On 1/10/25 2:31 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 09/01/2025 23:31, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>> Now 100+ years from now, if all remains constant, the
>>    ice will have melted back some more and there might be
>>    a more useful exposed rim.
>
> Go and calculate the mass of ice on Greenland, and its latent heat of
> melting, and divide that by a hundred years and tell me that somehow the
> sun is going to provide that level of excess energy to the planet .

As I said elsewhere, I don't see Greenland melting
anytime soon. 'Climate' suffers 'cooling periods'
roughly every 500 years - often driven by massive
Indonesian volcanic events (sometimes asteroids).
Iceland may sometimes play a role.

I think Greenland is mostly 'cycling' - right now
it's slowly melting but sometime soon the climate
may change a few degrees and it'll build up a lot
more ice again.

> The ice age didn't end in a century. In fact it hasn't ended,
> technically. We are in an interstadial.

Well ... the 'main part' of the last ice age DID
end pretty abruptly in terms of geological time.
Nobody is sure exactly why - all the factors that
co-contributed. My GUESS is that sea levels got
low enough to destabilize the methane hydrate
deposits. There may be proxy evidence - we'll see.

> But the point is it took thousands of years for the ice to melt.

Well ... more like maybe 1000 years.

The bullshit "world flood" then happened
as ice-dams and such failed and sent Huge
quantities of water down river tracts in
the northern hemisphere. I can see why so
many people imagined the entire world was
flooded.

Thing is, the last Big Freeze happened really
quick too. SOME evidence points to an asteroid
hitting arctic Canada or Greenland.

All the causes/equations are difficult, hard to
pin down, but not impossible. 25 years from now
we'll have a much better picture. Might even be
able to take advantage.

On 10/01/2025 09:09, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
> On 1/10/25 2:31 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 09/01/2025 23:31, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>> Now 100+ years from now, if all remains constant, the
>>>    ice will have melted back some more and there might be
>>>    a more useful exposed rim.
>>
>> Go and calculate the mass of ice on Greenland, and its latent heat of
>> melting, and divide that by a hundred years and tell me that somehow
>> the sun is going to provide that level of excess energy to the planet .
>
>   As I said elsewhere, I don't see Greenland melting
>   anytime soon. 'Climate' suffers 'cooling periods'
>   roughly every 500 years - often driven by massive
>   Indonesian volcanic events (sometimes asteroids).
>   Iceland may sometimes play a role.
>
>   I think Greenland is mostly 'cycling' - right now
>   it's slowly melting but sometime soon the climate
>   may change a few degrees and it'll build up a lot
>   more ice again.
>
>> The ice age didn't end in a century. In fact it hasn't ended,
>> technically. We are in an interstadial.
>
>   Well ... the 'main part' of the last ice age DID
>   end pretty abruptly in terms of geological time.
>   Nobody is sure exactly why - all the factors that
>   co-contributed. My GUESS is that sea levels got
>   low enough to destabilize the methane hydrate
>   deposits. There may be proxy evidence - we'll see.
>
>> But the point is it took thousands of years for the ice to melt.
>
>   Well ... more like maybe 1000 years.
>
While the Younger Dryas feature abrupt and massive atmospheric climate
change over a few decades - way more than any modern warming or cooling
- it did not immediately melt all of the ice.

https://www.antarcticglaciers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level_rise2.png

Shows the actual sea level rises and the full de glaciation took *over
6000* years.

And continues albeit at a far slower pace, to ythis day.

Mountains of ice do not melt in a day, or a week, or a decade or even a
millennium

>   The bullshit "world flood" then happened
>   as ice-dams and such failed and sent Huge
>   quantities of water down river tracts in
>   the northern hemisphere. I can see why so
>   many people imagined the entire world was
>   flooded.
>
>   Thing is, the last Big Freeze happened really
>   quick too. SOME evidence points to an asteroid
>   hitting arctic Canada or Greenland.
>
IT may have heppened quickly, but the ice did not form overnight.

>   All the causes/equations are difficult, hard to
>   pin down, but not impossible. 25 years from now
>   we'll have a much better picture. Might even be
>   able to take advantage.

The main facts are known. No matter what happens in the atmosphere,
miles deep ice sheets to not melt overnight, and nor does deep permafrost.

You have to be particularly ignorant of physics to believe otherwise.

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

--
"The great thing about Glasgow is that if there's a nuclear attack it'll
look exactly the same afterwards."

Billy Connolly

On 1/10/25 4:19 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 10/01/2025 09:09, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>> On 1/10/25 2:31 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 09/01/2025 23:31, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>> Now 100+ years from now, if all remains constant, the
>>>>    ice will have melted back some more and there might be
>>>>    a more useful exposed rim.
>>>
>>> Go and calculate the mass of ice on Greenland, and its latent heat of
>>> melting, and divide that by a hundred years and tell me that somehow
>>> the sun is going to provide that level of excess energy to the planet .
>>
>>    As I said elsewhere, I don't see Greenland melting
>>    anytime soon. 'Climate' suffers 'cooling periods'
>>    roughly every 500 years - often driven by massive
>>    Indonesian volcanic events (sometimes asteroids).
>>    Iceland may sometimes play a role.
>>
>>    I think Greenland is mostly 'cycling' - right now
>>    it's slowly melting but sometime soon the climate
>>    may change a few degrees and it'll build up a lot
>>    more ice again.
>>
>>> The ice age didn't end in a century. In fact it hasn't ended,
>>> technically. We are in an interstadial.
>>
>>    Well ... the 'main part' of the last ice age DID
>>    end pretty abruptly in terms of geological time.
>>    Nobody is sure exactly why - all the factors that
>>    co-contributed. My GUESS is that sea levels got
>>    low enough to destabilize the methane hydrate
>>    deposits. There may be proxy evidence - we'll see.
>>
>>> But the point is it took thousands of years for the ice to melt.
>>
>>    Well ... more like maybe 1000 years.
>>
> While the Younger Dryas feature abrupt and massive atmospheric  climate
> change over a few decades - way more than any modern warming or cooling
> - it did not immediately melt all of the ice.
>
> https://www.antarcticglaciers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level_rise2.png

These events have "curves". ALL the ice doesn't form,
or melt, overnight. The BULK may change quickly but
there's always a long 'shadow'.

Right NOW we're still in the shadow of the last Big
Freeze.

> Shows the actual sea level rises and the full de glaciation took *over
> 6000* years.
>
> And continues albeit at a far slower pace, to ythis day.
>
> Mountains of ice do not melt in a day, or a week, or a decade or even a
> millennium
>
>
>>    The bullshit "world flood" then happened
>>    as ice-dams and such failed and sent Huge
>>    quantities of water down river tracts in
>>    the northern hemisphere. I can see why so
>>    many people imagined the entire world was
>>    flooded.
>>
>>    Thing is, the last Big Freeze happened really
>>    quick too. SOME evidence points to an asteroid
>>    hitting arctic Canada or Greenland.
>>
> IT may have heppened quickly, but the ice did not form overnight.
>
>>    All the causes/equations are difficult, hard to
>>    pin down, but not impossible. 25 years from now
>>    we'll have a much better picture. Might even be
>>    able to take advantage.
>
> The main facts are known. No matter what happens in the atmosphere,
> miles deep ice sheets to not melt overnight, and nor does deep permafrost.
>
> You have to be particularly ignorant of physics to believe otherwise.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_heat

Ummm ... don't think I'm "pretty ignorant" at all,
have always researched this kind of stuff.

As said, 'curves'. The 90% is kinda volatile
but the 10% sticks around for a long time,
maybe seeds the NEXT cycle's curve.

It's been about 55 million years since it ALL
melted ... tropical jungle pole to pole. It's
been longer since it ALL froze. Mostly we
drift back and forth along a rough center line.
MANY factors seem to drive the cycles.

On 10/01/2025 09:35, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
> On 1/10/25 4:19 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 10/01/2025 09:09, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>> On 1/10/25 2:31 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 09/01/2025 23:31, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>>> Now 100+ years from now, if all remains constant, the
>>>>>    ice will have melted back some more and there might be
>>>>>    a more useful exposed rim.
>>>>
>>>> Go and calculate the mass of ice on Greenland, and its latent heat
>>>> of melting, and divide that by a hundred years and tell me that
>>>> somehow the sun is going to provide that level of excess energy to
>>>> the planet .
>>>
>>>    As I said elsewhere, I don't see Greenland melting
>>>    anytime soon. 'Climate' suffers 'cooling periods'
>>>    roughly every 500 years - often driven by massive
>>>    Indonesian volcanic events (sometimes asteroids).
>>>    Iceland may sometimes play a role.
>>>
>>>    I think Greenland is mostly 'cycling' - right now
>>>    it's slowly melting but sometime soon the climate
>>>    may change a few degrees and it'll build up a lot
>>>    more ice again.
>>>
>>>> The ice age didn't end in a century. In fact it hasn't ended,
>>>> technically. We are in an interstadial.
>>>
>>>    Well ... the 'main part' of the last ice age DID
>>>    end pretty abruptly in terms of geological time.
>>>    Nobody is sure exactly why - all the factors that
>>>    co-contributed. My GUESS is that sea levels got
>>>    low enough to destabilize the methane hydrate
>>>    deposits. There may be proxy evidence - we'll see.
>>>
>>>> But the point is it took thousands of years for the ice to melt.
>>>
>>>    Well ... more like maybe 1000 years.
>>>
>> While the Younger Dryas feature abrupt and massive atmospheric
>> climate change over a few decades - way more than any modern warming
>> or cooling - it did not immediately melt all of the ice.
>>
>> https://www.antarcticglaciers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level_rise2.png
>
>
>   These events have "curves". ALL the ice doesn't form,
>   or melt, overnight. The BULK may change quickly but
>   there's always a long 'shadow'.
>
>   Right NOW we're still in the shadow of the last Big
>   Freeze.
>
>
>> Shows the actual sea level rises and the full de glaciation took *over
>> 6000* years.
>>
>> And continues albeit at a far slower pace, to ythis day.
>>
>> Mountains of ice do not melt in a day, or a week, or a decade or even
>> a millennium
>>
>>
>>>    The bullshit "world flood" then happened
>>>    as ice-dams and such failed and sent Huge
>>>    quantities of water down river tracts in
>>>    the northern hemisphere. I can see why so
>>>    many people imagined the entire world was
>>>    flooded.
>>>
>>>    Thing is, the last Big Freeze happened really
>>>    quick too. SOME evidence points to an asteroid
>>>    hitting arctic Canada or Greenland.
>>>
>> IT may have heppened quickly, but the ice did not form overnight.
>>
>>>    All the causes/equations are difficult, hard to
>>>    pin down, but not impossible. 25 years from now
>>>    we'll have a much better picture. Might even be
>>>    able to take advantage.
>>
>> The main facts are known. No matter what happens in the atmosphere,
>> miles deep ice sheets to not melt overnight, and nor does deep
>> permafrost.
>>
>> You have to be particularly ignorant of physics to believe otherwise.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_heat
>
>   Ummm ... don't think I'm "pretty ignorant" at all,
>   have always researched this kind of stuff.
>
Its not a matter of resaearchm, but of phyics, and oif yoiu had
reaqearched te grpah I indicated it show exactly how the oice melted and
sea levels roise ovre a 600 year period of constant steady
>   As said, 'curves'.

No. Virtually a straight line,.

Post the Younger Dryas, ice started melting and sea level rose a a
steady rate for the next 6000 years.

That was the 10% to 90%, and we have hadanother 5% since then, riughly.

The 90% is kinda volatile
>   but the 10% sticks around for a long time,
>   maybe seeds the NEXT cycle's curve.
>
>   It's been about 55 million years since it ALL
>   melted ... tropical jungle pole to pole. It's
>   been longer since it ALL froze. Mostly we
>   drift back and forth along a rough center line.
>   MANY factors seem to drive the cycles.

Yes but that is hand-wavy BS and doesn't really help answer the question
of whether or not Greenland will be ice free in 100 years.

And the physics says no. Latent heat of melting is simply too massive
for that ice sheet.

You are in this matter plain *wrong*.

https://www.antarcticglaciers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level_rise2.png

Clearly shows rate of melt, but you ignored the [f]actual data.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_heat
Shows the underlying physics, that you hand waved away.

--
All political activity makes complete sense once the proposition that
all government is basically a self-legalising protection racket, is
fully understood.

On 1/10/25 4:52 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 10/01/2025 09:35, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>> On 1/10/25 4:19 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 10/01/2025 09:09, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>> On 1/10/25 2:31 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>> On 09/01/2025 23:31, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>>>> Now 100+ years from now, if all remains constant, the
>>>>>>    ice will have melted back some more and there might be
>>>>>>    a more useful exposed rim.
>>>>>
>>>>> Go and calculate the mass of ice on Greenland, and its latent heat
>>>>> of melting, and divide that by a hundred years and tell me that
>>>>> somehow the sun is going to provide that level of excess energy to
>>>>> the planet .
>>>>
>>>>    As I said elsewhere, I don't see Greenland melting
>>>>    anytime soon. 'Climate' suffers 'cooling periods'
>>>>    roughly every 500 years - often driven by massive
>>>>    Indonesian volcanic events (sometimes asteroids).
>>>>    Iceland may sometimes play a role.
>>>>
>>>>    I think Greenland is mostly 'cycling' - right now
>>>>    it's slowly melting but sometime soon the climate
>>>>    may change a few degrees and it'll build up a lot
>>>>    more ice again.
>>>>
>>>>> The ice age didn't end in a century. In fact it hasn't ended,
>>>>> technically. We are in an interstadial.

The rate of change is the tricky part - even the Ice Ages showed us that
a change over 10,000 years is too rapid for species to adapt and not go
extinct.

And for Greenland's ice, a lot of it is already doomed to melt, because
of the Earth's total energy imbalance has roughly doubled in the past 50
years, so it is additional thermal energy in the system that's going to
have to do/go somewhere:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget#Earth's_energy_imbalance_(EEI)>

TL;DR: its why sea level has risen by +4" since 1993.

>>>>    Well ... the 'main part' of the last ice age DID
>>>>    end pretty abruptly in terms of geological time.
>>>>    Nobody is sure exactly why - all the factors that
>>>>    co-contributed. My GUESS is that sea levels got
>>>>    low enough to destabilize the methane hydrate
>>>>    deposits. There may be proxy evidence - we'll see.
>>>>
>>>>> But the point is it took thousands of years for the ice to melt.
>>>>
>>>>    Well ... more like maybe 1000 years.
>>>>
>>> While the Younger Dryas feature abrupt and massive atmospheric
>>> climate change over a few decades - way more than any modern warming
>>> or cooling - it did not immediately melt all of the ice.
>>>
>>> https://www.antarcticglaciers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Post-
>>> Glacial_Sea_Level_rise2.png
>>
>>
>>    These events have "curves". ALL the ice doesn't form,
>>    or melt, overnight. The BULK may change quickly but
>>    there's always a long 'shadow'.
>>
>>    Right NOW we're still in the shadow of the last Big
>>    Freeze.
>>
>>
>>> Shows the actual sea level rises and the full de glaciation took
>>> *over 6000* years.
>>>
>>> And continues albeit at a far slower pace, to ythis day.
>>>
>>> Mountains of ice do not melt in a day, or a week, or a decade or even
>>> a millennium
>>>
>>>
>>>>    The bullshit "world flood" then happened
>>>>    as ice-dams and such failed and sent Huge
>>>>    quantities of water down river tracts in
>>>>    the northern hemisphere. I can see why so
>>>>    many people imagined the entire world was
>>>>    flooded.
>>>>
>>>>    Thing is, the last Big Freeze happened really
>>>>    quick too. SOME evidence points to an asteroid
>>>>    hitting arctic Canada or Greenland.
>>>>
>>> IT may have heppened quickly, but the ice did not form overnight.
>>>
>>>>    All the causes/equations are difficult, hard to
>>>>    pin down, but not impossible. 25 years from now
>>>>    we'll have a much better picture. Might even be
>>>>    able to take advantage.
>>>
>>> The main facts are known. No matter what happens in the atmosphere,
>>> miles deep ice sheets to not melt overnight, and nor does deep
>>> permafrost.
>>>
>>> You have to be particularly ignorant of physics to believe otherwise.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_heat
>>
>>    Ummm ... don't think I'm "pretty ignorant" at all,
>>    have always researched this kind of stuff.
>>
> Its not a matter of resaearchm, but of phyics, and oif yoiu had
> reaqearched te grpah I indicated it show exactly how the oice melted and
> sea levels roise ovre a 600 year period of constant steady

Because its effectively an integration function, so it doesn't correlate
as neatly to the source energy input change causing the melt/freeze.

>>    As said, 'curves'.
>
> No. Virtually a straight line,.
>
>
> Post the Younger Dryas, ice started melting and sea level rose a a
> steady rate for the next 6000 years.
>
> That was the 10% to 90%, and we have hadanother 5% since then, riughly.

Contemplate rate of change: it wasn't until the rate de-accelerated in
~8000 BC that the environment became stable enough for humans to develop
agriculture and give rise to civilization.

>
> The 90% is kinda volatile
>>    but the 10% sticks around for a long time,
>>    maybe seeds the NEXT cycle's curve.
>>
>>    It's been about 55 million years since it ALL
>>    melted ... tropical jungle pole to pole. It's
>>    been longer since it ALL froze. Mostly we
>>    drift back and forth along a rough center line.
>>    MANY factors seem to drive the cycles.
>
> Yes but that is hand-wavy BS and doesn't really help answer the question
> of whether or not Greenland will be ice free in 100 years.
>
> And the physics says no. Latent heat of melting is simply too massive
> for that ice sheet.

One needs to start at first principles of excess heat added to the
system, and then determine how it is distributed. Some is going to go
to Greenland, sure, but there's also the other 97% of the world too.

>
> You are in this matter plain *wrong*.
>
> https://www.antarcticglaciers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Post-
> Glacial_Sea_Level_rise2.png
> Clearly shows rate of melt, but you ignored the [f]actual data.

Be aware that that graph is ~20 years out of date.

As is a lot of other references on that website. However, this page of
theirs does illustrate some of the thermal hook that was already
occurring prior to where a lot of their data ends in 2004:

<https://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/climate-change/>

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_heat
> Shows the underlying physics, that you hand waved away.

Which is precisely why having already observed +4" (+110mm) of sea level
rise over 30 years should scare the living hell out of you.

Earth's oceans' volume is 1.335 billion cubic kilometers

Surface area of Earth covered by water is 361 million km^2, which means
that dividing gives an average depth = 3.698 km = 3698 meters. A 4"
(110mm) rise is an increase of +0.00002975 (= +0.002975%), which based
on water's thermal coefficient of expansion is 210 x 10-6 (1/ºC) means
an average temperature rise of 0.00002975/210 x 10-6 (1/ºC) = +0.142 C

Now that value might not seem to be all that much, but it is an average
across the entire 3698m deep water column, and so one can then also use
the latent heat of water ... 4186 J/kg·K (1 cal/g·C) ... to determine
how much energy must have already been added to the oceans since 1993.

Volume of 1.335 billion km^3 * 1e+12 liters/km^3 * 4186 J/kg·K * 1kg/L
= 1.355 E+9 * E+12 * 4.186 E+3
= 5.672 E+24 Joules: estimate of excess heat already absorbed.

For context, Hiroshima was 1.5 x 10^13 joules of heating, so:

(5.672 E+24 J)/(1.5 E+13 J) = ~3.78 E+11 Hiroshima equivalents

Over (2024-1993) 31 years, its ~12 billion Hiroshima bombs per year.

rbowman wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:

> On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 15:00:16 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> I don't see how widespread adoption of nukes means the end of wind and
>> solar,
>> when those two coexist right now with oil/gas/coal generated power.
>
> For the most part the wind and solar projects are subsidized for political
> reasons. If nuclear generated power was cheaper and wasn't limited like
> fossil fuels what would be the rationale?
>
>> And it seems to be that the infrastructure for distributing electricity
>> is the same once it leaves the generating plant.
>
> There's the rub. In the US effective solar is limited to the southwest.
> Suitable wind sites are more widely distributed but both are often far
> from where the energy is needed. Iowa has wind capability but the
> infrastructure to bring it to Chicago is lacking. I'm not going to hunt up
> a cite but I believe almost all current nuclear plants are within 75 miles
> of the area they service.

First of all, The Natural Philosopher seems to be ignoring the costs (and
paranoia) of storing the spent nukes safely.

Second, it seems to me that the "renewables" would still be useful to "fill in
the gaps" in service. But here I'll stop.

--
Beauty is one of the rare things which does not lead to doubt of God.
-- Jean Anouilh

186282@ud0s4.net wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:

> <snip>
>
> As I've said many times before - we need to use EVERYTHING WE'VE GOT now
> (except coal if we can possibly help it).
>
> TRICK is to thwart the zealots - use energy sources where MOST
> APPROPRIATE. If solar fits the bill for certain projects, then use solar.
> If in a windy place then windmills might do it. If oil-burning powerplants
> are the best fit, use them. If nuke plants are to be had, use them for big
> Grid stuff.
>
> It's zealotry and fanaticism that's causing most of the problems these
> days. Every faction sees THEIR fix as the One And Only and will fight
> everybody else. Logic, evidence, economics, all go Bye Bye.
>
> And even coal, the techniques/chemistry to convert it into methanol and
> ethanol are now pretty good. The nasty sulfur and heavy metals are left
> behind. Some can be re-sold for various industrial applications.

I agree with this post!

Put your energy eggs in many baskets.

--
We use Linux for all our mission-critical applications. Having the source code
means that we are not held hostage by anyone's support department.
-- Russell Nelson, President of Crynwr Software

On Wed, 8 Jan 2025, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 08/01/2025 10:24, D wrote:
>> I think robots and automation will save the day. They don't even have to be
>> automating/saving elderly care, they can automate/save menial office jobs,
>> and those workers can then move into elderly care instead of fiddling
>> around with meaningless powerpoints and excel spreadsheets all day.
>>
>> Everyone wins! =D
>
> That doesn't solve the debt crisis. Somehow all the debts of the past have to
> be repaid with taxes from today. If there are no people working, what do you
> tax instead?

Then we comfort ourselves with the idea that the change will not happen
over night, and that repayments can be done gradually over time. We also
comfort ourselves with the blessings of inflation, where our currencies
and salaries nominally are constantly inflated, while our debt remain the
same. ;)

On Wed, 8 Jan 2025, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 07/01/2025 21:31, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> He's also done some racist posts;
>
> So what?
> So have you.
>

"He who is without sin among you, let him throw the first stone at her."
;)

On Wed, 8 Jan 2025, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 08/01/2025 09:50, D wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 7 Jan 2025, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> On 07/01/2025 01:38, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>
>>>>    Know how to knap a flint spearhead ?
>>>
>>> Just about. Might take a few months though
>>>
>>> A lot of basic technology isn't hard to implement once you have the right
>>> idea.
>>> Spinning weaving and sewing are easy enough as is knitting etc.
>>> Bows and arrows potters wheels and pole lathes are all easily built.
>>>
>>> Knowing that iron ore exists and can be smelted with charcoal and a
>>> bellows takes you past the Bronze age quickly.
>>>
>>> As does basic knowledge of fertilisers and animal husbandry.
>>>
>>>
>>> Of course there wont be enough to keep millennial snowflakes alive whose
>>> only skill is tapping a touchscreen.
>>
>> I hear you are well prepared for the reign of Starmer! ;)
>
> I am not sure he is going to last the course.
>
> It will inevitably get worse until to paraphrase Churchill 'every other
> alternative has been tried'
>
> In times of plenty people let the parasites in government talk bollocks and
> award themselves fat salaries.
>
> If they don't interfere, generally the economy survives. But once get an
> idealist in place, and they cant resist the urge to tamper with what works,
> with no regard for unintended consequences.
>
> Whilst I am no panic stricken Liberal, I also wonder how the Donald will cope
> with more power than he has ever had in his life, either
>
> Buy popcorn futures....

This is the truth! I am very much popping popcorn as we speak, and
enjoying Trumps hyperbole massively. It is also very enjoyable to watch
naive, socialist politician take every sentence of Trumps literally.

On Wed, 8 Jan 2025, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 08/01/2025 09:53, D wrote:
>> But the question is... who owns Trump?
>
> Almighty God, some people think
>
> It rather put my trust in a v8.

Could it be some recursive method, that ends up with Trump owning Trump?

On Wed, 8 Jan 2025, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 08/01/2025 10:16, D wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 7 Jan 2025, -hh wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/7/25 5:35 PM, chrisv wrote:
>>>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Adios. You've been down this road before.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOAUsvVhgsU
>>>>
>>>> Here's an excellant documentary on climate change.  An hour and 20
>>>> minutes of quality information.
>>>
>>> Where its so-called "quality" is that its already been debunked:
>>>
>>> <https://skepticalscience.com/climate-the-movie-a-hot-mess-of-cold-myths.html>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I'd bet money that Chris A won't watch it.
>>>
>>> Why waste 80 minutes watching something when a 3 minute Google search
>>> affords one the salient insight on its lack of veracity?
>>>
>>>
>>> -hh
>>
>> Actually, that is the best proof you can find that the movie is on to
>> something. If it would be mainstream, no one would bother writing a line,
>> or if it would be made by the climate royalty, it would be hyped by CNN &
>> Co.
>>
>> Thank you, now I will definitely watch it! =)
>
> If anyone is in a position to debunk skeptical science it is me.
>
> The very first post I made using a different than usual nom de guerre,
> criticising not climate change, but renewable energy, Skepticalscience
> informed me and the public, to my surprise that I was a 'well known climate
> denier ' whose ideas had 'already been debunked by skeptical science'.
>
> Skepticalscience.com is a well known climate denial site pushing fake
> information to support a false climate narrative. It isn't skeptical and it
> certainly isn't sciencee. It is pure AgitProp left wing propaganda

I wouldn't expect anything else from a web site called "skeptical"
science.

On Wed, 8 Jan 2025, Carlos E.R. wrote:

> On 2025-01-08 03:49, Lars Poulsen wrote:
>> On 2025-01-07, vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote:
>>> Bought a 4TB external USB/NVME device for my workstation.
>>> Installed Samba and configured it to use the "fruit"
>>> module to offer up a Time Machine share for the
>>> Mac Studio. (Also using it with Timeshift on the
>>> workstation itself, but that part was easier.)
>>>
>>> (Backups are good; automated versioned backups are better.)
>>
>> I have setup "time machine" backups on two of my servers, using rsync to
>> a local external drive, but I have not figured out how to do it to a
>> Samba share. On the local external drive, using ext4 file system, hard
>> links make it very space efficient, but I don't think you can do that
>> with a Samba mounted remote drive. Any hints? Do you run the rsync on
>> the file server, so that you can do the hard links on the backup drive's
>> ext4 file system while the backup server sees its production client as
>> the remote Samba mount?
>>
>> And is there a way to use a cheap remote "storage box" that is only
>> accessible as a Samba NAS as the versioned storage medium with
>> similarly good storage efficiency?
>
>
> You can not backup using any type of file copy, like rsync, a Linux
> filesystem into samba, or a windows filesystem.
>
> The only way to do it is using archives like tar.

Apart from samba, I have used the rsync + hardlinks method for backup with
much success between countries, for decades.

On Wed, 8 Jan 2025, Carlos E.R. wrote:

> On 2025-01-08 10:54, D wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 7 Jan 2025, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> On 07/01/2025 10:43, D wrote:
>>>> Cooling kills 10x the people than warming. That is how cooling is worse
>>>> than warming. As for lack of water, desalination exists and works well.
>>>> Desalination can be combined excellently, with solar power to drive down
>>>> cost.
>>>>
>>> It is suitable for intermittent sources, yes. Nuclear is even better.
>>
>> This is the truth! But I am curious if solar would be a good option in say,
>> southern spain to drive desalination, and in order to build the plants
>> quicker, due to the politicians doing their best to still stop nuclear with
>> the power of various regulations?
>
> You forget that it is the people who do not want nuclear. It is proven
> dangerous.

This is factually incorrect. If you cound the nr of dead, coal, hydro and
solar have all killed more people than nuclear.

Remember the death count at Fukushima due to radiation... it is firmly at
0.

On Wed, 8 Jan 2025, rbowman wrote:

> On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 11:24:36 +0100, D wrote:
>
>> I think robots and automation will save the day. They don't even have to
>> be automating/saving elderly care, they can automate/save menial office
>> jobs, and those workers can then move into elderly care instead of
>> fiddling around with meaningless powerpoints and excel spreadsheets all
>> day.
>
> I think I've mentioned Kurt Vonnegut's first novel, 'Player Piano'. You
> should read it. He saw your shining future in the '50s.
>

Read it more than 2 decades ago, perhaps time to read it again. I think I
like it!

On Wed, 8 Jan 2025, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 08/01/2025 16:27, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>
>>> On 08/01/2025 13:59, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>> Nah, we're not thinking in terms of race with that accusation, we're
>>>> thinking
>>>> in terms of*bigotry* as expressed by denigration of a whole group of
>>>> people
>>>> based on race.
>>>
>>> I'll leave that to the coloured folks who see themselves as distinct and
>>> oppressed by 'the white folks'
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzlLi5jX_C4
>>
>> Sam Cooke [What a] Wonderful World
>>
>> A more complete view:
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56u6g0POvo0
>>
>> Devo - "Beautiful World"
>>
>>> 'White privilege' is racist. 'Black lives matter' is racist. As are the
>>> black police association and the black lawyer association. And
>>> fundamental Islam.
>>>
>>> The list is endless.
>>
>> You're racist for even talking about it! :-D
>>
>> "Coloured folks?"
>>
> yep. in that instance i am.
>
> But I didnt start the conversation. If you want to see the world in racial
> terms ,I would merely point out that the vast majority of racists are in
> fact 'non white'

It is the sweet irony of wokism. Wokism is, at heart, very racist. It is
funny how 99% of the population has not yet realized this. =D

On Wed, 8 Jan 2025, Rich wrote:

> Lars Poulsen <lars@cleo.beagle-ears.com> wrote:
>> On 2025-01-08, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> Anyioe expecting to preserve an ext4 file system accurately on a samba
>>> mounted share needs their head examined.
>>> Use NFS.
>>
>> I am not expecting to accurately have an exact ext4 system on a share.
>> Just keeps the data, but deduplicated. AFAIK,
>
> Don't try to directly 'rsync' any Linux filesystem to a samba share as
> a backup. Samba will not store everything needed to recover (you'll
> have your data, except for those files with names that are 'invalid' in
> the windows samba world) but none of the ownerships/permissions will be
> correct.
>
> If you must use samba as the backing store, then use something like
> Restic which stores the data in its own internal format and only
> requires "basic file storage and basic filenames" support from the
> underlying backing store.
>
> Restic: https://restic.net/
>

Excellent. Thank you for confirming. Restic also has this "check" function
to detect inconsistencies, bitrot and other stuff. Sadly NFS did not work
with my ancient NAS, so smb was what I had to work with, to mount it to my
backup server. Would have preferred NFS though. =(

On 2025-01-09, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 8 Jan 2025, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>
>> You forget that it is the people who do not want nuclear. It is proven
>> dangerous.
>
> This is factually incorrect. If you cound the nr of dead, coal, hydro and
> solar have all killed more people than nuclear.
>
> Remember the death count at Fukushima due to radiation... it is firmly at
> 0.

Ditto for Three Mile Island, which to this day I take as an example of
how safe nuclear is. Total meltdown, but no casualties.

Meanwhile, how many people have been hit by coal trains or died a
slow lingering death from black lung?

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey

On Wed, 8 Jan 2025, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 08/01/2025 18:34, Pancho wrote:
>>> It has to be the right religion though
>>> A religion that simply takes all yiur wealth and prromises yuoi only hell
>>> if you get upset is not a keeper.
>>>
>>
>> How do you explain Jihadist Islam
>>
> Its similar in most respects to German jihadism,. Mein Kampf=jihad=my
> struggle.
> The operational parameters of the metaphysics are identical.
> - a master race, struggling against a world full of oppressive other races,
> especially jews - who it is perfectly moral to lie to, kill, defraud, commit
> genocide, rape torture and and maim, because they *are not really human*.
>
> And apart from these things obliterating the subconscious shame you feel at
> being 600 years behind the times, stupid as fuck and inbred to boot, it gives
> you a feeling of power and purpose and a promise of [s]lots of virgins in the
> after life, after you have run out of the ones on the local council estate.

Excellent analysis of islam. This sounds like the beginning of a book perhaps?
=)

On Wed, 8 Jan 2025, CrudeSausage wrote:

> On 2025-01-08 08:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 08/01/2025 12:19, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>>
>>>> On 07/01/2025 21:31, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>> He's also done some racist posts;
>>>>
>>>> So what?
>>>> So have you.
>>>
>>> Show me such a post or stfu.
>>>
>> Anyone who says someone is racist, is a racist.
>>
>> That is someone who thinks in terms of race. And discriminates on the
>> grounds of 'race'
>
> The worst part is that people who are objectively faggots, also known as "the
> left," are pushing the narrative that there is no race but the human race.
> With that in mind, how the heck is it even possible to be a racist? Since he
> is dim-witted in addition to taking it up the ass, he believes in two
> contradictory truths simultaneously: everyone is a racist but there is no
> such thing as race.

Touché! Another error in thinking from the left? Is anyone surprised? ;)

On Thu, 8 Jan 2025, rbowman wrote:

> On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 13:05:19 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> rbowman wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>
>>> On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 11:27:32 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>
>>>> You're racist for even talking about it! :-D
>>>>
>>>> "Coloured folks?"
>>>
>>> Who came up with BIPOC? Or NAACP for that matter? By the time I was a
>>> kid 'colored' was out and 'negro' was in. Now we're back to 'people of
>>> color'?
>>> That means they're colored, right?
>>
>> Why don't you walk up to a "colored man" and call them that? A good
>> test!
>
> I don't care for 'Mad Dog' Mattis but he did have one good quote in him:
> "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet."

Wise man!

On Wed, 8 Jan 2025, CrudeSausage wrote:

> On 2025-01-08 19:42, rbowman wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 17:53:21 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>
>>> Someone was circulating the theory that Trump's (and Musk's) desire to
>>> annex both Canada and Greenland is the result of wanting access to the
>>> minerals there, which are crucial to the development of electric
>>> vehicles. I would imagine that there are lots of strategic military
>>> reasons too. Maybe the man isn't joking...
>>
>> https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/china-arctic-russia/
>>
>> Shipping, gas, oil, minerals, fisheries... Historically, Denmark hasn't
>> done well protecting its interests since the Danish-Hanseatic War and
>> certainly can't defend Greenland nor is an independent Greenland feasible.
>>
>> Canada is a far reach but with Trudeau the Lesser quitting, who knows. The
>> SAM provinces might be weighing which is worse, DC or Ottawa.
>
> There will be lots of resistance simply because Canadians have traditionally
> seen themselves as "better" than Americans and don't want to be a part of the
> "inferior" culture. In reality, there is nothing better here except for the
> women in Quebec. They look better than what the US produces, but they're just
> as dim.
>

This is very interesting. How much more beautiful on a scale from 1 to 10
would you say the women in Quebec are, than the women in the US? What made
them so beautiful?

On Thu, 9 Jan 2025, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

> On 1/8/25 7:51 PM, rbowman wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 18:34:06 +0000, Pancho wrote:
>>
>>> How do you explain Jihadist Islam?
>>>
>>> Religion/ideology is like evolution, the selfish meme. It is a mistake
>>> to presume it must be intrinsically good for adherents, as opposed to
>>> just good at perpetuating itself, creating new adherents.
>>
>> https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/heresy-of-mohammed-10817
>>
>> Belloc had a good explanation of why Islam didn't fade away like Arianism
>> or other Christian heresies.
>>
>> "Millions of modern people of the white civilization_that is, the
>> civilization of Europe and America_have forgotten all about Islam. They
>> have never come in contact with it. they take for granted that it is
>> decaying, and that, anyway, it is just a foreign religion which will not
>> concern them. It is, as a fact, the most formidable and persistent enemy
>> which our civilization has had, and may at any moment become as large a
>> menace in the future as it has been in the past."
>>
>> He wrote that in 1938.
>
> Islam has proven to be a very robust meme. Adherents
> quickly become immersed, saturated, with the ideology.
> It explicitly includes doing Very Bad Things to all
> infidels/heretics. Like the crusaders take on the
> christian religion it DEMANDS being spread to all
> at ANY cost by ANY means.
>
> Bad enough in an age of slings and arrows ...
>
> Post WW-1, after the Brits badly (intentionally)
> divided up a lot of Islamic nations/territories,
> there WAS a perception that it would just kinda
> fade away. Instead the divisions spawned little
> wars, then bigger wars - and extremism.
>
> Today, bet that at LEAST Iran are de-facto nuclear
> powers. Islam has taken over much of Africa, and
> thus its vast resources. Poor immigration thinking
> has imported large quantities of Islamics into
> the belly of Europe - enough to be of considerable
> political influence. The Ottomans failed to take
> Europe (thank Vlad The Impaler) ... but it seems
> Europe has completed their goal.
>
> This all just ain't good ....
>
> And that's just religion. Add usual politics and
> ambition on top.
>

Ahh... thankfully I believe it will take about 1 or 2 more generations
before the first european country turning officially moslem, and by that
time I'm since long happily retired far away from europe.

As my father always says... thank god I don't have to experience that
mess! ;)

On 09/01/2025 16:16, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> First of all, The Natural Philosopher seems to be ignoring the costs (and
> paranoia) of storing the spent nukes safely.
>
There are no high costs. Only political campaigning...

> Second, it seems to me that the "renewables" would still be useful to "fill in
> the gaps" in service. But here I'll stop.
With nuclear, there are no 'gaps that need filling'. Or if there are,
intermittent renewables cannot be relied upon to fill them

--
To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote.

On 09/01/2025 16:18, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> 186282@ud0s4.net wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>
>> <snip>
>>
>> As I've said many times before - we need to use EVERYTHING WE'VE GOT now
>> (except coal if we can possibly help it).
>>
>> TRICK is to thwart the zealots - use energy sources where MOST
>> APPROPRIATE. If solar fits the bill for certain projects, then use solar.
>> If in a windy place then windmills might do it. If oil-burning powerplants
>> are the best fit, use them. If nuke plants are to be had, use them for big
>> Grid stuff.
>>
>> It's zealotry and fanaticism that's causing most of the problems these
>> days. Every faction sees THEIR fix as the One And Only and will fight
>> everybody else. Logic, evidence, economics, all go Bye Bye.
>>
>> And even coal, the techniques/chemistry to convert it into methanol and
>> ethanol are now pretty good. The nasty sulfur and heavy metals are left
>> behind. Some can be re-sold for various industrial applications.
>
> I agree with this post!
>
> Put your energy eggs in many baskets.
>
Bollocks. Lets have diversity in car wheels,. Sqauare one, eggs shaped
ones. Why have them all round?
We had a more reliable grid when it was 90$% coal.
France gets by at 75% nuclear.
In mots cases 'diversity' just makes things worse, a single standard
design that works well is far far cheaper.

--
“Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.”

H.L. Mencken, A Mencken Chrestomathy