On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 17:08:31 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 13:07:08 -0700 (PDT), William Hyde
>><wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> IOW, nobody knows when it will end.=20
>>>
>>>So you too are adopting the ludicrous standard whereby "knowing" means
>>>being 100% sure.
>>>
>>>You must be aware that in modern times that formulation of the sense of
>>>knowing exists purely for the denialist community, from cigarettes, to
>>>evolution to global warming. It is a way of dismissing knowledge and
>>>expertise which the denialists cannot otherwise deal with.
>>
>>Yes, I am aware that in "modern times" all knowledge has become fuzzy
>>and indeterminate.
>
>That's not what Dr. Hyde wrote.
>
>
>>>Of course, there is no such thing as an exact time when an interglacial
>>>ends. The standard of knowing that you and the OP propose is
>>>inapplicable here.
>>
>>Appropriate or not, his point (that nobody knows when the current
>>interglacial will end) still stands. /That/ is a fact.
>
>It is an useless, meaningless, uninteresting fact, which has zero
>applicability to the issue under discussion.

Although I can understand that the "issue under discussion" has become
obscured, it actually is that the principle "thinking nobody knows
something because you don't is a logical fallacy" is perfectly
correct, but only if the "something" is something that /somebody
actually knows/. In this case, it is "the date of the end of the
current interglacial", and /that/ nobody knows.

I will grant that many people know that the current scientific
determination on this point is known. But the fact that science has
made a determination -- which would, BTW, not be just a single
amazingly (or suspiciously) round number but rather an interval with
stated upper and lower bounds within which the true value is computed
to lie with a stated level of confidence -- does not mean that the
actual date is known. To anyone.

Basically, we have someone trying to make a scientific prediction into
Absolute Truth. This is not Science, it is Relgion.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 17:05:41 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 19:54:04 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
>>Heydt) wrote:
>
>>>That also points to a problem with the idea of bicycles to do
>>>shopping...weather. Care to go shopping by bicycle in Phoenix,
>>>AZ in the summer? *This* summer?
>>
>>If the stores could be coaxed into staying open after the Sun goes
>>down, the temps might drop a bit and, if nothing else, you at least
>>would have the Sun directly sucking the moisture out of you.
>
>"drop a bit". From 113F to 93F doesn't make much of a difference. West
>coasters are accustomed to a forty plus degree daily swing between high and
>low temperatures. That's not the case for regions where they don't have
>a massive natural air conditioner just a few miles to the west of them.

Actually, during the heat dome, the nights were a bit less warm, but
never cool. By the time we got to 105 during the day, the nights were
95. Note that both may be "feels like" temps. And, with no Sun, there
was no temperature differential between the front and back of the
house, so no cooling breeze. Bummer.

Nonetheless, not having the Sun blazing down on you makes a
difference.

And going underground remains the long-term solution. Just don't turn
it into Yet Another Land Grab.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 2:03:59 AM UTC+3, William Hyde wrote:
> On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 5:39:25 PM UTC-4, VSim wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 23, 2023 at 10:14:06 PM UTC+3, William Hyde wrote:
> > > On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 7:25:12 PM UTC-4, VSim wrote:
> > > > 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
> > >
> > > You mean providing actual facts, something you never do?
> > >
> > > >way of the specialists in the field to say "nobody knows".
> > >
> > > There are degrees of knowing.
> > >
> > > "Nobody knows" if you will be alive next week, but I bet you plan as if you will be. Because
> > > you are rather sure of it. And I bet you are right.
> > I bet you're not as certain that this interglacial won't last 50.000 years as I am that I'll be around next week.
> You lose.

You're that sure it won't last 50,000 years ? I don't believe you. And even if you are, it's just your opinion.

> Though I am aware that there's a very small possibility I won't be.
> > > Glacials start when the orbital components produce cool summers in ice-growing
> > > regions. Such orbital configurations are about 22,000 years apart. We have
> > > just had one, so this interglacial is likely to last 22,000 years further.
> > You really expect laymen to understand this ?
> You really think you just made a point?
>
> You are the one who brought up interglacials in this.
>
> You cannot bring up a topic, then declare a ban on all other information on that topic.
>
> That's not how debate works.

I'm not going to do hair-splitting with you.
The debate has to be in laymen terms. Anything higher I simply will ignore because I don't understand. And I really have no time to learn much more about it, I have other priorities.

> For the basics of the ice ages try "Ice Ages, solving the Mystery", by Imbrie and Imbrie. You can probably get
> it by interlibrary loan. It's an older book but well written.

(:-))))) You're trying to make a global warming expert out of me ? This is even less likely to happen than the current interglacial lasting 50.000 years.

> Regrettably perhaps, we have entered a time where issues that confront us require some effort to
> understand what is happening. You can of course just choose not to make that effort and
> go with whatever you feel like, but do not expect me to respect such willful ignorance.

You can't expect everybody to become an expert in global warming. It won't happen.
And yes, you should respect the laymen who try to have a clear picture at their level, and try to provide it, especially if you ask them for money.

> >And pay hundreds of trillions for your proposals based on it ?
> Kindly show me where on this thread I have proposed spending hundreds of trillions on anything.

This is intentional wrong understanding. I didn't say you have in this thread. The actions proposed by the ecology community to avoid the worst scenarios of global warming do cost hundreds of trillions. And even then they're not very sure to achieve their goals.

> You on the other hand are proposing exactly that.
> > Let me tell you something. Until you, and I mean the authority voices of the UN, Greenpeace, Attenborough and others alike, don't answer clearly in laymen terms this simple basic question: What's the worst we can reasonably expect if we just sit back and do nothing ?
> Asked and answered. IPCC publishes a report every few years, which contains easily digested summaries of the
> findings. It exists online but I recommend looking at a hard copy at a nearby library. Easier to flip back
> and forth between science and policy sections.

[...]

> > And that there are no natural causes for global warming. I have asked you repeatedly for an authoritative link and you haven't provided it.
> I don't recall any such request. You could try the IPCC reports mentioned above, or this paper:
>
> https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.289.5477.270 (Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years,
> Thomas J. Crowley).

On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 3:36:13 AM UTC+3, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 6:46:55 PM UTC-4, VSim wrote:
> >
> > In any case you seem to be rather knowledgeable about it. You're the only one who's raised good points to the technical problem, twice. Maybe I can tempt you to look at the half-calculation I just posted and complete it ? Or at least tell me if you spot some errors. Thank you.
> This isn't really my field, but....
>
> I'll try to humor you, unless it gets too hard.

I thought it would be easy for you. Of course if it's too hard I'lll see what I can do myself.

> It looks like the delta v to get something from Europas orbit
> to escape Jupiter is about 10,000 Kph.

I was hoping you can provide the 3 speeds I mentioned. The delta v is OK but v1 is the most important.

> But you still need to expend more delta v to get into an orbit that will reach the earth. A lot more. Another 32,000 kph.

That much ? Of course, it has to pass in the exterior of the Earth's orbit by 1 million km. I would have thought it's less. Anyway that's indeed something that has to be considered.

> Changing the velocity of Europa (0.008 Earth masses) by 42,000 kph would take about energy
> equivalent to about 777,134,586,785 gigatons of TNT.

I don't think we should go into such calculations. The 3 speeds should give us the desired mass ratio and for now that's all we want.

On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 8:10:40 PM UTC+3, VSim wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 3:36:13 AM UTC+3, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> > But you still need to expend more delta v to get into an orbit that will reach the earth. A lot more. Another 32,000 kph.
> That much ? Of course, it has to pass in the exterior of the Earth's orbit by 1 million km. I would have thought it's less. Anyway that's indeed something that has to be considered.

After a bit more thinking, I don't think we should mix things. Let's first worry about just extracting Europa. The best way to make it reach Earth's orbit at the desired time and on the desired trajectory is probably more complicated and, as with all things too complicated, we'll worry about it later. (There's also Mars in between :), maybe a well-timed fly by it could deflect it so that it reaches the Earth at the desired place and time.)

On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 2:03:59 AM UTC+3, William Hyde wrote:
> On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 5:39:25 PM UTC-4, VSim wrote:
>
> It is also a standard claim of theirs that they are not GW deniers, just anthopogenic GW deniers. Sound familiar?
>
> So tell me, do you believe that anthropogenic warming is happening and is significant?

Yes, of course. But you want me to believe that it's basically the only GW that's happening and that I don't. As I told you, from all I know nobody with authority says what part of it is human-generated and what part is natural. I said this very clearly. You can't spin this around into me not believing there is a human-generated part. That's a strawman.

In article <a8a58485-c0f0-42f8-9c1c-57ea880e7a6dn@googlegroups.com>,
VSim <intelnav@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I'm not going to do hair-splitting with you.
>The debate has to be in laymen terms. Anything higher I simply will
>ignore because I don't understand. And I really have no time to learn
>much more about it, I have other priorities.

(Hal Heydt)
So...if someone with actual expertise in a field under discussion
proceeds to cite specific technical reasons why they are correct
and you are wrong, you'll just ignore them and go on your merry
way? Good to know...

VSim <intelnav@yahoo.com> writes:
>On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 2:03:59=E2=80=AFAM UTC+3, William Hyde wrote:
>> On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 5:39:25=E2=80=AFPM UTC-4, VSim wrote:=20
>>=20
>> It is also a standard claim of theirs that they are not GW deniers, just =
>anthopogenic GW deniers. Sound familiar?=20
>>=20
>> So tell me, do you believe that anthropogenic warming is happening and is=
> significant?
>
>Yes, of course. But you want me to believe that it's basically the only GW =
>that's happening and that I don't. As I told you, from all I know nobody wi=
>th authority says what part of it is human-generated and what part is natur=
>al.

Good news! You can find someone with authority tell you exactly
that in section 2.1.1 (page 6) of the IPCC_AR6_SYR_LongerReport.pdf.

"Global surface temperature was around 1.1�C above 1850�1900
in 2011�2020 (1.09�C [0.95�C�1.20�C])7, with larger increases
over land (1.59 [1.34 to 1.83]�C) than over the ocean (0.88�C
[0.68�C�1.01�C])8. Observed warming is human-caused, with warming
from greenhouse gases (GHG), dominated by CO2 and methane (CH4),
partly masked by aerosol cooling (Figure 2.1)."

"The likely range of total human-caused global surface
temperature increase from 1850�1900 to 2010�20199 is 0.8�C
to 1.3�C, with a best estimate of 1.07�C. It is likely that
well-mixed GHGs contributed a warming of 1.0�C�2.0�C, and other
human drivers (principally aerosols) contributed a cooling of 0.0�C�0.8�C,
natural (solar and volcanic) drivers changed global surface
temperature by �0.1�C and internal variability changed it by �0.2�C."

On 25 Jul 2023 at 21:58:48 BST, "Scott Lurndal" <Scott Lurndal> wrote:

> VSim <intelnav@yahoo.com> writes:
>> On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 2:03:59=E2=80=AFAM UTC+3, William Hyde wrote:
>>> On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 5:39:25=E2=80=AFPM UTC-4, VSim wrote:=20
>>> =20
>>> It is also a standard claim of theirs that they are not GW deniers, just =
>> anthopogenic GW deniers. Sound familiar?=20
>>> =20
>>> So tell me, do you believe that anthropogenic warming is happening and is=
>> significant?
>>
>> Yes, of course. But you want me to believe that it's basically the only GW =
>> that's happening and that I don't. As I told you, from all I know nobody wi=
>> th authority says what part of it is human-generated and what part is natur=
>> al.
>
> Good news! You can find someone with authority tell you exactly
> that in section 2.1.1 (page 6) of the IPCC_AR6_SYR_LongerReport.pdf.
>
> "Global surface temperature was around 1.1°C above 1850­1900
> in 2011­2020 (1.09°C [0.95°C­1.20°C])7, with larger increases
> over land (1.59 [1.34 to 1.83]°C) than over the ocean (0.88°C
> [0.68°C­1.01°C])8. Observed warming is human-caused, with warming
> from greenhouse gases (GHG), dominated by CO2 and methane (CH4),
> partly masked by aerosol cooling (Figure 2.1)."
>
> "The likely range of total human-caused global surface
> temperature increase from 1850­1900 to 2010­20199 is 0.8°C
> to 1.3°C, with a best estimate of 1.07°C. It is likely that
> well-mixed GHGs contributed a warming of 1.0°C­2.0°C, and other
> human drivers (principally aerosols) contributed a cooling of 0.0°C­0.8°C,
> natural (solar and volcanic) drivers changed global surface
> temperature by ±0.1°C and internal variability changed it by ±0.2°C."

I suspect this report is too technical for the poor chap, given it has
not only
degrees celsius but also decimal points. So for that reason he'll ignore
it.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
"How fleeting are all human passions compared
with the massive continuity of ducks"
-- Dorothy L Sayers, _Gaudy Night_

On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 12:02:55 PM UTC-6, VSim wrote:

> Yes, of course. But you want me to believe that it's basically the only GW that's happening
> and that I don't. As I told you, from all I know nobody with authority says what part of it is
> human-generated and what part is natural. I said this very clearly. You can't spin this
> around into me not believing there is a human-generated part. That's a strawman.

As far as I know, what people with authority have been saying all along is:

We're currently in an interglacial period - it's warm now, but this is just a brief
respite from the current ice age.

The ice age could come back in full force at any moment. In fact, some people
were predicting the glaciers would start coming in... in the far-future year of
1975 or thereabouts.

So, if anything, the warming we're experiencing might be *less* than what would
result from what humans are causing, because it's being mitigated by the coming
ice age that global warming has basically prevented.

John Savard

On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 10:57:29 AM UTC-6, VSim wrote:

> The debate has to be in laymen terms. Anything higher I simply
> will ignore because I don't understand.

Well, surely you should be able to understand why some people will
feel that's an unfair condition. Perhaps what can be explained at a
layman's level won't be enough to prove the point in question.

But global warming is pretty simple.

Carbon dioxide lets short-wave radiation go through, like the light
from the Sun that warms the Earth.

The Earth's surface, of course, is much less hot than the surface of
the Sun. So the infrared radiation the Earth emits, which goes out
into space, leading to places cooling off in the night time, has a much
longer wavelength. Carbon dioxide is opaque to those wavelengths.

So if there's too much of it in the atmosphere, the world doesn't cool
off at night, and gets hotter and hotter every day, until it reaches a new
equilibrium temperature, where the Earth is hot enough at night that
what it radiates out that reaches space is enough to balance what was
recieved from the Sun during the day.

That means:

a small increase in carbon dioxide can ean a big rise in temperature, and

it will take time for the ultimate consequence of that increase to be fully felt.

> The actions proposed by the ecology community to avoid the worst scenarios
> of global warming do cost hundreds of trillions. And even then they're not very
> sure to achieve their goals.

If we went back to using no more energy than we did 200 years ago, then - evantually,
after plants got rid of all the excess carbon dioxide in the air now - things would go
back to normal, and we would have no problem.

But that wouldn't be enough energy for all the people in the world today to live on.

Yes, we've got a problem. One solution is to do something the ecology community
doesn't like: use nuclear power. That way, we will have enough energy to keep making
ships and planes and bombs to send to Ukraine, for example, without adding to the
greenhouse effect. Going to wind and solar, aside from presupposing advances in
energy storage, is also based on advances in energy conservation, *and changing to
a less energy-intensive lifestyle*.

In a world so hot where people need air conditioners to survive, in a world where
war is still a possibility, that last thing is not necessarily an option. But just because
the "ecology community" does have an agenda of promoting a simpler lifestyle
and achieving world peace which simply can't happen *does not mean* that we
can react to it, however understandable the temptation may be, by denying the simple
and undeniable science of global warming.

No. We have to accept the facts as they are. ALL the facts;

- the fact of global warming,
- the fact that countries like Russia and China aren't going to give up using force
to bully other countries,
- the fact that political decisions that cause massive unemployment by constricting
the economy won't be accepted in any democratic nation

and figure out how to deal with them.

How do we stop making greenhouse gases, and yet have enough energy to run
a booming economy, including the kind of heavy industrial base needed to fight and
win wars? Once you have asked *this question*, the right question, the answer is
obvious. Nuclear power plants are an unavoidable option.

Anything else is denying some of the facts with wishful thinking.
Of course, some people will say, "but nuclear power is too expensive, or too scary".

Unlike the facts above, though, *this* is a problem that can be solved
with sufficient political will and courage by the major parties. Of course,
the idea that all the major parties would agree on doing what is needed
for the survival of humanity... while back in the 'sixties, that would be taken
without question, now in the post-Trump era, instead it seems an unrealistic
hope. It is up to the American voter to show enough sense to solve it.

John Savard

On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 2:02:34 PM UTC+10, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 12:02:55 PM UTC-6, VSim wrote:
>
> > Yes, of course. But you want me to believe that it's basically the only GW that's happening
> > and that I don't. As I told you, from all I know nobody with authority says what part of it is
> > human-generated and what part is natural. I said this very clearly. You can't spin this
> > around into me not believing there is a human-generated part. That's a strawman.
> As far as I know, what people with authority have been saying all along is:
>
> We're currently in an interglacial period - it's warm now, but this is just a brief
> respite from the current ice age.
>
> The ice age could come back in full force at any moment. In fact, some people
> were predicting the glaciers would start coming in... in the far-future year of
> 1975 or thereabouts.
>
> So, if anything, the warming we're experiencing might be *less* than what would
> result from what humans are causing, because it's being mitigated by the coming
> ice age that global warming has basically prevented.
>
Read up the thread to find out where you're wrong

Solving the problem of regulating our global climate would
be useful practice for terraforming Mars, the Moon, Venus,
and perhaps some moons of Jupiter and Saturn, in the
long term.

--
https://www.nfld.com/~dalton/dtales.html Salmon on the Thorns (mystic page)
"This could be the final breath; This is life and death;
This is hard rock and water; Out here between wind and flame;
Between tears and elation; Lies a secret nation" (Ron Hynes)

On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 20:16:15 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
Heydt) wrote:

>In article <a8a58485-c0f0-42f8-9c1c-57ea880e7a6dn@googlegroups.com>,
>VSim <intelnav@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>I'm not going to do hair-splitting with you.
>>The debate has to be in laymen terms. Anything higher I simply will
>>ignore because I don't understand. And I really have no time to learn
>>much more about it, I have other priorities.
>
>(Hal Heydt)
>So...if someone with actual expertise in a field under discussion
>proceeds to cite specific technical reasons why they are correct
>and you are wrong, you'll just ignore them and go on your merry
>way? Good to know...

The basic complaint is that he is being buried in technobabble which
he cannot evaluate and which is therefor of no use to him.

This is /not/ a proper discussion (or debating) technique. It is a
"silence my opponent" technique -- and he is saying he won't play that
game.

Are you sure "shut up and accept Authority" is /really/ the answer?
That appears to be what you appear to be supporting.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On 25 Jul 2023 23:55:25 GMT, Jaimie Vandenbergh
<jaimie@usually.sessile.org> wrote:

>On 25 Jul 2023 at 21:58:48 BST, "Scott Lurndal" <Scott Lurndal> wrote:
>
>> VSim <intelnav@yahoo.com> writes:
>>> On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 2:03:59=E2=80=AFAM UTC+3, William Hyde wrote:
>>>> On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 5:39:25=E2=80=AFPM UTC-4, VSim wrote:=20
>>>> =20
>>>> It is also a standard claim of theirs that they are not GW deniers, just >>> anthopogenic GW deniers. Sound familiar?=20
>>>> =20
>>>> So tell me, do you believe that anthropogenic warming is happening and is>>> significant?
>>>
>>> Yes, of course. But you want me to believe that it's basically the only GW >>> that's happening and that I don't. As I told you, from all I know nobody wi>>> th authority says what part of it is human-generated and what part is natur>>> al.
>>
>> Good news! You can find someone with authority tell you exactly
>> that in section 2.1.1 (page 6) of the IPCC_AR6_SYR_LongerReport.pdf.
>>
>> "Global surface temperature was around 1.1°C above 1850­1900
>> in 2011­2020 (1.09°C [0.95°C­1.20°C])7, with larger increases
>> over land (1.59 [1.34 to 1.83]°C) than over the ocean (0.88°C
>> [0.68°C­1.01°C])8. Observed warming is human-caused, with warming
>> from greenhouse gases (GHG), dominated by CO2 and methane (CH4),
>> partly masked by aerosol cooling (Figure 2.1)."
>>
>> "The likely range of total human-caused global surface
>> temperature increase from 1850­1900 to 2010­20199 is 0.8°C
>> to 1.3°C, with a best estimate of 1.07°C. It is likely that
>> well-mixed GHGs contributed a warming of 1.0°C­2.0°C, and other
>> human drivers (principally aerosols) contributed a cooling of 0.0°C­0.8°C,
>> natural (solar and volcanic) drivers changed global surface
>> temperature by ±0.1°C and internal variability changed it by ±0.2°C."
>
>I suspect this report is too technical for the poor chap, given it has
>not only
>degrees celsius but also decimal points. So for that reason he'll ignore
>it.

Also, 20199 seems rather ... far away.

But perhaps the computer that generated it couldn't handle "2020".

Or maybe it meant to say "2019" but developed something analogous to
logorrhea, but involving trailing digits.

Finally, did you notice that it did, in fact, suggest /some/
contribution from natural causes? Granted they are so small that they
could be + or -, but still ... they /could/ be "+".
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 02:17:43 -0230, David Dalton <dalton@nfld.com>
wrote:

>Solving the problem of regulating our global climate would
>be useful practice for terraforming Mars, the Moon, Venus,
>and perhaps some moons of Jupiter and Saturn, in the
>long term.

Not to mention helpful in /producing/ a "long term".
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

I changed my mind. I'll only accept Britannica as an authority source on global warming. If something is final and generally accepted, and of general interest, it should be on Britannica. The big universities are OK except they tend to present scientific research as accepted fact.

In any case, regardless of the cheap sarcasm of which this thread is full, I'm not going to weigh myself scientific arguments in a field that's not my own. I have to go with an authority. That's what laymen do. That's what you do too when you're laymen, even if now you won't admit it because it doesn't suit your agenda.

BTW, I just went on Britannica out of curiosity, to see what they have to say on the subject.

https://www.britannica.com/science/global-warming

You'll like this. I expected a short article for laymen, with pointed answers to common-sense questions, like what's the worst thing we can reasonably expect. Instead, it's a long page full of scientific gibberish nobody can understand except specialists. I was kind of disappointed. :)

In any case, I did find them saying that "An IPCC special report produced in 2018 noted that human beings and their activities have been responsible for a worldwide average temperature increase between 0.8 and 1.2 °C (1.4 and 2.2 °F) since preindustrial times, and most of the warming over the second half of the 20th century could be attributed to human activities.." Which means that it doesn't seem to be general consensus about it. OTOH this IPCC seems to be the most authoritative organism there is in the field and their opinion does carry weight. In any case, even they say "most", not all of global warming. Then again it is useful to know that the IPCC thinks that humans are responsible for most of the global warming.
That's about all I need to know on this matter right now.

It doesn't change the fact that the option of reversing global warming by changing the Earth's orbit, if doable in about 50 or even 100 years, might be useful or even prove to be a must-do at some point. Human-generated emissions won't stop as soon as some might like, or even, as I agree, as it would be good for everybody. They just won't, unfortunately.

In article <588c9b96-f376-4fde-a821-3d819795a38fn@googlegroups.com>,
VSim <intelnav@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>It doesn't change the fact that the option of reversing global warming
>by changing the Earth's orbit, if doable in about 50 or even 100 years,
>might be useful or even prove to be a must-do at some point.

In the same sense that humans generating the ability to urinate pure
antimatter sometime between 1970 and 1980 might have mitigated the
energy crises of that decade. It falls down on the "if doable" point.

--
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 Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 7:05:48 PM UTC+3, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 20:16:15 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
> Heydt) wrote:
>
> >In article <a8a58485-c0f0-42f8...@googlegroups.com>,
> >VSim <inte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>I'm not going to do hair-splitting with you.
> >>The debate has to be in laymen terms. Anything higher I simply will
> >>ignore because I don't understand. And I really have no time to learn
> >>much more about it, I have other priorities.
> >
> >(Hal Heydt)
> >So...if someone with actual expertise in a field under discussion
> >proceeds to cite specific technical reasons why they are correct
> >and you are wrong, you'll just ignore them and go on your merry
> >way? Good to know...
> The basic complaint is that he is being buried in technobabble which
> he cannot evaluate and which is therefor of no use to him.
>
> This is /not/ a proper discussion (or debating) technique. It is a
> "silence my opponent" technique -- and he is saying he won't play that
> game.

Thanks. I couldn't have said it better myself.

> Are you sure "shut up and accept Authority" is /really/ the answer?
> That appears to be what you appear to be supporting.

I do accept authority. As a layman that's what I have to do. Except that Usenet posters that ask me to evaluate scientific arguments I don't have time for are by no means authority. Britannica is authority, as I just said.

In article <nrg2cip434dfpj1t4ok2857uisgdbitloc@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 20:16:15 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
>Heydt) wrote:
>
>>In article <a8a58485-c0f0-42f8-9c1c-57ea880e7a6dn@googlegroups.com>,
>>VSim <intelnav@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>I'm not going to do hair-splitting with you.
>>>The debate has to be in laymen terms. Anything higher I simply will
>>>ignore because I don't understand. And I really have no time to learn
>>>much more about it, I have other priorities.
>>
>>(Hal Heydt)
>>So...if someone with actual expertise in a field under discussion
>>proceeds to cite specific technical reasons why they are correct
>>and you are wrong, you'll just ignore them and go on your merry
>>way? Good to know...
>
>The basic complaint is that he is being buried in technobabble which
>he cannot evaluate and which is therefor of no use to him.
>
The problem is, he has arrived at a solution without the necessary
knowledge needed to evaluate it. The correct step at this point is
to seek education in the relevant fields, rather than getting angry
that he cannot understand the experts.
--
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

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>On 25 Jul 2023 23:55:25 GMT, Jaimie Vandenbergh
><jaimie@usually.sessile.org> wrote:
>
>>On 25 Jul 2023 at 21:58:48 BST, "Scott Lurndal" <Scott Lurndal> wrote:
>>
>>> VSim <intelnav@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>> On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 2:03:59=3DE2=3D80=3DAFAM UTC+3, William =
>Hyde wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 5:39:25=3DE2=3D80=3DAFPM UTC-4, VSim =
>wrote:=3D20
>>>>> =3D20
>>>>> It is also a standard claim of theirs that they are not GW deniers, =
>just =3D
>>>> anthopogenic GW deniers. Sound familiar?=3D20
>>>>> =3D20
>>>>> So tell me, do you believe that anthropogenic warming is happening =
>and is=3D
>>>> significant?
>>>>=20
>>>> Yes, of course. But you want me to believe that it's basically the =
>only GW =3D
>>>> that's happening and that I don't. As I told you, from all I know =
>nobody wi=3D
>>>> th authority says what part of it is human-generated and what part is=
> natur=3D
>>>> al.
>>>=20
>>> Good news! You can find someone with authority tell you exactly
>>> that in section 2.1.1 (page 6) of the IPCC_AR6_SYR_LongerReport.pdf.
>>>=20
>>> "Global surface temperature was around 1.1=B0C above 1850=AD1900
>>> in 2011=AD2020 (1.09=B0C [0.95=B0C=AD1.20=B0C])7, with larger =
>increases
>>> over land (1.59 [1.34 to 1.83]=B0C) than over the ocean (0.88=B0C
>>> [0.68=B0C=AD1.01=B0C])8. Observed warming is human-caused, with =
>warming
>>> from greenhouse gases (GHG), dominated by CO2 and methane (CH4),
>>> partly masked by aerosol cooling (Figure 2.1)."
>>>=20
>>> "The likely range of total human-caused global surface
>>> temperature increase from 1850=AD1900 to 2010=AD20199 is 0.8=B0C
>>> to 1.3=B0C, with a best estimate of 1.07=B0C. It is likely that
>>> well-mixed GHGs contributed a warming of 1.0=B0C=AD2.0=B0C, and =
>other
>>> human drivers (principally aerosols) contributed a cooling of =
>0.0=B0C=AD0.8=B0C,
>>> natural (solar and volcanic) drivers changed global surface
>>> temperature by =B10.1=B0C and internal variability changed it by =
>=B10.2=B0C."
>>
>>I suspect this report is too technical for the poor chap, given it has
>>not only
>>degrees celsius but also decimal points. So for that reason he'll ignore
>>it.
>
>Also, 20199 seems rather ... far away.

The last 9 is a subscript denoting a footnote that I missed and didn't
remove. It's obviously 2019 to anyone with sense, and it is quite clear
in the aforementioned PDF document.

jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll) writes:
>In article <588c9b96-f376-4fde-a821-3d819795a38fn@googlegroups.com>,
>VSim <intelnav@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>It doesn't change the fact that the option of reversing global warming
>>by changing the Earth's orbit, if doable in about 50 or even 100 years,
>>might be useful or even prove to be a must-do at some point.
>
>In the same sense that humans generating the ability to urinate pure
>antimatter sometime between 1970 and 1980 might have mitigated the
>energy crises of that decade. It falls down on the "if doable" point.
>

And VSim doesn't consider the energy cost of "changing the earth's
orbit". As if we'll ever have that much energy to spare on such
a useless activity.

And VSim's insistence that "Britannia" (in which I assume he is
referring to the enclopedia) is the only authority he recognizes
is fundamentally _wrong_.

VSim may also benefit from reading this:

https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9js5291m

OK, back to business.

I have some bad news to report. I did the calculations and it seems it is indeed impossible by the method I thought of.
Long story short, it turns out that Callisto is the easiest extractable Jupiter moon, not Europa.
Even with Callisto, the SM needed to extract it would be about 2/3 its mass, which is about as big as our Moon. Way too big.

If anybody is interested to review my calculations you'll have to say so, and then I'll post them here. But I don't think anybody will. I'm pretty sure I got it right, but of course I might have done some error somewhere. I'll probably review them myself once more these days but I don't expect anything to change.

Conclusion, who knows, maybe somebody will think of a better way to produce a flyby object that can change our orbit the desired way. Or maybe our best hope in the near future is that God has mercy of us and sends us the moon-sized asteroid we need from outside the solar system, and we just need to deflect it a little bit to put it into the desired orbit. Other than that, hopefully the doomsday scenarios of the ecologists won't materialize.

On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 11:55:24 AM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 17:08:31 GMT, sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
> wrote:
> >Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
> >>On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 13:07:08 -0700 (PDT), William Hyde
> >><wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>> IOW, nobody knows when it will end.=20
> >>>
> >>>So you too are adopting the ludicrous standard whereby "knowing" means
> >>>being 100% sure.
> >>>
> >>>You must be aware that in modern times that formulation of the sense of
> >>>knowing exists purely for the denialist community, from cigarettes, to
> >>>evolution to global warming. It is a way of dismissing knowledge and
> >>>expertise which the denialists cannot otherwise deal with.
> >>
> >>Yes, I am aware that in "modern times" all knowledge has become fuzzy
> >>and indeterminate.
> >
> >That's not what Dr. Hyde wrote.
> >
> >
> >>>Of course, there is no such thing as an exact time when an interglacial
> >>>ends. The standard of knowing that you and the OP propose is
> >>>inapplicable here.
> >>
> >>Appropriate or not, his point (that nobody knows when the current
> >>interglacial will end) still stands. /That/ is a fact.
> >
> >It is an useless, meaningless, uninteresting fact, which has zero
> >applicability to the issue under discussion.
> Although I can understand that the "issue under discussion" has become
> obscured, it actually is that the principle "thinking nobody knows
> something because you don't is a logical fallacy" is perfectly
> correct, but only if the "something" is something that /somebody
> actually knows/. In this case, it is "the date of the end of the
> current interglacial", and /that/ nobody knows.
>
> I will grant that many people know that the current scientific
> determination on this point is known. But the fact that science has
> made a determination -- which would, BTW, not be just a single
> amazingly (or suspiciously) round number but rather an interval with
> stated upper and lower bounds within which the true value is computed
> to lie with a stated level of confidence -- does not mean that the
> actual date is known. To anyone.
>
> Basically, we have someone trying to make a scientific prediction into
> Absolute Truth.

That statement is incorrect.

William Hyde

On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 12:05:48 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 20:16:15 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
> Heydt) wrote:
>
> >In article <a8a58485-c0f0-42f8...@googlegroups.com>,
> >VSim <inte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>I'm not going to do hair-splitting with you.
> >>The debate has to be in laymen terms. Anything higher I simply will
> >>ignore because I don't understand. And I really have no time to learn
> >>much more about it, I have other priorities.
> >
> >(Hal Heydt)
> >So...if someone with actual expertise in a field under discussion
> >proceeds to cite specific technical reasons why they are correct
> >and you are wrong, you'll just ignore them and go on your merry
> >way? Good to know...
> The basic complaint is that he is being buried in technobabble which
> he cannot evaluate and which is therefor of no use to him.

When he invoked, pointlessly, interglacials in this discussion, information about
interglacials became relevant. I discussed the topic as clearly as I could and
resent the "technobabble" comment.

You will recall that when he asked for calculations on this thread, he did
not read them when offered. Essentially he wants a playing field in which
everyone restricts themselves to his level of knowledge. It's just so darn
unfair that people know things!

If I were to dispute with you on the philosophy of Plotinus, which you have
read and of which I only have a smattering, would you allow me to dismiss
your arguments on the grounds that they require me to have read Plotinus,
and accept my claim that this is unfair?

"Of no use to him", you say. Of no use in supporting his fantasies, yes.

>
> This is /not/ a proper discussion (or debating) technique. It is a
> "silence my opponent" technique

The "Silence my opponent" technique requires a pile of irrelevant
material that the opponent cannot have expected to be relevant.

It is another thing if an utterly unprepared opponent is confronted
with relevant material which he never bothered to learn.

Nor do expect people to reply to every point I make. I learned that lesson from the
2000+ line postings of the early 1990s.

-- and he is saying he won't play that
> game.

He is saying that facts do not matter, and that it is unfair
to cite them.

He then goes on to make further mistakes about interglacials.

> Are you sure "shut up and accept Authority" is /really/ the answer?

It never is. But Vsim is the one who is saying he wants to hear from
authority figures. Read his posts.

> That appears to be what you appear to be supporting.

No he is not.

William Hyde