minor annoyances, a test

[Richard Robinson]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

*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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Uniformly-distributed heat is the default, the trick is to keep it
concentrated ?

[John Williamson]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

You can say exactly the same about humans.
We tend to burn those, once they have ceased to be viable.

--
Sam Plusnet

[Mike Fleming]

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]

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]

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]

"Will it help ?"
"No"

[Richard Robinson]

The people who live there are kind of fond of them, though

Along more extreme takes on this thinking, a book recommendation :-
Cixin Liu, The Three Body Problem.
Scarily paranoid science fiction

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 00:12:29 +0100
Mike Fleming <mi...@tauzero.co.uk> wrote:

> 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.

The point of that experiment was that *all* the IR that can be
absorbed by CO2 is absorbed in the first few tens of metres so all the CO2
in the tens of thousands of metres above that absorbs NOTHING at all
because there's nothing to absorb. IOW we're thousands of times above
saturation level in the CO2 effect and adding more CO2 to the mix should
make no difference at all.

[Don Stockbauer]

We're dumping 40,000,000 tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year ,that's billion with a b as Sagan used to say : that will make for a miserable planet earth very shortly since we're already seeing record heat . have a nice day : let's get a long discussion concerning quoting going again.

[Don Stockbauer]

Ahem claims as his shirt catches on fire.

[Richard Robinson]

This should lead to the conclusion that the planet has never radiated any
energy beyon the atmosphere, and thus that the energy retained w/in the
systems of the planet has always been constant, is that right ?

This is looking increasingly moonbatty.

I've never seen any hard evidence to back such a proposition up. That is
because such things are the province of working professionals whose
skills, knowledge and resources have not been enough of a priority for
me to have put the effort in to acquire them.

[John Williamson]

On 13/08/2022 08:07, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:

> The point of that experiment was that *all* the IR that can be
> absorbed by CO2 is absorbed in the first few tens of metres so all the CO2
> in the tens of thousands of metres above that absorbs NOTHING at all
> because there's nothing to absorb. IOW we're thousands of times above
> saturation level in the CO2 effect and adding more CO2 to the mix should
> make no difference at all.
>

Except that the ongoing experiment shows a suspiciously close
relationship between the increases in average global temperature above
pre-industrial levels and the increase in atmospheric CO2 since I
checked the CO2 at school in the 1960s. Historical evidence shows that
this relationship, as well as the increase in CO2 levels, started
shortly after we as a race started burning lots of coal and oil, having
used up most of the easily available wood.

If we had a spare planet, we could try running a control without the
increased CO2 levels...

[Richard Robinson]

John Williamson said:
>
> If we had a spare planet, we could try running a control without the
> increased CO2 levels...

At which point, the slogan "There is no planet B" comes into play.

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

The Universe is 96%? unidentifiable anyway, so the rest can be safely
ignored as experimental error.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

[Peter]

Richard Robinson <ric...@qualmograph.org.uk> wrote in

news:td7gdf$2ovci$6...@dont-email.me:

> 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 !

Oh, well done.

--
Peter
-----

[Peter]

Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote in
news:20220813080737.1b6c...@eircom.net:

Err..no. You've misunderstood something there. Quite a high proportion of
incident IR gets through the atmosphere on the way in. It and the visible
light heat up the earth's surface which then re-emits IR so that the CO2
can have another go at it on the way out.

--
Peter
-----

[Richard Robinson]

Peter said:
> Richard Robinson <ric...@qualmograph.org.uk> wrote in
>> Peter said:
>>> Richard Robinson <ric...@qualmograph.org.uk> wrote in
>>>

>>>> ... 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 !
>
> Oh, well done.

I started writing perl around the need to mangle a large collection of
traddy tunes, c.1995. In the intervening years it accumulated so much
legacy clutter that I had a look at Python last autumn, carried on
looking, and have now dropped 25ish years' work [1] in favour of a clean
rewrite in Python, explicitly to prevent the possibility of
copy'n'pasting any confusions across. My entire tunebook website is now
behind calls to 'make', implemented snakily, and I am pleased (except
that I really must get round to taking it out of testing and publish it,
I keep putting it off in favour of more checking).

[1] well, not really, of course; the thinking had all been done, I just
had to write what I knew I wanted.

For my own use here at home, of course, I also want to tinker with the
little hooters, and the forms have become an irritatingly intermittent
project, of which I also have others. I wanted the GUI, for instance, in
order to do my own sums on csv files and display the results as I
wanted, and I decided spreadsheets were too complicated ...

[Richard Robinson]

Peter said:
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote in

>> Mike Fleming <mi...@tauzero.co.uk> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> The point of that experiment was that *all* the IR that can be
>> absorbed by CO2 is absorbed in the first few tens of metres so all the
>> CO2 in the tens of thousands of metres above that absorbs NOTHING at
>> all because there's nothing to absorb. IOW we're thousands of times
>> above saturation level in the CO2 effect and adding more CO2 to the
>> mix should make no difference at all.
>>
>
> Err..no. You've misunderstood something there. Quite a high proportion of
> incident IR gets through the atmosphere on the way in. It and the visible
> light heat up the earth's surface which then re-emits IR so that the CO2
> can have another go at it on the way out.

Yes. The point is that the electromagnetic radiation absorbed from the
sun is at a different wavelength to that re-emitted by the earth, and
the absorbtive(?) capacities of the gasses involved differs according to
the wavelength, because of internal Quantum.

Alternatively, if we adopt Mr. Rivet's interpretation, we have the
hypothesis that any indications of increased planetary heat-retention
must be due to other causes, in which case I suggest that it would be
more convncing if there were an explanation of whatever other mechanisms
would be involved.

If I were inclined to debug this, I'd start with wanting references to
the experiment in question so I could do my own thinking on the subject.

[maus]

I remember a program on bbc radio, `around the horne'.

(Back then, we could hear radio stations from round the world, FM
brought that to local stations, and TV is even more restricted.)

They used to have fake weather forcasts like Biblical fulminations, ending
with `Later in the evening, there will be light showers'

When I visit the local nurses, the `Ellen de Generis Show' (sp?)
is on the TV in the waiting room. I look at it in Horror, thinking, `I
used to watch things like that?'

--
grey...@mail.org

Fe Fi Fo Fum, I smell the stench of an influencer.

We're all going to die, horribly. Have a nice day, meanwhile

[maus]

Spreadsheets are too easy to fake. I avoid them.

I started with perl, for that sort of stuff (interpreted programs) and
then tried to move to Python. What irritated me with that was a thing
called NLTK, which is for analysing texts. Using NLTK to split texts
into tokens (words) yields more words than doing a

words=infile.read.split() in Ruby.

Nuff said?.

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 09:06:27 -0000 (UTC)
Peter <mys...@prune.org.uk> wrote:

> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote in
> news:20220813080737.1b6c...@eircom.net:
>
> > On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 00:12:29 +0100
> > Mike Fleming <mi...@tauzero.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> > The point of that experiment was that *all* the IR that can be
> > absorbed by CO2 is absorbed in the first few tens of metres so all the
> > CO2 in the tens of thousands of metres above that absorbs NOTHING at
> > all because there's nothing to absorb. IOW we're thousands of times
> > above saturation level in the CO2 effect and adding more CO2 to the
> > mix should make no difference at all.
> >
>
> Err..no. You've misunderstood something there. Quite a high proportion of

Nope. I understand the basic physics very well.

> incident IR gets through the atmosphere on the way in. It and the visible

Also on the way out.

> light heat up the earth's surface which then re-emits IR so that the CO2
> can have another go at it on the way out.

Yep - it was that phase the experiment sought to model.

The experiment involved a 300K IR source, a CO2 chamber and a
spectroscope. It measured the amount of CO2 required to absorb all the IR
it could from a ground temperature heat source. That amount is present in a
few tens of metres of atmosphere which implies that above that point there
is no IR that CO2 can absorb. CO2 only absorbs IR in two very narrow bands
corresponding to resonances in the molecule.

I wish I could recall who performed this experiment, when and
where. I came across it a couple of decades ago and read the paper.

There was a lot of theoretical discussion in response attempting
to show that this did not apply to the atmosphere, much of which was
criticised as invoking mechanisms that have never been experimentally
demonstrated.

I blinked and everyone started telling me that it was all
established science and that there was near universal consensus apart from
a few cranks and paid shills.

I clearly missed a lot of thorny issues getting resolved very
quickly. Still as I say if it gets the job done and weans us off the fossil
fuels we can't keep using then fine.

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 09:36:43 +0100
John Williamson <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:

> Except that the ongoing experiment shows a suspiciously close
> relationship between the increases in average global temperature above
> pre-industrial levels and the increase in atmospheric CO2 since I
> checked the CO2 at school in the 1960s. Historical evidence shows that
> this relationship, as well as the increase in CO2 levels, started
> shortly after we as a race started burning lots of coal and oil, having
> used up most of the easily available wood.

From 1940 to 1970 roughly the global temperature was *falling*
despite rising CO2 levels (as per the curve used by the IPCC - there are
significant concerns about the data quality behind that curve but it's
what everyone agrees on as being the best we can do), but from around 1970
onwards we started to get serious about pollution, cut down on smoky fuels
and started to clean things up - the global temperature started rising.

Yes there are explanations for this - but it's clearly not a simple
as a fixed relationship between CO2 and temperature.

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 08:12:23 -0000 (UTC)
Richard Robinson <ric...@qualmograph.org.uk> wrote:

> Ahem A Rivet's Shot said:
at's the mechanism by which the greenhouse gas effect works, AIUI.
> >
> > The point of that experiment was that *all* the IR that can be
> > absorbed by CO2 is absorbed in the first few tens of metres so all the
> > CO2 in the tens of thousands of metres above that absorbs NOTHING at all
> > because there's nothing to absorb. IOW we're thousands of times above
> > saturation level in the CO2 effect and adding more CO2 to the mix should
> > make no difference at all.
>
> This should lead to the conclusion that the planet has never radiated any
> energy beyon the atmosphere, and thus that the energy retained w/in the
> systems of the planet has always been constant, is that right ?
>
> This is looking increasingly moonbatty.
>
> I've never seen any hard evidence to back such a proposition up. That is

Here's a recent paper on the subject

https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217979220502938

My google fu is failing me on the experiment that simply involved a
tank of CO2 an infrared source (300K IIRC) on one side and a spectroscope
on the other. The spectroscope showed sharp dips at the absorbtion
frequencies of the CO2 molecule. The experimenter pumped CO2 into the
chamber until those dips hit the bottom and thus measured the amount of CO2
needed to absorb *all* the available IR from the source.

This simple experiment is not in dispute (it's easily replicated,
you could probably repeat it yourself without too much expense) but there is
a *great* deal of argument about how it applies to the atmosphere.

[John Williamson]

On 13/08/2022 11:07, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 09:36:43 +0100
> John Williamson <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> Except that the ongoing experiment shows a suspiciously close
>> relationship between the increases in average global temperature above
>> pre-industrial levels and the increase in atmospheric CO2 since I
>> checked the CO2 at school in the 1960s. Historical evidence shows that
>> this relationship, as well as the increase in CO2 levels, started
>> shortly after we as a race started burning lots of coal and oil, having
>> used up most of the easily available wood.
>
> From 1940 to 1970 roughly the global temperature was *falling*
> despite rising CO2 levels (as per the curve used by the IPCC - there are
> significant concerns about the data quality behind that curve but it's
> what everyone agrees on as being the best we can do), but from around 1970
> onwards we started to get serious about pollution, cut down on smoky fuels
> and started to clean things up - the global temperature started rising.
>

I unforget the stories about "Keep burning stuff, it will put off the
approaching ice age", plus the cold Winter during the 3 day week, said
by some to be due to us not throwing enough energy out to keep the
planet (Okay the UK) warm.

There is a nice searchable graphic here showing monthly temperatures in
the UK since 1911.

https://app.peterrcook.com/uktemperaturelines/

[Peter]

Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote in
news:20220813110739.d6d7...@eircom.net:

> On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 09:36:43 +0100
> John Williamson <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> Except that the ongoing experiment shows a suspiciously close
>> relationship between the increases in average global temperature
>> above pre-industrial levels and the increase in atmospheric CO2 since
>> I checked the CO2 at school in the 1960s. Historical evidence shows
>> that this relationship, as well as the increase in CO2 levels,
>> started shortly after we as a race started burning lots of coal and
>> oil, having used up most of the easily available wood.
>
> From 1940 to 1970 roughly the global temperature was *falling*
> despite rising CO2 levels

Oh dear, that old chestnut again. I used to use that as an example of why
consideration of boundary conditions is so important, when lecturing to
young environmental scientists.

But anyway, early on in this thread I mentioned that I had been explaining
climate change to people for half a century and that I CBA to do it any
more. And yet here I am - some habits die hard. But for that reason I will
leave this thread for now - thanks for an interesting discussion.


--
Peter
-----

[Peter]

Richard Robinson <ric...@qualmograph.org.uk> wrote in news:td7hgj$2ovci$8
@dont-email.me:

>
> Along more extreme takes on this thinking, a book recommendation :-
> Cixin Liu, The Three Body Problem.
> Scarily paranoid science fiction

Seconded. I've read a several of his novels, generally rather enjoyable. I
was less impressed by his most recent - Ball Lightning.

--
Peter
-----

[Richard Robinson]

John Williamson said:
>>
> I unforget the stories about "Keep burning stuff, it will put off the
> approaching ice age", plus the cold Winter during the 3 day week, said
> by some to be due to us not throwing enough energy out to keep the
> planet (Okay the UK) warm.
>
> There is a nice searchable graphic here showing monthly temperatures in
> the UK since 1911.
>
> https://app.peterrcook.com/uktemperaturelines/

We could have a go at Nuclear Winter, if you fancy ?

[Richard Robinson]

Yes. And the one about the adults dying of plague and leaving children
to play with the world was ... well, he seems to have a mindset that I
find rather disturbing. But interesting in many senses, and enjoyably
mindboggling. Coming at things from a slant I hadn't met before.

Also interesting to see that it's become ok to get fictional around the
cultural revolution times.

[John Williamson]

On 13/08/2022 13:53, Richard Robinson wrote:
> John Williamson said:
>>>
>> I unforget the stories about "Keep burning stuff, it will put off the
>> approaching ice age", plus the cold Winter during the 3 day week, said
>> by some to be due to us not throwing enough energy out to keep the
>> planet (Okay the UK) warm.
>>
>> There is a nice searchable graphic here showing monthly temperatures in
>> the UK since 1911.
>>
>> https://app.peterrcook.com/uktemperaturelines/
>
> We could have a go at Nuclear Winter, if you fancy ?
>
>

We seem to be heading that way...

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 09:50:18 -0000 (UTC)
Richard Robinson <ric...@qualmograph.org.uk> wrote:

> Alternatively, if we adopt Mr. Rivet's interpretation, we have the
> hypothesis that any indications of increased planetary heat-retention
> must be due to other causes, in which case I suggest that it would be
> more convncing if there were an explanation of whatever other mechanisms
> would be involved.

The industrial waste heat output of the human race has risen
dramatically in the last century. I've seen arguments that it's
insignificant but then I've seen arguments that CO2 past a pretty low point
is insignificant too. Both sets of arguments seem to be good.

In many areas we are seriously depleting surface and subsurface
water levels - that may have a significant effect on water vapour levels
and cloud cover.

We live close to a mildly variable star in an orbit subject to
perturbations on a planet whose climate has historically ranged from ice
cover over most of the surface to hot house conditions with ice being the
more common.

We are at the tail end of an ice age now, the ice has been melting
for the last 6000 years.

> If I were inclined to debug this, I'd start with wanting references to
> the experiment in question so I could do my own thinking on the subject.

It was published research in a peer reviewed journal. Following the
references from the recent paper I posted a link to should get to it.

I've only mentioned a handful of the issues I've encountered with
the arguments for AGW none of which I have ever seen convincingly disposed
of. I don't expect to convince anyone it's not happening - I don't claim
it's not happening either! I simply state that I find the arguments
unconvincing on *both* sides of the debate and therefore I don't know.

I gave up seriously trying to get to the bottom of it years ago,
try too hard and sooner or later name calling and dismissal cuts in along
with strident claims that it's all "established science" and everyone who
understands it agrees, which if true would be the first time in history
everyone in *any* field of science agreed on pretty much *anything*[1].

Both sides seem to be picking and choosing the results they want and
ignoring or hand waving away the ones they don't. Nobody is welcoming
honest questions. OTOH the things I've wanted to see happening all my life
are happening at an increasing rate so go global warming!

[1] OK it is hard to find any theoretical physicist willing to publicly
abandon conservation of mass/energy - but I suspect some have considered it.

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 17:03:36 +0100
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:

[]

> [1] OK it is hard to find any theoretical physicist willing to publicly
> abandon conservation of mass/energy - but I suspect some have considered it.
>

You can find an "engineer" (initials 'AB') over in AUE who has 'disproved'
Einstein. But good luck getting any actual sense out of him.

[Richard Robinson]

Yeswell,a month or two back we were hearing from an "engineer" who'd
persuaded himself that an AI was sentient, based only on the words
emitted by said AI. Followed by an interview with a different engineer,
quoting a more-or-less identical conversation in which an AI wanted the
world to know that it was a werewolf. Fun !

A while back I had a gloriously loony paperback whose blurb described
the author as an IBM engineer, called, IIRC, The Spaceships Of Ezekiel,
explaining how that bit of the old testament was about flying saucers.

Being good with machinery only gets you so far ...

[Richard Robinson]

Ahem A Rivet's Shot said:
>
> Here's a recent paper on the subject
>
> https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217979220502938

2020, yes. in which "we reconsider an argument presented by Schack in
1972"

followed, in my case, by "You currently do not have access to the full
text article. "

[Richard Robinson]

Ahem A Rivet's Shot said:
>
> It was published research in a peer reviewed journal. Following the
> references from the recent paper I posted a link to should get to it.

See my other.

I don't understand the excitement, basically.

Assuming this article has been through the peer-review thing, the
implications concerning Science As We Know It will be being thrashed out
by those far more competent than I am, in places far more appropriate
than a shed, and the likes of me would do best to wait to hear of their
filtering through. I don't even get Peter's comment about boundary
conditions, for example.

And if it does necessesissesitate an alternative explanation of observed
phenomena, "could be this, could be that, could be the other, don't
know" doesn't really get us very far.

But, yes, there are plenty of good reasons to be using energy available
in real time, and TBH, announcing that the reasons that are leading the
rest of the world to that conclusion are all wrong, isn't helpful.

"Never interfere with the affairs of scientists, for they like to falsify
hypotheses."

[maus]

As one who is not an expert, I believe a lot of Einsteins theories are
still that, theories. Much is written about his work as the basis for
the nuclear bombs, but I think that his work was more of a theoretical
type.

[maus]

On 2022-08-14, Richard Robinson <ric...@qualmograph.org.uk> wrote:
> Kerr-Mudd, John said:
>> On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 17:03:36 +0100
>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
>>
>> []
>>> [1] OK it is hard to find any theoretical physicist willing to publicly
>>> abandon conservation of mass/energy - but I suspect some have considered it.
>>>
>> You can find an "engineer" (initials 'AB') over in AUE who has 'disproved'
>> Einstein. But good luck getting any actual sense out of him.
>
> Yeswell,a month or two back we were hearing from an "engineer" who'd
> persuaded himself that an AI was sentient, based only on the words
> emitted by said AI. Followed by an interview with a different engineer,
> quoting a more-or-less identical conversation in which an AI wanted the
> world to know that it was a werewolf. Fun !
>
> A while back I had a gloriously loony paperback whose blurb described
> the author as an IBM engineer, called, IIRC, The Spaceships Of Ezekiel,
> explaining how that bit of the old testament was about flying saucers.
>
> Being good with machinery only gets you so far ...
>

I read a work once that explained how `warp speed' was achieved. It
didn't explain how people would survive it,

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 08:49:26 -0000 (UTC)
Richard Robinson <ric...@qualmograph.org.uk> wrote:

> Kerr-Mudd, John said:
> > On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 17:03:36 +0100
> > Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
> >
> > []
> >> [1] OK it is hard to find any theoretical physicist willing to publicly
> >> abandon conservation of mass/energy - but I suspect some have considered it.
> >>
> > You can find an "engineer" (initials 'AB') over in AUE who has 'disproved'
> > Einstein. But good luck getting any actual sense out of him.
>
> Yeswell,a month or two back we were hearing from an "engineer" who'd
> persuaded himself that an AI was sentient, based only on the words

AT Murray has been claiming wonderful stuff for decades.

> emitted by said AI. Followed by an interview with a different engineer,
> quoting a more-or-less identical conversation in which an AI wanted the
> world to know that it was a werewolf. Fun !
>
> A while back I had a gloriously loony paperback whose blurb described
> the author as an IBM engineer, called, IIRC, The Spaceships Of Ezekiel,

better, NASA!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spaceships_of_Ezekiel

> explaining how that bit of the old testament was about flying saucers.
>

I loved that book back when I was gullible and into pyramid power &
Ancient Astronauts (but who's actual remains were just long lines in a
desert, or some Big Stones that No Man Could Move!)

> Being good with machinery only gets you so far ...
>
> --
> 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]

Kerr-Mudd, John said:
> On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 08:49:26 -0000 (UTC) Richard Robinson
> <ric...@qualmograph.org.uk> wrote:
>> Kerr-Mudd, John said:
>> > On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 17:03:36 +0100 Ahem A Rivet's Shot
>> > <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > []
>> >> [1] OK it is hard to find any theoretical physicist willing to
>> >> publicly abandon conservation of mass/energy - but I suspect some
>> >> have considered it.
>> >>
>> > You can find an "engineer" (initials 'AB') over in AUE who has
>> > 'disproved' Einstein. But good luck getting any actual sense out of
>> > him.
>>
>> Yeswell,a month or two back we were hearing from an "engineer" who'd
>> persuaded himself that an AI was sentient, based only on the words
>
> AT Murray has been claiming wonderful stuff for decades.

Oh ? I may have a look round if I feel myself in need of a little
harmless amusement some time. My main thought there is that if he really
thinks that's the conversational style of an 8yo human there's something
pretty odd going on in the first place.

>> emitted by said AI. Followed by an interview with a different
>> engineer, quoting a more-or-less identical conversation in which an
>> AI wanted the world to know that it was a werewolf. Fun !
>>
>> A while back I had a gloriously loony paperback whose blurb described
>> the author as an IBM engineer, called, IIRC, The Spaceships Of
>> Ezekiel,
>
> better, NASA!
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spaceships_of_Ezekiel

Ah, sorry, it was a while back.

>> explaining how that bit of the old testament was about flying saucers.
>>
> I loved that book back when I was gullible and into pyramid power &
> Ancient Astronauts (but who's actual remains were just long lines in a
> desert, or some Big Stones that No Man Could Move!)

I obhtug it cheap in a 2ndhand shop, for the sheer daftness. Eventually
I'd had enough of that and it found its way somewhere else.

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On 14 Aug 2022 09:56:12 GMT

maus <ma...@dmaus.org> wrote:

> As one who is not an expert, I believe a lot of Einsteins theories are
> still that, theories.

They are and always will be theories. That is what we call the
successful models that account for the observed facts. The untested ones we
call hypotheses.

In this case they are theories which are known to be incomplete
but which provide accurate results under many conditions - in particular GPS
position calculations include special and general relativistic corrections
to the satellite clocks without which they do not get even remotely accurate
results.

The effects of relative speed and gravitation on clock speeds are
observed facts not theory. Special and general relativity are theories
which successfully predict these facts.

> Much is written about his work as the basis for
> the nuclear bombs, but I think that his work was more of a theoretical
> type.

Very much so, and he campaigned against the development of nuclear
weapons.

[Mike Fleming]

On 13/08/2022 07:48, Richard Robinson wrote:
> Mike Fleming said:
>> On 12/08/2022 09:42, John Williamson wrote:
>>> On 12/08/2022 09:37, Richard Robinson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>
> The people who live there are kind of fond of them, though

>
> Along more extreme takes on this thinking, a book recommendation :-
> Cixin Liu, The Three Body Problem.
> Scarily paranoid science fiction

So I checked out That Ebay for said book, and discovered that it's the
first of a set of four books which are available as a set of four books
for little more than four times the price of the cheapest second-hand
copy of one book. That'll be four more books to add to the stack then.

[Richard Robinson]

Oh. I only knew of 3. Dammit.

And, yes, sorry, I should probably have mentioned it, because it can bug
the hell out of me; particularly given that I grab my reading matter off
libarary shelves. If there's a fashion for stories that long, you can't
stop 'em thinking of inducements to buy more books after, but if I start
to read what I expect to be a self-contained thing and discover that I
haven't got a clue what's going on because I should have read another
one first, it doesn't necessarily work that way, it might just piss me
off too much; unless I become sufficiently impreessed by the quality of
what I do have fairly quickly. I could have missed both Pullman's Dark
Materials (3) and G. Jones' 'Bold as Love' series (5) by coming in
halfway, if the sense of "wtf's going on ?" hadn't mutated into "I want
to know more, what comes next ?" pretty quickly.

Basically, I suppose, it would be nice if publishers would make it clear
on the cover that it's Episode X from a series of Y. Which is probably
all because I'm starting from analogue rather than t'net.

[maus]

On 2022-08-14, Kerr-Mudd, John <ad...@127.0.0.1> wrote:

> On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 08:49:26 -0000 (UTC)
> Richard Robinson <ric...@qualmograph.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> Kerr-Mudd, John said:
>> > On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 17:03:36 +0100
>> > Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > []
>> >> [1] OK it is hard to find any theoretical physicist willing to publicly

>> explaining how that bit of the old testament was about flying saucers.
>>
> I loved that book back when I was gullible and into pyramid power &
> Ancient Astronauts (but who's actual remains were just long lines in a
> desert, or some Big Stones that No Man Could Move!)

Listen to what a traveller in an antique land told.

>
>
>> Being good with machinery only gets you so far ...
>>
>> --
>> 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
>
>


--

[maus]

On 2022-08-14, Richard Robinson <ric...@qualmograph.org.uk> wrote:
> Kerr-Mudd, John said:
>> On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 08:49:26 -0000 (UTC) Richard Robinson
>> <ric...@qualmograph.org.uk> wrote:
>>> Kerr-Mudd, John said:
>>> > On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 17:03:36 +0100 Ahem A Rivet's Shot

> Ah, sorry, it was a while back.
>
>>> explaining how that bit of the old testament was about flying saucers.
>>>
>> I loved that book back when I was gullible and into pyramid power &
>> Ancient Astronauts (but who's actual remains were just long lines in a
>> desert, or some Big Stones that No Man Could Move!)
>
> I obhtug it cheap in a 2ndhand shop, for the sheer daftness. Eventually
> I'd had enough of that and it found its way somewhere else.
>
>

There are some useful thing being done with AI, a man I know is making a
fortune (and getting very fat!) through it's secondary meaning,
Artificial Insemination.

[maus]

You are not familiar with Amazon?. When entering the details of you
boo, you are encouraged to call your book as something like,

``Wombat Two, the second book of the Boolibong saga.''

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On 14 Aug 2022 15:22:08 GMT

maus <ma...@dmaus.org> wrote:

> On 2022-08-14, Kerr-Mudd, John <ad...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> > On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 08:49:26 -0000 (UTC)
> > Richard Robinson <ric...@qualmograph.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> Kerr-Mudd, John said:
> >> > On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 17:03:36 +0100
> >> > Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > []
> >> >> [1] OK it is hard to find any theoretical physicist willing to publicly
> >> explaining how that bit of the old testament was about flying saucers.
> >>
> > I loved that book back when I was gullible and into pyramid power &
> > Ancient Astronauts (but who's actual remains were just long lines in a
> > desert, or some Big Stones that No Man Could Move!)
>
> Listen to what a traveller in an antique land told.
>

Not a very good statue, was it?

There's a lot I don't know, seeing as you asked, Horatio.
ffi see Mr Gunga Din; down the corridor, first door on your left, can't
miss it.

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On 14 Aug 2022 15:30:18 GMT

maus <ma...@dmaus.org> wrote:

> On 2022-08-14, Richard Robinson <ric...@qualmograph.org.uk> wrote:

[]

> >
> > Basically, I suppose, it would be nice if publishers would make it clear
> > on the cover that it's Episode X from a series of Y. Which is probably
> > all because I'm starting from analogue rather than t'net.
> >
>
> You are not familiar with Amazon?. When entering the details of you
> boo, you are encouraged to call your book as something like,
>
> ``Wombat Two, the second book of the Boolibong saga.''
>

There's a whole saga now? forget it.

[maus]

On 2022-08-14, Kerr-Mudd, John <ad...@127.0.0.1> wrote:

It's all about a jolly swagman, who fled to the bush north of Bourke to
avoid the lockdowns, and prefered to die rather than be taken
alive,