(Hal Heydt)
This whole discussion looks to me like an attempt to update and
revise Velikovsky...and about as likely to happen as his
proposals were.

On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 12:17:22 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 14:55:54 -0700 (PDT), William Hyde
> <wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 4:28:18?PM UTC-4, VSim wrote:
> >> On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 4:15:28?PM UTC+3, Hamish Laws wrote:
> >> > On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 12:29:11?PM UTC+10, VSim wrote:
> >> > > On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 4:01:31?AM UTC+3, Hamish Laws wrote:
> >> > > > On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 11:34:20?PM UTC+10, VSim wrote:
> >> > > > > On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 4:27:42?PM UTC+3, Hamish Laws wrote:
> >> > > > > > although both of them seem much less practical than eliminating fossil fuel usage.
> >> > > > > Going carbon-neutral won't solve the problem.
> >> > > > It does stop further ocean acidification, limits the increase in temperature etc and over time afterwards natural processes will reduce the atmospheric CO2 levels (and we can do carbon extraction, although how practical it is to do is still unknown)
> >> > > I'm not arguing in any way against 0-emissions. Please do (though it looks like it's easier said than done).
> >> > Well considering how much money is spent on fossil fuel propaganda compared to research into alternatives...
> >> > > But it doesn't solve the problem of natural global warming. It will have to be addressed at some point, my guess is it will be pretty soon.
> >> > what natural global warming do you think we have?
> >> > We're probably in a slight cooling period without human impact
> >> The way I know it, we're in an interglacial period where the Earth is naturally warming even without fossil fuel emissions.
> >
> >We are in an interglacial.. We are at the end of that ten thousand year period. Normally things would start cooling soon, but not all
> >interglacials are of equal length. Things do not warm uniformly during an interglacial. They warm, then cool, with possible
> >oscillations in between.
> >
> >
> >>Nobody knows how much it will last, but estimates are 10.000 years at least. Nobody knows
> >
> >It is a common error to think that because you don't know, nobody knows.
> So, then, who /knows/ how long the current interglacial will last?

A new ice age cycle begins when orbital variations produce cooler northern Hemisphere
summers. Generally, as the earlier poster said, this is about or somewhat more than
ten thousand years after most of the ice in North America has melted. About ten thousand
years ago, very little was left of the Laurentide ice sheet.

The orbital pattern conferring the coolest summers happened several hundred years ago.
Naively, one might say we missed an off ramp, and must wait for the next, which will
come in about 22,000 years.

This has happened before, in what is called isotope stage 11, about 400,000
years ago. Then as now, orbital eccentricity was very low, and the dominant
term in orbital forcing is:

e*sin(wt)

where e is the eccentricity and w is the longitude of perihelion,

so that the summer cooling was not strong enough to start glaciation.

An alternative or supplementary idea is the Ruddiman hypothesis, that
human agriculture has made this an atypical interglacial by raising
levels of methane and other gases above their levels in previous
interglacials.

So, as with many things, nobody knows for sure, but we have a good idea.

The poster's oft-repeated point, that "of course it's warming, this is an
interglacial", was a favourite of J. Clarke, late of this group. It is entirely
wrong. Interglacials start with a warming, of course, but end with a
cooling, and in the middle various temperature oscillations can happen.
It is a non-point, and in fact a PRATT.

William Hyde

On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 1:54:09 PM UTC-4, VSim wrote:
> On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 8:42:52 PM UTC+3, Arkalen wrote:
> > On 22/07/2023 19:31, VSim wrote:
> > > On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 7:14:00 PM UTC+3, Arkalen wrote:
> > >> On 22/07/2023 16:47, VSim wrote:
> > >>> On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 5:40:21 PM UTC+3, Hamish Laws wrote:
> > >>>> On Sunday, July 23, 2023 at 12:15:18 AM UTC+10, Arkalen wrote:
> > >>>>> On 22/07/2023 15:59, VSim wrote:
> > >>>>>> On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 4:46:03 PM UTC+3, Arkalen wrote:
> > >>>>>>> Or are
> > >>>>>>> there specific bits of info you think my reply failed to address that
> > >>>>>>> weren't in your post but are on your webpage ?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Yes. As I said in my second post, the problem is that the target moon is too big to be easily extracted from orbit, which all of you keep repeating as if I wasn't already aware of it.
> > >>>>> The argument I and Hamish Law who I bounced off of were making isn't
> > >>>>> that it's too big to be *easily* extracted from orbit, it's that it's
> > >>>>> big enough that the level of difficulty involved in extracting it from
> > >>>>> orbit ranges from "beyond our current capabilities", to at minimum
> > >>>>> "orders of magnitude more difficult than the other options for fighting
> > >>>>> global warming". And I think it's pretty clear that this is an argument
> > >>>>> you actively disagree with, not one you're unaware of.
> > >>>>>> And I've addressed this on my webpage, as best I could, and I think it might have a chance of actually working, without being certain of course.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Either way I'm happy to check it out if you change your mind about
> > >>>>>>> wanting to discuss things with me.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> If you do read it, I'll be happy to discuss things further with you. But please keep it short. And as a general rule I'm leading the discussion.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>> Okay... I assumed the website was referenced in the comment where you
> > >>>>> asked people to go check the website but it's not so I don't really know
> > >>>>> where to look. The only two links on your original post seem to be to
> > >>>>> the science article you disagree with and a link about timetravel.. Is it
> > >>>>> that second one?
> > >>>> The link about timetravel takes you to an article on it
> > >>>> If you go down to the bottom of the article there's a link to the site index and then you can find the article on moving the earth's orbit
> > >>>> It was not mentioned in the original post
> > >>>> for a direct link
> > >>>> http://mhtt.50webs.com/increase_Earth_orbit.htm
> > >>>>
> > >>>> His suggestion is hit a moon of jupiter may be too big to be moved out of orbit by an asteroid impact so instead move a moon of saturn, uranus or neptune by asteroid impact and have it hit jupiter's moon and knock it out of orbit
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks. I was going to do just this. >
> > >>> And if 2 steps (2 moons) are not enough,, we could try 3 or even 4.
> > >> OK, thank you for clarifying. This is a possibility I did consider, in
> > >> fact I had a line addressing it in my first reply albeit very briefly.
> > >> My reply was long enough as it was and exploring this possibility would
> > >> have involved a lot more calculations.
> > >>
> > >> The basic idea I believe is sound, you could knock increasingly bigger
> > >> asteroids and moons into each other until you had enough energy to knock
> > >> out Io or Europa.
> > >
> > > Finally the first positive thing somebody says in this thread. Thanks..
> > > At the very least it's not just some lunatic's pipe dream. It's something worth looking into, even if the end result would be that it's not currently possible (which it very well might be).
> > >
> > >> Much like the picture of the person knocking over the
> > >> huge domino thanks to a sequence of increasingly larger ones starting
> > >> with a very small one. My intuition is that this does not help because
> > >> the size differential between what we can do and the energy required to,
> > >> say, steer Europa into changing Earth's orbit is so huge that the steps
> > >> required are orders of magnitude larger than 3 or 4. That's why the one
> > >> sentence I had on this was about the possibility it was impossible just
> > >> on a computational level.
> > >>
> > >> Of course my intuition could be wrong and now that I understand more
> > >> specifically what you're proposing I'd be happy to look up the numbers
> > >> and think of how to test that intuition with what we know of the
> > >> relevant equations. I've already looked up the relevant moons and seen
> > >> that the only one that matches your mass requirement is Saturn's Rhea,
> > >> which would also require an order of magnitude or so more energy to
> > >> knock out of its orbit than the Moon does from Earth's orbit. It also
> > >> occurred to me that there were recent attempts to shift an asteroid's
> > >> orbit that could help quantify our actual current capacities in the
> > >> matter. It would take some maths and looking up more asteroid and moon
> > >> characteristics to get an idea of how many steps might actually be
> > >> required between those. In terms of the potential energy I'm not sure my
> > >> intuitions are reliable so I'd have more things to look up on that. I'm
> > >> also interested in the distances involved, as using successively larger
> > >> moons taken from the outer Solar System explodes the amount of time
> > >> required but I'd have to look numbers up to have an idea of how much..
> > >>
> > >> Are you interested in me looking those things up and doing calculations
> > >> or do you feel they are irrelevant to your proposal as with the first
> > >> ones I did?
> > >
> > > The first ones were irrelevant. And I'm not going to waste time explaining why, it should be too clear.
> > >
> > > If you have time and are interested to do some calculations, sure, please do. It's actually more of a question whether you are interested to do them than whether I am. But if you post them here I'll look into them, I think I'm qualified enough to understand them. (That said, it would be useful and interesting but a real specialist would still be needed. But, if you show me clearly enough that the order of magnitude of the problem is much bigger than I hope, and that 3 - 4 intermediate steps are way too few, this would indeed be useful. And you can be sure I'll accept it if the numbers are clear.)
> > >
> > > You could start by seeing if there is a small moon on Saturn that would be big enough to do the job on the TJM. Actually, first, what would be the moon of choice from Jupiter ? That should be a fairly easy question. If there is a small moon of Saturn, how big would it be ? I'm thinking maybe like 5% of TJM but this needs confirmation. And if there is no good one around Saturn, maybe Uranus. :)
> > >
> > You say my first calculations were irrelevant but I'm not sure you even
> > read them because they answered the exact questions you just asked.
> I didn't. You have to agree your post was way too long so I had no way of sorting out the useful bits.
> > also said in the comment this replied to that I looked up the moons of
> > Saturn, Neptune and Uranus to see which moons were around the 5-10% mass
> > you talked about and Rhea was the only one within an order of magnitude..
> The 5% is just my guess. I'd think, first we should see what's the moon of Jupiter that requires the least energy (among the 4 big ones), and then, if there is one of Saturn that has that energy. And if so, what's the smallest one. (I'm sure Titan would be big enough but that's of not much use.) At least that's how I would proceed. But you are the mathematician so I'll let you work.
> > Thank you for saying the calculations I was proposing might interest
> > you, I'll look into it.
> Good luck.

On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 8:54:09 PM UTC+3, VSim wrote:
> On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 8:42:52 PM UTC+3, Arkalen wrote:
> > On 22/07/2023 19:31, VSim wrote:
> > > On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 7:14:00 PM UTC+3, Arkalen wrote:
> > >> On 22/07/2023 16:47, VSim wrote:
> > >>> On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 5:40:21 PM UTC+3, Hamish Laws wrote:
> > >>>> On Sunday, July 23, 2023 at 12:15:18 AM UTC+10, Arkalen wrote:
> > >>>>> On 22/07/2023 15:59, VSim wrote:
> > >>>>>> On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 4:46:03 PM UTC+3, Arkalen wrote:
> > >>>>>>> Or are
> > >>>>>>> there specific bits of info you think my reply failed to address that
> > >>>>>>> weren't in your post but are on your webpage ?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Yes. As I said in my second post, the problem is that the target moon is too big to be easily extracted from orbit, which all of you keep repeating as if I wasn't already aware of it.
> > >>>>> The argument I and Hamish Law who I bounced off of were making isn't
> > >>>>> that it's too big to be *easily* extracted from orbit, it's that it's
> > >>>>> big enough that the level of difficulty involved in extracting it from
> > >>>>> orbit ranges from "beyond our current capabilities", to at minimum
> > >>>>> "orders of magnitude more difficult than the other options for fighting
> > >>>>> global warming". And I think it's pretty clear that this is an argument
> > >>>>> you actively disagree with, not one you're unaware of.
> > >>>>>> And I've addressed this on my webpage, as best I could, and I think it might have a chance of actually working, without being certain of course.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Either way I'm happy to check it out if you change your mind about
> > >>>>>>> wanting to discuss things with me.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> If you do read it, I'll be happy to discuss things further with you. But please keep it short. And as a general rule I'm leading the discussion.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>> Okay... I assumed the website was referenced in the comment where you
> > >>>>> asked people to go check the website but it's not so I don't really know
> > >>>>> where to look. The only two links on your original post seem to be to
> > >>>>> the science article you disagree with and a link about timetravel.. Is it
> > >>>>> that second one?
> > >>>> The link about timetravel takes you to an article on it
> > >>>> If you go down to the bottom of the article there's a link to the site index and then you can find the article on moving the earth's orbit
> > >>>> It was not mentioned in the original post
> > >>>> for a direct link
> > >>>> http://mhtt.50webs.com/increase_Earth_orbit.htm
> > >>>>
> > >>>> His suggestion is hit a moon of jupiter may be too big to be moved out of orbit by an asteroid impact so instead move a moon of saturn, uranus or neptune by asteroid impact and have it hit jupiter's moon and knock it out of orbit
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks. I was going to do just this. >
> > >>> And if 2 steps (2 moons) are not enough,, we could try 3 or even 4.
> > >> OK, thank you for clarifying. This is a possibility I did consider, in
> > >> fact I had a line addressing it in my first reply albeit very briefly.
> > >> My reply was long enough as it was and exploring this possibility would
> > >> have involved a lot more calculations.
> > >>
> > >> The basic idea I believe is sound, you could knock increasingly bigger
> > >> asteroids and moons into each other until you had enough energy to knock
> > >> out Io or Europa.
> > >
> > > Finally the first positive thing somebody says in this thread. Thanks..
> > > At the very least it's not just some lunatic's pipe dream. It's something worth looking into, even if the end result would be that it's not currently possible (which it very well might be).
> > >
> > >> Much like the picture of the person knocking over the
> > >> huge domino thanks to a sequence of increasingly larger ones starting
> > >> with a very small one. My intuition is that this does not help because
> > >> the size differential between what we can do and the energy required to,
> > >> say, steer Europa into changing Earth's orbit is so huge that the steps
> > >> required are orders of magnitude larger than 3 or 4. That's why the one
> > >> sentence I had on this was about the possibility it was impossible just
> > >> on a computational level.
> > >>
> > >> Of course my intuition could be wrong and now that I understand more
> > >> specifically what you're proposing I'd be happy to look up the numbers
> > >> and think of how to test that intuition with what we know of the
> > >> relevant equations. I've already looked up the relevant moons and seen
> > >> that the only one that matches your mass requirement is Saturn's Rhea,
> > >> which would also require an order of magnitude or so more energy to
> > >> knock out of its orbit than the Moon does from Earth's orbit. It also
> > >> occurred to me that there were recent attempts to shift an asteroid's
> > >> orbit that could help quantify our actual current capacities in the
> > >> matter. It would take some maths and looking up more asteroid and moon
> > >> characteristics to get an idea of how many steps might actually be
> > >> required between those. In terms of the potential energy I'm not sure my
> > >> intuitions are reliable so I'd have more things to look up on that. I'm
> > >> also interested in the distances involved, as using successively larger
> > >> moons taken from the outer Solar System explodes the amount of time
> > >> required but I'd have to look numbers up to have an idea of how much..
> > >>
> > >> Are you interested in me looking those things up and doing calculations
> > >> or do you feel they are irrelevant to your proposal as with the first
> > >> ones I did?
> > >
> > > The first ones were irrelevant. And I'm not going to waste time explaining why, it should be too clear.
> > >
> > > If you have time and are interested to do some calculations, sure, please do. It's actually more of a question whether you are interested to do them than whether I am. But if you post them here I'll look into them, I think I'm qualified enough to understand them. (That said, it would be useful and interesting but a real specialist would still be needed. But, if you show me clearly enough that the order of magnitude of the problem is much bigger than I hope, and that 3 - 4 intermediate steps are way too few, this would indeed be useful. And you can be sure I'll accept it if the numbers are clear.)
> > >
> > > You could start by seeing if there is a small moon on Saturn that would be big enough to do the job on the TJM. Actually, first, what would be the moon of choice from Jupiter ? That should be a fairly easy question. If there is a small moon of Saturn, how big would it be ? I'm thinking maybe like 5% of TJM but this needs confirmation. And if there is no good one around Saturn, maybe Uranus. :)
> > >
> > You say my first calculations were irrelevant but I'm not sure you even
> > read them because they answered the exact questions you just asked.
> I didn't. You have to agree your post was way too long so I had no way of sorting out the useful bits.

Looking (finally) at your post I understand it's Europe (which is a bit ironical because Europe would almost certainly be against it). OK, so Europe it is.

> > also said in the comment this replied to that I looked up the moons of
> > Saturn, Neptune and Uranus to see which moons were around the 5-10% mass
> > you talked about and Rhea was the only one within an order of magnitude..
> The 5% is just my guess. I'd think, first we should see what's the moon of Jupiter that requires the least energy (among the 4 big ones), and then, if there is one of Saturn that has that energy. And if so, what's the smallest one. (I'm sure Titan would be big enough but that's of not much use.) At least that's how I would proceed. But you are the mathematician so I'll let you work.

On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 7:13:17 PM UTC+3, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 07:40:18 -0700 (PDT), Hamish Laws
> <hamis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Sunday, July 23, 2023 at 12:15:18?AM UTC+10, Arkalen wrote:
> >> On 22/07/2023 15:59, VSim wrote:
> >> > On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 4:46:03?PM UTC+3, Arkalen wrote:
> >> >> Or are
> >> >> there specific bits of info you think my reply failed to address that
> >> >> weren't in your post but are on your webpage ?
> >> >
> >> > Yes. As I said in my second post, the problem is that the target moon is too big to be easily extracted from orbit, which all of you keep repeating as if I wasn't already aware of it.
> >> The argument I and Hamish Law who I bounced off of were making isn't
> >> that it's too big to be *easily* extracted from orbit, it's that it's
> >> big enough that the level of difficulty involved in extracting it from
> >> orbit ranges from "beyond our current capabilities", to at minimum
> >> "orders of magnitude more difficult than the other options for fighting
> >> global warming". And I think it's pretty clear that this is an argument
> >> you actively disagree with, not one you're unaware of.
> >> > And I've addressed this on my webpage, as best I could, and I think it might have a chance of actually working, without being certain of course..
> >> >
> >> >> Either way I'm happy to check it out if you change your mind about
> >> >> wanting to discuss things with me.
> >> >
> >> > If you do read it, I'll be happy to discuss things further with you. But please keep it short. And as a general rule I'm leading the discussion..
> >> >
> >> Okay... I assumed the website was referenced in the comment where you
> >> asked people to go check the website but it's not so I don't really know
> >> where to look. The only two links on your original post seem to be to
> >> the science article you disagree with and a link about timetravel. Is it
> >> that second one?
> >
> >The link about timetravel takes you to an article on it
> >If you go down to the bottom of the article there's a link to the site index and then you can find the article on moving the earth's orbit
> >It was not mentioned in the original post
> >for a direct link
> >http://mhtt.50webs.com/increase_Earth_orbit.htm
> >
> >His suggestion is hit a moon of jupiter may be too big to be moved out of orbit by an asteroid impact so instead move a moon of saturn, uranus or neptune by asteroid impact and have it hit jupiter's moon and knock it out of orbit
> Playing billiards with the Solar System!
>
> Velikovsky would be proud!

Well I haven't proposed hitting planets. Just moons. So far. Don't get me started.

In article <u9gv83$3sesa$1@dont-email.me>, Arkalen <arkalen@proton.me> wrote:
>On 22/07/2023 16:47, VSim wrote:
>The basic idea I believe is sound, you could knock increasingly bigger
>asteroids and moons into each other until you had enough energy to knock
>out Io or Europa. Much like the picture of the person knocking over the
>huge domino thanks to a sequence of increasingly larger ones starting
>with a very small one. My intuition is that this does not help because
>the size differential between what we can do and the energy required to,
>say, steer Europa into changing Earth's orbit is so huge that the steps
>required are orders of magnitude larger than 3 or 4. That's why the one
>sentence I had on this was about the possibility it was impossible just
>on a computational level.

(Hal Heydt)
My intuition is that any impact capable of moving a sizable moon
out of Saturnian or Jovian orbit would be more likely to disrupt
said moon and send variable size chunks all over the place
(inclduing into the planet), rather than moving said moon out of
its orbit.

On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 10:54:49 PM UTC+3, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 1:54:09 PM UTC-4, VSim wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 8:42:52 PM UTC+3, Arkalen wrote:
> > > On 22/07/2023 19:31, VSim wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 7:14:00 PM UTC+3, Arkalen wrote:
> > > >> On 22/07/2023 16:47, VSim wrote:
> > > >>> On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 5:40:21 PM UTC+3, Hamish Laws wrote:
> > > >>>> On Sunday, July 23, 2023 at 12:15:18 AM UTC+10, Arkalen wrote:
> > > >>>>> On 22/07/2023 15:59, VSim wrote:
> > > >>>>>> On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 4:46:03 PM UTC+3, Arkalen wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> Or are
> > > >>>>>>> there specific bits of info you think my reply failed to address that
> > > >>>>>>> weren't in your post but are on your webpage ?
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Yes. As I said in my second post, the problem is that the target moon is too big to be easily extracted from orbit, which all of you keep repeating as if I wasn't already aware of it.
> > > >>>>> The argument I and Hamish Law who I bounced off of were making isn't
> > > >>>>> that it's too big to be *easily* extracted from orbit, it's that it's
> > > >>>>> big enough that the level of difficulty involved in extracting it from
> > > >>>>> orbit ranges from "beyond our current capabilities", to at minimum
> > > >>>>> "orders of magnitude more difficult than the other options for fighting
> > > >>>>> global warming". And I think it's pretty clear that this is an argument
> > > >>>>> you actively disagree with, not one you're unaware of.
> > > >>>>>> And I've addressed this on my webpage, as best I could, and I think it might have a chance of actually working, without being certain of course.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Either way I'm happy to check it out if you change your mind about
> > > >>>>>>> wanting to discuss things with me.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> If you do read it, I'll be happy to discuss things further with you. But please keep it short. And as a general rule I'm leading the discussion.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>> Okay... I assumed the website was referenced in the comment where you
> > > >>>>> asked people to go check the website but it's not so I don't really know
> > > >>>>> where to look. The only two links on your original post seem to be to
> > > >>>>> the science article you disagree with and a link about timetravel. Is it
> > > >>>>> that second one?
> > > >>>> The link about timetravel takes you to an article on it
> > > >>>> If you go down to the bottom of the article there's a link to the site index and then you can find the article on moving the earth's orbit
> > > >>>> It was not mentioned in the original post
> > > >>>> for a direct link
> > > >>>> http://mhtt.50webs.com/increase_Earth_orbit.htm
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> His suggestion is hit a moon of jupiter may be too big to be moved out of orbit by an asteroid impact so instead move a moon of saturn, uranus or neptune by asteroid impact and have it hit jupiter's moon and knock it out of orbit
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Thanks. I was going to do just this. >
> > > >>> And if 2 steps (2 moons) are not enough,, we could try 3 or even 4.
> > > >> OK, thank you for clarifying. This is a possibility I did consider, in
> > > >> fact I had a line addressing it in my first reply albeit very briefly.
> > > >> My reply was long enough as it was and exploring this possibility would
> > > >> have involved a lot more calculations.
> > > >>
> > > >> The basic idea I believe is sound, you could knock increasingly bigger
> > > >> asteroids and moons into each other until you had enough energy to knock
> > > >> out Io or Europa.
> > > >
> > > > Finally the first positive thing somebody says in this thread. Thanks.
> > > > At the very least it's not just some lunatic's pipe dream. It's something worth looking into, even if the end result would be that it's not currently possible (which it very well might be).
> > > >
> > > >> Much like the picture of the person knocking over the
> > > >> huge domino thanks to a sequence of increasingly larger ones starting
> > > >> with a very small one. My intuition is that this does not help because
> > > >> the size differential between what we can do and the energy required to,
> > > >> say, steer Europa into changing Earth's orbit is so huge that the steps
> > > >> required are orders of magnitude larger than 3 or 4. That's why the one
> > > >> sentence I had on this was about the possibility it was impossible just
> > > >> on a computational level.
> > > >>
> > > >> Of course my intuition could be wrong and now that I understand more
> > > >> specifically what you're proposing I'd be happy to look up the numbers
> > > >> and think of how to test that intuition with what we know of the
> > > >> relevant equations. I've already looked up the relevant moons and seen
> > > >> that the only one that matches your mass requirement is Saturn's Rhea,
> > > >> which would also require an order of magnitude or so more energy to
> > > >> knock out of its orbit than the Moon does from Earth's orbit. It also
> > > >> occurred to me that there were recent attempts to shift an asteroid's
> > > >> orbit that could help quantify our actual current capacities in the
> > > >> matter. It would take some maths and looking up more asteroid and moon
> > > >> characteristics to get an idea of how many steps might actually be
> > > >> required between those. In terms of the potential energy I'm not sure my
> > > >> intuitions are reliable so I'd have more things to look up on that.. I'm
> > > >> also interested in the distances involved, as using successively larger
> > > >> moons taken from the outer Solar System explodes the amount of time
> > > >> required but I'd have to look numbers up to have an idea of how much.
> > > >>
> > > >> Are you interested in me looking those things up and doing calculations
> > > >> or do you feel they are irrelevant to your proposal as with the first
> > > >> ones I did?
> > > >
> > > > The first ones were irrelevant. And I'm not going to waste time explaining why, it should be too clear.
> > > >
> > > > If you have time and are interested to do some calculations, sure, please do. It's actually more of a question whether you are interested to do them than whether I am. But if you post them here I'll look into them, I think I'm qualified enough to understand them. (That said, it would be useful and interesting but a real specialist would still be needed. But, if you show me clearly enough that the order of magnitude of the problem is much bigger than I hope, and that 3 - 4 intermediate steps are way too few, this would indeed be useful. And you can be sure I'll accept it if the numbers are clear.)
> > > >
> > > > You could start by seeing if there is a small moon on Saturn that would be big enough to do the job on the TJM. Actually, first, what would be the moon of choice from Jupiter ? That should be a fairly easy question. If there is a small moon of Saturn, how big would it be ? I'm thinking maybe like 5% of TJM but this needs confirmation. And if there is no good one around Saturn, maybe Uranus. :)
> > > >
> > > You say my first calculations were irrelevant but I'm not sure you even
> > > read them because they answered the exact questions you just asked.
> > I didn't. You have to agree your post was way too long so I had no way of sorting out the useful bits.
> > > also said in the comment this replied to that I looked up the moons of
> > > Saturn, Neptune and Uranus to see which moons were around the 5-10% mass
> > > you talked about and Rhea was the only one within an order of magnitude.
> > The 5% is just my guess. I'd think, first we should see what's the moon of Jupiter that requires the least energy (among the 4 big ones), and then, if there is one of Saturn that has that energy. And if so, what's the smallest one. (I'm sure Titan would be big enough but that's of not much use.) At least that's how I would proceed. But you are the mathematician so I'll let you work.
> > > Thank you for saying the calculations I was proposing might interest
> > > you, I'll look into it.
> > Good luck.
> Aside from the other utter impracticalities of this scheme, remember that colliding moons
> don't bounce off each other like billiard balls. They are basically fluids at this scale, and merge together
> with a lot of material splashed out. Even if you could get the post collision body to go exactly
> where you want it, it would be surrounded by vast halo of debris, which would rain down on the Earth
> In a replay of the Late Heavy Bombardment.

On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 10:53:48 PM UTC+3, William Hyde wrote:
> On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 12:17:22 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 14:55:54 -0700 (PDT), William Hyde
> > <wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 4:28:18?PM UTC-4, VSim wrote:
> > >> On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 4:15:28?PM UTC+3, Hamish Laws wrote:
> > >> > On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 12:29:11?PM UTC+10, VSim wrote:
> > >> > > On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 4:01:31?AM UTC+3, Hamish Laws wrote:
> > >> > > > On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 11:34:20?PM UTC+10, VSim wrote:
> > >> > > > > On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 4:27:42?PM UTC+3, Hamish Laws wrote:
> > >> > > > > > although both of them seem much less practical than eliminating fossil fuel usage.
> > >> > > > > Going carbon-neutral won't solve the problem.
> > >> > > > It does stop further ocean acidification, limits the increase in temperature etc and over time afterwards natural processes will reduce the atmospheric CO2 levels (and we can do carbon extraction, although how practical it is to do is still unknown)
> > >> > > I'm not arguing in any way against 0-emissions. Please do (though it looks like it's easier said than done).
> > >> > Well considering how much money is spent on fossil fuel propaganda compared to research into alternatives...
> > >> > > But it doesn't solve the problem of natural global warming. It will have to be addressed at some point, my guess is it will be pretty soon.
> > >> > what natural global warming do you think we have?
> > >> > We're probably in a slight cooling period without human impact
> > >> The way I know it, we're in an interglacial period where the Earth is naturally warming even without fossil fuel emissions.
> > >
> > >We are in an interglacial.. We are at the end of that ten thousand year period. Normally things would start cooling soon, but not all
> > >interglacials are of equal length. Things do not warm uniformly during an interglacial. They warm, then cool, with possible
> > >oscillations in between.
> > >
> > >
> > >>Nobody knows how much it will last, but estimates are 10.000 years at least. Nobody knows
> > >
> > >It is a common error to think that because you don't know, nobody knows.
> > So, then, who /knows/ how long the current interglacial will last?
> A new ice age cycle begins when orbital variations produce cooler northern Hemisphere
> summers. Generally, as the earlier poster said, this is about or somewhat more than
> ten thousand years after most of the ice in North America has melted. About ten thousand
> years ago, very little was left of the Laurentide ice sheet.
>
> The orbital pattern conferring the coolest summers happened several hundred years ago.
> Naively, one might say we missed an off ramp, and must wait for the next, which will
> come in about 22,000 years.
>
> This has happened before, in what is called isotope stage 11, about 400,000
> years ago. Then as now, orbital eccentricity was very low, and the dominant
> term in orbital forcing is:
>
> e*sin(wt)
>
> where e is the eccentricity and w is the longitude of perihelion,
>
> so that the summer cooling was not strong enough to start glaciation.
>
> An alternative or supplementary idea is the Ruddiman hypothesis, that
> human agriculture has made this an atypical interglacial by raising
> levels of methane and other gases above their levels in previous
> interglacials.
>
> So, as with many things, nobody knows for sure, but we have a good idea.

In other words, the normal convoluted way of the specialists in the field to say "nobody knows". Without making it too obvious. Thanks for illustrating my point.

That said, you do make some interesting points. The main one being that we're in an interglacial, nobody knows how much it will last, that's correct, so it might be that we've already past the peak and therefore, without human emissions, things might slowly start cooling. OK, I agree with it as long as you don't want me to believe it's certain. It might equally well be, for all we know, that it lasts 50.000 years and thus things will keep on warming, nobody knows by how much. But it's true that we cannot just assume that global warming would continue even if we cut off emissions.

OK, so the reasonable thing to do, you say, would be to get to 0 emissions as quickly as we can and then see if we still have a problem. Which is OK except that it doesn't seem it will happen too soon. (Especially now with the war going on, and with the real possibility things will start to get really confrontational with China too. You surely know better than I do that the LNG europeans now use instead of the russian gas is about 7 times more carbon-polluting. And if things do worsen with China, believe me, nobody will give a damn any more about global warming and any Tokyo or Paris agreement or whatever.)
If only for this reason I still think my idea is worth looking into, at least in general (energetical) terms. Besides, we might end up needing to do it (if of course it can be done).

On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 7:46:09 AM UTC-6, VSim wrote:

> Which are that it is not possible with current technology. While I don't
> necessarily dispute this, they don't convince me on this point.

The Earth is really, really big and heavy. So, to change the Earth's orbit,
you would need something with a mass somewhere in the same ballpark
as that of Earth - from the source you cited, 1% of the Earth's mass would
suffice.

There are indeed, as you point out, other bodies in the Solar System with
a mass comparable to that of the Moon. While getting one of the satellites
of Jupiter or Saturn out of the deep gravity wells of those planets would be
daunting, perhaps the asteroid Ceres could be made to suffice.

But moving Ceres so that its gravity would change the Earth's orbit is
far, far beyond our current technology, isn't it?

Well, if we can change the Earth's orbit by using a body that has 1% of the
mass of the Earth... then it follows we can change Ceres' orbit by using a
body that has 1% the mass of Ceres. And if _that's_ not small enough,
this could be iterated.

However, I should think that you should be able to see the _obvious_
reason why this idea only meets with ridicule. Even if this were possible,
it would be very difficult and expensive. While reducing our use of fossil
fuels, in comparison, is simple, easy, and trivial.

Now, _that's_ a point that could be argued. After all, while there indeed
are people who claim we could all live well if we confined ourselves to
"green" energy sources - wind, solar, and geothermal - many people find
this hard to take seriously.

However, if, in addition to hydroelectricity, you *also* throw in nuclear
power - exploited to its full capacity by using breeder reactors, with
reprocessing of spent fuel - then, from _proven_ sources, there's enough
energy to maintain our current standard of living, and continue to run
heavy industry.

Since electric cars have range limitations, and need rare minerals for
their batteries... (while cars didn't _always_ have to have catalytic
converters)... I can point to another *proven* technology that would
allow people to go to work and shop for groceries while only using
carbon-free electricity. Trolley buses.

People could still have cars to go out of town for the weekend - the
gas rationing which would allow that, but not routine use for commuting
to work would, along with the elimination of most other uses of fossil
fuels, suffice to save the Earth.

Given how easy it is to solve the global warming problem by conventional
means, why would changing the Earth's orbit even be worth talking about?

John Savard

In article <4371b33a-083b-49e0-ac57-18871c551c7dn@googlegroups.com>,
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>I can point to another *proven* technology that would
>allow people to go to work and shop for groceries while only using
>carbon-free electricity. Trolley buses.

(Hal Heydt)
Sure...if you live alone and shop frequently so that any given
shopping trip can be easily carried from store to bus stop and
from bus stop to home, that would work.

Now try doing it if you shop once or twice a week for an entire
family... Just one example... At the moment the household is
drinking a lot of apple juice, on the order of 7 gallons per
week. That alone means transporting on the order of 60 lbs. per
week. Handle that on a bus? I don't think so. And that leaves
out all the other groceries that get picked up at the same time.

So...either the bus system will have to be *massively* expanded
to be, essentially, door-to-door on demand. Or private on-demand
vehicles have to be affordable.

On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 10:20:58 PM UTC-6, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:

> (Hal Heydt)
> Sure...if you live alone and shop frequently so that any given
> shopping trip can be easily carried from store to bus stop and
> from bus stop to home, that would work.

A healthy adult can carry six bags of groceries at once, three in
each hand. And an adequate transit system has stops every two
blocks, on roads within three blocks of houses within the city.

Except that such a standard of coverage wasn't maintained within
the *suburbs*, where everyone was assumed to own cars, so, yes,
an increase in transit coverage above historical levels would be needed.

John Savard

On Sunday, July 23, 2023 at 12:15:49 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 10:20:58 PM UTC-6, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>
> > (Hal Heydt)
> > Sure...if you live alone and shop frequently so that any given
> > shopping trip can be easily carried from store to bus stop and
> > from bus stop to home, that would work.
> A healthy adult can carry six bags of groceries at once, three in
> each hand. And an adequate transit system has stops every two
> blocks, on roads within three blocks of houses within the city.
>
> Except that such a standard of coverage wasn't maintained within
> the *suburbs*, where everyone was assumed to own cars, so, yes,
> an increase in transit coverage above historical levels would be needed.

Also, since I still envisiaged gas rationing that allowed people limited
use of their cars, going grocery shopping by car once a month is certainly
possible.

As well, there's an alternative I didn't mention: a carbon-neutral fuel
equivalent (but not compatible with) gasoline is possible: methanol.
This was suggested by Robert Zubrin, the author of The Case for
Mars. Unlike ethanol, it isn't compatible with existing auto engines,
but unlike ethanol, it can be made from leaves, grass clippings,
sawdust, and so on, therefore not competing with food production.

I just feel that my plan only has *little* difficulties, not comparable
to those that would be involved in a plan to change the Earth's orbit.

Of course, that's not really saying much, is it?

John Savard

On 22/07/2023 21:58, VSim wrote:
> On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 8:54:09 PM UTC+3, VSim wrote:
>> On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 8:42:52 PM UTC+3, Arkalen wrote:
>>> On 22/07/2023 19:31, VSim wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 7:14:00 PM UTC+3, Arkalen wrote:
>>>>> On 22/07/2023 16:47, VSim wrote:
>>>>>> On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 5:40:21 PM UTC+3, Hamish Laws wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, July 23, 2023 at 12:15:18 AM UTC+10, Arkalen wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 22/07/2023 15:59, VSim wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 4:46:03 PM UTC+3, Arkalen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Or are
>>>>>>>>>> there specific bits of info you think my reply failed to address that
>>>>>>>>>> weren't in your post but are on your webpage ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes. As I said in my second post, the problem is that the target moon is too big to be easily extracted from orbit, which all of you keep repeating as if I wasn't already aware of it.
>>>>>>>> The argument I and Hamish Law who I bounced off of were making isn't
>>>>>>>> that it's too big to be *easily* extracted from orbit, it's that it's
>>>>>>>> big enough that the level of difficulty involved in extracting it from
>>>>>>>> orbit ranges from "beyond our current capabilities", to at minimum
>>>>>>>> "orders of magnitude more difficult than the other options for fighting
>>>>>>>> global warming". And I think it's pretty clear that this is an argument
>>>>>>>> you actively disagree with, not one you're unaware of.
>>>>>>>>> And I've addressed this on my webpage, as best I could, and I think it might have a chance of actually working, without being certain of course.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Either way I'm happy to check it out if you change your mind about
>>>>>>>>>> wanting to discuss things with me.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you do read it, I'll be happy to discuss things further with you. But please keep it short. And as a general rule I'm leading the discussion.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Okay... I assumed the website was referenced in the comment where you
>>>>>>>> asked people to go check the website but it's not so I don't really know
>>>>>>>> where to look. The only two links on your original post seem to be to
>>>>>>>> the science article you disagree with and a link about timetravel. Is it
>>>>>>>> that second one?
>>>>>>> The link about timetravel takes you to an article on it
>>>>>>> If you go down to the bottom of the article there's a link to the site index and then you can find the article on moving the earth's orbit
>>>>>>> It was not mentioned in the original post
>>>>>>> for a direct link
>>>>>>> http://mhtt.50webs.com/increase_Earth_orbit.htm
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> His suggestion is hit a moon of jupiter may be too big to be moved out of orbit by an asteroid impact so instead move a moon of saturn, uranus or neptune by asteroid impact and have it hit jupiter's moon and knock it out of orbit
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks. I was going to do just this. >
>>>>>> And if 2 steps (2 moons) are not enough,, we could try 3 or even 4.
>>>>> OK, thank you for clarifying. This is a possibility I did consider, in
>>>>> fact I had a line addressing it in my first reply albeit very briefly.
>>>>> My reply was long enough as it was and exploring this possibility would
>>>>> have involved a lot more calculations.
>>>>>
>>>>> The basic idea I believe is sound, you could knock increasingly bigger
>>>>> asteroids and moons into each other until you had enough energy to knock
>>>>> out Io or Europa.
>>>>
>>>> Finally the first positive thing somebody says in this thread. Thanks.
>>>> At the very least it's not just some lunatic's pipe dream. It's something worth looking into, even if the end result would be that it's not currently possible (which it very well might be).
>>>>
>>>>> Much like the picture of the person knocking over the
>>>>> huge domino thanks to a sequence of increasingly larger ones starting
>>>>> with a very small one. My intuition is that this does not help because
>>>>> the size differential between what we can do and the energy required to,
>>>>> say, steer Europa into changing Earth's orbit is so huge that the steps
>>>>> required are orders of magnitude larger than 3 or 4. That's why the one
>>>>> sentence I had on this was about the possibility it was impossible just
>>>>> on a computational level.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course my intuition could be wrong and now that I understand more
>>>>> specifically what you're proposing I'd be happy to look up the numbers
>>>>> and think of how to test that intuition with what we know of the
>>>>> relevant equations. I've already looked up the relevant moons and seen
>>>>> that the only one that matches your mass requirement is Saturn's Rhea,
>>>>> which would also require an order of magnitude or so more energy to
>>>>> knock out of its orbit than the Moon does from Earth's orbit. It also
>>>>> occurred to me that there were recent attempts to shift an asteroid's
>>>>> orbit that could help quantify our actual current capacities in the
>>>>> matter. It would take some maths and looking up more asteroid and moon
>>>>> characteristics to get an idea of how many steps might actually be
>>>>> required between those. In terms of the potential energy I'm not sure my
>>>>> intuitions are reliable so I'd have more things to look up on that. I'm
>>>>> also interested in the distances involved, as using successively larger
>>>>> moons taken from the outer Solar System explodes the amount of time
>>>>> required but I'd have to look numbers up to have an idea of how much.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you interested in me looking those things up and doing calculations
>>>>> or do you feel they are irrelevant to your proposal as with the first
>>>>> ones I did?
>>>>
>>>> The first ones were irrelevant. And I'm not going to waste time explaining why, it should be too clear.
>>>>
>>>> If you have time and are interested to do some calculations, sure, please do. It's actually more of a question whether you are interested to do them than whether I am. But if you post them here I'll look into them, I think I'm qualified enough to understand them. (That said, it would be useful and interesting but a real specialist would still be needed. But, if you show me clearly enough that the order of magnitude of the problem is much bigger than I hope, and that 3 - 4 intermediate steps are way too few, this would indeed be useful. And you can be sure I'll accept it if the numbers are clear.)
>>>>
>>>> You could start by seeing if there is a small moon on Saturn that would be big enough to do the job on the TJM. Actually, first, what would be the moon of choice from Jupiter ? That should be a fairly easy question. If there is a small moon of Saturn, how big would it be ? I'm thinking maybe like 5% of TJM but this needs confirmation. And if there is no good one around Saturn, maybe Uranus. :)
>>>>
>>> You say my first calculations were irrelevant but I'm not sure you even
>>> read them because they answered the exact questions you just asked.
>> I didn't. You have to agree your post was way too long so I had no way of sorting out the useful bits.

You "have to agree" it takes some cheek to say that to the only person
who went to the trouble of doing the calculations you asked for. I don't
know what response you're expecting to get if an expert does consider
your proposal but the thing about experts is that they're more likely to
value their time highly than an internet rando. So you don't want them
to think that you won't at least match them on the level of effort they
put into considering your ideas.

On 22/07/2023 21:53, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <u9gv83$3sesa$1@dont-email.me>, Arkalen <arkalen@proton.me> wrote:
>> On 22/07/2023 16:47, VSim wrote:
>> The basic idea I believe is sound, you could knock increasingly bigger
>> asteroids and moons into each other until you had enough energy to knock
>> out Io or Europa. Much like the picture of the person knocking over the
>> huge domino thanks to a sequence of increasingly larger ones starting
>> with a very small one. My intuition is that this does not help because
>> the size differential between what we can do and the energy required to,
>> say, steer Europa into changing Earth's orbit is so huge that the steps
>> required are orders of magnitude larger than 3 or 4. That's why the one
>> sentence I had on this was about the possibility it was impossible just
>> on a computational level.
>
> (Hal Heydt)
> My intuition is that any impact capable of moving a sizable moon
> out of Saturnian or Jovian orbit would be more likely to disrupt
> said moon and send variable size chunks all over the place
> (inclduing into the planet), rather than moving said moon out of
> its orbit.
>

You're right, actually I'd conflated the idea of shifting the Earth's
orbit by having a stellar body move near it with the idea of knocking
moons out of their orbit entirely. I was assuming if one could be done
that way the other could too but on reflection they're completely
different jobs aren't they. I'm not sure how to even calculate how much
mass you'd need to knock Europa out of its orbit using a flyby instead
of a collision. Obviously a lot more than for the collision given most
of the energy would be kept by the body flying by. Could it even be done
with something smaller than Europa or does that intrinsically require a
larger body?

On 23/07/2023 04:59, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 7:46:09 AM UTC-6, VSim wrote:
>
>> Which are that it is not possible with current technology. While I don't
>> necessarily dispute this, they don't convince me on this point.
>
> The Earth is really, really big and heavy. So, to change the Earth's orbit,
> you would need something with a mass somewhere in the same ballpark
> as that of Earth - from the source you cited, 1% of the Earth's mass would
> suffice.
>
> There are indeed, as you point out, other bodies in the Solar System with
> a mass comparable to that of the Moon. While getting one of the satellites
> of Jupiter or Saturn out of the deep gravity wells of those planets would be
> daunting, perhaps the asteroid Ceres could be made to suffice.
>
> But moving Ceres so that its gravity would change the Earth's orbit is
> far, far beyond our current technology, isn't it?
>
> Well, if we can change the Earth's orbit by using a body that has 1% of the
> mass of the Earth... then it follows we can change Ceres' orbit by using a
> body that has 1% the mass of Ceres. And if _that's_ not small enough,
> this could be iterated.

I thought that too but now I'm less sure, because with Earth we're only
looking for a small change in orbit; with Ceres you'd be looking for a
very large change in orbit.

Also Ceres is 100 times lighter than the Moon, I don't know if that
counts as "comparable" for the purposes of this project.

>
> However, I should think that you should be able to see the _obvious_
> reason why this idea only meets with ridicule. Even if this were possible,
> it would be very difficult and expensive. While reducing our use of fossil
> fuels, in comparison, is simple, easy, and trivial.

You'd think that, right?

>
> Now, _that's_ a point that could be argued. After all, while there indeed
> are people who claim we could all live well if we confined ourselves to
> "green" energy sources - wind, solar, and geothermal - many people find
> this hard to take seriously.
>
> However, if, in addition to hydroelectricity, you *also* throw in nuclear
> power - exploited to its full capacity by using breeder reactors, with
> reprocessing of spent fuel - then, from _proven_ sources, there's enough
> energy to maintain our current standard of living, and continue to run
> heavy industry.
>
> Since electric cars have range limitations, and need rare minerals for
> their batteries... (while cars didn't _always_ have to have catalytic
> converters)... I can point to another *proven* technology that would
> allow people to go to work and shop for groceries while only using
> carbon-free electricity. Trolley buses.
>
> People could still have cars to go out of town for the weekend - the
> gas rationing which would allow that, but not routine use for commuting
> to work would, along with the elimination of most other uses of fossil
> fuels, suffice to save the Earth.
>
> Given how easy it is to solve the global warming problem by conventional
> means, why would changing the Earth's orbit even be worth talking about?
>
> John Savard
>

On 23/07/2023 08:15, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 10:20:58 PM UTC-6, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>
>> (Hal Heydt)
>> Sure...if you live alone and shop frequently so that any given
>> shopping trip can be easily carried from store to bus stop and
>> from bus stop to home, that would work.
>
> A healthy adult can carry six bags of groceries at once, three in
> each hand. And an adequate transit system has stops every two
> blocks, on roads within three blocks of houses within the city.

I'd guess those grocery bags are itself an aspect of car-dependent
infrastructure, they assume you're putting everything in your car.
Carrying six bags of groceries in a trolley sounds like a nightmare to
me, actual people who shop without a car use larger bags, wheeled bags,
backpacks etc.

>
> Except that such a standard of coverage wasn't maintained within
> the *suburbs*, where everyone was assumed to own cars, so, yes,
> an increase in transit coverage above historical levels would be needed.
>
> John Savard
>

There is also the fact that the "huge stores far from where everyone
lives that make it convenient/necessary to shop for everything twice a
week" is itself an aspect of car-dependent infrastructure. Mixed zoning
with stores closer to people's homes can make sure people's apple juice
needs are covered at least.

On Sunday, 23 July 2023 at 08:25:03 UTC+1, Arkalen wrote:
> On 23/07/2023 08:15, Quadibloc wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 10:20:58 PM UTC-6, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> >
> >> (Hal Heydt)
> >> Sure...if you live alone and shop frequently so that any given
> >> shopping trip can be easily carried from store to bus stop and
> >> from bus stop to home, that would work.
> >
> > A healthy adult can carry six bags of groceries at once, three in
> > each hand. And an adequate transit system has stops every two
> > blocks, on roads within three blocks of houses within the city.
> I'd guess those grocery bags are itself an aspect of car-dependent
> infrastructure, they assume you're putting everything in your car.
> Carrying six bags of groceries in a trolley sounds like a nightmare to
> me, actual people who shop without a car use larger bags, wheeled bags,
> backpacks etc.

Is this "trolley" as in public omnibus, still? Because most
of us can push a wheeled cart around the aisles of a store.
And you're not meant to take that home, but some people do.
I don't mean the electric car thing: I expect the store gets
very cross if you drive out on that. Probably the alarm
goes off.

I take my own wheeled bag cart for shopping if I'm not
using a car or see below.

> > Except that such a standard of coverage wasn't maintained within
> > the *suburbs*, where everyone was assumed to own cars, so, yes,
> > an increase in transit coverage above historical levels would be needed..
> >
> > John Savard
> >
> There is also the fact that the "huge stores far from where everyone
> lives that make it convenient/necessary to shop for everything twice a
> week" is itself an aspect of car-dependent infrastructure. Mixed zoning
> with stores closer to people's homes can make sure people's apple juice
> needs are covered at least.

There are still bicycles. There's also delivery service.
Approximately since the telephone was invented, or mail.
We were only discussing utility of private car or public
transport for twentieth century-style household shopping,
but really, future home management is likely to have
less of a role for travelling to display showrooms for
food and household conveniences to make your choices
and transport them. We'll have robot delivery, or even
in-home synthesis of products. At minimum, a store robot
will shop for you, and you'll send your car on its own
to collect.

You could do this /now/ with an android dummy that's
realistic enough to convince a Tesla car that it has a
human driver. And the cops, if necessary. That's where
it's tricky.

On Sunday, 23 July 2023 at 08:09:43 UTC+1, Arkalen wrote:
> On 23/07/2023 04:59, Quadibloc wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 7:46:09 AM UTC-6, VSim wrote:
> >
> >> Which are that it is not possible with current technology. While I don't
> >> necessarily dispute this, they don't convince me on this point.
> >
> > The Earth is really, really big and heavy. So, to change the Earth's orbit,
> > you would need something with a mass somewhere in the same ballpark
> > as that of Earth - from the source you cited, 1% of the Earth's mass would
> > suffice.
> >
> > There are indeed, as you point out, other bodies in the Solar System with
> > a mass comparable to that of the Moon. While getting one of the satellites
> > of Jupiter or Saturn out of the deep gravity wells of those planets would be
> > daunting, perhaps the asteroid Ceres could be made to suffice.
> >
> > But moving Ceres so that its gravity would change the Earth's orbit is
> > far, far beyond our current technology, isn't it?
> >
> > Well, if we can change the Earth's orbit by using a body that has 1% of the
> > mass of the Earth... then it follows we can change Ceres' orbit by using a
> > body that has 1% the mass of Ceres. And if _that's_ not small enough,
> > this could be iterated.
> I thought that too but now I'm less sure, because with Earth we're only
> looking for a small change in orbit; with Ceres you'd be looking for a
> very large change in orbit.
>
> Also Ceres is 100 times lighter than the Moon, I don't know if that
> counts as "comparable" for the purposes of this project.

Yes - a body in an asteroid orbit with mass of one of
those large gas giant moons would be easier to get, than
that moon in its present location. But Ceres is much smaller,
so less useful for the proposed exercise.

Perhaps we could collect /all/ the asteroids in basically one
place. Some astronomers might like that.

Or... move the Moon... so that it pulls the Earth more that-a-way.

I don't suppose that we are planning the kind of "trick shot"
which is currently used on space probes, to reach a destination
with less fuel by detouring through another body's gravity field.
Is that an option with serious real estate? The proposal was
to bombard some other moon with asteroids to knock it in our
direction - but orbits of planets and moons are pretty stable.
You slug one, it mostly keeps doing what it did before.
The movies where the Moon or Mercury or Titan has an
accident and suddenly is going to crash into Earth now, don't
really happen. There's _When Worlds Collide_, but that is
/factual/. :-)

And on the other hand, there's moving the human population
onto asteroids instead of Earth. Also, we could move Mars
and Venus into habitable locations, if we can move planets.
Or just copy human brains into cyberspace and live there.

On 23/07/2023 12:30, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Sunday, 23 July 2023 at 08:25:03 UTC+1, Arkalen wrote:
>> On 23/07/2023 08:15, Quadibloc wrote:
>>> On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 10:20:58 PM UTC-6, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>>
>>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>>> Sure...if you live alone and shop frequently so that any given
>>>> shopping trip can be easily carried from store to bus stop and
>>>> from bus stop to home, that would work.
>>>
>>> A healthy adult can carry six bags of groceries at once, three in
>>> each hand. And an adequate transit system has stops every two
>>> blocks, on roads within three blocks of houses within the city.
>> I'd guess those grocery bags are itself an aspect of car-dependent
>> infrastructure, they assume you're putting everything in your car.
>> Carrying six bags of groceries in a trolley sounds like a nightmare to
>> me, actual people who shop without a car use larger bags, wheeled bags,
>> backpacks etc.
>
> Is this "trolley" as in public omnibus, still? Because most
> of us can push a wheeled cart around the aisles of a store.
> And you're not meant to take that home, but some people do.
> I don't mean the electric car thing: I expect the store gets
> very cross if you drive out on that. Probably the alarm
> goes off.
>
> I take my own wheeled bag cart for shopping if I'm not
> using a car or see below.

I'm not completely sure where you're coming from here; were you
expanding on my own point or disagreeing with something I said?

>
>>> Except that such a standard of coverage wasn't maintained within
>>> the *suburbs*, where everyone was assumed to own cars, so, yes,
>>> an increase in transit coverage above historical levels would be needed.
>>>
>>> John Savard
>>>
>> There is also the fact that the "huge stores far from where everyone
>> lives that make it convenient/necessary to shop for everything twice a
>> week" is itself an aspect of car-dependent infrastructure. Mixed zoning
>> with stores closer to people's homes can make sure people's apple juice
>> needs are covered at least.
>
> There are still bicycles. There's also delivery service.

Bicycles have a shorter range and carrying capacity than cars so I don't
really think they change the point. Either way the "fill up the trunk
once a month at Costco" shopping strategy is fundamentally linked to
cars and car-dependent urbanism, and the answer to "but how will I do my
once-a-month-fill-up-the-trunk-trip-to-Costco without a car" isn't to
figure out how to do all this on a bicycle or a tram, but to point out
non-car-dependent urbanism makes for different shopping habits.

As for delivery services (that deliver door-to-door using a car) they
can be an individual solution when you're stuck without a car but
they're not a general solution for reducing car usage overall.

> Approximately since the telephone was invented, or mail.
> We were only discussing utility of private car or public
> transport for twentieth century-style household shopping,
> but really, future home management is likely to have
> less of a role for travelling to display showrooms for
> food and household conveniences to make your choices
> and transport them. We'll have robot delivery, or even
> in-home synthesis of products. At minimum, a store robot
> will shop for you, and you'll send your car on its own
> to collect.
>
> You could do this /now/ with an android dummy that's
> realistic enough to convince a Tesla car that it has a
> human driver. And the cops, if necessary. That's where
> it's tricky.
>

I don't think we're there yet on AI (or more relevantly, close enough to
being there yet for this to be a realistic plan), and I don't think it's
desirable that we be. Basically getting into the urbanism worlds of
various social media really reminded me of Asimov's "Caves of Steel"
trilogy, which I now want to re-read. But the long and short of it is
that car-dependent urbanism seems to have been moving US suburbia into
the Aurora/Solaria direction as opposed to the "Caves on Earth" one, and
while Asimov presented both as kind of equivalent choices I feel the
past decades have suggested that actually the Aurora/Solaria end of the
spectrum is a false ideal and that humans still do better around other
humans. Insofar as your proposal embraces the shift and even proposes
pushing it further I don't endorse it.

On Sunday, July 23, 2023 at 9:53:42 AM UTC+3, Arkalen wrote:
> On 22/07/2023 21:58, VSim wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 8:54:09 PM UTC+3, VSim wrote:
> >> On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 8:42:52 PM UTC+3, Arkalen wrote:
> >>> On 22/07/2023 19:31, VSim wrote:
> >>>> On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 7:14:00 PM UTC+3, Arkalen wrote:
> >>>>> On 22/07/2023 16:47, VSim wrote:
> >>>>>> On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 5:40:21 PM UTC+3, Hamish Laws wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sunday, July 23, 2023 at 12:15:18 AM UTC+10, Arkalen wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 22/07/2023 15:59, VSim wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 4:46:03 PM UTC+3, Arkalen wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Or are
> >>>>>>>>>> there specific bits of info you think my reply failed to address that
> >>>>>>>>>> weren't in your post but are on your webpage ?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Yes. As I said in my second post, the problem is that the target moon is too big to be easily extracted from orbit, which all of you keep repeating as if I wasn't already aware of it.
> >>>>>>>> The argument I and Hamish Law who I bounced off of were making isn't
> >>>>>>>> that it's too big to be *easily* extracted from orbit, it's that it's
> >>>>>>>> big enough that the level of difficulty involved in extracting it from
> >>>>>>>> orbit ranges from "beyond our current capabilities", to at minimum
> >>>>>>>> "orders of magnitude more difficult than the other options for fighting
> >>>>>>>> global warming". And I think it's pretty clear that this is an argument
> >>>>>>>> you actively disagree with, not one you're unaware of.
> >>>>>>>>> And I've addressed this on my webpage, as best I could, and I think it might have a chance of actually working, without being certain of course.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Either way I'm happy to check it out if you change your mind about
> >>>>>>>>>> wanting to discuss things with me.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> If you do read it, I'll be happy to discuss things further with you. But please keep it short. And as a general rule I'm leading the discussion.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Okay... I assumed the website was referenced in the comment where you
> >>>>>>>> asked people to go check the website but it's not so I don't really know
> >>>>>>>> where to look. The only two links on your original post seem to be to
> >>>>>>>> the science article you disagree with and a link about timetravel. Is it
> >>>>>>>> that second one?
> >>>>>>> The link about timetravel takes you to an article on it
> >>>>>>> If you go down to the bottom of the article there's a link to the site index and then you can find the article on moving the earth's orbit
> >>>>>>> It was not mentioned in the original post
> >>>>>>> for a direct link
> >>>>>>> http://mhtt.50webs.com/increase_Earth_orbit.htm
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> His suggestion is hit a moon of jupiter may be too big to be moved out of orbit by an asteroid impact so instead move a moon of saturn, uranus or neptune by asteroid impact and have it hit jupiter's moon and knock it out of orbit
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks. I was going to do just this. >
> >>>>>> And if 2 steps (2 moons) are not enough,, we could try 3 or even 4..
> >>>>> OK, thank you for clarifying. This is a possibility I did consider, in
> >>>>> fact I had a line addressing it in my first reply albeit very briefly.
> >>>>> My reply was long enough as it was and exploring this possibility would
> >>>>> have involved a lot more calculations.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The basic idea I believe is sound, you could knock increasingly bigger
> >>>>> asteroids and moons into each other until you had enough energy to knock
> >>>>> out Io or Europa.
> >>>>
> >>>> Finally the first positive thing somebody says in this thread. Thanks.
> >>>> At the very least it's not just some lunatic's pipe dream. It's something worth looking into, even if the end result would be that it's not currently possible (which it very well might be).
> >>>>
> >>>>> Much like the picture of the person knocking over the
> >>>>> huge domino thanks to a sequence of increasingly larger ones starting
> >>>>> with a very small one. My intuition is that this does not help because
> >>>>> the size differential between what we can do and the energy required to,
> >>>>> say, steer Europa into changing Earth's orbit is so huge that the steps
> >>>>> required are orders of magnitude larger than 3 or 4. That's why the one
> >>>>> sentence I had on this was about the possibility it was impossible just
> >>>>> on a computational level.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Of course my intuition could be wrong and now that I understand more
> >>>>> specifically what you're proposing I'd be happy to look up the numbers
> >>>>> and think of how to test that intuition with what we know of the
> >>>>> relevant equations. I've already looked up the relevant moons and seen
> >>>>> that the only one that matches your mass requirement is Saturn's Rhea,
> >>>>> which would also require an order of magnitude or so more energy to
> >>>>> knock out of its orbit than the Moon does from Earth's orbit. It also
> >>>>> occurred to me that there were recent attempts to shift an asteroid's
> >>>>> orbit that could help quantify our actual current capacities in the
> >>>>> matter. It would take some maths and looking up more asteroid and moon
> >>>>> characteristics to get an idea of how many steps might actually be
> >>>>> required between those. In terms of the potential energy I'm not sure my
> >>>>> intuitions are reliable so I'd have more things to look up on that. I'm
> >>>>> also interested in the distances involved, as using successively larger
> >>>>> moons taken from the outer Solar System explodes the amount of time
> >>>>> required but I'd have to look numbers up to have an idea of how much.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Are you interested in me looking those things up and doing calculations
> >>>>> or do you feel they are irrelevant to your proposal as with the first
> >>>>> ones I did?
> >>>>
> >>>> The first ones were irrelevant. And I'm not going to waste time explaining why, it should be too clear.
> >>>>
> >>>> If you have time and are interested to do some calculations, sure, please do. It's actually more of a question whether you are interested to do them than whether I am. But if you post them here I'll look into them, I think I'm qualified enough to understand them. (That said, it would be useful and interesting but a real specialist would still be needed. But, if you show me clearly enough that the order of magnitude of the problem is much bigger than I hope, and that 3 - 4 intermediate steps are way too few, this would indeed be useful. And you can be sure I'll accept it if the numbers are clear.)
> >>>>
> >>>> You could start by seeing if there is a small moon on Saturn that would be big enough to do the job on the TJM. Actually, first, what would be the moon of choice from Jupiter ? That should be a fairly easy question. If there is a small moon of Saturn, how big would it be ? I'm thinking maybe like 5% of TJM but this needs confirmation. And if there is no good one around Saturn, maybe Uranus. :)
> >>>>
> >>> You say my first calculations were irrelevant but I'm not sure you even
> >>> read them because they answered the exact questions you just asked.
> >> I didn't. You have to agree your post was way too long so I had no way of sorting out the useful bits.
> You "have to agree" it takes some cheek to say that to the only person
> who went to the trouble of doing the calculations you asked for. I don't
> know what response you're expecting to get if an expert does consider
> your proposal but the thing about experts is that they're more likely to
> value their time highly than an internet rando. So you don't want them
> to think that you won't at least match them on the level of effort they
> put into considering your ideas.

djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>In article <4371b33a-083b-49e0-ac57-18871c551c7dn@googlegroups.com>,
>Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>I can point to another *proven* technology that would
>>allow people to go to work and shop for groceries while only using
>>carbon-free electricity. Trolley buses.
>
>(Hal Heydt)
>Sure...if you live alone and shop frequently so that any given
>shopping trip can be easily carried from store to bus stop and
>from bus stop to home, that would work.
>
>Now try doing it if you shop once or twice a week for an entire
>family... Just one example... At the moment the household is
>drinking a lot of apple juice, on the order of 7 gallons per
>week. That alone means transporting on the order of 60 lbs. per
>week. Handle that on a bus? I don't think so. And that leaves
>out all the other groceries that get picked up at the same time.
>
>So...either the bus system will have to be *massively* expanded
>to be, essentially, door-to-door on demand. Or private on-demand
>vehicles have to be affordable.

Or return to the days of daily milk (and apple juice) home delivery....

In article <u9ikka$6hu1$1@dont-email.me>, Arkalen <arkalen@proton.me> wrote:
>On 23/07/2023 08:15, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 10:20:58 PM UTC-6, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>
>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>> Sure...if you live alone and shop frequently so that any given
>>> shopping trip can be easily carried from store to bus stop and
>>> from bus stop to home, that would work.
>>
>> A healthy adult can carry six bags of groceries at once, three in
>> each hand. And an adequate transit system has stops every two
>> blocks, on roads within three blocks of houses within the city.
>
>I'd guess those grocery bags are itself an aspect of car-dependent
>infrastructure, they assume you're putting everything in your car.
>Carrying six bags of groceries in a trolley sounds like a nightmare to
>me, actual people who shop without a car use larger bags, wheeled bags,
>backpacks etc.

I happen to live near a large grocery store in a neighborhood with a
lot of retirees who have clearly given the matter of how to move large
amounts of groceries some thought. In particular, there's an old lady
with a walker who hauls donkey-loads of food home, carefully
piled on her walker. Slowly, but she gets where she's going.

I have a folding shopping cart that's good for maybe 50 kg of groceries.
Some ingenuity is called for (stackable boxes instead of bags) but
not much.

People sometimes appropriate store shopping carts but there is a
chance that only gets them as far as the edge of the parking lot.
Some of the carts lock once they pass a certain point. I don't
know if the issue is that only some of the carts have that locking
mechanism or if the many repairs done to the parking lot have knocked
out some of the triggers.

>>
>> Except that such a standard of coverage wasn't maintained within
>> the *suburbs*, where everyone was assumed to own cars, so, yes,
>> an increase in transit coverage above historical levels would be needed.
>>
>> John Savard
>
>There is also the fact that the "huge stores far from where everyone
>lives that make it convenient/necessary to shop for everything twice a
>week" is itself an aspect of car-dependent infrastructure. Mixed zoning
>with stores closer to people's homes can make sure people's apple juice
>needs are covered at least.

One of the annoying aspects of living in downtown Kitchener over the
decades was how basic services were slowly eliminated, forcing anyone
living there to have to venture out towards the periphery. For example,
in 1985, there were three reasonable-sized grocery stores. By 2010
there were none. The trend seems to be reversing now that I don't
live there any more, perhaps driven by all the new condo towers.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

In article <u9j1re$7up8$1@dont-email.me>, Arkalen <arkalen@proton.me> wrote:
>
>Bicycles have a shorter range and carrying capacity than cars so I don't
>really think they change the point. Either way the "fill up the trunk
>once a month at Costco" shopping strategy is fundamentally linked to
>cars and car-dependent urbanism, and the answer to "but how will I do my
>once-a-month-fill-up-the-trunk-trip-to-Costco without a car" isn't to
>figure out how to do all this on a bicycle or a tram, but to point out
>non-car-dependent urbanism makes for different shopping habits.

A friend of mine from northern Ontario triggered a flamewar by
asking why people in Kitchener (that she knew) generally have
only small stores of food on hand. She was in the habit of having
half a year's worth of storable food on hand* because in her
community, winter travel was often difficult. You don't want to run
out of food when you cannot get to the store. However, a lot of
people in KW don't have room for half a year's food, and cannot
afford it, so it was interpreted as a classist sneer.

* As am I, at least where stuff like flour and rice is concerned. But
I grew up on a farm and since my father didn't like to pay to get
the lane plowed, we had long stretches in the winter where the
car had to be parked a quarter mile away.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

In article <u9ijni$6esm$1@dont-email.me>, Arkalen <arkalen@proton.me> wrote:
>On 23/07/2023 04:59, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 7:46:09 AM UTC-6, VSim wrote:
>>
>>> Which are that it is not possible with current technology. While I don't
>>> necessarily dispute this, they don't convince me on this point.
>>
>> The Earth is really, really big and heavy. So, to change the Earth's orbit,
>> you would need something with a mass somewhere in the same ballpark
>> as that of Earth - from the source you cited, 1% of the Earth's mass would
>> suffice.
>>
>> There are indeed, as you point out, other bodies in the Solar System with
>> a mass comparable to that of the Moon. While getting one of the satellites
>> of Jupiter or Saturn out of the deep gravity wells of those planets would be
>> daunting, perhaps the asteroid Ceres could be made to suffice.
>>
>> But moving Ceres so that its gravity would change the Earth's orbit is
>> far, far beyond our current technology, isn't it?
>>
>> Well, if we can change the Earth's orbit by using a body that has 1% of the
>> mass of the Earth... then it follows we can change Ceres' orbit by using a
>> body that has 1% the mass of Ceres. And if _that's_ not small enough,
>> this could be iterated.
>
>I thought that too but now I'm less sure, because with Earth we're only
>looking for a small change in orbit; with Ceres you'd be looking for a
>very large change in orbit.
>
>Also Ceres is 100 times lighter than the Moon, I don't know if that
>counts as "comparable" for the purposes of this project.

Ceres has the advantage of not being in orbit around a gas giant,
at least, so the delta vee cost to get it into an Earth-crossing
orbit is smaller. If you chose your time carefully, it could be
as small as 4.3 km/s. Of course, that assumes acceleration over
a short period of time. Since bodies the size of Ceres are not
rigid, that might not be practical.

General Atomic thought it might be possible to achieve exhaust
velocities of 10,000 km/s using h-bomb-derived propulsion units
in an Orion-style rocket. I think in this case that's a mass
ratio of 1.0004. About 0.04% of Ceres mass would have to be
ejected at 10,000 km/s. Ceres is roughly 10E21 kg, so that
would be 4x10E17 kg? My calculator isn't handy so I have to
do this in my head. Ek at 10,000 km/s is 4x10E7 J/kg, so
total about 2x10E24 J. As I recall, human civilization
consumes about 1.5x10E12 watts, so roundly madly that's
about a trillion seconds worth of energy production.
As you know, a billion seconds is about 30 years, so
a trillion would be 30,000 years. So, we'd be expending
30,000 years worth of energy over a few hours. The good
news is that this is likely to be detectable over a
considerable fraction of the galaxy, so we can also use
it to pursue CETI.

The energy budget can be reduced greatly by optimizing mass
ratio for total energy, which I think is a mass ratio of
about five, which means most of Ceres would be discarded.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 12:53:45 -0700 (PDT), William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 12:17:22?PM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 14:55:54 -0700 (PDT), William Hyde
>> <wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 4:28:18?PM UTC-4, VSim wrote:
>> >> On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 4:15:28?PM UTC+3, Hamish Laws wrote:
>> >> > On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 12:29:11?PM UTC+10, VSim wrote:
>> >> > > On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 4:01:31?AM UTC+3, Hamish Laws wrote:
>> >> > > > On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 11:34:20?PM UTC+10, VSim wrote:
>> >> > > > > On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 4:27:42?PM UTC+3, Hamish Laws wrote:
>> >> > > > > > although both of them seem much less practical than eliminating fossil fuel usage.
>> >> > > > > Going carbon-neutral won't solve the problem.
>> >> > > > It does stop further ocean acidification, limits the increase in temperature etc and over time afterwards natural processes will reduce the atmospheric CO2 levels (and we can do carbon extraction, although how practical it is to do is still unknown)
>> >> > > I'm not arguing in any way against 0-emissions. Please do (though it looks like it's easier said than done).
>> >> > Well considering how much money is spent on fossil fuel propaganda compared to research into alternatives...
>> >> > > But it doesn't solve the problem of natural global warming. It will have to be addressed at some point, my guess is it will be pretty soon.
>> >> > what natural global warming do you think we have?
>> >> > We're probably in a slight cooling period without human impact
>> >> The way I know it, we're in an interglacial period where the Earth is naturally warming even without fossil fuel emissions.
>> >
>> >We are in an interglacial.. We are at the end of that ten thousand year period. Normally things would start cooling soon, but not all
>> >interglacials are of equal length. Things do not warm uniformly during an interglacial. They warm, then cool, with possible
>> >oscillations in between.
>> >
>> >
>> >>Nobody knows how much it will last, but estimates are 10.000 years at least. Nobody knows
>> >
>> >It is a common error to think that because you don't know, nobody knows.
>> So, then, who /knows/ how long the current interglacial will last?
>
>A new ice age cycle begins when orbital variations produce cooler northern Hemisphere
>summers. Generally, as the earlier poster said, this is about or somewhat more than
>ten thousand years after most of the ice in North America has melted. About ten thousand
>years ago, very little was left of the Laurentide ice sheet.
>
>The orbital pattern conferring the coolest summers happened several hundred years ago.
>Naively, one might say we missed an off ramp, and must wait for the next, which will
>come in about 22,000 years.

IOW, nobody knows when it will end.

Just /that/ it will end. Like the Cascadia Earthquake: could be today,
could be 200 years from now.

Even "about 22,000 years" isn't "knowing when it will end". "On June 4
24,025 at 10:03:15 AM PDT" would be "knowing when it will end". The
assertion that nobody knows when it will end is quite correct.

Well, if some really impressive disaster (the Sun going nova, for
example) doesn't occur first, of course.

>The poster's oft-repeated point, that "of course it's warming, this is an
>interglacial", was a favourite of J. Clarke, late of this group. It is entirely
>wrong. Interglacials start with a warming, of course, but end with a
>cooling, and in the middle various temperature oscillations can happen.
>It is a non-point, and in fact a PRATT.

So, when we "missed the off ramp", that didn't change the cooling down
trend?
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"