minor annoyances, a test

52 views
Skip to first unread message

Richard Robinson

unread,
Aug 11, 2022, 7:20:55 AMAug 11
to
This, maybe ?

--
Richard Robinson
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem

My email address is at http://qualmograph.org.uk/contact.html

Richard Robinson

unread,
Aug 11, 2022, 7:41:53 AMAug 11
to
Richard Robinson said:
> This, maybe ?

That looks proper. Commented-out hostname line in .slrnrc. I still
haven't worked out how to not give user/pwd on the cli each time, but I
have the email to c&p them from, and it shouldn't take long when I can
Feel The Tuits.

I'm _really_ looking forward to a pair of intermediate-distance glasses,
pooterscreens for the looking at of through plusalso nuisance, for the
abolition of. It seems to be doing strange things to my language,
an'all.

The ones I have are pretty good for long distance, perhaps I'll go out
and enjoy the weather.

Paradox time; the implications are horrible, but day to day at this
stage of the process, I'm thoroughly enjoying the weather, it makes me
feel like I'm on holiday. Beer Garden with Something Cooling and watch
the world go, by sortathing. There are things I _could_ be getting on
with, but I daresay it'll all revert to grey before very long, so that's
probably fine.

Peter

unread,
Aug 11, 2022, 9:58:01 AMAug 11
to
Richard Robinson <ric...@qualmograph.org.uk> wrote in news:td2pu0$25k4o$1
@dont-email.me:

> Richard Robinson said:
>> This, maybe ?
>
> That looks proper.

But but..you've lost Susan. I'm orersg.


--
Peter
-----

Peter

unread,
Aug 11, 2022, 10:07:58 AMAug 11
to
Richard Robinson <ric...@qualmograph.org.uk> wrote in news:td2pu0$25k4o$1
@dont-email.me:

> Paradox time; the implications are horrible, but day to day at this
> stage of the process, I'm thoroughly enjoying the weather, it makes me
> feel like I'm on holiday.

MTAAAW. Out in the gardning with book, hat and long glarse of summat not too
warm.

I'm fed up after half a century of trying to persuade people to be kinder to
the planet. The worst effects won't start untll I've shuffled orft the old
coil. Good luck, future people, we've stuffed up your planet.


--
Peter
-----

maus

unread,
Aug 11, 2022, 11:12:34 AMAug 11
to
No, we have not. For most people life has never been so good, less
deaths than for years, crops like never before in history. There are
childrens stories about people trying to do what most governments are
trying to do now.

``The Emperors new Clothes''

``Chicken Little'' and a lot more. It hot in August, surprise, surprise.
I've seen the bogs take fire during July years ago.

Its like the religious rant,

``Behave, or when you die, you will be plunged into the everlasting
fires of hell, with the devil and his angels.''

---
grey...@mail.org

Fe Fi Fo Fum, I smell the stench of an influencer.
Do you want cockroaches with that?.

John Williamson

unread,
Aug 11, 2022, 11:43:29 AMAug 11
to
On 11/08/2022 16:12, maus wrote:
> On 2022-08-11, Peter <mys...@prune.org.uk> wrote:
>> Richard Robinson <ric...@qualmograph.org.uk> wrote in news:td2pu0$25k4o$1
>> @dont-email.me:
>>
>>> Paradox time; the implications are horrible, but day to day at this
>>> stage of the process, I'm thoroughly enjoying the weather, it makes me
>>> feel like I'm on holiday.
>>
>> MTAAAW. Out in the gardning with book, hat and long glarse of summat not too
>> warm.
>>
>> I'm fed up after half a century of trying to persuade people to be kinder to
>> the planet. The worst effects won't start untll I've shuffled orft the old
>> coil. Good luck, future people, we've stuffed up your planet.
>>
>>
>
> No, we have not. For most people life has never been so good, less
> deaths than for years, crops like never before in history. There are
> childrens stories about people trying to do what most governments are
> trying to do now.
>
> ``The Emperors new Clothes''
>
Agreed. My phone is more powerful than the supercomputers were when I
was in school. The camera on it is approaching the quality of the best
camera I could buy then, as well. My diabetes treatment is far ahead of
what my brother suffered through in the 1960s.

> ``Chicken Little'' and a lot more. It hot in August, surprise, surprise.
> I've seen the bogs take fire during July years ago.
>
The temperature in the UK in the 1976 heatwave peaked at 35.9 C. This
year, it has already reached 40.3 C. This is more or less as predicted
while I was in school in the 1960s, given the increase in CO2 in the
atmosphere over the same period. (This graphic shows the correlations
netween the measurements.)

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Duda-Jerzy/publication/312326886/figure/download/fig1/AS:450852298203137@1484502972571/Changes-in-Earth-temperatures-1-and-atmospheric-CO2-levels.png

Ten of the hottest years since records began have been since 2000. As a
dise effcet, there is more energy flaotong round in the atmpsphere,
which is making severe weather events more common.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Brian Gaff

unread,
Aug 11, 2022, 12:19:48 PMAug 11
to
What you need is a screenreader like mine obviously.
Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Richard Robinson" <ric...@qualmograph.org.uk> wrote in message
news:td2pu0$25k4o$1...@dont-email.me...

Don Stockbauer

unread,
Aug 11, 2022, 12:22:53 PMAug 11
to
But with this heat we're already seeing global warming and with 40,000,000,000 (40 billion) tons of carbon dioxide being dumped into the atmosphere each year with very very little remediation we're going to have tons of fun!

Richard Robinson

unread,
Aug 11, 2022, 12:24:44 PMAug 11
to
Peter said:
> Richard Robinson <ric...@qualmograph.org.uk> wrote in news:td2pu0$25k4o$1
>> Richard Robinson said:
>>> This, maybe ?
>>
>> That looks proper.
>
> But but..you've lost Susan. I'm orersg.

I'm so sorry.

I am in fact poking at her at this very moment, but since I have no
other live chamines in the house and am not offering her to the whole
wide world, it was supposed to remain a secret between the ... um, one
of me (I shall now break into a quick chorus of "When I try to find
her, she's not there". But don't worry, you won't hear it).

Brian Gaff

unread,
Aug 11, 2022, 12:24:45 PMAug 11
to
This thread will end badly. Its because everyone argues how much is natural
cyclic changes and how much is us. Either way, surely we should be trying to
keep levels low by carbon capture and store.
Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"John Williamson" <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:jlkmcv...@mid.individual.net...

maus

unread,
Aug 11, 2022, 12:29:44 PMAug 11
to
On 2022-08-11, John Williamson <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On 11/08/2022 16:12, maus wrote:
>> On 2022-08-11, Peter <mys...@prune.org.uk> wrote:
>>> Richard Robinson <ric...@qualmograph.org.uk> wrote in news:td2pu0$25k4o$1
>>> @dont-email.me:
>>>
>>>> Paradox time; the implications are horrible, but day to day at this
>>>> stage of the process, I'm thoroughly enjoying the weather, it makes me
>>>> feel like I'm on holiday.
>>>
>>> MTAAAW. Out in the gardning with book, hat and long glarse of summat not too
>>> warm.
>>>
>>> I'm fed up after half a century of trying to persuade people to be kinder to
>>> the planet. The worst effects won't start untll I've shuffled orft the old
>>> coil. Good luck, future people, we've stuffed up your planet.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> No, we have not. For most people life has never been so good, less
>> deaths than for years, crops like never before in history. There are
>> childrens stories about people trying to do what most governments are
>> trying to do now.
>>
>> ``The Emperors new Clothes''
>>
> Agreed. My phone is more powerful than the supercomputers were when I
> was in school. The camera on it is approaching the quality of the best
> camera I could buy then, as well. My diabetes treatment is far ahead of
> what my brother suffered through in the 1960s.

One great improvement. There are several more things like that, Like
Aids, where with treatments now will allow people with is to live weeks
longer.
>
>> ``Chicken Little'' and a lot more. It hot in August, surprise, surprise.
>> I've seen the bogs take fire during July years ago.
>>
> The temperature in the UK in the 1976 heatwave peaked at 35.9 C. This
> year, it has already reached 40.3 C. This is more or less as predicted
> while I was in school in the 1960s, given the increase in CO2 in the
> atmosphere over the same period. (This graphic shows the correlations
> netween the measurements.)
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Duda-Jerzy/publication/312326886/figure/download/fig1/AS:450852298203137@1484502972571/Changes-in-Earth-temperatures-1-and-atmospheric-CO2-levels.png
>
> Ten of the hottest years since records began have been since 2000. As a
> dise effcet, there is more energy flaotong round in the atmpsphere,
> which is making severe weather events more common.a

No, they are not. Count them up. Trouble is that so much building has
been done on floodplains that should never been allowed, there are
stories of floods from those areas.

My favourite picture about that was from Ballinasloe Co. Galway, a sign
with `Full planning for *. Houses' All around, the floodwaters stretched
far away.a

Perhaps we shoud recreate Tetzel, who could wipe your concience clean
for a payment.

I am more concerned about the schoolchildren who do not know what their
food comes from.

Richard Robinson

unread,
Aug 11, 2022, 12:44:32 PMAug 11
to
Yes. We told 'em, we *told* 'em, buggrit. Except we hadn't a clue about
the scale. Emissions used to be acids of sulphur falling down on the
heads of the emitters and exhaust-lead in the local dust[1], and we've
gone from Save The Whales as an optional lifestyle accessory to Last
Fucking Chance To Save The Whole Sodding Planet like it or not.

[1] It'd make people stupid, they said ...

My 70th birthday is due in a few weeks, so probably likewise, but still,
like someone said, it was the only planet with chocolate. Some aspects
will survive, something or other will probably thrive before very many
lifetimes of adjustment, and this will most likely include some humans,
but it's increasingly a question to what extent Civilisation As We Know
It will be recognisable. And if the bits that go missing could be
the bits that have got us into this, it'd be good apart from the process
of getting there, but it's hardly likely to happen by accident. "We'd
all love to see the plan" [Lennon/McCartney].

As a nod to a recent doorclosure, Gaia as a set of interlocking
hoeostatic mechanisms : some truths will be preserved, by any means
necessary as defined by what works. Being human, I suspect the eventual
new stability wouldn't suit me as well as the conditions I've been used
to.

Richard Robinson

unread,
Aug 11, 2022, 12:58:07 PMAug 11
to
John Williamson said:
> On 11/08/2022 16:12, maus wrote:
>
>> ``Chicken Little'' and a lot more. It hot in August, surprise, surprise.
>> I've seen the bogs take fire during July years ago.
>> ...
> Ten of the hottest years since records began have been since 2000. As a
> dise effcet, there is more energy flaotong round in the atmpsphere,
> which is making severe weather events more common.

Yebbut then again, you're trying to hold a sensible conversation with
someone who specialises in saying things that people are bound to
disgree with.

Mike Fleming

unread,
Aug 11, 2022, 4:36:04 PMAug 11
to
On 11/08/2022 12:41, Richard Robinson wrote:
>
> I'm _really_ looking forward to a pair of intermediate-distance glasses,
> pooterscreens for the looking at of through plusalso nuisance, for the
> abolition of. It seems to be doing strange things to my language,
> an'all.

That's what mine are. I tried reading glarses once and they were rubbish
for anything other than reading, so I went back to what I think were
termed office glarses, optimised for 50cm-1m, which are also fine for
reading.

Mike Fleming

unread,
Aug 11, 2022, 4:45:30 PMAug 11
to
On 11/08/2022 17:44, Richard Robinson wrote:
>
> My 70th birthday is due in a few weeks, so probably likewise, but still,
> like someone said, it was the only planet with chocolate. Some aspects
> will survive, something or other will probably thrive before very many
> lifetimes of adjustment, and this will most likely include some humans,
> but it's increasingly a question to what extent Civilisation As We Know
> It will be recognisable. And if the bits that go missing could be
> the bits that have got us into this, it'd be good apart from the process
> of getting there, but it's hardly likely to happen by accident. "We'd
> all love to see the plan" [Lennon/McCartney].

One promble is that the ones who refuse to believe that climate change
is happening due to mankind tend to also be the ones who believe that
gnus are the solution to everything, and those of us who want far
greater effort put into reducing carbon emissions (both O2 and H4) are
also the ones least likely to form a baying mob that will rend every
oil, gas, and coal company executive limb from limb. I suppose the
answer is to try to convince the evtugjvat ahggref that carbon dioxide
and methane will make their children into communist atheists.

Richard Robinson

unread,
Aug 11, 2022, 4:59:53 PMAug 11
to
Office, eh ? I haven't met that before.

At least this time I thought to pick 2 frames that aren't identical,
which should save a certain amount of confusion.

Ahem A Rivet's Shot

unread,
Aug 11, 2022, 7:30:02 PMAug 11
to
On Thu, 11 Aug 2022 21:45:27 +0100
Mike Fleming <mi...@tauzero.co.uk> wrote:

> One promble is that the ones who refuse to believe that climate change
> is happening due to mankind tend to also be the ones who believe that
> gnus are the solution to everything

Then there are those of us who are not convinced by the models and
arguments but do believe that we need to get off fossil fuels and stop
polluting our breathing air and drinking water regardless of any effect
this may or may not have on the climate. What scares us is that people
think climate change is the only reason for doing what we have to do anyway
for reasons that don't depend on complex models of a chaotic system (simple
reasons like we're burning through it millions of times faster than it is
generated and pollution kills - but for some reason these simple and
obvious reasons for doing what needs to be done have no weight while the
predictions of some pretty iffy models about an incredibly complex system
are gospel and urgent) and that if it's ever disproved or widely disbelieved
then we've no chance of going in the right direction.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

Richard Robinson

unread,
Aug 11, 2022, 8:13:07 PMAug 11
to
I've been hearing numbers on The News recently suggesting that the price
of energy in a few months time will have increased by a factor of 3 in a
year. The 1st job I had coincided with the 3-day week, which was caused
mainly by political events in other countries, exacerbated by domestic
discontent, resulting in a 4-fold hike in the price of energy. There
have been good reasons for increasing "sustainable" (in the sense of
independence from other peoples' crap) energy for a long time quite
apart from anything to do with disagreements about modelling.

So, North Sea fossil fuels, hurrah!. So far as I know, in this country
it mostly seems to have been spent on tax catsToBAGO and there doesn't
seem to be very much to show for it except lots of, if you'll excuse me,
vaqvivqhnyf bs uvtu arg jbegu[1]. The other half of that bonanza went
to Norway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Pension_Fund_of_Norway

Simply, there is a lot of investment, in many places and senses of that
word, in the advantages of the concept of 'externalities', whereby
anything that doesn't show up on one's own balance-sheet will be covered
by someone else and therefore doesn't matter.

[1] a concept for which, by a similiar style of pissed-off rhetoric,
there is obviously only one possible metric.

Why does history repeat itself ? Because no-one listened last time.

Not that I can exactly boast of having saved the world singlehanded.


Thinks, Lucas Aerospace. I was a bit too young to have been paying much
attention (or otherwise engaged, maybe) but it stuck in my mind as a
niggle, and I actually remembered it to the extent of a quick
googlymoogly a while back. Hardly any hits, but one of them was a
summary, including a really depressing list of good useful ideas that
never happened.

Richard Robinson

unread,
Aug 11, 2022, 9:53:49 PMAug 11
to
*grin* but how to do that while not being the sort of communist atheist
who propagates these theories ?

I've not done the numbers myself, but I've seen it plausibly suggested
that there's a fairly strong correlation between those who think that
gnus are the solution to everything and those who think that all
possible people should produce as many babies as possible.

In smaller-scale setups at times of more primitive weaponry and zero-sum
thinking, this might have been a stable, if deeply unpleasant,
arrangement (for unstable values of 'stable'. See, eg, the border
reivers and the old scots/irish heroic cattleraiding stuff). These days,
notsomuch at all.

maus

unread,
Aug 12, 2022, 2:42:44 AMAug 12
to
Agreed. We need to limit what we have for a rainy day. The daughter wot
drives me in for medical inspections has business connections in
Portlaoise and I go down there later with her for a trip. The town is
clogged with traffic of all sorts. People still get in the car to drive
where they could walk.

Meanwhile, the semi-useless electric cars get rarer on the streets, the
useless solar panels are put on roofs, and the windmills sometimes turn.
As they say, someone is making a lot of money in swindles.

Ahem A Rivet's Shot

unread,
Aug 12, 2022, 3:30:02 AMAug 12
to
On Fri, 12 Aug 2022 00:13:05 -0000 (UTC)
Richard Robinson <ric...@qualmograph.org.uk> wrote:

> There
> have been good reasons for increasing "sustainable" (in the sense of
> independence from other peoples' crap) energy for a long time quite

Energy independence is not the same as sustainability. I don't now
why you put quotes round it because it has a well defined meaning that
essentially means not using stuff faster than it is generated.

Energy independence is politics and only matters because we're crap
at sharing. Sustainable living is pure practicality - you can't keep using
things faster than they're made forever it's as simple as that.

> apart from anything to do with disagreements about modelling.
>
> So, North Sea fossil fuels, hurrah!.

No No NO! North sea oil and gas is part of the problem not a
solution, it's running out and using it generates pollution. The goal should
be to leave as much of it as possible where it is. By using it up the way
we are we're acting like the spoiled rich brats who manage in a few years
to spend a family fortune that was generations in the building with nothing
to show for it but health problems and a big mess.

Richard Robinson

unread,
Aug 12, 2022, 4:08:41 AMAug 12
to
Ahem A Rivet's Shot said:
> On Fri, 12 Aug 2022 00:13:05 -0000 (UTC)
> Richard Robinson <ric...@qualmograph.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> There
>> have been good reasons for increasing "sustainable" (in the sense of
>> independence from other peoples' crap) energy for a long time quite
>
> Energy independence is not the same as sustainability. I don't now
> why you put quotes round it because it has a well defined meaning that
> essentially means not using stuff faster than it is generated.

I did that to indicate that I was extending the meaning beyond the one
you assert; so as to include a decrease in the vulnerability to external
interruption. The ability to keep on going, be sustained. I'd hoped that
would be clear, CBA with a dictionary argument.

> Energy independence is politics and only matters because we're crap
> at sharing. Sustainable living is pure practicality - you can't keep using
> things faster than they're made forever it's as simple as that.
>
>> apart from anything to do with disagreements about modelling.
>>
>> So, North Sea fossil fuels, hurrah!.
>
> No No NO! North sea oil and gas is part of the problem not a
> solution, it's running out and using it generates pollution. The goal should

Gosh.

It was intended as continuing the sense of the post-3-day-week period,
in a way which I had hoped would (now) be taken in ways involving words
like sarcasm, irony, etc.

But, "whoosh".

Shorter; I knew that.

Brian Gaff

unread,
Aug 12, 2022, 4:09:19 AMAug 12
to
What we need is a way to harvest this escess heat, store it and use it
during the extremes of winter. They do say you cannot destroy energy, don't
they?
Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Don Stockbauer" <donsto...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7cfb242d-9ad1-417b...@googlegroups.com...

John Williamson

unread,
Aug 12, 2022, 4:18:29 AMAug 12
to
On 12/08/2022 09:09, Brian Gaff wrote:
> What we need is a way to harvest this escess heat, store it and use it
> during the extremes of winter. They do say you cannot destroy energy, don't
> they?
> Brian
>
They do say that, but they also say that in the end, entropy wins, so
the energy you stored will inevitably leak out of the container into the
environment.

Richard Robinson

unread,
Aug 12, 2022, 4:37:44 AMAug 12
to
Uniformly-distributed heat is the default, the trick is to keep it
concentrated ?

John Williamson

unread,
Aug 12, 2022, 4:42:49 AMAug 12
to
On 12/08/2022 09:37, Richard Robinson wrote:
> John Williamson said:
>> On 12/08/2022 09:09, Brian Gaff wrote:
>>> What we need is a way to harvest this escess heat, store it and use it
>>> during the extremes of winter. They do say you cannot destroy energy, don't
>>> they?
>>> Brian
>>>
>> They do say that, but they also say that in the end, entropy wins, so
>> the energy you stored will inevitably leak out of the container into the
>> environment.
>
> Uniformly-distributed heat is the default, the trick is to keep it
> concentrated ?
>
>
Yes, eventually, the whole universe will be at the same temperature.

Peter

unread,
Aug 12, 2022, 5:38:36 AMAug 12
to
"Brian Gaff" <brian...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:td3agc$27b65$1...@dont-email.me:

> This thread will end badly. Its because everyone argues how much is
> natural cyclic changes and how much is us. Either way, surely we
> should be trying to keep levels low by carbon capture and store.

CCS technology is a bit like nuclear fusion. It has been just a few years
away for several decades.

--
Peter
-----

Peter

unread,
Aug 12, 2022, 5:48:44 AMAug 12
to
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote in
news:20220812002835.93a7...@eircom.net:

>
> Then there are those of us who are not convinced by the models
> and
> arguments but do believe that we need to get off fossil fuels and stop
> polluting our breathing air and drinking water regardless of any
> effect this may or may not have on the climate. What scares us is that
> people think climate change is the only reason for doing what we have
> to do anyway for reasons that don't depend on complex models of a
> chaotic system (simple reasons like we're burning through it millions
> of times faster than it is generated and pollution kills - but for
> some reason these simple and obvious reasons for doing what needs to
> be done have no weight while the predictions of some pretty iffy
> models about an incredibly complex system are gospel and urgent) and
> that if it's ever disproved or widely disbelieved then we've no chance
> of going in the right direction.

All your reasons for getting off fossil fuels are valid, but your dismissal
of climate change prediction as based on very complex iffy models is just
plain wrong. We can work out the effect of increasing CO2 emmissions on the
climate (and on the ocean) on the back of an envelope, and measurements
show that these estimates are pretty good. The big complex models are to
work out *in detail* what effect this will have on the weather, which is
where the big weather forcasting computers cummin very handy (and
effective).


--
Peter
-----

Tease'n'Seize

unread,
Aug 12, 2022, 5:54:42 AMAug 12
to
Richard Robinson wrote:

> It was intended as continuing the sense of the post-3-day-week period,
> in a way which I had hoped would (now) be taken in ways involving words
> like sarcasm, irony, etc.

We get about 90% of our net oil and 50% of our net oil out of the North Sea, it
might be a nice thought that we can use something else instead, and/or use less
of it, but to my mind all these "by 2030" or whenever targets are going to hit
huge back-pedalling when realities bite ...


Richard Robinson

unread,
Aug 12, 2022, 6:10:01 AMAug 12
to
When I was a kid, we had a family holiday near Falmouth, and I remember
people with fishing rods at the end of the pier hauling mackerel out at
a great rate[1]. A few years ago I read that mackerel are now having that
done to them more like round Shetland.

[1] Just at the end of a sewage outfall. Organic recycling.

A few days ago I made the same remark to someone that I've made here,
that the weather here in north-wet England's convincing me I must be on
holiday, and the reply was "Yes, it's Mediterranean"

Never mind, the met. people now say floods next week. Any bets on
hearing the phrase "once in a hundred years event" *again* in a possible
range of contexts before very long ?.


And I'm reminded of a thing that used to float around in the late '60s

God gave the world the rainbow sign,
No more flood. The fire next time.

Richard Robinson

unread,
Aug 12, 2022, 6:58:41 AMAug 12
to
They are doing.

I've spent the last 18 months or so investigating the concept of
"investment", concerning some inherited wealth, and have ended up
betting the metaphorical farm on a proposition that some people
somewhere ought to be able to turn a profit on doing some sort of
constructive things about all this, and related matters.

The basic proposition is clear. We should have stopped setting fire to
stuff faster than we can grow it a long time ago, and the need is
becoming increasibgly urgent. If people wish to drag other possibilities
into it, I don't give a toss on the basis of Peter's point, that the
basic sums around radiation-at-a-temperature are very clear that this
would at least provide very welcome mitigation against whetever else may
be proposed. This is A-level Physics stuff.

In more local news, I have needed to think about how to heat my home,
the previous system having given up the ghost. I have done Sums and Hard
Thinking, as a result of which I have a metric ton of anthracite
briquettes stacked in the back yard and an understanding with a bloke a
couple of miles away that he'll be bring me a box to set fire to them in
in time to be able to do so when the autumn turns cold enough to need it
(I've dealt with him before. He having given given his word I think I
can trust him to keep it, but in his own time). Which is a great pity,
but the sums were extremely convincing. As is also the thought that it's
hard to see how any bugger could stop me from keeping warm come winter.
Annoyingly, I'm now beginning to add the proviso "short of nuking me".

Someone, a while back, proposed that capitalism would eventually
collapse due to its internal contradictions. I really don't have the
patience to read into it sufficiently to discover whether any particular
timescale was offered.

Ahem A Rivet's Shot

unread,
Aug 12, 2022, 8:30:02 AMAug 12
to
Building long lasting things out of wood jbexes there's some carbon
captured in the oak gates of my old college that's been there for centuries.

Ahem A Rivet's Shot

unread,
Aug 12, 2022, 8:30:02 AMAug 12
to
On Fri, 12 Aug 2022 09:48:42 -0000 (UTC)
Peter <mys...@prune.org.uk> wrote:

> All your reasons for getting off fossil fuels are valid, but your
> dismissal of climate change prediction as based on very complex iffy
> models is just plain wrong. We can work out the effect of increasing CO2
> emmissions on the climate (and on the ocean) on the back of an envelope,

Yersee many many years ago I sat in on an informal discussion
between a bunch of experts on the subject (profs and Phd students mostly in
the field). The topic as whether increased cloud cover would increase the
average temperature or decrease it. They did not reach any agreement,
except to note that they couldn't find out because there was no way to
alter just the cloud cover in any kind of experiment even if it would be
permitted.

Ahem A Rivet's Shot

unread,
Aug 12, 2022, 8:30:03 AMAug 12
to
On Fri, 12 Aug 2022 09:42:47 +0100
John Williamson <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:

> Yes, eventually, the whole universe will be at the same temperature.

That's the classical view - quantum mechanics and particularly the
uncertainty principle messes that view up a lot.

Richard Robinson

unread,
Aug 12, 2022, 9:17:07 AMAug 12
to
Yes, it can be kept out of the cycle for a long time by being useful.
Eventually, it either rots or is burnt.

John Williamson

unread,
Aug 12, 2022, 9:22:49 AMAug 12
to
On 12/08/2022 11:10, Richard Robinson wrote:

> Never mind, the met. people now say floods next week. Any bets on
> hearing the phrase "once in a hundred years event" *again* in a possible
> range of contexts before very long ?.
>
Recently, the younger pundits are saying, "I expect what used to be
hundred year weather events to be happening about once a decade within
my lifetime."

maus

unread,
Aug 12, 2022, 9:50:47 AMAug 12
to
On 2022-08-12, Brian Gaff <brian...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What we need is a way to harvest this escess heat, store it and use it
> during the extremes of winter. They do say you cannot destroy energy, don't
> they?
> Brian
>

Memory of something on BBC years ago.

`Write your name on five pound note, and send to loopy lou.'

that would be 500 pound note now.

Odd to see ads on BBC.

Nauru, small island kinda near OZ, basically a big heap of birdshit,
which was sold off and the money invested in the most reputable
companies. Recently the birdshit is running out, and the Nauru people
are checking their investments. There really are none left after
charges.

Ahem A Rivet's Shot

unread,
Aug 12, 2022, 10:00:32 AMAug 12
to
On Fri, 12 Aug 2022 13:17:06 -0000 (UTC)
Richard Robinson <ric...@qualmograph.org.uk> wrote:

> Ahem A Rivet's Shot said:
> > On Fri, 12 Aug 2022 09:38:35 -0000 (UTC)
> > Peter <mys...@prune.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> "Brian Gaff" <brian...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> news:td3agc$27b65$1...@dont-email.me:
> >>
> >> > This thread will end badly. Its because everyone argues how much is
> >> > natural cyclic changes and how much is us. Either way, surely we
> >> > should be trying to keep levels low by carbon capture and store.
> >>
> >> CCS technology is a bit like nuclear fusion. It has been just a few
> >> years away for several decades.
> >
> > Building long lasting things out of wood jbexes there's some
> > carbon captured in the oak gates of my old college that's been there
> > for centuries.
>
> Yes, it can be kept out of the cycle for a long time by being useful.
> Eventually, it either rots or is burnt.

Sure but if that's longer than than it takes to grow enough wood to
replace it then we're ahead. AIUI it takes about a century to grow enough
oak to replace those gates and they've been there for several times that
long.

The plan to use cross laminated wood as a structural material for
large buildings should sequester quite a lot of carbon especially since
they'll use fast growing pines.

Richard Robinson

unread,
Aug 12, 2022, 10:15:18 AMAug 12
to
Ahem A Rivet's Shot said:
> Richard Robinson <ric...@qualmograph.org.uk> wrote:
>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot said:
>> >
>> > Building long lasting things out of wood jbexes there's some
>> > carbon captured in the oak gates of my old college that's been there
>> > for centuries.
>>
>> Yes, it can be kept out of the cycle for a long time by being useful.
>> Eventually, it either rots or is burnt.
>
> Sure but if that's longer than than it takes to grow enough wood to
> replace it then we're ahead. AIUI it takes about a century to grow enough
> oak to replace those gates and they've been there for several times that
> long.

Yes. In a homeostatic system, that would be a fine and useful element
thereof, apart from any matters arising out of combustion that aren't
either of the aforementioned gasses.

Trouble is, that's not where we're at, this is a system entering
whatever the opposite of homeostasis is. Hunting around in a way that
will, I suppose, result in a different stability at some (to me)
unpredictable futuretime.

> The plan to use cross laminated wood as a structural material for
> large buildings should sequester quite a lot of carbon especially since
> they'll use fast growing pines.

Yes. Which softwood may not sequester as effectively as hardwoods ? I
dunno. But a positive value, whatever the size of it.

I planted possibly a few hundred thousand of the soft ones, back in the
days of Gungpure; Douglas Fir or Sitka Spruce, can't remember which of
them was the intended harvest. I managed to get a look at them a
relative handful of years back : fine upstandig specimens, probably will
end up being useful for a decent while. Certain amount of negative
impact on the local environment, thobut. I didn't do it for any of that,
I just wanted the zbarl.

Richard Robinson

unread,
Aug 12, 2022, 10:34:29 AMAug 12
to
I'm under the impression that the people who talk the R4 news and write
for the Garudian & al aren't necessarily all that young. But never mind;
the saying of it is no longer a once-in-a-long-time event. Floods and
fires.

I have been talking with Ebbsref, and hope to have the kitchen
watertight before autumn hits too hard. Well, you've got to hope,
haven't you ?

maus

unread,
Aug 12, 2022, 10:45:51 AMAug 12
to
Sitka Spruce will grow 5 times faster that common Larch. There was a
rumour that it has been banned from Scandanavia for being useless for
anything one needs timber for. It has also been blamed in the kings river part of Wicklow for killing off fish from the river with its very acid water in runoff.

Peter

unread,
Aug 12, 2022, 10:47:35 AMAug 12
to
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote in
news:20220812131246.559f...@eircom.net:
When you drill down into the detail of how global warming will affect the
weather you come across all sorts of phenomena such as cloud cover. It's
not one of the big "tipping point" phenomena like ice-sheet breakup or
methane outgassing but it does add to the general uncertainty in trying to
answer the question "so what?" in any detail. (BTW NASA's current thinking
is that cloud cover will decrease and that this will exacerbate[sp?] global
warming). But almost all these phenomena are reasons for increased concern
rather than mitigation. The bottom line remains, that if you increase the
CO2 levels in the atmosphere the climate will get warmer and more
energetic. This is not new science and it's not hard to demonstrate, but
the detailed consequences (weather) need difficult sums to predict with
confidence.


--
Peter
-----

maus

unread,
Aug 12, 2022, 10:50:59 AMAug 12
to
Possibly a contender for most useless breed of tree than Sitka Spruce,
Cupress Lawsoninia (sp?) My Mother sowed some around 1958, which have
overgrown and fallen, and been replanted several time since. Must check
the next time I pass that place.

Ahem A Rivet's Shot

unread,
Aug 12, 2022, 11:00:02 AMAug 12
to
On Fri, 12 Aug 2022 14:15:17 -0000 (UTC)
Richard Robinson <ric...@qualmograph.org.uk> wrote:

> Ahem A Rivet's Shot said:

> > The plan to use cross laminated wood as a structural material
> > for large buildings should sequester quite a lot of carbon especially
> > since they'll use fast growing pines.
>
> Yes. Which softwood may not sequester as effectively as hardwoods ? I
> dunno. But a positive value, whatever the size of it.

If it goes into buildings with an average 60 year lifespan and the
trees take ten(FOOA add NaCl) to grow it's about as good as my college gates
- but faster.

John Williamson

unread,
Aug 12, 2022, 11:01:32 AMAug 12
to
On 12/08/2022 15:47, Peter wrote:
> The bottom line remains, that if you increase the
> CO2 levels in the atmosphere the climate will get warmer and more
> energetic. This is not new science and it's not hard to demonstrate, but
> the detailed consequences (weather) need difficult sums to predict with
> confidence.
>
>
While you need to use very large, complex and as yet unverified models
to predict what will happen *here* or *there*, it it easy to say that
the icecaps will continue to recede, and that due to the increasing
amount of energy being stored in the atmosphere, extreme weather will
become more common, and not just at the hot end. Things like the Arctic
ice cap melting more quickly, if they stop the North Atlantic Conveyor,
will give Ireland, the UK and the Atlantic coasts of Europe a climate
similar to Canada. And of course as the ice caps melt, so more heat gets
absorbed by the land and sea, so increasing the speed of melting...

The extreme example in the Solar System of this type of feedback
mechanism seems to be Venus.

Richard Robinson

unread,
Aug 12, 2022, 11:24:21 AMAug 12
to
Peter said:
>
> When you drill down into the detail of how global warming will affect the
> weather you come across all sorts of phenomena such as cloud cover. It's
> not one of the big "tipping point" phenomena like ice-sheet breakup or
> methane outgassing but it does add to the general uncertainty in trying to
> answer the question "so what?" in any detail. (BTW NASA's current thinking
> is that cloud cover will decrease and that this will exacerbate[sp?] global
> warming). But almost all these phenomena are reasons for increased concern
> rather than mitigation. The bottom line remains, that if you increase the
> CO2 levels in the atmosphere the climate will get warmer and more
> energetic. This is not new science and it's not hard to demonstrate, but
> the detailed consequences (weather) need difficult sums to predict with
> confidence.

Yes. There will be more energy in the system, and beyond that the brain
begins to hurt. Starting from just exactly now, the first thing would be
increased evaporation, but where, how much and what then, aaargh. I Am
Not A Supercooled Superpooter.

Fire, probably likewise. Agriculture, species survival in buggered
habitual environments, fishes have fewer obstacles than most, the great
southern migration of the polar bears (I'm making that up, I hope,
they'd be scary bastards in a humanised environment. But they wouldn't
last long, being conspicuously white) ... return of the malarial
mosquitoes, all manner of whatnot, both great and small. "The rest is
merely a matter of trivial details" he said, hoping that persudes
somebody else to take care of them

Shall we settle for finding that sodding chaos butterfly and lynching
it? ("WIll it help ?" "No")

Ah. Which last was prompted by a postcard I saw ages ago :
"Somewhere in the world, a woman gives birth every few seconds.
We must find this woman and stop her".

I really am looking forward to comfortable glasses. I'm trying to get
some code written, and the squinting to spot the misplaced thingies that
are causing the errors is doing my head in. Hence the volubility here, I
guess.

Richard Robinson

unread,
Aug 12, 2022, 11:34:33 AMAug 12
to
John Williamson said:
> On 12/08/2022 15:47, Peter wrote:
>> The bottom line remains, that if you increase the
>> CO2 levels in the atmosphere the climate will get warmer and more
>> energetic. This is not new science and it's not hard to demonstrate, but
>> the detailed consequences (weather) need difficult sums to predict with
>> confidence.
>>
>>
> While you need to use very large, complex and as yet unverified models
> to predict what will happen *here* or *there*, it it easy to say that
> the icecaps will continue to recede, and that due to the increasing
> amount of energy being stored in the atmosphere, extreme weather will
> become more common, and not just at the hot end. Things like the Arctic
> ice cap melting more quickly, if they stop the North Atlantic Conveyor,
> will give Ireland, the UK and the Atlantic coasts of Europe a climate
> similar to Canada. And of course as the ice caps melt, so more heat gets
> absorbed by the land and sea, so increasing the speed of melting...

Yes. And/or Alaska. Another good reason for worrying about the housing
stock and general brittleness of infrastructure, given the way transport
panics at snowfall. And, of course, for Insulation. One day my tuits
might come, except there's other stuff in the way to trg qbar first ...

I shall temporarily blame Austerity for everything I can get away with;
there's no slack left.

>
> The extreme example in the Solar System of this type of feedback
> mechanism seems to be Venus.



--

Ahem A Rivet's Shot

unread,
Aug 12, 2022, 12:00:33 PMAug 12
to
On 12 Aug 2022 14:45:49 GMT
maus <ma...@dmaus.org> wrote:

> Sitka Spruce will grow 5 times faster that common Larch. There was a
> rumour that it has been banned from Scandanavia for being useless for
> anything one needs timber for.

It is very popular for acoustic guitar tops, most of the good ones
use it.

Richard Robinson

unread,
Aug 12, 2022, 12:26:58 PMAug 12
to
Ahem A Rivet's Shot said:
> On 12 Aug 2022 14:45:49 GMT
> maus <ma...@dmaus.org> wrote:
>
>> Sitka Spruce will grow 5 times faster that common Larch. There was a
>> rumour that it has been banned from Scandanavia for being useless for
>> anything one needs timber for.
>
> It is very popular for acoustic guitar tops, most of the good ones
> use it.

The reason I was given for planting 2 types was that the roots of one
exude an enzyme which suppresses the growth of the heather which would
otherwise suppress the growth of the one that was intended to end up
being sold. I no longer know which was what, or any more.
HTH, HAND and bar.

Ahem A Rivet's Shot

unread,
Aug 12, 2022, 12:30:02 PMAug 12
to
On Fri, 12 Aug 2022 14:47:34 -0000 (UTC)
Peter <mys...@prune.org.uk> wrote:

> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote in
> news:20220812131246.559f...@eircom.net:
>
> > On Fri, 12 Aug 2022 09:48:42 -0000 (UTC)
> > Peter <mys...@prune.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> All your reasons for getting off fossil fuels are valid, but your
> >> dismissal of climate change prediction as based on very complex iffy
> >> models is just plain wrong. We can work out the effect of increasing
> >> CO2 emmissions on the climate (and on the ocean) on the back of an
> >> envelope,
> >
> > Yersee many many years ago I sat in on an informal discussion
> > between a bunch of experts on the subject (profs and Phd students
> > mostly in the field). The topic as whether increased cloud cover would
> > increase the average temperature or decrease it. They did not reach
> > any agreement, except to note that they couldn't find out because
> > there was no way to alter just the cloud cover in any kind of
> > experiment even if it would be permitted.
>
> When you drill down into the detail of how global warming will affect the
> weather you come across all sorts of phenomena such as cloud cover. It's
> not one of the big "tipping point" phenomena like ice-sheet breakup or

Yet cloud cover is the biggest single factor in whether the night is
cold or warm.

The devil is in the details, the climate is a mess of interacting
feedback loops some of which may go open ended under some conditions. Ask
ten climatologists why ice ages end (another discussion I've listened to
in fascination many many years ago) and tell me how many answers you get.
A simple analysis suggests that ice ages ought to be stable with all that
white surface reflecting the heat away- but they're not and we don't really
know why.

The thing is that we don't know how these various feedback loops
behave at the extremes or when the interactions get chaotic so we don't know
where our models stop tracking reality.

> The bottom line
> remains, that if you increase the CO2 levels in the atmosphere the
> climate will get warmer and more energetic. This is not new science and
> it's not hard to demonstrate, but the detailed consequences (weather)
> need difficult sums to predict with confidence.

Strangely I have *never* seen anything remotely resembling
convincing evidence of this or any of these 'not hard' demonstrations just
flat assertions that it is well established science.

I have seen direct experimental evidence that CO2 at atmospheric
levels absorbs all the IR there is at its absorption frequencies in a
remarkably short distance (tens of metres IIRC).

I have read well reasoned arguments that the water cycle and cloud
cover are several orders of magnitude more important than the CO2
concentration.

I have seen data that implies it has been hotter than now at times
and that the CO2 level has been way higher than this at times and that
these times do not coincide.

The real point is that I don't care if it's good science or one of
the best con jobs ever because it is the least important reason for doing
the right thing and that has to be done.

maus

unread,
Aug 12, 2022, 12:46:30 PMAug 12
to
On 2022-08-12, Richard Robinson <ric...@qualmograph.org.uk> wrote:
> John Williamson said:
>> On 12/08/2022 15:47, Peter wrote:
>>> The bottom line remains, that if you increase the
>>> CO2 levels in the atmosphere the climate will get warmer and more
>>> energetic. This is not new science and it's not hard to demonstrate, but
>>> the detailed consequences (weather) need difficult sums to predict with
>>> confidence.
>>>
>>>
>
there's no slack left.

There is. Slackware rules.
>
>>
>> The extreme example in the Solar System of this type of feedback
>> mechanism seems to be Venus.
>
>
>


--

Peter

unread,
Aug 12, 2022, 2:12:25 PMAug 12
to
Richard Robinson <ric...@qualmograph.org.uk> wrote in
news:td5rb1$2h0j6$3...@dont-email.me:

> ... return of the malarial mosquitoes

Glod yes, I'd forgotten that. I gave a lecture about 25 years ago to the
Royal College of Physicians on the subject of climate change and it was the
return of Anopheles to these shores that most made them sit up and listen.

> I really am looking forward to comfortable glasses. I'm trying to get
> some code written

Not, I assume, in Python?

--
Peter
-----

Nicholas D. Richards

unread,
Aug 12, 2022, 3:45:52 PMAug 12
to
In article <20220812143946.c5b8...@eircom.net>, Ahem A
Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> on Fri, 12 Aug 2022 at 14:39:46 awoke
Nicholas from his slumbers and wrote
Until they catch fire.
--
0sterc@tcher -

"Oů sont les neiges d'antan?"

Nicholas D. Richards

unread,
Aug 12, 2022, 3:55:52 PMAug 12
to
In article <td5odk$2h0j6$2...@dont-email.me>, Richard Robinson
<ric...@qualmograph.org.uk> on Fri, 12 Aug 2022 at 14:34:28 awoke
Nicholas from his slumbers and wrote
>John Williamson said:
>> On 12/08/2022 11:10, Richard Robinson wrote:
>>
>>> Never mind, the met. people now say floods next week. Any bets on
>>> hearing the phrase "once in a hundred years event" *again* in a possible
>>> range of contexts before very long ?.
>>>
>> Recently, the younger pundits are saying, "I expect what used to be
>> hundred year weather events to be happening about once a decade within
>> my lifetime."
>
>I'm under the impression that the people who talk the R4 news and write
>for the Garudian & al aren't necessarily all that young. But never mind;
>the saying of it is no longer a once-in-a-long-time event. Floods and
>fires.
>
>I have been talking with Ebbsref, and hope to have the kitchen
>watertight before autumn hits too hard. Well, you've got to hope,
>haven't you ?
>
I have been trying to work out how long 300, by 60 and 30 cubits are,
and will it be enough to fit all my accumulated lifetime belongings, as
well as all the two by two's and still float.

Sam Plusnet

unread,
Aug 12, 2022, 5:53:57 PMAug 12
to
You can say exactly the same about humans.
We tend to burn those, once they have ceased to be viable.

--
Sam Plusnet


Mike Fleming

unread,
Aug 12, 2022, 7:12:32 PMAug 12
to
On 12/08/2022 17:29, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>
> Strangely I have *never* seen anything remotely resembling
> convincing evidence of this or any of these 'not hard' demonstrations just
> flat assertions that it is well established science.
>
> I have seen direct experimental evidence that CO2 at atmospheric
> levels absorbs all the IR there is at its absorption frequencies in a
> remarkably short distance (tens of metres IIRC).

That's the mechanism by which the greenhouse gas effect works, AIUI.
Sunlight hits the surface of the earth and warms it, whereupon it
reradiates infra-red which is absorbed by the CO2/methane/water vapour
in the atmosphere.

Mike Fleming

unread,
Aug 12, 2022, 7:17:08 PMAug 12
to
On 12/08/2022 09:42, John Williamson wrote:
> On 12/08/2022 09:37, Richard Robinson wrote:
>> John Williamson said:
>>> On 12/08/2022 09:09, Brian Gaff wrote:
>>>> What we need is a way to harvest this escess heat, store it and use it
>>>> during the extremes of winter. They do say you cannot destroy
>>>> energy, don't
>>>> they?
>>>>  Brian
>>>>
>>> They do say that, but they also say that in the end, entropy wins, so
>>> the energy you stored will inevitably leak out of the container into the
>>> environment.
>>
>> Uniformly-distributed heat is the default, the trick is to keep it
>> concentrated ?
>>
>>
> Yes, eventually, the whole universe will be at the same temperature.

Surely it already is, and emitting microwave radiation with 21cm
wavelength to prove it. There's just the occasional little bit of solid
matter with a different temperature but they can pretty much be ignored.

Richard Robinson

unread,
Aug 13, 2022, 2:30:08 AMAug 13
to
Peter said:
> Richard Robinson <ric...@qualmograph.org.uk> wrote in
> news:td5rb1$2h0j6$3...@dont-email.me:
>
>> ... return of the malarial mosquitoes
>
> Glod yes, I'd forgotten that. I gave a lecture about 25 years ago to the
> Royal College of Physicians on the subject of climate change and it was the
> return of Anopheles to these shores that most made them sit up and listen.

I'm kind of reduced to being Marvin. That's the worst. This, that's the worst
too ...

>> I really am looking forward to comfortable glasses. I'm trying to get
>> some code written
>
> Not, I assume, in Python?

Is, too !

Richard Robinson

unread,
Aug 13, 2022, 2:31:04 AMAug 13
to
"Will it help ?"
"No"

Richard Robinson

unread,
Aug 13, 2022, 2:48:52 AMAug 13