VSim <intelnav@yahoo.com> writes:
>OK, back to business.
>
>I have some bad news to report. I did the calculations and it seems it is i=
>ndeed impossible by the method I thought of.
>Long story short, it turns out that Callisto is the easiest extractable Jup=
>iter 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, a=
>nd then I'll post them here. But I don't think anybody will. I'm pretty sur=
>e I got it right, but of course I might have done some error somewhere. I'l=
>l probably review them myself once more these days but I don't expect anyth=
>ing 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 bes=
>t hope in the near future is

To reach net zero.

Note the word "net". This doesn't imply completely
abandoning fossil fuels, but rather reducing the amount
wasted by burning for transportation and preserving
the stocks of mineral oil and methane for future use
as chemical feedstocks that won't lead to increases in
atmospheric greenhouse gasses.

It does imply that the growth in energy production will
need to be curtailed, perhaps significantly in some cases;
which shouldn't be a problem, better now than in a decade
or two when the side effects will be far worse.

While will likely require decreases in per-capita energy
consumption in much of the first world, regardless of advances
in green energy production.

The below has a nice bit in it:

"Taking a standard daily diet to be 2,000 kcal, the resulting 8.4 MJ
spent over 86,400 seconds (a day) works out to very nearly 100 W--a
convenient and memorable number. In the past, we could relate this to
a 100 W light bulb, but that loses meaning in a post-incandescent age
(the lumen is a far more appropriate measure and should have been used
from day one). A refrigerator--time-averaged--is close to the mark,
or a television, when turned on."

"It is relatively easy to track down annual energy expenditures of
individual countries or of the whole world. For instance, the U.S. Energy
Information Agency produces an annual review of energy use [2]. In 2021,
the U.S. consumed 97.33 "quads" (quadrillion Btu, or 97.33 x 1.055 x
10**18 J) of energy. Dividing by the U.S. population and seconds in a year
computes to a per-capita energy demand of 9,800 W. This is approximately
100 times the individual's metabolic power, leading to the useful and
provocative realization that Americans each (on average) employ 100
energy servants distributed across the land. It is therefore no wonder
that we live such comfortable lives compared to those of the distant
past. As fossil resources wane and net energy declines, we can expect
to lay off some of these servants."

(section 1.3, pg. 3)

https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2023/07/a-one-hour-message/

I'll leave with this quote:

"All of this takes place on a physical stage, and limits of a finite
planet must ultimately prevail over unconstrained imagination."

On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 2:02:59 PM UTC-4, VSim wrote:
> OK, back to business.
>
> I have some bad news to report. I did the calculations

Actually, that is good news. Congratulations.

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.

Or ... we could work on the problem rather than invoking a deity. Just a thought.

William Hyde

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.
>
>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.

(Hal Heydt)
I support a position in which, if there is a supportable claim
that one is wrong, one should check the literature and/or do ones
own research to determine if the claim is valid.

It's not like he's being hit with a "Gish Gallop."

On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 10:05:48 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:

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

It is _an_ answer.

Not all questions can be properly explained in layman's terms, and, of
course, this also depends on the ability of the layman.

If you are not knowledgeable enough to follow the science, explained
as simply as possible, _not_ accepting authority leads to pseudoscience
and following quacks and conspiracy theorists.

John Savard

On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 19:58:04 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
Heydt) wrote:

>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.
>>
>>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.
>
>(Hal Heydt)
>I support a position in which, if there is a supportable claim
>that one is wrong, one should check the literature and/or do ones
>own research to determine if the claim is valid.
>
>It's not like he's being hit with a "Gish Gallop."

I'm not sure he isn't.

And let's keep our eye on his question: it is /not/ what the current
scientific conclusion is as to when the current interglacial will end.
The question is when it will /actually/ end. This is what it is
claimed (correctly) that nobody knows. [1]

And, no, they are not the same thing.

And accepting Authority isn't going to change that fact.

[1] If for no other reason because the current inter-glacial "missed
the off-ramp" once before and, for all we know, might do so again in
about 26,000 years (or whatever the figure was). The value given was,
at best, when the conditions will be right (somehow "the stars will be
in the right places" comes to mind as a vaguely similar statement) to
end the interglacial.
--
"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 16:54:34 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>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.

Ah, subscripts. The bane of cut-and-paste, especially into a plain
text context.

And, yes, 2019 was one of the two possible intended values I
considered. Thanks for confirming my suspicion.
--
"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 11:07:29 -0700 (PDT), William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:

>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.

By his own admission, he is trying to evade the very /concept/ of
actually knowing when the current interglacial will end by declaring
it to be "an [sic] useless, meaningless, uninteresting fact, which has
zero applicability to the issue under discussion" when it is, in fact,
the /only/ issue under discussion by the OP.

He is attempting to present the /fact/ that science expects the
interglacial to end in (IIRC) 26,000 years as it if meant that it was
/known/ that it /will/ end at that time. While ignoring the question
of "26,000 years from when, exactly?". For 26,000 years from 7/27 is
26,000 years minus 1 day from 7/28, so it can only be regarded as an
approximation anyway. This is a scientific prediction; he is trying to
present it as Absolute Truth when it clearly is not.
--
"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 09:19:47 -0700 (PDT), VSim <intelnav@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>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.

Well, unless the people reporting the research are lying, that the
research occurred and what it's results were are facts. Any
conclusions may be a bit more speculative.

>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. :)

I bought a new-style (well, new then) Briannica in 1974. The articles
were written on a very high level. The article on "Geometry" was about
how geometry was about relations between objects; IOW, instead of
being about circles and lines, it could just as well be about doors
and windows. Something like 31 axioms were listed.

Apparently, that trend has continued.

I suppose it all depends on what an Encyclopedia is for. Is it to
provide information useful to students or reasonably intelligent
adults? Or is it to tell experts what they already know?

>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.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 11:07:29 -0700 (PDT), William Hyde
><wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>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)=20
>>> wrote:
>>> >Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> writes:=20
>>> >>On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 13:07:08 -0700 (PDT), William Hyde=20
>>> >><wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:=20
>>> >>=20
>>> >>=20
>>> >>>> IOW, nobody knows when it will end.=3D20=20
>>> >>>=20
>>> >>>So you too are adopting the ludicrous standard whereby "knowing" =
>means=20
>>> >>>being 100% sure.=20
>>> >>>=20
>>> >>>You must be aware that in modern times that formulation of the =
>sense of=20
>>> >>>knowing exists purely for the denialist community, from cigarettes,=
> to=20
>>> >>>evolution to global warming. It is a way of dismissing knowledge =
>and=20
>>> >>>expertise which the denialists cannot otherwise deal with.=20
>>> >>=20
>>> >>Yes, I am aware that in "modern times" all knowledge has become =
>fuzzy=20
>>> >>and indeterminate.=20
>>> >=20
>>> >That's not what Dr. Hyde wrote.=20
>>> >=20
>>> >=20
>>> >>>Of course, there is no such thing as an exact time when an =
>interglacial=20
>>> >>>ends. The standard of knowing that you and the OP propose is=20
>>> >>>inapplicable here.=20
>>> >>=20
>>> >>Appropriate or not, his point (that nobody knows when the current=20
>>> >>interglacial will end) still stands. /That/ is a fact.=20
>>> >=20
>>> >It is an useless, meaningless, uninteresting fact, which has zero=20
>>> >applicability to the issue under discussion.
>>> Although I can understand that the "issue under discussion" has become=
>=20
>>> obscured, it actually is that the principle "thinking nobody knows=20
>>> something because you don't is a logical fallacy" is perfectly=20
>>> correct, but only if the "something" is something that /somebody=20
>>> actually knows/. In this case, it is "the date of the end of the=20
>>> current interglacial", and /that/ nobody knows.=20
>>>=20
>>> I will grant that many people know that the current scientific=20
>>> determination on this point is known. But the fact that science has=20
>>> made a determination -- which would, BTW, not be just a single=20
>>> amazingly (or suspiciously) round number but rather an interval with=20
>>> stated upper and lower bounds within which the true value is computed=20
>>> to lie with a stated level of confidence -- does not mean that the=20
>>> actual date is known. To anyone.=20
>>>=20
>>> Basically, we have someone trying to make a scientific prediction into=
>=20
>>> Absolute Truth.
>>
>>That statement is incorrect.
>
>By his own admission, he is trying to evade the very /concept/ of
>actually knowing when the current interglacial will end by declaring
>it to be "an [sic] useless, meaningless, uninteresting fact, which has
>zero applicability to the issue under discussion" when it is, in fact,
>the /only/ issue under discussion by the OP.
>
>He is attempting to present the /fact/ that science expects the
>interglacial to end in (IIRC) 26,000 years as it if meant that it was

Actually, I was pointing out that the end of the interglacial period
is irrelevent. It makes not one whit of difference to whether or not
climate is changing due human activities which is primarily the consumption
of stored solar energy accumulated over hundreds of millions of years in a bare
100 year period.

Nobody cares which second, on which day, on some particular year in the
future that some arbitrary milestone is reached that indicates that
"the interglacial is over". It's not a finite point in time.

On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 11:53:18 AM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 19:58:04 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
> Heydt) wrote:
>
> >In article <nrg2cip434dfpj1t4...@4ax.com>,
> >Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> 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.
> >>
> >>Are you sure "shut up and accept Authority" is /really/ the answer?
> >>That appears to be what you appear to be supporting.
> >
> >(Hal Heydt)
> >I support a position in which, if there is a supportable claim
> >that one is wrong, one should check the literature and/or do ones
> >own research to determine if the claim is valid.
> >
> >It's not like he's being hit with a "Gish Gallop."
> I'm not sure he isn't.
>
> And let's keep our eye on his question: it is /not/ what the current
> scientific conclusion is as to when the current interglacial will end.
> The question is when it will /actually/ end. This is what it is
> claimed (correctly) that nobody knows. [1]
>
> And, no, they are not the same thing.
>
> And accepting Authority isn't going to change that fact.
>
> [1] If for no other reason because the current inter-glacial "missed
> the off-ramp" once before and, for all we know, might do so again in
> about 26,000 years (or whatever the figure was).

You are assuming that we do not have any idea why we missed going
into a full glacial this cycle. We do, but I will not oppress you with
too many facts by telling you.

I will now tell you too many related facts, contradicting myself, but I stipulate
that neither you nor Vsim, nor anybody else need be oppressed by it. Or even
read it. There will be no test. I just like to type.

Your 26,000 number (even assuming I didn't erroneously write it) is a reasonable
assumption for one precessional cycle, as relative to the fixed stars the precessional
cycle takes that time. So that in 26000 years Polaris will again be the pole star
(though of course one could say "nobody knows" that, as the planet cold be
in the interim hit by another object, or ideas similar to those of Vsim could
be used to move it. Or aliens could move Polaris. Who knows?).

When people outside the climate community chat about precession, as one
does, that is the number cited.

What matters for climate, however, is the question of the relation between
perihelion and the seasons. Perihelion in northern hemisphere winter
leads to a warmer winter and, more importantly, a cooler summer, thus
favouring ice accumulation.

But the position of perihelion itself is not constant relative to the fixed
stars, and it's motion is such that the period of precession of the
equinoxes relative to perihelion is 22,000 years, the number I quoted above..

The value given was,
> at best, when the conditions will be right (somehow "the stars will be
> in the right places" comes to mind as a vaguely similar statement)

I apologize for oppressing you with the facts on this point, on just why
some orbital configurations favour glaciation. It was wrong of me and
I won't do it again.

(But I will)

William Hyde (Galloping all over the place)

On 7/22/2023 6:25 PM, VSim wrote:
....
> 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).

I am not sure where you get the 7X number for LNG over Russian natural
gas. It takes about 8% of the natural gas to convert it into LNG
(liquefaction). It takes about 2% of the natural gas to convert LNG
back into natural gas (vaporization). These are the best processes
(Philips and burners under water).

Then there are the shipping amounts which I am not familiar with. The
newest LNG tankers (there are more than 300 of them worldwide) use the
BOG (boil off gas) to run the tanker engines so it cannot be 100%.
Probably more like 2% to 5% depending on the length of the voyage. The
LNG tanks are very well insulated using vacuum so that loss is minuscule.

However, the Russian gas requires quite a bit of compression every 200+
miles (333+ km) to get it through the pipelines. That compression is
not free. 2% to 5% is not unusual for 1,000 miles of pipeline loss
depending on the pressure.

So, using LNG instead of Russian natural gas for European natural gas
pipelines is maybe 10% or 12% worse for CO2 generation. Not 700% worse.

Now, if you want to talk pricing, yes, LNG is 7X more expensive than the
Russian natural gas was. That pricing is totally affected by market
conditions and the Europeans were competing with the Asians for the LNG
tankers out there. There are 60 or 80 tanker loads of LNG produced
twice per week and the market wanted to buy 100+ tanker loads twice per
week. That is an extreme shortage and extreme shortages cause prices to
double, quadruple, etc.

Lynn

On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 8:59:13 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 7/22/2023 6:25 PM, VSim wrote:
> ...
> > 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).
>
> I am not sure where you get the 7X number for LNG over Russian natural
> gas. It takes about 8% of the natural gas to convert it into LNG
> (liquefaction). It takes about 2% of the natural gas to convert LNG
> back into natural gas (vaporization). These are the best processes
> (Philips and burners under water).
>
> Then there are the shipping amounts which I am not familiar with. The
> newest LNG tankers (there are more than 300 of them worldwide) use the
> BOG (boil off gas) to run the tanker engines so it cannot be 100%.
> Probably more like 2% to 5% depending on the length of the voyage. The
> LNG tanks are very well insulated using vacuum so that loss is minuscule.
>
> However, the Russian gas requires quite a bit of compression every 200+
> miles (333+ km) to get it through the pipelines. That compression is
> not free. 2% to 5% is not unusual for 1,000 miles of pipeline loss
> depending on the pressure.
>
> So, using LNG instead of Russian natural gas for European natural gas
> pipelines is maybe 10% or 12% worse for CO2 generation. Not 700% worse.
>
> Now, if you want to talk pricing, yes, LNG is 7X more expensive than the
> Russian natural gas was. That pricing is totally affected by market
> conditions and the Europeans were competing with the Asians for the LNG
> tankers out there. There are 60 or 80 tanker loads of LNG produced
> twice per week and the market wanted to buy 100+ tanker loads twice per
> week. That is an extreme shortage and extreme shortages cause prices to
> double, quadruple, etc.

Thanks. I was going to call shenanigans on Vsim, but you did it first, and better
than I could.

Pt

On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 4:20:07 AM UTC+3, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 8:59:13 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> > On 7/22/2023 6:25 PM, VSim wrote:
> > ...
> > > 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).
> >
> > I am not sure where you get the 7X number for LNG over Russian natural
> > gas. It takes about 8% of the natural gas to convert it into LNG
> > (liquefaction). It takes about 2% of the natural gas to convert LNG
> > back into natural gas (vaporization). These are the best processes
> > (Philips and burners under water).
> >
> > Then there are the shipping amounts which I am not familiar with. The
> > newest LNG tankers (there are more than 300 of them worldwide) use the
> > BOG (boil off gas) to run the tanker engines so it cannot be 100%.
> > Probably more like 2% to 5% depending on the length of the voyage. The
> > LNG tanks are very well insulated using vacuum so that loss is minuscule.
> >
> > However, the Russian gas requires quite a bit of compression every 200+
> > miles (333+ km) to get it through the pipelines. That compression is
> > not free. 2% to 5% is not unusual for 1,000 miles of pipeline loss
> > depending on the pressure.
> >
> > So, using LNG instead of Russian natural gas for European natural gas
> > pipelines is maybe 10% or 12% worse for CO2 generation. Not 700% worse.
> >
> > Now, if you want to talk pricing, yes, LNG is 7X more expensive than the
> > Russian natural gas was. That pricing is totally affected by market
> > conditions and the Europeans were competing with the Asians for the LNG
> > tankers out there. There are 60 or 80 tanker loads of LNG produced
> > twice per week and the market wanted to buy 100+ tanker loads twice per
> > week. That is an extreme shortage and extreme shortages cause prices to
> > double, quadruple, etc.
> Thanks. I was going to call shenanigans on Vsim, but you did it first, and better
> than I could.
>
> Pt

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-63457377

That's not what I read. I remember reading something, still on the BBC, earlier this year that said around 7 times. I can't find that, I'm not going to spend much time looking for it. I'm pretty sure it said around 7 times. This link I found is a bit old but it does say up to 10 times, which is much closer to my number than to the 10% of Lynn McGuire.

This is what happens when people with no idea on the subject try to dissect arguments themselves instead of relying on an authority.

On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 12:50:41 -0700 (PDT), William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 11:53:18?AM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 19:58:04 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
>> Heydt) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <nrg2cip434dfpj1t4...@4ax.com>,
>> >Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> 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.
>> >>
>> >>Are you sure "shut up and accept Authority" is /really/ the answer?
>> >>That appears to be what you appear to be supporting.
>> >
>> >(Hal Heydt)
>> >I support a position in which, if there is a supportable claim
>> >that one is wrong, one should check the literature and/or do ones
>> >own research to determine if the claim is valid.
>> >
>> >It's not like he's being hit with a "Gish Gallop."
>> I'm not sure he isn't.
>>
>> And let's keep our eye on his question: it is /not/ what the current
>> scientific conclusion is as to when the current interglacial will end.
>> The question is when it will /actually/ end. This is what it is
>> claimed (correctly) that nobody knows. [1]
>>
>> And, no, they are not the same thing.
>>
>> And accepting Authority isn't going to change that fact.
>>
>> [1] If for no other reason because the current inter-glacial "missed
>> the off-ramp" once before and, for all we know, might do so again in
>> about 26,000 years (or whatever the figure was).
>
>You are assuming that we do not have any idea why we missed going
>into a full glacial this cycle. We do, but I will not oppress you with
>too many facts by telling you.
>
>I will now tell you too many related facts, contradicting myself, but I stipulate
>that neither you nor Vsim, nor anybody else need be oppressed by it. Or even
>read it. There will be no test. I just like to type.

Since we are unlikely to be around to learn what the excuses are if we
miss the off-ramp again, they really don't matter.

But keep trying to convince yourself that knowing when the next off
ramp comes up is the same as knowing when the interglacial will end.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 16:21:39 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 11:07:29 -0700 (PDT), William Hyde
>><wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>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)=20
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> writes:=20
>>>> >>On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 13:07:08 -0700 (PDT), William Hyde=20
>>>> >><wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:=20
>>>> >>=20
>>>> >>=20
>>>> >>>> IOW, nobody knows when it will end.=3D20=20
>>>> >>>=20
>>>> >>>So you too are adopting the ludicrous standard whereby "knowing" >>means=20
>>>> >>>being 100% sure.=20
>>>> >>>=20
>>>> >>>You must be aware that in modern times that formulation of the >>sense of=20
>>>> >>>knowing exists purely for the denialist community, from cigarettes,>> to=20
>>>> >>>evolution to global warming. It is a way of dismissing knowledge >>and=20
>>>> >>>expertise which the denialists cannot otherwise deal with.=20
>>>> >>=20
>>>> >>Yes, I am aware that in "modern times" all knowledge has become >>fuzzy=20
>>>> >>and indeterminate.=20
>>>> >=20
>>>> >That's not what Dr. Hyde wrote.=20
>>>> >=20
>>>> >=20
>>>> >>>Of course, there is no such thing as an exact time when an >>interglacial=20
>>>> >>>ends. The standard of knowing that you and the OP propose is=20
>>>> >>>inapplicable here.=20
>>>> >>=20
>>>> >>Appropriate or not, his point (that nobody knows when the current=20
>>>> >>interglacial will end) still stands. /That/ is a fact.=20
>>>> >=20
>>>> >It is an useless, meaningless, uninteresting fact, which has zero=20
>>>> >applicability to the issue under discussion.
>>>> Although I can understand that the "issue under discussion" has become>>=20
>>>> obscured, it actually is that the principle "thinking nobody knows=20
>>>> something because you don't is a logical fallacy" is perfectly=20
>>>> correct, but only if the "something" is something that /somebody=20
>>>> actually knows/. In this case, it is "the date of the end of the=20
>>>> current interglacial", and /that/ nobody knows.=20
>>>>=20
>>>> I will grant that many people know that the current scientific=20
>>>> determination on this point is known. But the fact that science has=20
>>>> made a determination -- which would, BTW, not be just a single=20
>>>> amazingly (or suspiciously) round number but rather an interval with=20
>>>> stated upper and lower bounds within which the true value is computed=20
>>>> to lie with a stated level of confidence -- does not mean that the=20
>>>> actual date is known. To anyone.=20
>>>>=20
>>>> Basically, we have someone trying to make a scientific prediction into>>=20
>>>> Absolute Truth.
>>>
>>>That statement is incorrect.
>>
>>By his own admission, he is trying to evade the very /concept/ of
>>actually knowing when the current interglacial will end by declaring
>>it to be "an [sic] useless, meaningless, uninteresting fact, which has
>>zero applicability to the issue under discussion" when it is, in fact,
>>the /only/ issue under discussion by the OP.
>>
>>He is attempting to present the /fact/ that science expects the
>>interglacial to end in (IIRC) 26,000 years as it if meant that it was
>
>Actually, I was pointing out that the end of the interglacial period
>is irrelevent. It makes not one whit of difference to whether or not
>climate is changing due human activities which is primarily the consumption
>of stored solar energy accumulated over hundreds of millions of years in a bare
>100 year period.
>
>Nobody cares which second, on which day, on some particular year in the
>future that some arbitrary milestone is reached that indicates that
>"the interglacial is over". It's not a finite point in time.

Just keep evading the fact that nobody knows when the interglacial
will end, although science clearly has some good reasons for its
approximation.

Are you ready to admit that the logical fallacy you tried to hang on
this guy was inappropriate because the logical fallacy you chose only
works when the answer is known to someone, and here nobody knows?

Didn't think so.

--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On Friday, 28 July 2023 at 08:49:47 UTC+1, VSim wrote:
> On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 4:20:07 AM UTC+3, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 8:59:13 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> > > On 7/22/2023 6:25 PM, VSim wrote:
> > > ...
> > > > 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).
> > >
> > > I am not sure where you get the 7X number for LNG over Russian natural
> > > gas. It takes about 8% of the natural gas to convert it into LNG
> > > (liquefaction). It takes about 2% of the natural gas to convert LNG
> > > back into natural gas (vaporization). These are the best processes
> > > (Philips and burners under water).
> > >
> > > Then there are the shipping amounts which I am not familiar with. The
> > > newest LNG tankers (there are more than 300 of them worldwide) use the
> > > BOG (boil off gas) to run the tanker engines so it cannot be 100%.
> > > Probably more like 2% to 5% depending on the length of the voyage. The
> > > LNG tanks are very well insulated using vacuum so that loss is minuscule.
> > >
> > > However, the Russian gas requires quite a bit of compression every 200+
> > > miles (333+ km) to get it through the pipelines. That compression is
> > > not free. 2% to 5% is not unusual for 1,000 miles of pipeline loss
> > > depending on the pressure.
> > >
> > > So, using LNG instead of Russian natural gas for European natural gas
> > > pipelines is maybe 10% or 12% worse for CO2 generation. Not 700% worse.
> > >
> > > Now, if you want to talk pricing, yes, LNG is 7X more expensive than the
> > > Russian natural gas was. That pricing is totally affected by market
> > > conditions and the Europeans were competing with the Asians for the LNG
> > > tankers out there. There are 60 or 80 tanker loads of LNG produced
> > > twice per week and the market wanted to buy 100+ tanker loads twice per
> > > week. That is an extreme shortage and extreme shortages cause prices to
> > > double, quadruple, etc.
> > Thanks. I was going to call shenanigans on Vsim, but you did it first, and better
> > than I could.
> >
> > Pt
> https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-63457377
>
> That's not what I read. I remember reading something, still on the BBC, earlier this year that said around 7 times. I can't find that, I'm not going to spend much time looking for it. I'm pretty sure it said around 7 times. This link I found is a bit old but it does say up to 10 times, which is much closer to my number than to the 10% of Lynn McGuire.
>
> This is what happens when people with no idea on the subject try to dissect arguments themselves instead of relying on an authority.

This says that the carbon cost of getting gas out of the
ground and into your, I'll say house, as LNG, is "up to ten
times" the figure for using Russian pipeline gas.

The emissions from burning it in your house after it
arrives will be the same, either way.

If I follow Lynn's 10% claim, it's let's say you want
10 gallons of mostly-methane gas (CH4). That's not
the right measure, never mind. In the gas field, they
pull out 11 gallons of gas, they put it in a gas-driven
ship, and you receive your 10 gallons.

It's the 1 gallon which represents more pollution
than moving gas from Russia to Western Europe
by pipe.

Not included in this is how much methane enters
the atmosphere directly instead of as carbon dioxide
from combustion, in each method. Methane
greenhouses much worse than the equivalent CO2
does. Methane probably eventually "burns" in the sky
to be CO2 after all, but the "eventually" is "not
soon enough".

The bottom line is, ride a bicycle, wear a sweater...

On 7/28/2023 11:01 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
....
>> You are assuming that we do not have any idea why we missed going
>> into a full glacial this cycle. We do, but I will not oppress you with
>> too many facts by telling you.
>>
>> I will now tell you too many related facts, contradicting myself, but I stipulate
>> that neither you nor Vsim, nor anybody else need be oppressed by it. Or even
>> read it. There will be no test. I just like to type.
>
> Since we are unlikely to be around to learn what the excuses are if we
> miss the off-ramp again, they really don't matter.
>
> But keep trying to convince yourself that knowing when the next off
> ramp comes up is the same as knowing when the interglacial will end.

Don't worry, if things get really bad, I know a guy who launches around
ten tons of satellites just about every week. He has launched about
5,000 of them now, mostly LEO but a few up to geosync orbit (GSO) also.
I am sure that he can put a few space umbrellas up there to shield the
Earth from a few of Sol's rays.

I am quite sure that the guy will probably mount solar cells on the
space umbrellas and sell you directed microwave power too. We've got
plenty of space for the receivers which will probably be km by a km.
I've got one of his internet receivers right outside my window here.

BTW, this is not my idea, I stole it from Jerry Pournelle.

Lynn

On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 4:17:36 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:

> Don't worry, if things get really bad, I know a guy who launches around
> ten tons of satellites just about every week. He has launched about
> 5,000 of them now, mostly LEO but a few up to geosync orbit (GSO) also.
> I am sure that he can put a few space umbrellas up there to shield the
> Earth from a few of Sol's rays.

I wonder if you or your friend have an approximate idea of the cost of sending up enough
umbrellas to reduce solar input by one percent.

While this is not a real solution to our problems, and is likely to cause war, it might
be needed if things go too badly. If properly handled, it could be an interim solution for a
century or so.

Stratospheric aerosols would be much cheaper but hard to control, so more likely to
provoke war. With adjustable sunshades some effort could be made to spread
the pain.

Some combination of the two might be the most pragmatic solution. Until CO2 goes
higher and we have to block 2%, the ocean gets too acid, and so on.

William Hyde

William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> writes:
>On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 4:17:36=E2=80=AFPM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>
>> Don't worry, if things get really bad, I know a guy who launches around=
>=20
>> ten tons of satellites just about every week. He has launched about=20
>> 5,000 of them now, mostly LEO but a few up to geosync orbit (GSO) also.=
>=20
>> I am sure that he can put a few space umbrellas up there to shield the=20
>> Earth from a few of Sol's rays.=20
>
>I wonder if you or your friend have an approximate idea of the cost of send=
>ing up enough
>umbrellas to reduce solar input by one percent.

I presume the "friend" he is referring to is the current owner of the
waste of time formerly known as twitter, i.e. the head twit.

The estimates I've seen are in the trillions of dollars.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0608163103

On 7/28/2023 5:06 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 4:17:36=E2=80=AFPM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>
>>> Don't worry, if things get really bad, I know a guy who launches around=
>> =20
>>> ten tons of satellites just about every week. He has launched about=20
>>> 5,000 of them now, mostly LEO but a few up to geosync orbit (GSO) also.=
>> =20
>>> I am sure that he can put a few space umbrellas up there to shield the=20
>>> Earth from a few of Sol's rays.=20
>>
>> I wonder if you or your friend have an approximate idea of the cost of send=
>> ing up enough
>> umbrellas to reduce solar input by one percent.
>
> I presume the "friend" he is referring to is the current owner of the
> waste of time formerly known as twitter, i.e. the head twit.
>
> The estimates I've seen are in the trillions of dollars.
>
>
> https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0608163103

Cool paper. I will print it out and read it someday.

Yup, do you know a single other entity launching spaceships weekly ? He
is the D. D. Harriman that Heinlein wrote of. Until recently, I would
have deemed $50/kg as way too low. Now, I consider it to be high as
Musk's goal is about half that for Starship.

BTW, I do not know him, I know of him.

Lynn

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.

Heh heh - on the other hand, I (who have no problem with Celsius or
converting back and forth to Fahrenheit etc) tend to strongly mock
anybody who says climate change is ONLY due to one factor (in this
case homo sapiens).

No question we're part of it but the whole thing? I think not and
given what a controlled experiment would entail to see what the
temperature would be with no human life on earth I'm skeptical.

Frankly if the climate is a problem does it matter whether it's human
beings, natural long term climactic change or little green men from
outer space? The challenge is to keep it something human beings can
maintain a reasonable civilization without the sort of fluctuations
that puts our future at risk.

Whether the human contribution to the climate is 0.1 deg C or some
larger number isn't the point - it's dealing with the overall effect
without letting it get to the point that our survival isn't in
question.

On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 1:09:36 AM UTC-6, The Horny Goat wrote:

> Whether the human contribution to the climate is 0.1 deg C or some
> larger number isn't the point - it's dealing with the overall effect
> without letting it get to the point that our survival isn't in
> question.

Actually, the question of whether climate change is caused by humans or
is caused by natural processes is significant in a number of ways to solving
the problem.

That's because it affects two crucial questions about solving it:

- is it something we _can_ solve, and
- what kind of solution do we need?

If it isn't mostly human-caused...

then

1) is it even clear we _can_ solve it? Humanity isn't omnipotent, and
so a natural change in the weather might be beyond our power to counter; and

2) if we caused it, then of course we can solve it (maybe with unacceptable
lag time, since a gradual approach to equilibrium is involved) by ceasing to do
what we did to cause it. If not, but it can be solved, then the solutions would
lie at least partly in the realm of "geoengineering".

As far as the weather in a particular year is concerned, of course the natural
El Nino/La Nina cycle - the Pacific Decadal Oscillation - will have an influence.

But I haven't really heard any credible claim of a natural process that causes
global warming which is currently in effect. Instead, what natural cycles have
in store for us is a new ice age, when the current interglacial comes to an end.

John Savard

On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 8:01:19 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:

> But I haven't really heard any credible claim of a natural process that causes
> global warming which is currently in effect.

Actually, that's not _quite_ true. While the *big* secular effect, the Milankovic
Cycle, is in the direction of cooling, there are two small effects which are both
in the direction of warming.

- The Earth orbits the Sun. So the gravitational field it causes keeps changing.

Therefore, the Earth is spiralling into the Sun, because its orbit keeps losing
energy in the form of gravitational wave radiation going outwards.

- Long before the Sun becomes a red giant, and swallows the Earth, its burning
of fuel will make it gradually grow larger and hotter.

Both of these effects are very small, the first incredibly so, though. So neither of
them is at all significant.

John Savard

On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 9:01:54 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 7/28/2023 5:06 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> > William Hyde <wthyd...@gmail.com> writes:
> >> On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 4:17:36=E2=80=AFPM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> >>
> >>> Don't worry, if things get really bad, I know a guy who launches around=
> >> =20
> >>> ten tons of satellites just about every week. He has launched about=20
> >>> 5,000 of them now, mostly LEO but a few up to geosync orbit (GSO) also.=
> >> =20
> >>> I am sure that he can put a few space umbrellas up there to shield the=20
> >>> Earth from a few of Sol's rays.=20
> >>
> >> I wonder if you or your friend have an approximate idea of the cost of send=
> >> ing up enough
> >> umbrellas to reduce solar input by one percent.
> >
> > I presume the "friend" he is referring to is the current owner of the
> > waste of time formerly known as twitter, i.e. the head twit.
> >
> > The estimates I've seen are in the trillions of dollars.
> >
> >
> > https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0608163103
> Cool paper. I will print it out and read it someday.
>
> Yup, do you know a single other entity launching spaceships weekly ? He
> is the D. D. Harriman that Heinlein wrote of. Until recently, I would
> have deemed $50/kg as way too low. Now, I consider it to be high as
> Musk's goal is about half that for Starship.

China, seems pretty close.

Watch any of the frequent roundups on YT. Scott Manley and Marcus
House for example.

Pt

On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 7:27:11 PM UTC+3, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Friday, 28 July 2023 at 08:49:47 UTC+1, VSim wrote:
> > On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 4:20:07 AM UTC+3, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 8:59:13 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> > > > On 7/22/2023 6:25 PM, VSim wrote:
> > > > ...
> > > > > 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).
> > > >
> > > > I am not sure where you get the 7X number for LNG over Russian natural
> > > > gas. It takes about 8% of the natural gas to convert it into LNG
> > > > (liquefaction). It takes about 2% of the natural gas to convert LNG
> > > > back into natural gas (vaporization). These are the best processes
> > > > (Philips and burners under water).
> > > >
> > > > Then there are the shipping amounts which I am not familiar with. The
> > > > newest LNG tankers (there are more than 300 of them worldwide) use the
> > > > BOG (boil off gas) to run the tanker engines so it cannot be 100%.
> > > > Probably more like 2% to 5% depending on the length of the voyage. The
> > > > LNG tanks are very well insulated using vacuum so that loss is minuscule.
> > > >
> > > > However, the Russian gas requires quite a bit of compression every 200+
> > > > miles (333+ km) to get it through the pipelines. That compression is
> > > > not free. 2% to 5% is not unusual for 1,000 miles of pipeline loss
> > > > depending on the pressure.
> > > >
> > > > So, using LNG instead of Russian natural gas for European natural gas
> > > > pipelines is maybe 10% or 12% worse for CO2 generation. Not 700% worse.
> > > >
> > > > Now, if you want to talk pricing, yes, LNG is 7X more expensive than the
> > > > Russian natural gas was. That pricing is totally affected by market
> > > > conditions and the Europeans were competing with the Asians for the LNG
> > > > tankers out there. There are 60 or 80 tanker loads of LNG produced
> > > > twice per week and the market wanted to buy 100+ tanker loads twice per
> > > > week. That is an extreme shortage and extreme shortages cause prices to
> > > > double, quadruple, etc.
> > > Thanks. I was going to call shenanigans on Vsim, but you did it first, and better
> > > than I could.
> > >
> > > Pt
> > https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-63457377
> >
> > That's not what I read. I remember reading something, still on the BBC, earlier this year that said around 7 times. I can't find that, I'm not going to spend much time looking for it. I'm pretty sure it said around 7 times. This link I found is a bit old but it does say up to 10 times, which is much closer to my number than to the 10% of Lynn McGuire.
> >
> > This is what happens when people with no idea on the subject try to dissect arguments themselves instead of relying on an authority.
> This says that the carbon cost of getting gas out of the
> ground and into your, I'll say house, as LNG, is "up to ten
> times" the figure for using Russian pipeline gas.
>
> The emissions from burning it in your house after it
> arrives will be the same, either way.

I really don't think so. It would be very misleading. It says that the total carbon pollution for LNG, production, transport and burning included, is up to 10 times higher than the total for russian gas.