hope that insurance companies (worldwide) will raise the rates of everyone (worldwide) who is a contributor to global warming, in direct proportion to their contribution to global warming.

Well, almost everyone. A few people in the world make little or no contribution to global warming. So, some people are more causitive than others. And a few, especially some large commercial organizations and operations, are major contributors to global warming. It seems that they pay little or no penalty for the damage they cause. Carbon pricing, for example, is not yet really effective here in Canada (if it ever will be). Insurance premiums have not even been considered as a cost or penalty for producing the atmospheric pollutants that contribute to global warming.

IMHO our civilization generally and collectively has not even begun to come to grips with the growing threat of global warming.

I hope that insurance companies (worldwide) will raise the rates of everyone (worldwide) who is a contributor to global warming. That is, everyone who burns fossil fuels or otherwise adds to atmospheric reflection or retention of surface heat by the production or combustion of fossil fuels.