In article <5a1b7d849dnoise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <5a1b76afb8bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
> <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> > Thank you for that Bill, you are indeed correct I do firmly believe what
> > I write and I never lie. What is more I have the right to hold views the
> > left disapprove of, in fact it's almost a duty and it's my right to
> > speak them especially when climate nonsense is pushed by others.
> > However, I'm not perfect and could from time to time be wrong but not
> > often.

> Good. So you can now try reading the book I suggested and we can
> take it from the point when you've started to study and understand
> the mountains of diverse evicence that support both 'natural' and
> man-made climate changes.

> Simply claiming you are correct, and all that evidence is wrong,
> won't conform to what you say above. Believing what you claim
> doesn't make it true.

> Anyone can have an 'opinion'. The snag is that reality doesn't care
> what anynne would prefer to believe. Your argument is based on
> refusing to learn about the scientific reality as shown by that
> evidence.

> You could say it is my 'duty' to keep pointing out what the
> *evidence* tells us, and that it conflicts with what you
> believe/claim over and over and over again, whilst refusing to
> learn about that evidence that confounds your beliefs.

> Can't help much with your belief that any idea you don't like is
> "leftie" though as that's a matter for trick cyclists, not natural
> science. :-)

Sorry, not interested in your religion.

Bob.

On 22/08/2022 11:16, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> Sorry, not interested in your religion.

More truthfully stated: You're not interested in any FACT that happens
to contradict your own religion.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 22/08/2022 08:57, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <tdu3ff$2e0uo$1@dont-email.me>,
> David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> On 21/08/2022 18:57, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>>
>>> Indeed. There are no absolute zeros in real life, only asymptotes, but
>>> not everybody understands this.
>>
>> In the current context, negative net emissions are possible, so
>> zero is not an asymptote.
>
> It may be possible but in the current context, it is utterly
> pointless and ruinously expensive and it's the poor who'll really
> suffer.

Certainly at least for the poor, it will be even more ruinously
expensive to do nothing:

https://resourcecentre.savethechildren.net/document/cost-doing-nothing-humanitarian-price-climate-change-and-how-it-can-be-avoided/

"In its latest report, The Cost of Doing Nothing, the IFRC presents an
analysis showing that if no urgent action is taken now, the number of
people in need of humanitarian assistance annually due to the climate
crisis could double by 2050. Similarly, financial costs could balloon to
20 billion US dollars per year.

In contrast with this pessimistic scenario, the report also shows that,
if appropriate climate adaptation measures are taken now, these figures
could also stabilize, and even drop. By investing in climate adaptation
and disaster risk reduction – building up resilience in communities,
countries and regions at risk – and by improving early warning and
anticipatory humanitarian action, the world can avoid a future marked by
escalating suffering and ballooning response costs."

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 21/08/2022 15:50, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>
> In article <tdt8ho$2bd2v$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
> <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> His behaviour is all we can observe, and that is clearly the behaviour
>> of a serially dishonest troll and liar, as described in my answer to
>> Bill.
>
> I'll differ from that. I think he is sincere in what he states he believes.
> The root of the problem is that he refuses to read and understand the
> actual evidence showing the science which is considerable and detailed.
>
> He believes what it *wants* to believe.

Exactly, in other words, he is dishonest, in this as well as many other
aspects of his behaviour, as I have demonstrated countless times, and as
listed in my answer to Bill.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 21/08/2022 14:55, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <tdt3pu$2b002$1@dont-email.me>,
> Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I assume that such a claim would have been reviewed before New
>> Scientist published it. However, I have never seen it mentioned
>> since, so I wonder if it has been included in the climate models
>> currently in use?
>
> I'll be honest Jim I've no idea but as the people behind these
> computer models are not remotely interested in the truth I rather
> doubt it.

TROLL! PROVEN LIE DEBUNKED MULTIPLE TIMES REPEATED ONCE AGAIN!

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

In article <tdu9ep$2eimc$1@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John
<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
> I am not going to trawl through years of New Scientist to find the
> article I read, but this link is good enough to show that I didn't make
> it up.
> https://www.universetoday.com/147621/the-solar-system-has-been-flying-through-the-debris-of-a-supernova-for-33000-years/

Thanks. I'll read that. Only had a glance thus far, but sighed because its
another page whose creator thinks white sans text on a black background
looks 'cool'. My eyes find it a real pain to read. Hence it may take a
while to read as I have to keep taking a break.

Edit: A quick look seems to indicate that any effect here is on
timescales of many millenia. Not the timescale from the Industrial
Revolution which is at least an order of magnitude shorter.

IR/FIR astronomers routinely observe and measure dust/gas clouds,
etc. That was what I helped make instruments for back circa 1980!
Good job as it got me to Hawai'i a few times. 8-]

Also worth pointing out that the Solar Wind tends to act as a
'bow wave' for fine dust or atoms in the interstellar medium.
Thus having the 'Solar System move though' a patch of dust
doesn't mean all the dust gets *into* the space between Sun and
Earth.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <smf6ghl50l93eu28ms2186pfckh7dbrmfq@4ax.com>, BrightsideS9
<reply_to_address_is_not@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> NS from 22 Nov 1956 onwards thru the 1960 and 1970s is online courtesy
> of Google Books. If you remember somne key words from the article a
> search on all issues could find it.

Not a fan of Google and don't use them normally. But I'll see if I can find
something without them snooping on me. Do you have a better URL than simply
saying "Google Books"? If not, I'll see if I can get anywhere with them.
But in current climate terms this already looks pretty doubtful as a
concern.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <tdu3cq$2e0gj$1@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John
<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
> On 21/08/2022 13:32, Java Jive wrote:
> > On 21/08/2022 12:09, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> >>
> >> I have no intention of making an argument about it, but in the early
> >> 1960s I was at school and I used to go to the school library and read
> >> the magazines that I couldn't afford to buy. In one copy of the New
> >> Scientist somewhere between 1963 and 1966 there was an article that
> >> explained that the drift of the sun through the spiral arm was
> >> gradually taking it out of an area containing interstellar dust unto
> >> an area where the dust was very much reduced and this would
> >> progressively provide slightly more radiant energy from the sun
> >> reaching the Earth than had been the case for a couple of millennia
> >> before.
>
> > You've made this claim at least twice before, but have never been able
> > to verify it. Until you do, it just remains a claim.
> >

> Just because you dismiss what I remember reading doesn't make it untrue.
> However, your reply is a fairly clear indication that the effect is
> not built into the current models.

Agree with your first statement there. However without being able to read
the actual item in ye olde NS we don't know the full story of what it said.

You second statement may simply mean it was examined and found not to be a
factor for the timescales that concern humanity at present. And that what
references we've found don't mention it for that reason.

However NS often published 'speculative' articles about what *might* come
to pass or 'might' turn out to be true. Know this because I wrote articles
for them, and also helped clarify various questions some of their staff
writers needed to write about when they found 'odd' claims in other places.
Thus the item may have been speculation on someone's part.

NS isn't an academic journal but a 'popular science' one. Its approach has
also varied over the decades under different editors.

My first reaction was to ask Marcus Chown if he recalled this as he'd
worked for NS quite a lot. But that was more like the 1980s on, so probably
before his time with NS. Their old editors, etc, have long moved on as
well. So we'd need a readable copy of the actual item to decide.

That said, my basic thought is that such a process would be likely to
extend over a far longer timescale than the changes the actual data show.
So would not explain what we have observed. Indeed, I'd have though
astronomers would have been very active in looking at the claimed changes
if it were this fast. But I can't recall it popping up. If someone has a
reliable source, please give a reference where it can be checked.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <tdue2f$2f0sp$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
<java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> https://www.universetoday.com/147621/the-solar-system-has-been-flying-through-the-debris-of-a-supernova-for-33000-years/

> Interesting, but I can't see anything there that is likely to affect
> global warming significantly.

> Also, don't forget that even if this hypothesis turns out to be true,
> we're constantly measuring the sun's radiation reaching the earth
> anyway, so any change in it for whatever reason will already be being
> measured!

> https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-incoming-sunlight

Not read the supernova dust report yet, but a quick glance made me suspect
the cloud size and SS relative velocity means the effect may be as I
guessed. i.e. slow change over a much longer period than produced by human
CO2 emissions during the last couple of centuries. If so, not the reason
for recent quite large changes.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <5ds4gh1pq8trrlel7646fd7nnpqk18668q@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

> >I do though reserve the right to point out the absolute stupidity of
> >Net zero.

> Indeed. There are no absolute zeros in real life, only asymptotes, but
> not everybody understands this.

However it might be possible to arrange for values that fluctuate between
+ve and -ve that serve in practice as would 'zero'. Indeed, it might be
possible to establish net negative in some way over a period. Not wise to
assume that what seems "impossible" for us must be so in a later
decade/century.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 11:39:48 +0100, Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk>
wrote:

>In article <5ds4gh1pq8trrlel7646fd7nnpqk18668q@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart
><rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> >I do though reserve the right to point out the absolute stupidity of
>> >Net zero.
>
>> Indeed. There are no absolute zeros in real life, only asymptotes, but
>> not everybody understands this.
>
>However it might be possible to arrange for values that fluctuate between
>+ve and -ve that serve in practice as would 'zero'. Indeed, it might be
>possible to establish net negative in some way over a period. Not wise to
>assume that what seems "impossible" for us must be so in a later
>decade/century.
>
>Jim

Whether a quantity can attain negative values depends on what it
represents. Think about "zero covid" or "zero crime" for example. What
would a crime rate of less than zero look like? Burglars breaking into
houses and bringing unsolicited gifts perhaps?

When talking about things like "zero carbon" or "zero climate change"
perhaps we need to be clear whether we mean some measured quantity
itself or if we are really talking about the human impact upon it.
Climate change, for example, could go above or below some normalised
value that we've decided to count as zero change, but what would it
mean to talk about a "human impact" value of less than zero?

Rod.

On 22/08/2022 11:14, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <tdu3cq$2e0gj$1@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John
> <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
>> On 21/08/2022 13:32, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 21/08/2022 12:09, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> I have no intention of making an argument about it, but in the early
>>>> 1960s I was at school and I used to go to the school library and read
>>>> the magazines that I couldn't afford to buy. In one copy of the New
>>>> Scientist somewhere between 1963 and 1966 there was an article that
>>>> explained that the drift of the sun through the spiral arm was
>>>> gradually taking it out of an area containing interstellar dust unto
>>>> an area where the dust was very much reduced and this would
>>>> progressively provide slightly more radiant energy from the sun
>>>> reaching the Earth than had been the case for a couple of millennia
>>>> before.
>>
>>> You've made this claim at least twice before, but have never been able
>>> to verify it. Until you do, it just remains a claim.
>>>
>
>> Just because you dismiss what I remember reading doesn't make it untrue.
>> However, your reply is a fairly clear indication that the effect is
>> not built into the current models.
>
> Agree with your first statement there. However without being able to read
> the actual item in ye olde NS we don't know the full story of what it said.
>
> You second statement may simply mean it was examined and found not to be a
> factor for the timescales that concern humanity at present. And that what
> references we've found don't mention it for that reason.
>
> However NS often published 'speculative' articles about what *might* come
> to pass or 'might' turn out to be true. Know this because I wrote articles
> for them, and also helped clarify various questions some of their staff
> writers needed to write about when they found 'odd' claims in other places.
> Thus the item may have been speculation on someone's part.

> NS isn't an academic journal but a 'popular science' one. Its approach has
> also varied over the decades under different editors.
>
> My first reaction was to ask Marcus Chown if he recalled this as he'd
> worked for NS quite a lot. But that was more like the 1980s on, so probably
> before his time with NS. Their old editors, etc, have long moved on as
> well. So we'd need a readable copy of the actual item to decide.
>
> That said, my basic thought is that such a process would be likely to
> extend over a far longer timescale than the changes the actual data show.
> So would not explain what we have observed. Indeed, I'd have though
> astronomers would have been very active in looking at the claimed changes
> if it were this fast. But I can't recall it popping up. If someone has a
> reliable source, please give a reference where it can be checked.
>

I wonder if it was McCrea's work (picking up the old idea of Shapley).
That certainly made the pages of NS in the 1970s.

Mmm, yes in NS 1975. Not sure this link will work

<https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=YGofxcUVVDwC&pg=PA695&dq=%22+spiral+arms%22+%22ice+ages%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjTjfHR0tz5AhVDZcAKHXtRCcgQ6AF6BAgEEAI#v=onepage&q=%22%20spiral%20arms%22%20%22ice%20ages%22&f=false>

I do wonder though if people are likely to seek funds for research on
the effect of external influences on the Earth's climate. The risk of
attack from activists (and, sad to say, fellow academics) is real, and
the consequences potentially grave. One only has to look at the time it
took to get CERN's CLOUD experiment set up (and the language when its
results were announced). In short, why work on something that could get
you "cancelled" before you begin?

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 11:36:22 +0100, Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk>
wrote:

>In article <smf6ghl50l93eu28ms2186pfckh7dbrmfq@4ax.com>, BrightsideS9
><reply_to_address_is_not@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> NS from 22 Nov 1956 onwards thru the 1960 and 1970s is online courtesy
>> of Google Books. If you remember somne key words from the article a
>> search on all issues could find it.
>
>Not a fan of Google and don't use them normally. But I'll see if I can find
>something without them snooping on me. Do you have a better URL than simply
>saying "Google Books"? If not, I'll see if I can get anywhere with them.
>But in current climate terms this already looks pretty doubtful as a
>concern.
>

See:
https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/New_Scientist.html?id=yINSqbNUNM0C&redir_esc=y
--
brightside S9

In article <5a1be79324bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <5a1b7d849dnoise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf

> > Good. So you can now try reading the book I suggested and we can take
> > it from the point when you've started to study and understand the
> > mountains of diverse evicence that support both 'natural' and man-made
> > climate changes.

> Sorry, not interested in your religion.

LOL. :-)

The "religion" here is your rigid belief *about something you refuse to read*.
Thus based *deliberately* on having no idea what the content *actually* is, nor
the evidence it points to and explains in terms of the science. However you do
the rest of us a good service with your response as it exposes the basis of your
own opinion - wilful and determined ignorance driven by what you are determined
to believe. Also exampled also by your endless sour cherry picking and rants
about "lefties".

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <5a1c6478dbnoise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <5a1be79324bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
> <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <5a1b7d849dnoise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf

> > Sorry, not interested in your religion.

> LOL. :-)

> The "religion" here is your rigid belief *about something you
> refuse to read*.

For an educated man you can be such an idiot.

Bob.

On 21/08/2022 18:57, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Aug 2022 14:43:17 +0100, Bob Latham
> <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I do though reserve the right to point out the absolute stupidity of
>> Net zero.
>
> Indeed. There are no absolute zeros in real life, only asymptotes, but
> not everybody understands this.
>
> Rod.

I think that there is general acceptance that 0 degrees Kelvin is absolute.

Jim

On 23/08/2022 10:53, Robin wrote:
> On 22/08/2022 11:14, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>> In article <tdu3cq$2e0gj$1@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John
>> <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
>>> On 21/08/2022 13:32, Java Jive wrote:
>>>> On 21/08/2022 12:09, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have no intention of making an argument about it, but in the early
>>>>> 1960s I was at school and I used to go to the school library and read
>>>>> the magazines that I couldn't afford to buy. In one copy of the New
>>>>> Scientist somewhere between 1963 and 1966 there was an article that
>>>>> explained that the drift of the sun through the spiral arm was
>>>>> gradually taking it out of an area containing interstellar dust unto
>>>>> an area where the dust was very much reduced and this would
>>>>> progressively provide slightly more radiant energy from the sun
>>>>> reaching the Earth than had been the case for a couple of millennia
>>>>> before.
>>>
>>>> You've made this claim at least twice before, but have never been able
>>>> to verify it.  Until you do, it just remains a claim.
>>>>
>>
>>> Just because you dismiss what I remember reading doesn't make it untrue.
>>> However, your reply is a fairly clear indication that the effect is
>>> not built into the current models.
>>
>> Agree with your first statement there. However without being able to read
>> the actual item in ye olde NS we don't know the full story of what it
>> said.
>>
>> You second statement may simply mean it was examined and found not to
>> be a
>> factor for the timescales that concern humanity at present. And that what
>> references we've found don't mention it for that reason.
>>
>> However NS often published 'speculative' articles about what *might* come
>> to pass or 'might' turn out to be true. Know this because I wrote
>> articles
>> for them, and also helped clarify various questions some of their staff
>> writers needed to write about when they found 'odd' claims in other
>> places.
>> Thus the item may have been speculation on someone's part.
>
>> NS isn't an academic journal but a 'popular science' one. Its approach
>> has
>> also varied over the decades under different editors.
>>
>> My first reaction was to ask Marcus Chown if he recalled this as he'd
>> worked for NS quite a lot. But that was more like the 1980s on, so
>> probably
>> before his time with NS. Their old editors, etc, have long moved on as
>> well. So we'd need a readable copy of the actual item to decide.
>>
>> That said, my basic thought is that such a process would be likely to
>> extend over a far longer timescale than the changes the actual data show.
>> So would not explain what we have observed. Indeed, I'd have though
>> astronomers would have been very active in looking at the claimed changes
>> if it were this fast. But I can't recall it popping up. If someone has a
>> reliable source, please give a reference where it can be checked.
>>
>
> I wonder if it was McCrea's work (picking up the old idea of Shapley).
> That certainly made the pages of NS in the 1970s.
>
> Mmm, yes in NS 1975.  Not sure this link will work
>
>
> <https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=YGofxcUVVDwC&pg=PA695&dq=%22+spiral+arms%22+%22ice+ages%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjTjfHR0tz5AhVDZcAKHXtRCcgQ6AF6BAgEEAI#v=onepage&q=%22%20spiral%20arms%22%20%22ice%20ages%22&f=false>

That link worked and it was an interesting article to read, but it
wasn't the one I read in the early 1960s. It adds a bit of information
that the 1960s one didn't explain. The 1960s one stated that leaving
the dust cloud would lead to warmer weather, but didn't explain why. The
above article explains that gravitational capture of the dust by the sun
affects the sun's output, so it follows that reduced capture of dust
should also affect the sun's output.

Thanks for finding it.

> I do wonder though if people are likely to seek funds for research on
> the effect of external influences on the Earth's climate.  The risk of
> attack from activists (and, sad to say, fellow academics) is real, and
> the consequences potentially grave.  One only has to look at the time it
> took to get CERN's CLOUD experiment set up (and the language when its
> results were announced). In short, why work on something that could get
> you "cancelled" before you begin?

That seems to be a more eloquent way than mine to say that he who pays
the piper calls the tune.

Jim

On 23/08/2022 19:46, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> For an educated man you can be such an idiot.

Whereas you always behave like an ill-educated lout, going for the man,
not the ball.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 23/08/2022 20:47, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> That seems to be a more eloquent way than mine to say that he who pays
> the piper calls the tune.

And, as I have shown, the biggest payers are the fossil-fuel industry.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 23/08/2022 19:46, Bob Latham wrote:
> For an educated man you can be such an idiot.

I've never noticed a correlation between the level of education a person
has attained and their idiocy.

Bill

On Tue, 23 Aug 2022 20:17:45 +0100, Indy Jess John
<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:

>On 21/08/2022 18:57, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Aug 2022 14:43:17 +0100, Bob Latham
>> <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> I do though reserve the right to point out the absolute stupidity of
>>> Net zero.
>>
>> Indeed. There are no absolute zeros in real life, only asymptotes, but
>> not everybody understands this.
>>
>> Rod.
>
>I think that there is general acceptance that 0 degrees Kelvin is absolute.
>
>Jim

In theory yes, but I said "in real life".

We might know where it is, but we can never reach it.

Rod.

In article <7h59ghp17ashra7anphu4eb6osqusc5ro6@4ax.com>, Roderick
Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

> When talking about things like "zero carbon" or "zero climate change"
> perhaps we need to be clear whether we mean some measured quantity
> itself or if we are really talking about the human impact upon it.

So far as I know/AIUI the term "Net Zero" refers to emissions produced by
human-driven processes. cf below.

> Climate change, for example, could go above or below some normalised
> value that we've decided to count as zero change, but what would it mean
> to talk about a "human impact" value of less than zero?

Back in reality and away from hair-splitting, though, I suspect what is
meant is "a value close enough to zero that it is well within the range to
which the Earth'c climate would adapt leaving the temperatures, etc, much
the same as if zero emissions were the norm. i.e. allow the climate to
drift back to the kind of state that we'd have had if we weren't releasing
lots of CO2.

So in practice your hair-splitting is an amusing diversion from a serious
problem. Personally, I'd be more concerned about the problem, but humour is
always welcome. :-)

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <e07e8ca1-01e1-6f90-f138-65b7c61cb821@outlook.com>, Robin
<rbw@outlook.com> wrote:

> I wonder if it was McCrea's work (picking up the old idea of Shapley).
> That certainly made the pages of NS in the 1970s.

> Mmm, yes in NS 1975. Not sure this link will work

> <https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=YGofxcUVVDwC&pg=PA695&dq=%22+spiral+arms%22+%22ice+ages%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjTjfHR0tz5AhVDZcAKHXtRCcgQ6AF6BAgEEAI#v=onepage&q=%22%20spiral%20arms%22%20%22ice%20ages%22&f=false>

> I do wonder though if people are likely to seek funds for research on
> the effect of external influences on the Earth's climate. The risk of
> attack from activists (and, sad to say, fellow academics) is real, and
> the consequences potentially grave.

Well, I recall various astronomers I worked with/for over the decades
getting grants to observe and measure dust clouds, and the material within
the region that tends to be swept out by the Sun's radiation and 'Solar
Wind". They don't seem to have had problems.

As witnessed by comet tails, the 'wind from the Sun' tends to blow dust and
gas well away from the region within the Earth's orbit.

My impression from reading the above by John Gribbin is that it was
essentially speculation on timescales of from 10,000 to many millions
of years. Not a reliable set of data to indicate the kinds of changes
over a few hundred that now concern people.

And as I've pointed out, having the Solar System drift though dust
regions doesn't mean that dust penetrates against the Solar Wind
that easily. We'd need to see any later work to know more.

FWIW I'd expect either ApJ (Astrophysical Journal) or MNRaS
(Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society) to have had
data-based papers on this and climate if it is a genuine factor
for 'recent' changes. However I discarded all my old journals
like this decades ago when I stopped being in the RaS because
my work had moved to other topics. If someone wants to follow
this up they're probably the most reliable sources apart from
Nature I suspect.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <5a1c915eaenoise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

> I suspect what is meant is "a value close enough to zero that it is
> well within the range to which the Earth's climate would adapt
> leaving the temperatures, etc, much the same as if zero emissions
> were the norm. i.e. allow the climate to drift back to the kind of
> state that we'd have had if we weren't releasing lots of CO2.

Britain's CO2 output has been reduced and reduced and is now right
back to the same level as in 1888. As far as I know, there were no
claims of global warming or climate change back then.

Why it is still necessary to destroy people's lives in Britain in
order to reduce 1% (near F*** all) to zero when other countries with
far larger contributions are doing little or nothing or even
increasing their output? We've done our bit of insanity.

It would be barking mad even if CO2 was the culprit, which it isn't.

But of course, this isn't really about alleged warming anyway.

Climate Communism !

Bob.

On Tue, 23 Aug 2022 18:10:56 +0100, Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk>
wrote:

>In article <7h59ghp17ashra7anphu4eb6osqusc5ro6@4ax.com>, Roderick
>Stewart
><rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>> When talking about things like "zero carbon" or "zero climate change"
>> perhaps we need to be clear whether we mean some measured quantity
>> itself or if we are really talking about the human impact upon it.
>
>So far as I know/AIUI the term "Net Zero" refers to emissions produced by
>human-driven processes. cf below.
>
>> Climate change, for example, could go above or below some normalised
>> value that we've decided to count as zero change, but what would it mean
>> to talk about a "human impact" value of less than zero?
>
>Back in reality and away from hair-splitting, though, I suspect what is
>meant is "a value close enough to zero that it is well within the range to
>which the Earth'c climate would adapt leaving the temperatures, etc, much
>the same as if zero emissions were the norm. i.e. allow the climate to
>drift back to the kind of state that we'd have had if we weren't releasing
>lots of CO2.
>
>So in practice your hair-splitting is an amusing diversion from a serious
>problem. Personally, I'd be more concerned about the problem, but humour is
>always welcome. :-)
>
>Jim

I don't think it's hair-splitting to differentiate between a numerical
value representing some physical quantity, or its variation, and
another numerical value representing our influence upon it. They seem
like quite different things to me.

It's sometimes possible for something to vary enormously without any
influence at all from us. In that case its variation would have a
large numerical value while the numerical value representing our
influence would be zero.

In practice it may not always be easy to determine how to represent
things by numerical values, but I don't think that changes the fact
that values for different things can be different values.

Rod.