So, I boot to the command line, as pi automatically
I type
amixer scontrols
it shows me Capture and Master controls
I type
alsamixer
it shows me Master control with stereo
Then I type
sudo su -
Now I am root, still on the command line (so no X )
I type
amixer scontrols
it shows me Headphone only
I type alsamixer
It shows Headphone control as MONO!!!!!
Someone PLEASE FIRE the idiots who set root to mono!!!! and Pi to stereo with DIFFERENT controls
Now modify all your code developers!!!!
How do I set alsa to stereo like pi has?
Someone PLEASE FIRE the idiots who set root to mono!!!! and Pi to stereo
with DIFFERENT controls Now modify all your code developers!!!!
How do I set alsa to stereo like pi has?
On 2022-06-23, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
So, I boot to the command line, as pi automatically
I type
amixer scontrols
it shows me Capture and Master controls
I type
alsamixer
it shows me Master control with stereo
Then I type
sudo su -
Now I am root, still on the command line (so no X )
I type
amixer scontrols
it shows me Headphone only
I type alsamixer
It shows Headphone control as MONO!!!!!
Someone PLEASE FIRE the idiots who set root to mono!!!! and Pi to stereo with DIFFERENT controls
Now modify all your code developers!!!!
How do I set alsa to stereo like pi has?
I assume the difference between pi and root, is because the creators of
pios do not expect users to user the root account - they discourage it.
So if you use pios and go "off-piste" you are expected to know what you
are doing. I accept that, as I'm always doing things that don't fit the RPI >setup - like removing systemd, and pulseaudio and using my own desktop setup.
I did a quick google for "configuring alsa on PiOS" and there seem to be >several places that might help. Good luck.
On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 09:07:42 GMT
Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
Someone PLEASE FIRE the idiots who set root to mono!!!! and Pi to stereo
I suspect they did nothing to root but set up alsa the way they
wanted it on the pi user and so generated user specific configs instead of >system wide ones. So root wound up with a set of system defaults probably >designed to imitate the original Sun audio (8Khz mono PCM IIRC).
with DIFFERENT controls Now modify all your code developers!!!!
How do I set alsa to stereo like pi has?
I would go looking for the system wide alsa controls and set
things up by hand in there. Then I'd remove the user customisations for pi >(or just the user).
On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 09:07:42 GMT Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
Someone PLEASE FIRE the idiots who set root to mono!!!! and Pi to
stereo
I suspect they did nothing to root but set up alsa the way they
wanted it on the pi user and so generated user specific configs instead
of system wide ones. So root wound up with a set of system defaults
probably designed to imitate the original Sun audio (8Khz mono PCM
IIRC).
with DIFFERENT controls Now modify all your code developers!!!!
How do I set alsa to stereo like pi has?
I would go looking for the system wide alsa controls and set
things up by hand in there. Then I'd remove the user customisations for
pi (or just the user).
On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 13:15:35 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
I would go looking for the system wide alsa controls and set
things up by hand in there. Then I'd remove the user customisations for
pi (or just the user).
... or simply set up another user, initiallly with default settings, and ignore 'pi'. Then its easy to modify your user to yse the settingds you
want.
On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 13:30:35 -0000 (UTC)
Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 13:15:35 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
I would go looking for the system wide alsa controls and set
things up by hand in there. Then I'd remove the user customisations
for pi (or just the user).
... or simply set up another user, initiallly with default settings,
and ignore 'pi'. Then its easy to modify your user to yse the settingds
you want.
That just gets them right for the new user, setting the system
default sane makes them right for all users by default including the one
you add in a few months when you've forgotten all the tweaks.
Agreed, I should have added that any settings, tweaks, etc you want to use
in all non-super users is best set up by either editing existing scripts
in
/etc/profile.d
or adding additional scripts to it. If you put additional scripts in /etc/ profile.d you may have to edit .bashrc and/or .bash_profile in the
relevant login directories so your new scripts get called, but adding
stuff to the existing scripts should just work
**BUT**
be sure to keep copies of any standard scripts in /etc/profile.d that
you've modified somewhere safe, such as a directory in your usual login directory because, while these scripts are pretty stable now, they do occasionally get modified: IOW a system update may clobber your changes.
With local backups, its easy enough to compare the new file with your
backup copy, apply system-issued changes to your backup, and then drop
your custom version back into /etc/profile.d
Agreed, I should have added that any settings, tweaks, etc you want to
use in all non-super users is best set up by either editing existing
scripts in
/etc/profile.d
Someone PLEASE FIRE the idiots who set root to mono!!!! and Pi to stereo with DIFFERENT controls
Now modify all your code developers!!!!
How do I set alsa to stereo like pi has?
On 23/06/2022 10:07, Jan Panteltje wrote:
Someone PLEASE FIRE the idiots who set root to mono!!!! and Pi to stereo with DIFFERENT controls
Now modify all your code developers!!!!
How do I set alsa to stereo like pi has?
Ah you again.
Answer; you are not supposed to run desktop programs, particularly web >browsers as root. If you want proper media access, use a user account.
The only reason for allowing sound at all, is for system tool which
requires privileged access can do a warning beep.
On a sunny day (Fri, 24 Jun 2022 14:20:28 +0100) it happened druck <news@druck.org.uk> wrote in <t94dmt$15v$1@dont-email.me>:
On 23/06/2022 10:07, Jan Panteltje wrote:
Someone PLEASE FIRE the idiots who set root to mono!!!! and Pi to stereo with DIFFERENT controls
Now modify all your code developers!!!!
How do I set alsa to stereo like pi has?
Ah you again.
Answer; you are not supposed to run desktop programs, particularly web
browsers as root. If you want proper media access, use a user account.
The sad thing is that you got it all upside down
A bit like the green idiots and climate change and CO2
(Climate change is caused by earth orbit variations),
greens then kill all good power sources out of fear for glowball worming bringing us all back to the stone age and endangering humanity
No amount of mentioning other stupid things, makes the stupid thing you
are doing any less stupid. I just hope no one else is stupid enough to
let you near a computer in a professional capacity
On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 22:00:36 +0100
druck <news@druck.org.uk> wrote:
No amount of mentioning other stupid things, makes the stupid thing you
are doing any less stupid. I just hope no one else is stupid enough to
let you near a computer in a professional capacity
You're not quite as rude as that Clough fellow, but you are still failing to explain what additional risks he's running by using root as he does, resorting instead to content free insults. He has articulated pretty clearly why he doesn't think he's risking anything and points to decades of experience to back his assertions up. Right now you (and Dan) look like
knee jerk idiots criticising a thoughtful person - do better for yourself.
So here's the challenge - explain clearly exactly how he is being stupid without recourse to generalities like "never do X it's bad" without saying why. So if he really is being stupid *EDUCATE* him and the rest of us don't insult him and tell us all exactly *WHY* and *HOW* he is being stupid.
Start by explaining why a single user with passwordless sudo access
is more secure than a root login. On a multi-user system sudo is used
mainly for accountability not security, when it is used for security the
sudo configuration is tight and very carefully worked out.
druck <news@druck.org.uk> wrote:
No amount of mentioning other stupid things, makes the stupid thing
you are doing any less stupid. I just hope no one else is stupid
enough to let you near a computer in a professional capacity
You're not quite as rude as that Clough fellow, but you are
still failing to explain what additional risks he's running by using
root as he does, resorting instead to content free insults.
He has articulated pretty clearly why he doesn't think he's risking
anything and points to decades of experience to back his assertions
up. Right now you (and Dan) look like knee jerk idiots criticising a thoughtful person - do better for yourself.
So here's the challenge - explain clearly exactly how he is
being stupid without recourse to generalities like "never do X it's
bad" without saying why. So if he really is being stupid *EDUCATE* him
and the rest of us don't insult him and tell us all exactly *WHY* and
*HOW* he is being stupid.
Start by explaining why a single user with passwordless sudo
access is more secure than a root login. On a multi-user system sudo
is used mainly for accountability not security, when it is used for
security the sudo configuration is tight and very carefully worked
out.
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
He has articulated pretty clearly why he doesn't think he's risking anything and points to decades of experience to back his assertions
up. Right now you (and Dan) look like knee jerk idiots criticising a thoughtful person - do better for yourself.
Well, one of the risks is that things don’t work like he wants them to,
and indeed they don’t work like he wants them to. That’s how the thread started.
Start by explaining why a single user with passwordless sudo
access is more secure than a root login. On a multi-user system sudo
is used mainly for accountability not security, when it is used for security the sudo configuration is tight and very carefully worked
out.
I don’t see why he should bother.
On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 22:00:36 +0100 druck <news@druck.org.uk> wrote:access
No amount of mentioning other stupid things, makes the stupid thing you
are doing any less stupid. I just hope no one else is stupid enough to
let you near a computer in a professional capacity
You're not quite as rude as that Clough fellow, but you are still failing to explain what additional risks he's running by using root as
he does, resorting instead to content free insults. He has articulated
pretty clearly why he doesn't think he's risking anything and points to decades of experience to back his assertions up. Right now you (and Dan)
look like knee jerk idiots criticising a thoughtful person - do better
for yourself.
So here's the challenge - explain clearly exactly how he is being stupid without recourse to generalities like "never do X it's bad"
without saying why. So if he really is being stupid *EDUCATE* him and
the rest of us don't insult him and tell us all exactly *WHY* and *HOW*
he is being stupid.
Start by explaining why a single user with passwordless sudo
is more secure than a root login. On a multi-user system sudo is used
mainly for accountability not security, when it is used for security the
sudo configuration is tight and very carefully worked out.
On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 07:58:37 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
Start by explaining why a single user with passwordless sudoaccess
is more secure than a root login. On a multi-user system sudo is used mainly for accountability not security, when it is used for security the sudo configuration is tight and very carefully worked out.
It is not so much that he is running risk in this particular setup, the system may indeed be totally isolated & therefor @ zero risk.
it is that by engaging in bad practice he gets into bad habits which may
the effort he is spending in bypassing the default security model would
be better invested in learning how to correctly work with it.
As to root
1) this is my system I control it
2) there is no other user on this system.
Jan Panteltje wrote:
As to root
1) this is my system I control it
2) there is no other user on this system.
I stopped reading here ... I agree with you about green activists, but
here you are fundamentally wrong
There is no default security - user pi with a well known default
password has passwordless sudo - effectively equivalent to being root.
tOn Sat, 25 Jun 2022 13:13:03 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shotapril-2022/
<steveo@eircom.net> declaimed the following:
There is no default security - user pi with a well known default >>password has passwordless sudo - effectively equivalent to being root.
And supposedly doesn't exist on the latest release of the OS.
https://www.raspberrypi.com/news/raspberry-pi-bullseye-update-
Once again a naked assertion with not even a shred of explanation.
How exactly is root more dangerous than an account with
passwordless sudo access ?
(Climate change is caused by earth orbit variations),
Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
https://www.raspberrypi.com/news/raspberry-pi-bullseye-update-april-2022/
A step in the right direction, or more accurately undoing a step in
a silly direction.
tOn Sat, 25 Jun 2022 13:13:03 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
<steveo@eircom.net> declaimed the following:
There is no default security - user pi with a well known default
password has passwordless sudo - effectively equivalent to being root.
And supposedly doesn't exist on the latest release of the OS.
https://www.raspberrypi.com/news/raspberry-pi-bullseye-update-april-2022/
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
Once again a naked assertion with not even a shred of
explanation.
How exactly is root more dangerous than an account with passwordless sudo access ?
A process running as root can issue syscalls that root is allowed to
issue. That's roughly all of them.
A process not running as root can't. If you can't issue the fork()
syscall, either through policy (eg SECCOMP, SELinux) or because you can't
craft the right arguments (you built an exploit using ROP/JOP gadgets and
can only control certain registers), you can't issue the appropriate sudo command. For example, the string 'sudo ...' is unlikely to be lying
around in memory such that your exploit can make a pointer to it to pass
to system() or exec().
Plus *you have to know that passwordless sudo is available*. Which is
fine for a targeted attacker, but most attacks are bulk script-kiddies
trying things on.
Basically attackers only get a limited toehold in the system and any extra steps make it harder work.
Also, any time you or something else makes a mistake (of the 'rm -rf ./*' kind, where you forgot the dot), there's a much higher risk of damage.
That is a problem of not using the carefully set up pi user, nothing
to do with being root. If he simply created a user 'jan' without all the
user specific config pi has he'd be seeing similar problems. That is
because the OS is not set up properly for multi-user use.
On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 10:57:22 -0000 (UTC)internet,
alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 07:58:37 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
Start by explaining why a single user with passwordless sudoaccess
is more secure than a root login. On a multi-user system sudo is used
mainly for accountability not security, when it is used for security
the sudo configuration is tight and very carefully worked out.
It is not so much that he is running risk in this particular setup, the
system may indeed be totally isolated & therefor @ zero risk.
Feel free to assume it's connected directly to the public
what exactly is at risk and why is that risk greater for root than for
pi with passwordless sudo ?
userit is that by engaging in bad practice he gets into bad habits which
may
You still haven't explained why it is bad practice on a single
system with no important data.
truethe effort he is spending in bypassing the default security model would
be better invested in learning how to correctly work with it.
There is no default security - user pi with a well known default password has passwordless sudo - effectively equivalent to being root.
Also, any time you or something else makes a mistake (of the 'rm -rf ./*' kind, where you forgot the dot), there's a much higher risk of damage.
True enough, but if all that's at risk is PiOS and a some
experimental binaries that are easily replaced then that's a minor concern.
This is the real crux - if there's nothing of consequence at risk
and there is an advantage to running as root then there is no good reason
not to do so.
2. He supposes that his uses of the software and his judgement about,
e.g., the inclusion of the pi user and use of sudo, somehow transcend
the uses and the judgement that millions of other Pi users may be
employing.
Tom Blenko <blenko@martingalesystems.com> wrote:
2. He supposes that his uses of the software and his judgement about,
e.g., the inclusion of the pi user and use of sudo, somehow transcend
the uses and the judgement that millions of other Pi users may be
employing.
That's the crux and that attitude is also why he is a climate change
denying nutjob. Sorry to hijack your thoughtful response.
However, in the spirit of usenet, I will respond to your comment about climate change. Whilst, I'm a 100% believer in stronger efforts to limit
CO2 emissions, due to the risk of catastrophic climate change, I can
also see that the MSM distort the science as a certainty rather than as
a risk. I can see that this might irritate people who fixate on the
absolute truth of the message rather than the bigger picture.
On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 07:58:37 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 22:00:36 +0100 druck <news@druck.org.uk> wrote:access
No amount of mentioning other stupid things, makes the stupid thing you
are doing any less stupid. I just hope no one else is stupid enough to
let you near a computer in a professional capacity
You're not quite as rude as that Clough fellow, but you are still
failing to explain what additional risks he's running by using root as
he does, resorting instead to content free insults. He has articulated
pretty clearly why he doesn't think he's risking anything and points to
decades of experience to back his assertions up. Right now you (and Dan)
look like knee jerk idiots criticising a thoughtful person - do better
for yourself.
So here's the challenge - explain clearly exactly how he is being
stupid without recourse to generalities like "never do X it's bad"
without saying why. So if he really is being stupid *EDUCATE* him and
the rest of us don't insult him and tell us all exactly *WHY* and *HOW*
he is being stupid.
Start by explaining why a single user with passwordless sudo
is more secure than a root login. On a multi-user system sudo is used
mainly for accountability not security, when it is used for security the
sudo configuration is tight and very carefully worked out.
It is not so much that he is running risk in this particular setup, the system may indeed be totally isolated & therefor @ zero risk.
it is that by engaging in bad practice he gets into bad habits which may
then transfer across to systems where it is critical, there is also the possibility that the current system may evolve to where security is
important & adding security as an after thought has a risk of something
being overlooked.
the effort he is spending in bypassing the default security model would be better invested in learning how to correctly work with it.
On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 14:55:17 +0200
Deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> wrote:
Jan Panteltje wrote:
As to root
1) this is my system I control it
2) there is no other user on this system.
I stopped reading here ... I agree with you about green activists, but
here you are fundamentally wrong
Once again a naked assertion with not even a shred of explanation.
How exactly is root more dangerous than an account with
passwordless sudo access ?
In article <20220625181244.708d4140f461d9bebfa93714@eircom.net>, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:Excellent summary.
Also, any time you or something else makes a mistake (of the 'rm -rf ./*' >>> kind, where you forgot the dot), there's a much higher risk of damage.
True enough, but if all that's at risk is PiOS and a some
experimental binaries that are easily replaced then that's a minor concern. >>
This is the real crux - if there's nothing of consequence at risk
and there is an advantage to running as root then there is no good reason
not to do so.
sudo came into existence on Unix in the early 1980's. I'm not going to
rehash the history (which I'm not an expert on), anyone who is
interested can read up on it, beginning with the sudo and su man pages
on the Raspberry Pi OS (Raspbian) and continuing with the link there to
a web page documenting the history. There are a variety of reasons for
its appearance and continued evolution on Unix, Linux, and Raspbian.
sudo appeared well before most Unix administrators had any serious
concerns about being breached from external networks, which most were
not connected to. I came to this by using Unix as a user and developer
and then being part of product teams at two different companies in that
era that were producing Unix-based systems. Everyone with my background
knew, by osmosis, that sudo (and its less-talented predecessor su) was created to deal with the underlying Unix user structure, which
empowered the root user to do just about anything on the system but
defined strict limits on what non-root users could do via a permissions structure embedded in the operating system.
The idea of using the root user all the time has been around for a long
time. It has a major problem that can show up in multiple ways. As Theo
said in response to your question, the user running all the time as
root is empowered to do things they may not intend. So they may type
"rm -rf *" from the command line, or a program they are testing may
start writing all over, e.g., system configuration files, or programs
started up by cron may do... almost anything. Making the change of user explicit in a sudo command (and, normally, changing the command line
prompt) is a safeguard. And it's one that has survived the test of
time.
If Jan or Steve or someone else here wants to run as root all the time
I don't think anyone else cares. If they feel that reinstalling after a mistake by the user or one of their programs is preferable to
exercising the discipline sudo is designed to support, fine, that may
indeed be the best choice for them.
I think the flak directed at Jan has not been about his use, or not, of
the sudo command, it's been about the repeated attacks on the Raspberry
Pi developers and the software tools he is using for not implementing
the world in which he imagines he wants to live. As far as I can tell
from reading the exchange,
1. He has no idea why sudo exists and is supported and widely used 40
years after its introduction on Unix.
2. He supposes that his uses of the software and his judgement about,
e.g., the inclusion of the pi user and use of sudo, somehow transcend
the uses and the judgement that millions of other Pi users may be
employing.
I don't think this forum benefits from either the ranting or the
response to it and I trust I'm not alone. And I don't expect the
Raspberry Pi developers to be influenced by it because they don't
suffer from 1 above and because it is their responsibility to take a radically different position on 2 above.
So you, Steve, have managed to focus on the question you seem
interested in. And you may be satisfied with your conclusion, quoted
above. I will point out, for your benefit, that it used to be the
custom for some well-engineered Unix programs to check whether they
were being run as root - and to print a short message and exit if they
were. This is because the developers were concerned about inadvertent consequences (e.g., overwriting lock files) and presumably viewed
coding an exit as a preferable to taking responsibility for their
software running correctly in a root environment. My first thought when
I read Jan's report about software that didn't run as expected when he
ran as root, but did when he ran as a non-root user, was that this was
the problem he was experiencing. You cannot, however, expect every
developer to exercise that same diligence. They may reasonably take the position that if you use their software in a fashion that wasn't
intended then the responsibility is yours.
Also, in my past experience and on my current Raspberry systems,
attached devices may contained data that is not replaceable, easily or otherwise, and they are just as exposed as the contents of an easily-replaceable root device on Raspbian might be.
So, perhaps you have already taken these issues into account.
On a related note, my reading of the Pi Foundation's announcement is
that it has nothing to do with sudo or objections to using it --
Raspbian's use of the existing Unix user structure will continue
without change. They are simply requiring a user to supply a username
for the default account during configuration rather than assigning 'pi' automatically.
Tom
also why he is a climate changedoes he actually deny the facts that modern climate change is
denying nutjob.
This is the real crux - if there's nothing of consequence at riskContrariwise, if the convention is *NOT* to run as root, then you cant
and there is an advantage to running as root then there is no good reason
not to do so.
On 26/06/2022 09:14, A. Dumas wrote:
Tom Blenko <blenko@martingalesystems.com> wrote:
2. He supposes that his uses of the software and his judgement about,
e.g., the inclusion of the pi user and use of sudo, somehow transcend
the uses and the judgement that millions of other Pi users may be
employing.
That's the crux and that attitude is also why he is a climate change
denying nutjob. Sorry to hijack your thoughtful response.
Yes, Tom's response was well-thought-out, interesting and reasonable (My knowledge of su predates sudo by decades, I hadn't realised sudo had
been around so long).
However, in the spirit of usenet, I will respond to your comment about climate change. Whilst, I'm a 100% believer in stronger efforts to limit
CO2 emissions, due to the risk of catastrophic climate change, I can
also see that the MSM distort the science as a certainty rather than as
a risk. I can see that this might irritate people who fixate on the
absolute truth of the message rather than the bigger picture.
<snip>
However, in the spirit of usenet, I will respond to your comment about
climate change. Whilst, I'm a 100% believer in stronger efforts to limit
CO2 emissions, due to the risk of catastrophic climate change, I can
also see that the MSM distort the science as a certainty rather than as
a risk. I can see that this might irritate people who fixate on the
absolute truth of the message rather than the bigger picture.
While it is true that some massive undiscovered negative feedback mechanism (natural or invented) could kick in at some relatively tolerable planetary temperature to save our bacon, the very long oceanic circulation periods
and the lack of evidence for this during past excursions make this a bad
bet. (Especially considering the life-altering stakes.)
Den 2022-06-24 kl. 16:28, skrev Jan Panteltje:
(Climate change is caused by earth orbit variations),
If this was a newsgroup free to talk about everything I'd
ask you to back that statement with some links.
And the sky might fall on our heads, too.
He isnt flying 50 passengers round the sky. If he wants to crash, its
his business. If he is employed as a sysdamin, its his employers
business. Its cetainly not mine.
<snip>
However, in the spirit of usenet, I will respond to your comment about
climate change. Whilst, I'm a 100% believer in stronger efforts to limit
CO2 emissions, due to the risk of catastrophic climate change, I can
also see that the MSM distort the science as a certainty rather than as
a risk. I can see that this might irritate people who fixate on the
absolute truth of the message rather than the bigger picture.
While it is true that some massive undiscovered negative feedback mechanism (natural or invented) could kick in at some relatively tolerable planetary temperature to save our bacon, the very long oceanic circulation periods
and the lack of evidence for this during past excursions make this a bad
bet. (Especially considering the life-altering stakes.)
Life is short and the documentation is ten times the size of the source code....
sudo came into existence on Unix in the early 1980's. I'm not going to
rehash the history (which I'm not an expert on), anyone who is
interested can read up on it,
Much of the spam around is sent by hacked-into machines(*). So someone
So you, Steve, have managed to focus on the question you seem
interested in.
And you may be satisfied with your conclusion, quoted
above. I will point out, for your benefit, that it used to be the
custom for some well-engineered Unix programs to check whether they
were being run as root - and to print a short message and exit if they
were.
On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 22:00:36 +0100
druck <news@druck.org.uk> wrote:
No amount of mentioning other stupid things, makes the stupid thing you
are doing any less stupid. I just hope no one else is stupid enough to
let you near a computer in a professional capacity
You're not quite as rude as that Clough fellow, but you are still failing to explain what additional risks he's running by using root as he does, resorting instead to content free insults. He has articulated pretty clearly why he doesn't think he's risking anything and points to decades of experience to back his assertions up. Right now you (and Dan) look like
knee jerk idiots criticising a thoughtful person - do better for yourself.
So here's the challenge - explain clearly exactly how he is being stupid without recourse to generalities like "never do X it's bad" without saying why. So if he really is being stupid *EDUCATE* him and the rest of us don't insult him and tell us all exactly *WHY* and *HOW* he is being stupid.
Start by explaining why a single user with passwordless sudo access
is more secure than a root login. On a multi-user system sudo is used
mainly for accountability not security, when it is used for security the
sudo configuration is tight and very carefully worked out.
On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 18:16:54 +0100
Mike Scott <usenet.16@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid> wrote:
Much of the spam around is sent by hacked-into machines(*). So someone
It's amazing how few botnets run on rPis being used by someone
logged in as root. Most of them run in unprivileged processes on Windows machines.
On 25/06/2022 07:58, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 22:00:36 +0100
Start by explaining why a single user with passwordless sudo
access is more secure than a root login. On a multi-user system sudo is used mainly for accountability not security, when it is used for
security the sudo configuration is tight and very carefully worked out.
That is a completely different issue to running a web browser - a vastly complicated desktop program with numerous bugs and a massive security
attack surface - as root.
The observation that perhaps something else is causing it, possibly even
the chaotic nature of a highly complex climate system with multiple
negative feedback paths, is of cause thrown out by those in denial of
the reality of climate change.
The bandwagon is simply too profitable for industry, for the media, for
the academics and for the politicians, to be derailed.
If man made climate change didn't exist, someone would have had to
invent it,
and they did...
On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 21:29:51 +0100
druck <news@druck.org.uk> wrote:
On 25/06/2022 07:58, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 22:00:36 +0100
Start by explaining why a single user with passwordless sudo
access is more secure than a root login. On a multi-user system sudo is
used mainly for accountability not security, when it is used for
security the sudo configuration is tight and very carefully worked out.
That is a completely different issue to running a web browser - a vastly
complicated desktop program with numerous bugs and a massive security
attack surface - as root.
It is no safer to run it as a user with passwordless sudo access,
if it has arbitrary code execution holes they would enable attempting sudo
as a trivial privilege escalation and lo and behold the attacker has root.
It is no safer to run it as a user with passwordless sudo access,
if it has arbitrary code execution holes they would enable attempting sudo
as a trivial privilege escalation and lo and behold the attacker has root.
Modern 'climate change' is a political and commercial invention.
On 27/06/2022 20:27, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 18:16:54 +0100
Mike Scott <usenet.16@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid> wrote:
Much of the spam around is sent by hacked-into machines(*). So someone
It's amazing how few botnets run on rPis being used by someone
logged in as root. Most of them run in unprivileged processes on Windows machines.
Lets not whataboutism with Windows. If you check the your auth logs,
you'll see the majority of attempts to gain access to Linux machine is
for the root user.
First as its a known account name which is always present (although not enabled for password access from ssh by anyone with any sense), but also
if you crack that, you've hit the jackpot and do not require any other privilege escalation exploits to take over the machine completely.
On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 18:31:58 -0700
Tom Blenko <blenko@martingalesystems.com> wrote:
And you may be satisfied with your conclusion, quoted
above. I will point out, for your benefit, that it used to be the
custom for some well-engineered Unix programs to check whether they
were being run as root - and to print a short message and exit if they were.
In nearly half a century of using and developing under and for unix
I have never encountered one, I'd be interested in an example. I have encountered the opposite fairly often, programs that exit if the effective user ID is not 0.
The one thing sudo was not created for was to make people pause and
think because they had to type sudo first.
As for sudo, that exists for a completely different reason. The
main reason for sudo was to make it possible to distinguish multiple sysadmins in the logs. The secondary reason for sudo was to make it
possible to create limited specialised admin roles. With sudo root login would be banned (nobody would have the root password - it might not even exist) but all admins would be placed into groups with appropriate access provided via sudo.
None of this applies to a single user system where the one user has permission to do anything as anyone in the sudo configuration.
We're human, we make a lot of mistakes so we need time to do this, time in which we can burn oil/coal/peat/each other while we fix the mistakes and explore the alternatives.Well yes, but unfortunately that is not what is happening. As we can see especially clearly in the case of Germany, all that fear has been used
If it takes fear of climate change to get this happening then I'm
all for it
On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 17:40:32 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Modern 'climate change' is a political and commercial invention.Pull the other one - its got bells on it.
'Climate Change Denial' is known to be funded by any and all businesses
that put profit above wellbeing and anti-pollution measures.
Unfortunately, it seems that climate change deniers share one
characteristic: they have occupations, and are involved in sports and
hobbies that are not weather dependant.
On 27/06/2022 21:30, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
We're human, we make a lot of mistakes so we need time to do this, time in >> which we can burn oil/coal/peat/each other while we fix the mistakes andWell yes, but unfortunately that is not what is happening. As we can see especially clearly in the case of Germany, all that fear has been used
explore the alternatives.
If it takes fear of climate change to get this happening then I'm
all for it
to drive a massively profitable path to 'renewable' energy, which has completely disguised the fact that Germany hasn't reduced its emissions
one iota
and is utterly dependent on what's left of its nuclear power,
burning filthy brown coal and inadvisable Russian gas.
On 27/06/2022 21:30, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
We're human, we make a lot of mistakes so we need time to do this, time
in which we can burn oil/coal/peat/each other while we fix the mistakes
and explore the alternatives.
If it takes fear of climate change to get this happening thenWell yes, but unfortunately that is not what is happening. As we can see especially clearly in the case of Germany, all that fear has been used
I'm all for it
to drive a massively profitable path to 'renewable' energy, which has completely disguised the fact that Germany hasn't reduced its emissions
one iota and is utterly dependent on what's left of its nuclear power, burning filthy brown coal and inadvisable Russian gas.
It's almost as if the leadership knew that climate change wasn't
actually a problem, that really needed addressing and the real problem
was how to impoverish their citizens by forcing people to buy more
crap that they didn't actually need, and still get voted back into
power...
We are now facing the third resource war.
More likely they're just members of the pubberlick who live in cities andUnfortunately, it seems that climate change deniers share one
characteristic: they have occupations, and are involved in sports and
hobbies that are not weather dependant.
Mostly they are government employees or media employees. Politicians academics, journalists who are employed by publicly funded organisations
whose future depends on them not being found out telling porkies to
people to gull them into thinking they have to accept a massive drop in living standard and unreliable access to massively expensive energy,
which they now control completely.
And of course the oil and gas companies who have realised they simply
have to pretend to go green whilst renewable energy policy drives up
energy prices, trebles the value of their reserves whilst resulting in
no drop in demand for their products whatsoever.
Cui Bono?
Who benefits from the climate change false narrative?
All the elites do. Only joe soap shivers in fuel poverty whilst the
windmills stop turning and snow is covering the solar panels.
On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 11:47:42 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
More likely they're just members of the pubberlick who live in cities and take no notice of the weather apart from wearing a mack if the forecaster says it will rain, i.e. most deniers are 'just plain folks' who take no notice of the weather, and so have no baseline to judge what's happening.
Unfortunately, it seems that climate change deniers share one
characteristic: they have occupations, and are involved in sports and
hobbies that are not weather dependant.
The alternative thesis, that climate models are simply too crap to
accurately model climate at all,
On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 18:37:59 +0100
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
The alternative thesis, that climate models are simply too crap to
accurately model climate at all,
Well to be fair that's almost inevitable, it's a chaotic system
after all so the models can only work in the smooth bits because the messy bits require complete data at infinite precision and perfect calculation.
IOW they can't be modelled - just like the path of a perfect billiard ball
on a frictionless table with perfect cushions alone in the universe apart from a stray electron at an unknown distance, after a week or so you can
have no idea where the ball is because of the unknown pull of that electron.
The alternative thesis, that climate models are simply too crap to
accurately model climate at all, and there are other issues they don't address that are far more significant than greenhouse gases, is never
aired, simply because it doesn't lead to the desired political and
economic result.
Regarding the theoretical billiard ball and uncertainty factor, I
don't have a source, so if anyone does have a source for this, it
would be greatly appreciated. Back in college within a few years
of the disco era, someone with a physics background told me that
the Heisenberg uncertainty principle would compound so rapidly
that after the cue ball had experienced 15 collisions nothing
could be predicted about its direction.
On 29 Jun 2022 03:40:28 GMT
Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> wrote:
Regarding the theoretical billiard ball and uncertainty factor, I
don't have a source, so if anyone does have a source for this, it
would be greatly appreciated. Back in college within a few years
of the disco era, someone with a physics background told me that
the Heisenberg uncertainty principle would compound so rapidly
that after the cue ball had experienced 15 collisions nothing
could be predicted about its direction.
That one I think I can debunk. [...]
On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 18:37:59 +0100
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
The alternative thesis, that climate models are simply too crap to
accurately model climate at all,
Well to be fair that's almost inevitable, it's a chaotic system
after all so the models can only work in the smooth bits because the messy bits require complete data at infinite precision and perfect calculation.
IOW they can't be modelled - just like the path of a perfect billiard ball
on a frictionless table with perfect cushions alone in the universe apart from a stray electron at an unknown distance, after a week or so you can
have no idea where the ball is because of the unknown pull of that electron.
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
On 29 Jun 2022 03:40:28 GMT
Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> wrote:
Regarding the theoretical billiard ball and uncertainty factor, I
don't have a source, so if anyone does have a source for this, it
would be greatly appreciated. Back in college within a few years
of the disco era, someone with a physics background told me that
the Heisenberg uncertainty principle would compound so rapidly
that after the cue ball had experienced 15 collisions nothing
could be predicted about its direction.
That one I think I can debunk. [...]
Also, Heisenberg decidedly does not play a role in billiards, even when multiplied 15 times. It's just macro uncertainty because of imperfections
of ... everything.
Dr Robert Brown
Kindly provide a link to this physicist's academic tenure and publication.
Searches find a lot of Robert Browns with degrees, mostly medical and non- scientific plus a few engineers, but no phyicists. The Wikipedia 'Robert Brown' disambiguation page doesn't list any physicists either.
Did you put also the two words climate change in your search?
On 28/06/2022 20:01, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 18:37:59 +0100
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
The alternative thesis, that climate models are simply too crap to
accurately model climate at all,
Well to be fair that's almost inevitable, it's a chaotic system
after all so the models can only work in the smooth bits because the
messy bits require complete data at infinite precision and perfect calculation. IOW they can't be modelled - just like the path of a
perfect billiard ball on a frictionless table with perfect cushions
alone in the universe apart from a stray electron at an unknown
distance, after a week or so you can have no idea where the ball is
because of the unknown pull of that electron.
You are slightly confusing tow things. The starting data problem and the precision problem.
The billiard ball is incomputable though deterministic because of
rounding errors in the math, and in the starting data, and non
linearities in the real world vis à vis the idealised model.
Its way worse with climate. E.g. cloud cover versus non cloud cover is a
On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 12:26:06 +0100
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 28/06/2022 20:01, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 18:37:59 +0100You are slightly confusing tow things. The starting data problem and the
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
The alternative thesis, that climate models are simply too crap to
accurately model climate at all,
Well to be fair that's almost inevitable, it's a chaotic system
after all so the models can only work in the smooth bits because the
messy bits require complete data at infinite precision and perfect
calculation. IOW they can't be modelled - just like the path of a
perfect billiard ball on a frictionless table with perfect cushions
alone in the universe apart from a stray electron at an unknown
distance, after a week or so you can have no idea where the ball is
because of the unknown pull of that electron.
precision problem.
No I am not.
The billiard ball is incomputable though deterministic because of
rounding errors in the math, and in the starting data, and non
linearities in the real world vis à vis the idealised model.
Yes but I am talking about the behaviour of an ideal billiard ball
on an ideal table with precisely known initial velocity. In an otherwise empty universe the path of the billiard ball may be predicted indefinitely. However if you add one randomly placed electron to that universe the errors from ignoring its pull will mean that after a week or so you have no idea where the ball is on the table or what its velocity direction is.
A real billiard ball on a real table is vastly more complex, subject
to far greater unknown influences and won't run for a week no matter what
you do.
Its way worse with climate. E.g. cloud cover versus non cloud cover is a
Yes of course - this example is to demonstrate that a tiny unknown
will eventually make an otherwise simple and perfectly predictable system completely unpredictable after a surprisingly short time. Climate is far
less predictable.
On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 12:26:06 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Dr Robert Brown
Kindly provide a link to this physicist's academic tenure and publication.
Searches find a lot of Robert Browns with degrees, mostly medical and non- scientific plus a few engineers, but no phyicists. The Wikipedia 'Robert Brown' disambiguation page doesn't list any physicists either.
On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 14:36:03 +0200, Deloptes wrote:
Did you put also the two words climate change in your search?No, of course not: TNP referred to Robert Brown as a physicist, so of
course I looked for a physicist with that name and didn't find one.
Replacing the 'physicist' search term with 'climate change' got just two
hits for "Robert Brown":
]
On 29/06/2022 14:56, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 12:26:06 +0100
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 28/06/2022 20:01, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 18:37:59 +0100You are slightly confusing tow things. The starting data problem and the >>> precision problem.
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
The alternative thesis, that climate models are simply too crap to
accurately model climate at all,
Well to be fair that's almost inevitable, it's a chaotic system >>>> after all so the models can only work in the smooth bits because the
messy bits require complete data at infinite precision and perfect
calculation. IOW they can't be modelled - just like the path of a
perfect billiard ball on a frictionless table with perfect cushions
alone in the universe apart from a stray electron at an unknown
distance, after a week or so you can have no idea where the ball is
because of the unknown pull of that electron.
No I am not.
The billiard ball is incomputable though deterministic because of
rounding errors in the math, and in the starting data, and non
linearities in the real world vis à vis the idealised model.
Yes but I am talking about the behaviour of an ideal billiard ball >> on an ideal table with precisely known initial velocity. In an otherwise
empty universe the path of the billiard ball may be predicted
indefinitely.
However if you add one randomly placed electron to that universe the
errors
from ignoring its pull will mean that after a week or so you have no idea
where the ball is on the table or what its velocity direction is.
A real billiard ball on a real table is vastly more complex, subject >> to far greater unknown influences and won't run for a week no matter what
you do.
Its way worse with climate. E.g. cloud cover versus non cloud cover is a
Yes of course - this example is to demonstrate that a tiny unknown >> will eventually make an otherwise simple and perfectly predictable system
completely unpredictable after a surprisingly short time. Climate is far
less predictable.
I wonder why people make statements that are so obviously untrue. Global climate is very predictable, very stable. Chaotic behaviour is generally local and or short term, it is generally mean reverting.
The problem is not chaos, per se, the problem is that we do not
understand long term climate effects, the drivers of long term changes.
Chaos makes it harder to study and measure long term effects, but it is
very unlikely long term changes in the weather happen purely by chance, chaotically. In the medium term, global climate is complex rather than chaotic.
I suppose it is possible, a chaotic effect could push us out of a stable local equilibrium, but that is very unlikely, given previous stability. Unlikely compared to a clear unusual mechanism like CO2 increase driving global temperature change, with unknown long term consequences.
On 29/06/2022 14:13, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 14:36:03 +0200, Deloptes wrote:
Did you put also the two words climate change in your search?No, of course not: TNP referred to Robert Brown as a physicist, so of
course I looked for a physicist with that name and didn't find one.
Replacing the 'physicist' search term with 'climate change' got just
two hits for "Robert Brown":
]
https://scholars.duke.edu/person/rgb
On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 23:56:01 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 29/06/2022 14:13, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 14:36:03 +0200, Deloptes wrote:
Did you put also the two words climate change in your search?No, of course not: TNP referred to Robert Brown as a physicist, so of
course I looked for a physicist with that name and didn't find one.
Replacing the 'physicist' search term with 'climate change' got just
two hits for "Robert Brown":
]
https://scholars.duke.edu/person/rgb
Thanks for that: it turns out that his published work is connected with Heisenberg's model of ferromagnetism and not a lot else. IMO this makes
his comments about climate modelling interesting but scarcely definitive.
On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 23:56:01 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 29/06/2022 14:13, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 14:36:03 +0200, Deloptes wrote:
Did you put also the two words climate change in your search?No, of course not: TNP referred to Robert Brown as a physicist, so of
course I looked for a physicist with that name and didn't find one.
Replacing the 'physicist' search term with 'climate change' got just
two hits for "Robert Brown":
https://scholars.duke.edu/person/rgb
Thanks for that: it turns out that his published work is connected with Heisenberg's model of ferromagnetism and not a lot else. IMO this makes
his comments about climate modelling interesting but scarcely definitive.
His remarks are about a problem in physics and the modelling thereof.
He knows far more about that than any 'climate scientist', most of whom
are practically innumerate.
On 30 Jun 2022 at 13:19:02 BST, Martin Gregorie
<martin@mydomain.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 23:56:01 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 29/06/2022 14:13, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 14:36:03 +0200, Deloptes wrote:
Did you put also the two words climate change in your search?No, of course not: TNP referred to Robert Brown as a physicist, so of
course I looked for a physicist with that name and didn't find one.
Replacing the 'physicist' search term with 'climate change' got just
two hits for "Robert Brown":
https://scholars.duke.edu/person/rgb
Thanks for that: it turns out that his published work is connected with
Heisenberg's model of ferromagnetism and not a lot else. IMO this makes
his comments about climate modelling interesting but scarcely
definitive.
Hmm. Be careful: sounds a lot like you're saying is that if he's not a published climate scientist then you're happy to ignore what he says. I
don't recall that Feynman was a rocket scientist either.
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
His remarks are about a problem in physics and the modelling thereof.
He knows far more about that than any 'climate scientist', most of whom
are practically innumerate.
As far as I know, climate science is an extension of meteorology & the physics of oceanography. That is a graduate specialty of physics where I studied physics (Utrecht).
There may be other sorts of climate scientists but that is not "as far as I know".
What I'm saying is that ferromagnetism != climate science and that as a sometime physical inorganic chemist with most experience in X-ray crystallography and Mossbauer spectrography, I wouldn't ever have
expected anybody to believe anything I said about, e.g. organometallic chemistry or protein synthesis. I might have asked questions about those subjects but would never have pronounced opinions about them.
On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 19:57:09 -0000 (UTC)
Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> wrote:
What I'm saying is that ferromagnetism != climate science and that as a
sometime physical inorganic chemist with most experience in X-ray
crystallography and Mossbauer spectrography, I wouldn't ever have
expected anybody to believe anything I said about, e.g. organometallic
chemistry or protein synthesis. I might have asked questions about those
subjects but would never have pronounced opinions about them.
That seems perfectly reasonable - but I expect that you would
recognise poor lab technique in the work of a chemist in a different field
to yours if the lab techniques were similar to those you use.
In this case he appears to be well versed in the techniques of mathematical modelling with a strong grasp of the complexity of the problem and the relative complexity of the climate and the models being used. He
also makes good points about the historical record showing conditions much worse than this - but I do accept that we didn't have to live through those times and they may not have been much fun.
The models are massive oversimplifications of the problem, they
can't be anything else. If we dedicated every CPU on the planet to running a single fully detailed model we might model every aspect of the climate over
a second per century of run time - if we could build the model and if we had the data (we can't and we don't). The models being used are crude,
simplified approximations but then so is the ideal gas equation or
Newtonian mechanics but both can be used to give good enough predictions in many cases.
The real question is whether or not the current climate models are
good enough to give good predictions in and around the current conditions. They certainly don't model the details and they have a lot of knobs to
tweak which doesn't inspire confidence but might be what's needed. I
honestly don't know but I don't care because I want us weaned off oil/gas/coal, I like clean air and water and I don't care what we have to tell each other to make it happen or how many (potentially) wrong paths we follow as long as we get there before we starve/freeze/bake.
Fortunately there is absolutely no danger of anyone being able to
prove the current models wrong or proving that human actions are not the major driving force so there's no real danger of an about turn and going
back to smog and acid rain.
Fortunately there is absolutely no danger of anyone being able to
prove the current models wrong or proving that human actions are not the major driving force so there's no real danger of an about turn and going
back to smog and acid rain.
All this is largely the point I was trying to make. The models are vast simplifications, and if we can't prove them wrong (that is, inapplicable
to the real world), we can't prove them right, either. AFAIK, we don't
even know the range of conditions to which these models might apply. So
we are left with people's opinions, which is never a good place for
science to be.
I don't know about the ideal gas equation (in terms of its limitations),
but Newtonian mechanics works extremely well.
I don't know about the ideal gas equation (in terms of its limitations),
but Newtonian mechanics works extremely well.
I'd just like to point out that CO2 is a known greenhouse gas and that
the amount of it in the atmosphere is rising, and has been, at an
increasing rate, since roughly the mid-Victorian era. This is not a
computer extrapolation but an actual physical measurement, and one that
is continuously monitored from a station at the top of one of the
Hawaiian volcanoes.
On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 11:10:13 -0000 (UTC)
Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> wrote:
I'd just like to point out that CO2 is a known greenhouse gas and that
Whatever that means precisely, the atmosphere does not behave in
any way like a greenhouse.
the amount of it in the atmosphere is rising, and has been, at an
increasing rate, since roughly the mid-Victorian era. This is not a
This is true.
computer extrapolation but an actual physical measurement, and one that
is continuously monitored from a station at the top of one of the
Hawaiian volcanoes.
However it has also been at far higher levels than it currently is.
There have been times when CO2 levels rise and temperatures fall and vice-versa.
The relationship (if any) between CO2 and temperature is what is
being modelled. The connection between those models and reality is what is
in dispute.
On 1 Jul 2022 08:47:42 GMT
TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
I don't know about the ideal gas equation (in terms of its limitations),
Being close to phase changes and chemical reactions tend to mess it
up terribly.
but Newtonian mechanics works extremely well.
It works very poorly in regions of high gravitational pull (Neutron stars, black holes ...), at high relative speeds and at very small scales (eg. tunnel diodes).
The relationship (if any) between CO2 and temperature is what is
being modelled. The connection between those models and reality is what
is in dispute.
Nicely expressed.
Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> wrote:
For temperature trends from 20,000BC - 2016, see https://xkcd.com/1732/
and note that this also follows the same trend. XKCD may be a satirical
strip, but the author's background is in engineering and AFAICT he doesn't >> piss about with the numbers on this type of chart.
On his wiki page it does say engineer but also that his degree is a BS in physics. By trade he was a NASA software and robotics engineer for a while, maybe that's why? I thought engineer was a protected title in the US but no idea what the requirements are.
For temperature trends from 20,000BC - 2016, see https://xkcd.com/1732/
and note that this also follows the same trend. XKCD may be a satirical strip, but the author's background is in engineering and AFAICT he doesn't piss about with the numbers on this type of chart.
On 01 Jul 2022 at 21:37:54 BST, A. Dumas <alexandre@dumas.fr.invalid> wrote:
I thought engineer was a protected title in the US but no
idea what the requirements are.
What do you mean by "protected title"?
On 1 Jul 2022 18:13:06 GMT, TimS wrote:
The relationship (if any) between CO2 and temperature is what is
being modelled. The connection between those models and reality is what
is in dispute.
Nicely expressed.
Indeed, but since roughly 1800 the average temperature in the UK does in
fact correlate quite well with increases in CO2. Note, no climate models
are needed to see this correlation. See Figure 2 in
https://skepticalscience.com/The-correlation-between-CO2-and- temperature.html
which shows pretty good correlation, but also note the the text points
out that if you only look at a short time period, (Figure 1 on that page
Also note that these two data sets are measurements and that there is no climate model involved.
For temperature trends from 20,000BC - 2016, see https://xkcd.com/1732/
and note that this also follows the same trend. XKCD may be a satirical strip, but the author's background is in engineering and AFAICT he
doesn't piss about with the numbers on this type of chart.
On 01 Jul 2022 at 21:37:54 BST, A. Dumas <alexandre@dumas.fr.invalid> wrote:
Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> wrote:
For temperature trends from 20,000BC - 2016, see https://xkcd.com/1732/
and note that this also follows the same trend. XKCD may be a satirical >>> strip, but the author's background is in engineering and AFAICT he doesn't >>> piss about with the numbers on this type of chart.
On his wiki page it does say engineer but also that his degree is a BS in
physics. By trade he was a NASA software and robotics engineer for a while, >> maybe that's why? I thought engineer was a protected title in the US but no >> idea what the requirements are.
What do you mean by "protected title"?
Yet it only covers short time periods. For climate long means tens
of thousands to millions of years. Look at the frequency if ice ages and interglacials for example.
Yeah, I know that. See the precession of Mercury for the most significant effect in the Solar System. But even there you have to wait years for the effect to be noticeable, and I suspect NASA is happy to use Newton for any spacecraft. Fortunately there are no neutron stars or black holes near.but Newtonian mechanics works extremely well.It works very poorly in regions of high gravitational pull (Neutron
stars, black holes ...), at high relative speeds and at very small scales
(eg. tunnel diodes).
On 01 Jul 2022 at 16:50:26 BST, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 11:10:13 -0000 (UTC)
Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> wrote:
I'd just like to point out that CO2 is a known greenhouse gas and that
Whatever that means precisely, the atmosphere does not behave in
any way like a greenhouse.
the amount of it in the atmosphere is rising, and has been, at an
increasing rate, since roughly the mid-Victorian era. This is not a
This is true.
computer extrapolation but an actual physical measurement, and one that
is continuously monitored from a station at the top of one of the
Hawaiian volcanoes.
However it has also been at far higher levels than it currently is.
There have been times when CO2 levels rise and temperatures fall and
vice-versa.
The relationship (if any) between CO2 and temperature is what is
being modelled. The connection between those models and reality is what is >> in dispute.
Nicely expressed.
On 1 Jul 2022 08:47:42 GMT, TimS wrote:
All this is largely the point I was trying to make. The models are vast
simplifications, and if we can't prove them wrong (that is, inapplicable
to the real world), we can't prove them right, either. AFAIK, we don't
even know the range of conditions to which these models might apply. So
we are left with people's opinions, which is never a good place for
science to be.
I don't know about the ideal gas equation (in terms of its limitations),
but Newtonian mechanics works extremely well.
I'd just like to point out that CO2 is a known greenhouse gas and that the amount of it in the atmosphere is rising, and has been, at an increasing rate, since roughly the mid-Victorian era. This is not a computer extrapolation but an actual physical measurement, and one that is continuously monitored from a station at the top of one of the Hawaiian volcanoes.
On 01/07/2022 19:12, TimS wrote:
Yeah, I know that. See the precession of Mercury for the most significantbut Newtonian mechanics works extremely well.It works very poorly in regions of high gravitational pull (Neutron >>> stars, black holes ...), at high relative speeds and at very small scales >>> (eg. tunnel diodes).
effect in the Solar System. But even there you have to wait years for the
effect to be noticeable, and I suspect NASA is happy to use Newton for any >> spacecraft. Fortunately there are no neutron stars or black holes near.
But GPS requires general relativistic corrections for time in order to function. A quick check suggests that GPS satellites advance about
38usec per day relative to a ground-based clock. That's 45usec ahead
because of gravity, and 7usec back because of (special relativistic)
motion considerations.
<https://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/pogge.1/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html>
On 01 Jul 2022 at 16:43:48 BST, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
It works very poorly in regions of high gravitational pull (Neutron stars, black holes ...), at high relative speeds and at very small
scales (eg. tunnel diodes).
Yeah, I know that. See the precession of Mercury for the most significant effect in the Solar System. But even there you have to wait years for the
On 02/07/2022 05:52, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
Yet it only covers short time periods. For climate long means tens
of thousands to millions of years. Look at the frequency if ice ages and interglacials for example.
I've seen it suggested that "climate" per se does not actually exist:
and that weather conditions are just fractal in nature. I'm not arguing
this one either way.
And of course in any case, correlation !=> causation. I suspect you
On 1 Jul 2022 18:13:06 GMT, TimS wrote:
Indeed, but since roughly 1800 the average temperature in the UK does inThe relationship (if any) between CO2 and temperature is what is
being modelled. The connection between those models and reality is what
is in dispute.
Nicely expressed.
fact correlate quite well with increases in CO2. Note, no climate models
are needed to see this correlation. See Figure 2 in
https://skepticalscience.com/The-correlation-between-CO2-and- temperature.html
which shows pretty good correlation, but also note the the text points out that if you only look at a short time period, (Figure 1 on that page
covers less than a decade) than weather variation dominates and there is little visible correlation between the two data sets.
Also note that these two data sets are measurements and that there is no climate model involved.
For temperature trends from 20,000BC - 2016, see https://xkcd.com/1732/
and note that this also follows the same trend. XKCD may be a satirical strip, but the author's background is in engineering and AFAICT he doesn't piss about with the numbers on this type of chart.
I suspect NASA is happy to use Newton for any
spacecraft.
TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
On 01 Jul 2022 at 21:37:54 BST, A. Dumas <alexandre@dumas.fr.invalid> wrote: >>> I thought engineer was a protected title in the US but no
idea what the requirements are.
What do you mean by "protected title"?
That not anyone can call themselves that, enforceable by fine or time.
Isn't it? That would make sense in the US, the third world christo-fascist libertarian shithole country that it is.
On 1 Jul 2022 18:12:15 GMT
TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
On 01 Jul 2022 at 16:43:48 BST, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net>
wrote:
It works very poorly in regions of high gravitational pull (Neutron
stars, black holes ...), at high relative speeds and at very small
scales (eg. tunnel diodes).
Yeah, I know that. See the precession of Mercury for the most significant
effect in the Solar System. But even there you have to wait years for the
Perhaps electromagnetism is a more significant effect. I was amazed
when we did the calculations (Cambridge maths entrance exam preparation)
that the relativistic correction for the repulsive force of the moving electrons (at all of a few mm/s) was precisely enough to account for the magnetic force generated between two wires by the current flowing in them.
On 2 Jul 2022 14:53:11 GMT
TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
On 02 Jul 2022 at 14:51:37 BST, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net>
wrote:
On 1 Jul 2022 18:12:15 GMT
TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
On 01 Jul 2022 at 16:43:48 BST, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> >>>> wrote:
It works very poorly in regions of high gravitational pull
(Neutron stars, black holes ...), at high relative speeds and at very >>>>> small scales (eg. tunnel diodes).
Yeah, I know that. See the precession of Mercury for the most
significant effect in the Solar System. But even there you have to
wait years for the
Perhaps electromagnetism is a more significant effect. I was amazed
when we did the calculations (Cambridge maths entrance exam preparation) >>> that the relativistic correction for the repulsive force of the moving
electrons (at all of a few mm/s) was precisely enough to account for the >>> magnetic force generated between two wires by the current flowing in
them.
Is that General Relativity? The gravitational business for Mecury is.
No special (do not ask for calculation details it was more than four decades ago) - as for Mercury IUSC Special Relativity gets it closer than Newton but General Relativity gets it spot on.
These days the puzzler is the behaviour of galaxies - hence dark
matter, dark energy and suchlike kludges, at least they look like kludges
to me but the maths involved is way beyond anything I ever touched.
On 02 Jul 2022 at 14:51:37 BST, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
On 1 Jul 2022 18:12:15 GMT
TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
On 01 Jul 2022 at 16:43:48 BST, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net>
wrote:
It works very poorly in regions of high gravitational pull
(Neutron stars, black holes ...), at high relative speeds and at very
small scales (eg. tunnel diodes).
Yeah, I know that. See the precession of Mercury for the most
significant effect in the Solar System. But even there you have to
wait years for the
Perhaps electromagnetism is a more significant effect. I was amazed when we did the calculations (Cambridge maths entrance exam preparation) that the relativistic correction for the repulsive force of the moving electrons (at all of a few mm/s) was precisely enough to account for the magnetic force generated between two wires by the current flowing in
them.
Is that General Relativity? The gravitational business for Mecury is.
On 02 Jul 2022 at 16:26:04 BST, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
These days the puzzler is the behaviour of galaxies - hence dark matter, dark energy and suchlike kludges, at least they look like
kludges to me but the maths involved is way beyond anything I ever
touched.
To me they feel like the same sort of kludges that those who in earlier
times insisted that the Sun's and planetary orbits be perfect circles
around trhe Earth had to resort to in order to fit observed reality. At
some point someone will come up with a new paradigm and we'll all be
going, "Oh yeah, why didn't I think of that?"
Mind you, quanta were initially introduced as I recall to solve the ultra-violet catastrophe but then took on a life of their own.
On 02 Jul 2022 at 16:26:04 BST, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
On 2 Jul 2022 14:53:11 GMT
TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
On 02 Jul 2022 at 14:51:37 BST, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net>
wrote:
On 1 Jul 2022 18:12:15 GMT
TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
On 01 Jul 2022 at 16:43:48 BST, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> >>>>> wrote:
It works very poorly in regions of high gravitational pull
(Neutron stars, black holes ...), at high relative speeds and at very >>>>>> small scales (eg. tunnel diodes).
Yeah, I know that. See the precession of Mercury for the most
significant effect in the Solar System. But even there you have to
wait years for the
Perhaps electromagnetism is a more significant effect. I was amazed >>>> when we did the calculations (Cambridge maths entrance exam preparation) >>>> that the relativistic correction for the repulsive force of the moving >>>> electrons (at all of a few mm/s) was precisely enough to account for the >>>> magnetic force generated between two wires by the current flowing in
them.
Is that General Relativity? The gravitational business for Mecury is.
No special (do not ask for calculation details it was more than four
decades ago) - as for Mercury IUSC Special Relativity gets it closer than
Newton but General Relativity gets it spot on.
These days the puzzler is the behaviour of galaxies - hence dark
matter, dark energy and suchlike kludges, at least they look like kludges
to me but the maths involved is way beyond anything I ever touched.
To me they feel like the same sort of kludges that those who in earlier times insisted that the Sun's and planetary orbits be perfect circles around trhe Earth had to resort to in order to fit observed reality. At some point someone
will come up with a new paradigm and we'll all be going, "Oh yeah, why didn't I think of that?"
Mind you, quanta were initially introduced as I recall to solve the ultra-violet catastrophe but then took on a life of their own.
My take on quantum mechanics is that the maths works but all the
explanations seem completely off the wall, although there are at least some formulations which avoid the very problematic observer.
On Sat, 2 Jul 2022 11:39:32 +0100
Mike Scott <usenet.16@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid> wrote:
On 02/07/2022 05:52, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
Yet it only covers short time periods. For climate long means tens
of thousands to millions of years. Look at the frequency if ice ages and >>> interglacials for example.
I've seen it suggested that "climate" per se does not actually exist:
and that weather conditions are just fractal in nature. I'm not arguing
this one either way.
That is AFAIK a correct observation, climate is weather on a long scale.
And of course in any case, correlation !=> causation. I suspect you
Therein lies the main problem. All the causal paths are complex,
loaded with feedback and interact non-linearly, but if you say something
like that to a policy maker they'll tell you to come back when can give
them simple explanations that they can understand and convey. Hence the current dogmatic certainty.
It is important to note that the Kantian view of the world - that
science is no more the descriptions dreamed up that *happen to work*,
rather than the *discovery* of *truths*, that the classical physicists averred - is becoming far more useful in terms of both cosmology and
quantum level interactions.
On 02/07/2022 14:59, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jul 2022 11:39:32 +0100
Therein lies the main problem. All the causal paths are complex,
loaded with feedback and interact non-linearly, but if you say something like that to a policy maker they'll tell you to come back when can give them simple explanations that they can understand and convey. Hence the current dogmatic certainty.
Hence the ease with which random dogmatic *claimed* certainty affects policy...
On Sun, 3 Jul 2022 14:36:31 +0100
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
It is important to note that the Kantian view of the world - that
science is no more the descriptions dreamed up that *happen to work*,
"Happen to work" is a bit misleading. Science is a process designed
to filter descriptions that work repeatably from those that don't, it's pretty effective at it too.
rather than the *discovery* of *truths*, that the classical physicists
averred - is becoming far more useful in terms of both cosmology and
More simply the idea that when you have something that works it
must be the truth turns out to be false. Provably so because there are multiple contradictory explanations that work as well as can be tested and they can't all be true.
quantum level interactions.
Whereas we're getting our noses rubbed into the fact that it will
only be an approximation and even if we stumble on "the truth" we'll never know it or be able to prove it, we'll only know that it seems to work.
On Sun, 3 Jul 2022 14:32:45 +0100
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 02/07/2022 14:59, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jul 2022 11:39:32 +0100
Therein lies the main problem. All the causal paths are complex,Hence the ease with which random dogmatic *claimed* certainty affects
loaded with feedback and interact non-linearly, but if you say something >>> like that to a policy maker they'll tell you to come back when can give
them simple explanations that they can understand and convey. Hence the
current dogmatic certainty.
policy...
It is what is required to affect policy, nothing less would do the
job. That's why anyone working at changing policy toes the line and never expresses doubts whether or not they have any.
BTW have you seen the recent commercialisation of iron-iron flow batteries ? They appear to have really useful properties, very long lives
and really low costs for long term bulk energy storage. Energy density is nothing to write home about but it's not too shabby either and tanks of
iron chloride solution are cheap.
Nuclear power is already way cheaper - despite attempts to render it impossibly expensive - than renewable energy WITHOUT the storage.
I don't see the point in adding even more expense to it to solve a
problem that nuclear power doesn't have.
On Sun, 3 Jul 2022 17:31:04 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Nuclear power is already way cheaper - despite attempts to render itThe CO2 emissions of fission energy remain pegged at around 30% that of
impossibly expensive - than renewable energy WITHOUT the storage.
I don't see the point in adding even more expense to it to solve a
problem that nuclear power doesn't have.
coal once the cost of mining and refining fissile material are included
along with the emissions from producing the steel and concrete needed to build the plants are both combined with the energy costs of building a reactor and then demolition and clean-up when its reached end of life.
The other unacknowledged problem with fission reactors is waste products
and the cost of dismantling and cleaning up obsolete reactors. So far
there are no accepted cleanup methods or long term storage facilities. Neither US or UK have completed any long-term radioactive storage
facilities and nor have anybody else apart from one Scandinavian facility.
Note that the earliest British reactors have still not been decontaminated
or dismantled (unless you think that simply mothballing them is good
enough), and there seems to be no accepted way of disposing of obsolete reactors from ships and subs apart from throwing them in the sea. I
believe the Russians dump theirs off Kamchatka but I haven't heard what everybody else does with theirs.
Building more fission plant seems problematic to me until there are operational recycling plants ...
These days the puzzler is the behaviour of galaxies - hence dark matter, dark energy and suchlike kludges, at least they look like kludges
to me but the maths involved is way beyond anything I ever touched.
On Sun, 3 Jul 2022 17:31:04 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Nuclear power is already way cheaper - despite attempts to render itThe CO2 emissions of fission energy remain pegged at around 30% that of
impossibly expensive - than renewable energy WITHOUT the storage.
I don't see the point in adding even more expense to it to solve a
problem that nuclear power doesn't have.
coal once the cost of mining and refining fissile material are included
along with the emissions from producing the steel and concrete needed to build the plants are both combined with the energy costs of building a reactor and then demolition and clean-up when its reached end of life.
The other unacknowledged problem with fission reactors is waste products
and the cost of dismantling and cleaning up obsolete reactors. So far
there are no accepted cleanup methods or long term storage facilities. Neither US or UK have completed any long-term radioactive storage
facilities and nor have anybody else apart from one Scandinavian facility.
Note that the earliest British reactors have still not been decontaminated#
or dismantled
enough), and there seems to be no accepted way of disposing of obsolete reactors from ships and subs apart from throwing them in the sea. I
believe the Russians dump theirs off Kamchatka but I haven't heard what everybody else does with theirs.
Building more fission plant seems problematic to me until there are operational recycling plants to recover and reuse valuable isotopes from spent fuel rods and safe, proven operational systems that are disposing of the long-term radioactive waste that can't be recycled in any useful way.
Fusion systems would seem to be were they've always been - 40 years in the future - though their associated costs continue to rise.
....
These days the puzzler is the behaviour of galaxies - hence dark
matter, dark energy and suchlike kludges, at least they look like kludges
to me but the maths involved is way beyond anything I ever touched.
At the risk of flying a kite, I think we should note that (at least
AFAIAA - I'm decades out of date on this stuff) most (all?) calculations
are based in the assumption that ε0, μ0 (and hence c) have the same
values everywhere and everywhen.
We've only measured them within a remarkably small space-time region,
yet extrapolate the observed constancy-within-experimental-errors to the entire universe throughout its history. Is that too arrogant an assumption?
I can't help but wonder if the need for "dark matter" would go away if
things weren't as constant as is generally held.
Bit like climate science in its way :-)
I can't help but wonder if the need for "dark matter" would go away if
things weren't as constant as is generally held.
On Mon, 4 Jul 2022 09:02:30 +0100
Mike Scott <usenet.16@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid> wrote:
I can't help but wonder if the need for "dark matter" would go away if
things weren't as constant as is generally held.
Very likely but the assumption of mediocrity along with the
assumption of consistency are pretty fundamental not because we're sure they're true but because we can't say anything useful if they're not. These assumptions are why science is also based on faith - faith that the universe *can* be modelled.
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/treatment-and-conditioning-of-nuclear-wastes.aspx
and see the section on vitrification.
The issue of long term storage is a political one.
Given the priority of the first reactors was plutonium for bombs, unsurprising that little or no thought went into how they would
eventually be dismantled.
This is not the case for modern plant.
Well, I'm happy to burn more coal if you are.
On Mon, 4 Jul 2022 09:02:30 +0100
Mike Scott <usenet.16@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid> wrote:
I can't help but wonder if the need for "dark matter" would go away if
things weren't as constant as is generally held.
Very likely but the assumption of mediocrity along with the
assumption of consistency are pretty fundamental not because we're sure they're true but because we can't say anything useful if they're not. These assumptions are why science is also based on faith - faith that the universe *can* be modelled.
On 04 Jul 2022 at 12:36:18 BST, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jul 2022 09:02:30 +0100
Mike Scott <usenet.16@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid> wrote:
I can't help but wonder if the need for "dark matter" would go away if
things weren't as constant as is generally held.
Very likely but the assumption of mediocrity along with the
assumption of consistency are pretty fundamental not because we're sure
they're true but because we can't say anything useful if they're not. These >> assumptions are why science is also based on faith - faith that the universe >> *can* be modelled.
It's a bit like those fundies who say that everything was created 6000 years ago at a precisely specified time/date - along with all the fossils and other evidence of the big bang etc. Well, we don't *actually* know that this is untrue, but it's a poor working hypothesis. After all, you could apply the exact same logic to say that it was all created (along with our memories of earlier times), exactly 2, no sorry 3, no sorry 4, etc - seconds ago. But what
would be the point?
Ultimately we're looking for a self-consistent hypothesis which can make useful predictions and that is without arbitrary conditions. And in any case, we don't know that we're not living in a giant simulation, created by what would appear to us to be God. Which is what religious believers think anyway.
Not what I meant at all - more solar would be better and so would geo- thermal, which looks as if its no longer being ignored.
On 3 Jul 2022 21:35:37 GMT, TimS wrote:
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/treatment-and-conditioning-of-nuclear-wastes.aspx
Thanks for that link. Most interesting.
and see the section on vitrification.
The issue of long term storage is a political one.Indeed, and seemingly being kicked into the long grass and otherwise
ignored.
Given the priority of the first reactors was plutonium for bombs,True, but not what I was on about: I was merely pointing out that they're still there and being treated as SEP (Someone Else's Problem).
unsurprising that little or no thought went into how they would
eventually be dismantled.
This is not the case for modern plant.
Well, I'm happy to burn more coal if you are.Not what I meant at all - more solar would be better and so would geo- thermal, which looks as if its no longer being ignored.
In the UK, we're too far north for sensible solar, especially in winter
when you need it most.
Not much geothermal here either, I wouldn't have
thought.
The real problem with renewables here is in winter, when you can get
periods of a week or more with a blocking high over most of northern
Europe, leading to no solar and not much wind. That happens a couple of
times a winter, typically.
On 4 Jul 2022 14:23:02 GMT, TimS wrote:
In the UK, we're too far north for sensible solar, especially in winterTrue, but wind and maybe tidal power are both fine in winter.
when you need it most.
On Mon, 4 Jul 2022 12:56:54 -0000 (UTC)
Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> wrote:
Not what I meant at all - more solar would be better and so would geo-
thermal, which looks as if its no longer being ignored.
It's interesting how that term seems to have shifted.
When I first encountered it geothermal was about running heat
engines off the magma, which seems at first sight to be an enormous source
of energy that it may even be beneficial to tap. Turned out to be a really good way to wear out equipment fast.
These days geothermal seems to be more about pulling stored solar
heat out of the ground a far more feasible prospect.
On 4 Jul 2022 14:23:02 GMT, TimS wrote:
In the UK, we're too far north for sensible solar, especially in winterTrue, but wind and maybe tidal power are both fine in winter.
when you need it most.
Not much geothermal here either, I wouldn't haveYou might also take a look at what is now being talked about for
thought.
geothermal: new drilling techniques are being developed, giving the
ability to tap much higher temperatures than have previously been
considered. Here's an example of what's being discussed:
https://geothermal-energy-journal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/ s40517-021-00203-1
The real problem with renewables here is in winter, when you can getFair point, and I've seen estimates of recoverable uranium that would indicate that there's a lot less of that than many people assume.
periods of a week or more with a blocking high over most of northern
Europe, leading to no solar and not much wind. That happens a couple of
times a winter, typically.
This seems like a reasonable summary (the original 2005 paper was updated last month :
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium- resources/supply-of-uranium.aspx
but it may be a bit over-optimistic seeing who wrote it.
On 04 Jul 2022 at 16:15:33 BST, Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> wrote:
On 4 Jul 2022 14:23:02 GMT, TimS wrote:
In the UK, we're too far north for sensible solar, especially in winterTrue, but wind and maybe tidal power are both fine in winter.
when you need it most.
Not wind, as I already said. Tidal? Only one place in the UK (the Severn estuary) where that would generate a lot. But then any tidal produces zero four times a day. So you need a backup, and there are no comparably sized tidal locations elewhere in the UK. So your backup has to be nuclear and you'd
have done better, more reliably, to have only built the nuclear in the first place. No point in building two power stations and only getting the output of one.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 371 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 37:31:24 |
| Calls: | 7,932 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 12,998 |
| Messages: | 5,805,624 |