UN dossier 'ends all climate-change doubt':

CLIMATE change is real and set to cause dramatic temperature rises in the
coming century, according to a leaked draft of a major United Nations
report
http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=134472007

----

On 28 Jan, 10:40, William Elliot wrote:
CLIMATE change is real and set to cause dramatic temperature rises in the
coming century, according to a leaked draft of a major United Nations
reporthttp://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=134472007

----

Report predicts sea levels may rise less than previously thought by 2100

And we are not going to see progress by then - we will not have
mirrors? Andrew Ng predicts 10 years for flatpack assembly and a VN
machine MUST follow in not to long a time period.

I think that perhaps we should think about ocean acidification more
than global warming. There there is no readily available technological
fix. Even so 2100 represents an enormous period for technological
development. The Wright brothers first flew 104 years ago. Think of
aviation since then.

Greenery is targeting aviation. Perhaps when they talk about 2100 we
should talk about the Wrights. One way of appeciating a timescale
(technologically speaking) is to project a similar time backwards. The
Wright biplane would never have caused any pollution, if we had stayed
there. Singularity buffs are even claiming that progress is
accelerating towards a singularity. If the singulasrity is even half
true, we should look at Nelson. Nelson planted tress in the Forest of
Dean to be cut down in 1914 to build ships. Well Jutland was fought
with steel ships and ironclads came in at the time of the Civil War.


- Ian Parker

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007, Ian Parker wrote:
On 28 Jan, 10:40, William Elliot wrote:

CLIMATE change is real and set to cause dramatic temperature rises in the
coming century, according to a leaked draft of a major United Nations
reporthttp://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=134472007

Report predicts sea levels may rise less than previously thought by 2100

And we are not going to see progress by then - we will not have
mirrors?

I think that perhaps we should think about ocean acidification more
than global warming. There there is no readily available technological
fix. Even so 2100 represents an enormous period for technological
development.

Global Dimming
This film reveals that we may have grossly underestimated the speed at
which our climate is changing. At describes Global Dimming, a deadly new
phenomenon that may already caused the starvation of millions, which until
very recently scientists refused to believe even existed.
http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle15809.htm

The Wright brothers first flew 104 years ago. Think of
aviation since then.

From the ground to the moon in 60 years and now 40 years later we've
fallen back struggling to keep in LEO. In another 20 years at this rate
we'll be grounded, by military blasting satellites to bits with its
testing and other blundering government efficiencies.

Greenery is targeting aviation. Perhaps when they talk about 2100 we
should talk about the Wrights. One way of appreciating a timescale
(technologically speaking) is to project a similar time backwards. The
Wright biplane would never have caused any pollution, if we had stayed
there. Singularity buffs are even claiming that progress is
accelerating towards a singularity. If the singularity is even half
true, we should look at Nelson. Nelson planted tress in the Forest of
Dean to be cut down in 1914 to build ships. Well Jutland was fought
with steel ships and ironclads came in at the time of the Civil War.

Get with it, talk about 2010. We've dawdled too long believing those
lying "What, me worry?" oil company high priests.

On 28 Jan, 13:23, William Elliot wrote:

The Wright brothers first flew 104 years ago. Think of
aviation since then.From the ground to the moon in 60 years and now 40 years later we've
fallen back struggling to keep in LEO. In another 20 years at this rate
we'll be grounded, by military blasting satellites to bits with its
testing and other blundering government efficiencies.

Are you talking about the Chinese test. Certainly what they did was
extremely dangerous. China is also participating in the European
Galileo program. They have every interest in NOT having a space war.

America got to the Moon by simply allocating masses of resources to
it. Now each space project has to be justified in ways other than Cold
War. Basically the CW got us to the Moon. We have a compelling reason
- Climate Change for developing Von Neumann technology, which is
nothing to do with national prestige.

Greenery is targeting aviation. Perhaps when they talk about 2100 we
should talk about the Wrights. One way of appreciating a timescale
(technologically speaking) is to project a similar time backwards. The
Wright biplane would never have caused any pollution, if we had stayed
there. Singularity buffs are even claiming that progress is
accelerating towards a singularity. If the singularity is even half
true, we should look at Nelson. Nelson planted tress in the Forest of
Dean to be cut down in 1914 to build ships. Well Jutland was fought
with steel ships and ironclads came in at the time of the Civil War.Get with it, talk about 2010. We've dawdled too long believing those
lying "What, me worry?" oil company high priests.

I am not an apologist for the big oil companies. I should also point
out that they are doing a lot of research in a number of directions.
We do indeed need to start to do things. In a previous post I
suggested that carbon offsets could be earned through research. Let us
look at the great bete noir industry aviation. Airbus, or rather a
company associated with it is letting participants in a robotic
competition have the latest STEPS based CAD/CAM system. I believe the
time may well have come where a VN machine should be declared an
objective.

2010 - 2020 I really don't think there is anything which will make
much difference. For one thing China is developing fast, for another
methane, which is a lot more potent than CO2 is being released from
permafrost.

There are other reasons for conserving, ones associated with national
security. Saudi Arabia is preaching an extremely militant form of
Islam - BUT we have to be polite to the people who want to murder us.
The best (fairly immediate) measure that should be taken is an
expanded nuclear program. Greenery talks about the terrorist threat -
I say there would be less terrorism if there was less money sloshing
around. Nuclear power would thereby reduce the terrorist threat. I
also think the knowledge of a VN machine being developed would act as
something of a deterrent.


- Ian Parker

[snip]
And we are not going to see progress by then - we will not have
mirrors?
I think that perhaps we should think about ocean acidification more
than global warming. There there is no readily available technological
fix. Even so 2100 represents an enormous period for technological
development.Global Dimming
This film reveals that we may have grossly underestimated the speed at
which our climate is changing. At describes Global Dimming, a deadly new
phenomenon that may already caused the starvation of millions, which until
very recently scientists refused to believe even existed.http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle15809.htm

That is certainly an interesting topic. But the way this "documentary"
is made up makes it hard to take it seriously. Some passages sound
like straight out of a south park episode.

And increased clould cover caused by particle emissions is not exactly
a new thing. Wasn't that the reason people predicted a new ice age in
the 60s?

Anyway, if there are really two competing effects "global warming" due
to CO2 emissions and "global dimming" due to particle emissions and
contrails, all we have to do is to increase air traffic to counter
global warming. And air traffic is increasing anyway. Besides,
particular emissions from developing nations like china and india are
not likely to decrease anytime soon.

It might be possible to get the US to sign kyoto, but there is no way
in hell you will stop china and india from industrializing. The only
realistic way to power an economy the size of china without CO2 and
particle emissions would be a massive number of nuclear power plants.
But you won't find any environmentalist or UN buerocrat in favor of
that.

Another funny thing in this "documentary" is that in the middle they
pretty much admit that their current climate models are completely
wrong. But then at the end of the whole thing they present a new
climate model that predicts total armageddon within a few decades (how
surprising).

Why exactly should we take this "new and improved" climate model for
gospel when they themselves pretty much admit that all their previous
models were off by orders of magnitude? Just because their new
predictions are even more disastrous than the old ones?

On 28 Jan, 12:04, "Ian Parker" wrote:
Nelson planted tress in the Forest of
Dean to be cut down in 1914 to build ships. Well Jutland was fought
with steel ships and ironclads came in at the time of the Civil War.

Interesting story about the Forest of Dean. Do you have a reference?

As for ironclads coming in at the time of the civil war, neither
Cromwell nor the Royalists had ironclads.

On 28 Jan, 20:12, "Alex Terrell" wrote:
On 28 Jan, 12:04, "Ian Parker" wrote: Nelson planted tress in the Forest of
Dean to be cut down in 1914 to build ships. Well Jutland was fought
with steel ships and ironclads came in at the time of the Civil War.Interesting story about the Forest of Dean. Do you have a reference?

This in fact came from a television program about the forests of
Britain, and how the landscape had changed since the Ice Age. I don't.
They were in fact looking for "wild" British woodland and were noting
how rare it was.

As for ironclads coming in at the time of the civil war, neither
Cromwell nor the Royalists had ironclads.

The Internet is global. I was referring to the AMERICAN civil war.
Lincoln, Jefferson Davies, Lee and Grant. A Union ironclad and a
Confederate ironclad met and banged away at each other with solid shot
for the best part of a day.

- Ian Parker

Alex Terrell wrote:

As for ironclads coming in at the time of the civil war, neither
Cromwell nor the Royalists had ironclads.


Once again, the superiority of the Korean mind is shown over the
decadent west's hamburger-poisoned ones.
http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/...tironclads.htm

Chiun, *Master* of Sinanju

Ian Parker wrote:
On 28 Jan, 20:12, "Alex Terrell" wrote:
On 28 Jan, 12:04, "Ian Parker" wrote: Nelson planted tress in the Forest of
Dean to be cut down in 1914 to build ships. Well Jutland was fought
with steel ships and ironclads came in at the time of the Civil War.Interesting story about the Forest of Dean. Do you have a reference?

This in fact came from a television program about the forests of
Britain, and how the landscape had changed since the Ice Age. I don't.
They were in fact looking for "wild" British woodland and were noting
how rare it was.

Wood was also very valuable for industry and heating before coal was
discovered. The Navy had to protect huge areas of forests.

As for ironclads coming in at the time of the civil war, neither
Cromwell nor the Royalists had ironclads.

The Internet is global. I was referring to the AMERICAN civil war.
Lincoln, Jefferson Davies, Lee and Grant. A Union ironclad and a
Confederate ironclad met and banged away at each other with solid shot
for the best part of a day.

Didn't they get bored watching the shots bounce off?

On 30 Jan, 10:24, "Alex Terrell" wrote:

This in fact came from a television program about the forests of
Britain, and how the landscape had changed since the Ice Age. I don't.
They were in fact looking for "wild" British woodland and were noting
how rare it was.
Wood was also very valuable for industry and heating before coal was
discovered. The Navy had to protect huge areas of forests.

Look it was COAL that fueled the industrial revolution. Our Union and
Confederate ironclads burnt coal. Since when was the protection of
industrial resources the responsibility of the military.

The Internet is global. I was referring to the AMERICAN civil war.
Lincoln, Jefferson Davies, Lee and Grant. A Union ironclad and a
Confederate ironclad met and banged away at each other with solid shot
for the best part of a day.

Didn't they get bored watching the shots bounce off?

The point is that neither side realized the protection iron afforded.
After that incident ships got better OFFENSIVE weaponry (shells).

The point which I was trying to make, which I also feel that the
widespead use of coal amplifies rather than diminishes, is that there
is technological change. Politicians and the military lack
imagination. They do not see technological change coming. Common sense
tells us that it is useless to extrapolate without factoring in future
technological change.

Politicians amuse me. A think tank COMMISSIONED BY THE BRITISH
GOVERNMENT talked anout the rights of robots, clearly envisaging
strong AI before 2050. Yet everything I have ever talked about
involves only weak AI. ProEngineer, STEPS and CAD/CAM generally is
certainly only weak AI, and is generally not talked about as AI at
all. Chlorella ia NOT intelligent. To build useful structures however
you need not only to replicate but also understand STEPS and CAD/CAM.
This involves what most people would regard as a very weak AI. To me
it is glaringly obvious that a VN machine will be built long, long
before strong AI is ever realized. Most people outside politics (and
the military) would have to agree with this.

- Ian Parker