AMD's well may be running dry
Larry Kilgallen
SAN JOSE, Calif. - The high-flying Advanced Micro Devices Inc. of 2006
has given way to a company in financial peril, saddled with debt and
bleeding from a brutal price battle with its larger and suddenly resurgent
Silicon Valley archrival, Intel Corp.
Bill Todd
Yeah, right - especially the part about Intel having passed AMD
technologically, let alone being likely to stay there.
AMD is currently making the transition to 65 nm. parts, the completion
of which will enable them to ship a good deal more product (since they
ship everything that they can manage to get out the door). If that's
not enough, they have deals in place with Chartered to manufacture for them.
And while Intel did manage an impressive turn-around in abandoning
Netburst technology for cores a lot more similar to AMD's, that's about
their redesign wad for this year and most of next. AMD, by contrast,
has a major core revision with significantly improved performance coming
in a few months, plus Hypertransport extensions to double bandwidth and
improve scaling - first to good glueless scaling to 8 sockets and next
year to 32 sockets, while Intel's CSI look-alike won't be available
until some time next year (if that).
And AMD is already starting to introduce products leveraging the use of
ATI's graphics chips as computational co-processors, while Intel has
nothing on the horizon save vaporware.
It's hardly surprising that AMD's stock has fallen from its ~15x rise
since the Opteron introduction in 2003, given Intel's dumping of
Netburst parts last fall and aggressive price competition with its new
products (the article skated rather briskly over noting that Intel's
profits were down *42%* last year due to this price war and AMD's market
penetration). The market tends to react to current news rather than
future prospects (witness the AMD stock-price doldrums until well
*after* Opteron was introduced) - good for more forward-looking
investors, as well as for superficial commentators looking for an easy
story. Cash-flow is only a short-term problem for a company with
products as solid as AMD's are, and there are plenty of avenues via
which it can be solved.
- bill
JF Mezei
> SAN JOSE, Calif. - The high-flying Advanced Micro Devices Inc. of 2006
> has given way to a company in financial peril, saddled with debt and
> bleeding from a brutal price battle with its larger and suddenly resurgent
> Silicon Valley archrival, Intel Corp.
I think that the qualifiers are perhaps exagerated.
What is significant is that Intel is also hurting due to competition and is
having to rationalise product lines AND not lose focus on its core product, the
8086 line.
AMD blindsighted Intel because Intel was asleep at the switch. And during this
time, they made major inroads, opening doors are major computer makers.
Remember that this was in 2004, when Intel relented and admitted it would have
to move to a 64 bit 8086.
For two years, AMD had a lead over the giant Intel. Now, Intel has returned with
a very competitive product.
I am not sure yet whether one can draw conclusion that AMD's 2 year success was
a one time flash in the pan, or whether AMD and Intel are now locked into a long
term battle where each surpasses the other for a while on a continual basis.
What is certain is that Intel no longer has the luxury to limit the 8086 in the
server/enterprise market to keep a niche for the failed IA64. Doing so simply
opens the door for AMD to walk in and steal a very important part of the market.
And that is significant because as the 8086 scales up in the enterprise, that
IA64 loses its reason for existance, especially since it is not a profitable
product for Intel.
John Wallace
"JF Mezei" <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote in message
news:5aa01$45f45e78$cef8887a$85...@TEKSAVVY.COM...
> ... IA64 loses its reason for existance, especially since it is not a
profitable product for Intel.
How can Itanium lose its reason for existence, when Itanium has
business-critical RAS features which (some parts of) HP tell us are not
offered on any other volume processor on the market today ? Y'know, the
"cosmic ray" stuff?
Incidentally, readers may wish to be reminded that 2007 is the year that
Intel say goodbye to the Palmer-era ten year legal agreement settling the
patent troubles between Digital and Intel in 1996/7 (as reported at e.g.
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-204668.html). Not that I expect anything much
to change as a result of it ending, given the changes in ownership in the
intervening years, but Happy Anniversary to it anyway, while I remember...
regards
John
JF Mezei
> patent troubles between Digital and Intel in 1996/7 (as reported at e.g.
> http://news.com.com/2100-1023-204668.html).
There was a very interesting tidbit in there. When Palmer gave Intel all those
gifts to thank Intel for stealing Alpha designs, one of those gifts was a
Jerusalem chip design office.
It turns out that Intel's current success with its 8086 "Core" designs came from
its Jerusalem office.
It also means that some ALpha designers would have been transfered to Intel at
that time instead of on June 25 2001.
In hindsight, Digital agreeing to start developing systems based on that still
very virtual IA64 thing is interesting. Had DEC already been poo-pooing that
IA64 thing before, or did those presentation showing how Alpha would maintain a
clear lead over that ugly kludge IA64 thing result from DEC engineers gaining
access to IA64 designs as a result of Palmer's deal ?
n.r...@sympatico.ca
> From: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070311/ap_on_bi_ge/amd_intel_shifting_fo...
>
> SAN JOSE, Calif. - The high-flying Advanced Micro Devices Inc. of 2006
> has given way to a company in financial peril, saddled with debt and
> bleeding from a brutal price battle with its larger and suddenly resurgent
> Silicon Valley archrival, Intel Corp.
The previous 10 years of the internet has brought me to the conclusion
that the phrase "information age" does not the same thing as "accurate
data age". Before the internet, "watergate scandal" meant just that,
but today you've got all kinds of mis-information data flows popping
up (like "scooter isn't really guilty of anything even though a jury
of 12 said he was"). You never know if a news piece like this is real
or stock-price manipulation.
Are all things rosy at AMD? Probably not. Last year Intel ditched ~
40,000 marketing (not sales) people and this should have been a signal
to all of us that "the gloves are off". If AMD can't realize similar
savings then they might lose some market share if a price war ensures.
And prices are already dropping. A friend of mine just bought a 3.6
GHz dual core system and he paid less for the complete system than I
did just for my hyper-threaded 3.2 GHz CPU 18 months ago. (same
quality ASUS motherboard etc.)
Neil Rieck
Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge,
Ontario, Canada.
http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/
JF Mezei
>You never know if a news piece like this is real or stock-price manipulation.
One has to realise that most news are just a rehash from what the journalist
read in press releases without much reality check or investigative reporting left.
The trick is not to make your mind up based on a single article, but rather take
a "big picture" approach based on many articles from different sources.
Even the statement by an Intel VP that IA64 was not profitable may not be
complete. Does it mean that it has negative cash flow, or that it simply isn't
generating sufficient revenus to amortise the development costs ?
And if it is to mean it has negative cash flow, does that factor in the
subsidies from HP and others (like that 3 billion transfer HP made to Intel in
2004 along with its IA64 engineers) ?
However, if, as you say "the gloves are off", then this has impacts on IA64 in a
more important way: AMD made major inreads in the last 2 years because it
surpassed Intel in producy performance. Intel has since had to admit that it had
lost focus on its core product and will not make the same mistake again.
And to Intel, that means keeping a strong focus on developing its 8086
architecture to ensure it stays ahead/near what AMD can produce. And this means
allocating whatever resources are necessary to do that job. And when margins go
down due to competition, it also means that Intel has to streamline its own
house and reallocate resources that would be less productive.
Technically, Intel could still claim that IA64 is actively being devlopped even
if it downsized the engineering group to one part-time engineer, reallocating
the other resources to the 8086 where there are needed and more profitable.
This would not only help Intel remain competitive against AMD, but also lower
the costs for that IA64 thing. Of course, the fewer the reources, the longer it
takes to produce the next verion of IA64 and the longer you take, the less
competitive that chip becomes.
On June 24th 2001, Digital/Compaq still had charts and convincing arguments on
why Alpha was truly a superior architecture for the long term and how IA64 was a
bloated architecture with non-credible promises of ever becoming a truly world
leading architecture and mentality (EPIC vs Risc).
If all Intel and HP can say to justify IA64's existance today is that it has
better protection against cosmic rays, then IA64 is in far worse situation today
than Alpha was on June 24 2001.
Now, if Intel drops IA64 and focuses its attention on the 8086, it isn't just
AMD that might be in trouble. Without IA64 in the way, Intel would have every
motivation to scale the 8086 to enterprise and compete head to head against
Power and Sparc. Those engineers with "enterprise" experience , currently
assigned to IA64 would then start to benefit the 8086 and that chip would
quickly gain enterprise features which would make it harder for AMD to follow.
Larry Kilgallen
> data age". Before the internet, "watergate scandal" meant just that,
> but today you've got all kinds of mis-information data flows popping
> up (like "scooter isn't really guilty of anything even though a jury
> of 12 said he was").
I heard people offer that theory of non-guilt on TV today, without
any Internet required.
John Wallace
> Had DEC already been poo-pooing that
> IA64 thing before, or did those presentation showing how Alpha would
maintain a
> clear lead over that ugly kludge IA64 thing result from DEC engineers
gaining
> access to IA64 designs as a result of Palmer's deal ?
What (part of) DEC were saying about IA64 in 1999 can be found at
http://www.cs.trinity.edu/~mlewis/CSCI3294-F01/Papers/alpha_ia64.pdf [1] -
an Alpha vs IA64 white paper focusing on parallelism (in particular, out of
order and SMT). It's a paper I like a lot, because although it's got a
reasonable amount of techy stuff in it, it's still quite readable. It's 32
not all that dense pages, it makes no sense for me to try to offer summary
or highlights. Given that IA64 was largely based on pre-existing VLIW stuff,
and there was lots of public "how it's going to be sooooo fast" stuff, I
don't think one need assume any "special" access to inside Intel to produce
such a paper.
That paper has been mentioned previously in this newsgroup, eg most recently
in the thread titled "There goes the volume market. Remind me again...."
started by John Smith (?) on 2 Feb 2005 (you were there, JF, but others may
not have seen it); searching for alpha_ia64.pdf in comp.os.vms finds various
other threads where it's been discussed, at least as far back as 2001.
Obviously it's only of historic interest now, because Alpha is dead whereas
IA64 systems are alive and affordable, and the official word is that OpenVMS
on x86-64 is a non-starter. The future is kind of difficult to predict
though, and many sensible folk may think a risk reduction strategy is a good
thing to have, just in case the unthinkable happens.
hth
John
[1] Originally from the Alphapowered website, actually still available at
http://web.archive.org/web/20010602154126/www.alphapowered.com/presentations
/alpha_ia64.pdf
JF Mezei
> IA64 systems are alive and affordable, and the official word is that OpenVMS
> on x86-64 is a non-starter. The future is kind of difficult to predict
The problem is that the statements that VMS on industry standard chips being a
"non=starter" come from the very people who have no credibility because their
employer has a hard record of lying to customers about platform futures.
And I prefer to hope that HP is lying about VMS not going to the 8086 as opposed
to interpreting the message as "HP has already decided that VMS will not be
ported beyond IA64".
Bill Todd
...
When Palmer gave Intel all
> those gifts to thank Intel for stealing Alpha designs, one of those
> gifts was a Jerusalem chip design office.
>
> It turns out that Intel's current success with its 8086 "Core" designs
> came from its Jerusalem office.
No, it did not: those products came from Intel's primary Israeli
design/development center in Haifa, which has been an Intel facility
since 1974. The only design done in Jerusalem is for networking and
communication products.
- bill
n.r...@sympatico.ca
> In article <1173647690.934192.292...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>, "n.ri...@sympatico.ca" <n.ri...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>
> > data age". Before the internet, "watergate scandal" meant just that,
> > but today you've got all kinds of mis-information data flows popping
> > up (like "scooter isn't really guilty of anything even though a jury
> > of 12 said he was").
>
> I heard people offer that theory of non-guilt on TV today, without
> any Internet required.
>
I heard some political chatter about the "scooter trial" on the radio
a few days ago. One person was adamant that scooter wasn't guiltily of
anything (and even accused some jurors of political bias). I remember
a few of these remarks and then googled them next time I was online.
They were word-for-word from a Rush Limbaugh site.
A couple of weeks back I heard that Al Gore was an energy wasting
hypocrite. I googled this information only to learn that this "news
item" came from an Exxon sponsored web site that fed information to
Republican-friendly reporters.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/8/17/133652/848
When I first heard about the information age I never once thought that
people would be able to build careers creating mis-information (hello
Rush Limbugh, Bill O'Reily, Ann Colter, Glen Beck). Of course this was
all before the creation of the FOX network. Yep the web is being used
to deny global warming; promote the Iraq war; belief in area 51; all
kinds of wack-a-do stuff. I wonder if all this is one reason why
people would rather get their news information from the Comedy Central
(John Daily, Colbert Report, etc.)
http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/index.jhtml?ml_video=83290
JF Mezei
> When I first heard about the information age I never once thought that
> people would be able to build careers creating mis-information (hello
> Rush Limbugh, Bill O'Reily, Ann Colter, Glen Beck). Of course this was
> all before the creation of the FOX network.
You may wish to check out
39 minute report on how the media was manipulated into saying stuff to support
certain causes in the last 6 years. It was aired last week, but you can stream
it on the web.
One of the problems not mentioned specifically is that media organisations are
businesses that sell advertising. They use polls to determine what people want
to see. But what people want to see is determined by what the media tells them.
It used to be that their news divisions were considered a service as opposed to
a business unit. Now, ratings are important to sustain revenus and this means
editorial content is affected by what the managers THINK people *want* to see as
opposed to what they *NEED* to see.
Similarly, look at Gartner. It has great influence on its customers, yet, it
also publishes information that it thinks its customers will like. Customers
rely on gartner to guidance, and gartner relies on its customers to decide what
its guidance should be. The goal isn't to inform its cutsomers, the goal is to
please its customers to continue generating revenus.
Bill Todd
> n.r...@sympatico.ca wrote:
>> When I first heard about the information age I never once thought that
>> people would be able to build careers creating mis-information (hello
>> Rush Limbugh, Bill O'Reily, Ann Colter, Glen Beck). Of course this was
>> all before the creation of the FOX network.
>
> You may wish to check out
>
> http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/lies/
>
> 39 minute report on how the media was manipulated into saying stuff to
> support certain causes in the last 6 years. It was aired last week, but
> you can stream it on the web.
Thanks - it's good to see that the rest of the world (and its media)
doesn't have its head as far up its ass as most of America still does.
Anyone seriously paying attention knew virtually all of what's in that
program prior to the invasion 4 years ago (except for Wilson's personal
contributions, which surfaced a few months later), but clearly 90+
percent of our population not only weren't seriously paying attention
back then but haven't managed to rectify that deficiency since (yeah, a
lot have finally come around to the realization that the war is not
going well and we should probably get out, but to admit how thoroughly
they were bamboozled into supporting a wholly unnecessary and completely
illegal invasion still seems too high a hurdle for them to clear - and
they don't much like having it pointed out, either).
As the program makes clear, our national media aren't doing much to
help. For all the good the Fourth Estate has done since 9/11 we might
as well amend protection for them out of our Constitution (especially if
we fill the resulting void in its pages with stronger guarantees of free
speech in general).
The superficiality of the treatment was a bit disappointing (one could
be left with the impression that the Administration was simply
presenting a biased viewpoint rather than out-right lying and
manipulating), but I guess there was only so much they could cover in 40
minutes - and they do have pointers to previous programs that may have
gone into more detail (haven't watched them yet).
- bill
n.r...@sympatico.ca
[...snip...]
>
> You may wish to check out
>
> http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/lies/
>
> 39 minute report on how the media was manipulated into saying stuff to support
> certain causes in the last 6 years. It was aired last week, but you can stream
> it on the web.
>
> One of the problems not mentioned specifically is that media organisations are
> businesses that sell advertising. They use polls to determine what people want
> to see. But what people want to see is determined by what the media tells them.
>
> It used to be that their news divisions were considered a service as opposed to
> a business unit. Now, ratings are important to sustain revenus and this means
> editorial content is affected by what the managers THINK people *want* to see as
> opposed to what they *NEED* to see.
>
Thanks for this link. It is one example of what I was talking about
where news is coupled to ratings rather than facts. It is one of the
reasons that FOX news has become so "administration friendly" by
pulling in all those politically biased viewers to increase rating
numbers.
After about one year of numbing war drums on networks like CNN, I was
forced to watch news on PBS (the MacNeil News hour still closes with a
dead soldier roll), BBC (notice how they control their voices so that
no facts are biased?), and listen to NPR on satellite.
Andrew
Quite. The Core architecture is from the team that developed Pentium
M. The first Pentium M processor was code named Banias which is an
area of the Golan Heights not far from Haifa. Simcha Gochman the lead
engineer on the Pentium M and Duo Microarchitecture is a 20+ year
Intel employee based in Haifa.
Regards
Andrew
n.r...@sympatico.ca
[...snip...]
>
> Thanks - it's good to see that the rest of the world (and its media)
> doesn't have its head as far up its ass as most of America still does.
> Anyone seriously paying attention knew virtually all of what's in that
> program prior to the invasion 4 years ago (except for Wilson's personal
> contributions, which surfaced a few months later), but clearly 90+
> percent of our population not only weren't seriously paying attention
> back then but haven't managed to rectify that deficiency since (yeah, a
> lot have finally come around to the realization that the war is not
> going well and we should probably get out, but to admit how thoroughly
> they were bamboozled into supporting a wholly unnecessary and completely
> illegal invasion still seems too high a hurdle for them to clear - and
> they don't much like having it pointed out, either).
>
> As the program makes clear, our national media aren't doing much to
> help. For all the good the Fourth Estate has done since 9/11 we might
> as well amend protection for them out of our Constitution (especially if
> we fill the resulting void in its pages with stronger guarantees of free
> speech in general).
>
> The superficiality of the treatment was a bit disappointing (one could
> be left with the impression that the Administration was simply
> presenting a biased viewpoint rather than out-right lying and
> manipulating), but I guess there was only so much they could cover in 40
> minutes - and they do have pointers to previous programs that may have
> gone into more detail (haven't watched them yet).
>
> - bill
>
for reelecting George W once; but Canadians are much more dumb for
reelecting Jean Chrétien twice. And this living example of a Canadian
Forest Gump could only have been reelected if the news media was in on
the scam, and the CBC was. They are a governent funded news outlet who
learned, from a speech by Reform Part leader Preston Manning, that
they would be privatized if the conservative party came to power.
A minority conservative party has now been in power for about a year
and the CBC has started to realize that conservatives are not all
hicks from the west. On top of that, some CBC people have spoken out
against the Chrétien engineered "sponsorship scandal" which the
Liberal's used to buy votes in Quebec.
Bill Gunshannon
"n.r...@sympatico.ca" <n.r...@sympatico.ca> writes:
> On Mar 11, 8:21 pm, Kilgal...@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) wrote:
>> In article <1173647690.934192.292...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>, "n.ri...@sympatico.ca" <n.ri...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>>
>> > data age". Before the internet, "watergate scandal" meant just that,
>> > but today you've got all kinds of mis-information data flows popping
>> > up (like "scooter isn't really guilty of anything even though a jury
>> > of 12 said he was").
>>
> hypocrite. I googled this information only to learn that this "news
> item" came from an Exxon sponsored web site that fed information to
> Republican-friendly reporters.
> http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/8/17/133652/848
Just because you don't like the source doesn't mean it isn't true.
I haven't read that one, but I would guess it points out the fact
that when he attended the big globalwarming/energy summit in Japan
he traveled ther in a private jet that used more fuel and generated
more greenhouse gases for just that trip than I will with my Mazda
Miata in my entire life time. Always remember when you are dealing
with people like Al Gore, his suggestions are for people like you
and me, not people like him. Learn your place!!
And, dis-information works both ways. Anybody here remember what I
said a short time ago about why this change in DST (which has already
had costs in the billions of dollars according to analysts) was going
to save nothing? Remember the reason I gave for that? Well, UCB has
done the official research. Their findings? There will be absolutely
no energy saving as a result of this change for exactly the reasons I
gave. And as for the safety issue. We now have people getting up an
hour earlier, which makes them still sleepy when they start their morning
commute, leaving while it is still dark. We have school kids going to
the bus stop before the sun comes up. And this is going to promote
safety and reduce the number of accidents? Go figure.
bill
--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
bi...@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
chris
support till 2020 for their applications?
<n.r...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:1173698723.0...@30g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
b...@instantwhip.com
wrote:
>
> A couple of weeks back I heard that Al Gore was an energy wasting
> hypocrite. I googled this information only to learn that this "news
> item" came from an Exxon sponsored web site that fed information to
>
> When I first heard about the information age I never once thought that
> people would be able to build careers creating mis-information (hello
> Rush Limbugh, Bill O'Reily, Ann Colter, Glen Beck). Of course this was
> all before the creation of the FOX network. Yep the web is being used
> to deny global warming; promote the Iraq war; belief in area 51; all
> kinds of wack-a-do stuff. I wonder if all this is one reason why
> people would rather get their news information from the Comedy Central
and the liberal drive by news media does nothing wrong?
Those above give fact ... CBS, CNN and others besides FOX just
give propaganda every night ...
and global warming has nothing to do with us ...
they just studied the surface temperatures on Mars and found
they have risen the same as ours ...
in other words, ITS THE SUN STUPID ...
b...@instantwhip.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
and that is not calling you stupid, that is an old political
paraphrase from the 90s election the economy stupid ... get it?
and here is something else irrelevant to think about ...
the biggest CO2 polluters are animals accounting for 18% of
all emissions, which one scientist concluded that cars
actually have saved us on that because the alternative
would be horses like the 1800s and they really put out
the gas if you know what I mean ...
so you want to stop the biggest threat, shoot the animals ...
I wonder how the animal rights groups will respond to this
news ...
Dr. Dweeb
Oh, that is f*ing hilarious. The BBC long ago lost its reputation for lack
of bias and is as "subjective" as other news networks. I will grant that
they are probably a bit more subtle about it and they are probably more
reliable than the US networks.
Dweeb
Bob Koehler
>
> And, dis-information works both ways. Anybody here remember what I
> said a short time ago about why this change in DST (which has already
> had costs in the billions of dollars according to analysts) was going
> to save nothing?
You'll be pleased to now that Congress decided it couldn't be certain
that the DST change will save energy. They consider it experimental.
If it doesn't work, you'll get to patch all your systems to a
different standard than the one you just patched to.
Paul Sture
"Dr. Dweeb" <sp...@dweeb.net> wrote:
> n.r...@sympatico.ca wrote:
> >
> > After about one year of numbing war drums on networks like CNN, I was
> > forced to watch news on PBS (the MacNeil News hour still closes with a
> > dead soldier roll), BBC (notice how they control their voices so that
> > no facts are biased?),
>
> Oh, that is f*ing hilarious. The BBC long ago lost its reputation for lack
> of bias and is as "subjective" as other news networks. I will grant that
> they are probably a bit more subtle about it and they are probably more
> reliable than the US networks.
>
You beat me to it. And the BBC seem to be getting worse.
--
Paul Sture
dav...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk
>In article <45f54336$0$180$157c...@dreader1.cybercity.dk>,
> "Dr. Dweeb" <sp...@dweeb.net> wrote:
>
>> n.r...@sympatico.ca wrote:
>> >
>> > forced to watch news on PBS (the MacNeil News hour still closes with a
>> > dead soldier roll), BBC (notice how they control their voices so that
>> > no facts are biased?),
>>
>> Oh, that is f*ing hilarious. The BBC long ago lost its reputation for lack
>> of bias and is as "subjective" as other news networks. I will grant that
>> they are probably a bit more subtle about it and they are probably more
>> reliable than the US networks.
>>
>
>
I can't say I've noticed a marked increase in bias from the BBC.
The Conservatives still think the BBC has a left wing bias and Labour thinks
they have an anti-government bias. Which probably means they are getting it
about right. After the drubbing they got from the government on the IRAQ War
and David Kelly affair they are probably rather more cautious but that is
understandable.
David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University
>--
>Paul Sture
David J Dachtera
AMD has been up and down before. Their investors have been on "wild rides" that
would curl most stockholders' hair and challenge even the most avid
roller-coaster enthusiasts.
Nothing new.
Not the first time, won't be the last.
--
David J Dachtera
dba DJE Systems
http://www.djesys.com/
Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page
http://www.djesys.com/vms/market/
Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page:
http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/
Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page:
http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/
Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page:
http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/
David Mathog
> From: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070311/ap_on_bi_ge/amd_intel_shifting_fortunes;_ylt=Aq92wST7yGqKfikqJHJ7jCNj24cA
>
> SAN JOSE, Calif. - The high-flying Advanced Micro Devices Inc. of 2006
> has given way to a company in financial peril, saddled with debt and
> bleeding from a brutal price battle with its larger and suddenly resurgent
> Silicon Valley archrival, Intel Corp.
Well lets all pray to our deities of choice that AMD never does go
under. If they do, with no competition left in the x86 space, Intel
will stop innovating ASAP. Intel clearly had the ability to produce a
far better chip than the netburst, but only competition from AMD
actually made them do so.
(Caveat, Via still makes x86 chips but nothing at present that goes
head to head with the mainstream AMD or Intel products.)
Regards,
David Mathog
JF Mezei
> After about one year of numbing war drums on networks like CNN, I was
> forced to watch news on PBS (the MacNeil News hour still closes with a
> dead soldier roll), BBC (notice how they control their voices so that
> no facts are biased?), and listen to NPR on satellite.
BBC World isn't 100% unbiased. Howver, when you combine it with other sources,
it does provide a fairly good view of the world. I have found that the news on
TV5 (France international network) also provide a good point of view. one big
advantage for BBC is that they have reporters permanently stationed around the
world, whereas USA networks send reporters from the USA whenever they hear of
something important happening elsewhere.
During the actual Iraqi invasion, I found the french TV news to be the best.
They had reporters roaming freely in Bagdhad (contrary to what USA network said
couldnt be done) and didn't sequester the majority of their reporters in
"embedded" units whose role was to ensure the reporters didn't see anything.
And I personally cannot wait for Al Jazeera Intl to be carried in Canada. (this
is their new english language news service). Comparing their points of
view/reporting with that of BBC and others should be most interesting.
The problem with the "information age" is that you can no longer trust
individual sources of information, you need to verify their accuracy/reliability
by combining multiple sources.
I still watch CNN from time to time, not to get news, but rather to see how
badly they report news to americans.
JF Mezei
> how long is the support for open vms on itaniums, is it true DOD wanted
> support till 2020 for their applications?
DEC could have made garantees in 1985 about VMS being supported until 2010. And
even though vax is dead and no longer developped, VMS is still being developped
on successor platform.
Officially, the onwer of VMS garantees SUPPORT of the OS for 5 years after the
last sale on that platform. You can get legal commitments for much longer
periods (the year you mention has been used for some good customers).
JF Mezei
> the biggest CO2 polluters are animals accounting for 18% of
> all emissions,
Again, this is media twist.
The real problem with global warming aren't CO2 emissions per say. The real
problem is the introduction in the atmospheric cycle of NEW carbons that had
been stored for milleniums.
Where does the carbon in cow manure come from ? It comes from the grass the cow
ate. Where did the grass get its carbon from ? It got it from atmpsphere through
photosynthesys. It is a neutral process where no new carbons are introduced
into the atmosphere.
However, take coal or petrol, and you are taking carbon that had been out of the
atmospheric cycle for milleniums and introduce them into the atmosphere, ths
increasing the amount of carbon in the atmospheric cycle.
This is why "bio fuels" are a HUGE answer to the problem because you are getting
fuel from plants which got their carbon from the atmosphere. No matter how
"polluting" a car is, it does not introduce NEW carbons in the atmospheric cycle.
And bob, you mention animals generating 18% of world's CO2 emissions. The USA
generates 25% of the world's emissions.
JF Mezei
> You beat me to it. And the BBC seem to be getting worse.
They are still orders of magnitudes better than any of the USA news networks.
The BBC has one big difference: its constitution requires it to provide unbiased
reporting and when the BBC makes mistakes, the BBC can be investigated for
failing in its mission.
The "sexed up Iraqi dossier" story lead to such an investigation. Even though
the allegation ended up being true, at the time it was made, the BBC did not
have sufficient proof and the reporter went on air without having gone through
proper BBC channels to get authorisation to make this allegation on-air).
While far from being 100% perfect, that oversight does give the BBC some
motivation to provide accurate reporting.
the USA news networks are accountable to nobody (except perhaps advertisers and
the white house press office to whom they have to suck up in order to get
"access".).
dav...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk
>b...@instantwhip.com wrote:
>> the biggest CO2 polluters are animals accounting for 18% of
>> all emissions,
>
>
>
>The real problem with global warming aren't CO2 emissions per say. The real
>problem is the introduction in the atmospheric cycle of NEW carbons that had
>been stored for milleniums.
>
>Where does the carbon in cow manure come from ? It comes from the grass the cow
>ate. Where did the grass get its carbon from ? It got it from atmpsphere through
>photosynthesys. It is a neutral process where no new carbons are introduced
>into the atmosphere.
>
>However, take coal or petrol, and you are taking carbon that had been out of the
>atmospheric cycle for milleniums and introduce them into the atmosphere, ths
>increasing the amount of carbon in the atmospheric cycle.
>
>This is why "bio fuels" are a HUGE answer to the problem because you are getting
>fuel from plants which got their carbon from the atmosphere. No matter how
>"polluting" a car is, it does not introduce NEW carbons in the atmospheric
> cycle.
If only it were that simple. Unfortunately you need land to grow your bio-fuels
on, which in Europe and the US is already being used to grow pesky things like
food. Hence there is talk of growing bio-fuels in Brazil and Indonesia and
importing them. Hence to grow your bio-fuels you may end up clearing
rainforests and releasing the Co2 from that carbon-sink.
See
http://www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp?id=11549
and
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/BFOA.php
David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University
>
JF Mezei
> If only it were that simple. Unfortunately you need land to grow your bio-fuels
> on, which in Europe and the US is already being used to grow pesky things like
> food.
Growing things like food with pesky subsidies and overproduction which results
in those countries dumping their highly subsidised products in poor countries as
food aid, and this prevent local farmers in those countries from making a
living. In essence, taxpayers in europe and USA end up hurting struggling
farmers in africa. (as well as farmers in developped nations such as canada and
australia whose government cannot afford to match the USA/european subsidies.)
Divert that surplus to production of fuel and not only could the respective
government stop highly subsidizing their farmers, but there would no longer be a
surplus of wheet/corn, allowing farmers in developping nations to make a living
from their crops and greatly help the plight of those countries.
And yes, it would mean that the price of corn would rise. But if you convince
enough cotton growers to grow sugar cane instead, you could reduce surplus of
cotton (and hence reduce subsidies). Also, there is a lot of sugar cane that
could be important from developing nations, even nations such as Fiji and those
revenus woudl greatly help those nations, who, for the first time, would have
valuable commodities to trade.
Neil Rieck
<b...@instantwhip.com> wrote in message
news:1173701109....@c51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...[...snip...]
>
> and the liberal drive by news media does nothing wrong?
>
> Those above give fact ... CBS, CNN and others besides FOX just
> give propaganda every night ...
>
More information channels should give you more good data but we got the
reverse due to a drop in the signal to noise ratio. I just want the facts
and don't need the left or right leaning biases. Look at what is going on
inside North America. Muslims have replaced the red menace of McCarthy's day
when the facts tell us that:
1). 9/11 was caused by Saudi Islamic Fundamentalists
2). Since 9/11 more North Americans have died as a result of lightning then
Islamic terrorism
But the war drums on CNN and FOX every night would have you believe that the
Imams and Clerics are under every bed just waiting for their chance to take
over. (just like the red menace in the 1950s except we're too stupid to
learn)
Neil Rieck
Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge,
Ontario, Canada.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
dav...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk
>dav...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
>> If only it were that simple. Unfortunately you need land to grow your bio-fuels
>> on, which in Europe and the US is already being used to grow pesky things like
>> food.
>
>
>in those countries dumping their highly subsidised products in poor countries as
>food aid, and this prevent local farmers in those countries from making a
>living. In essence, taxpayers in europe and USA end up hurting struggling
>farmers in africa. (as well as farmers in developped nations such as canada and
>australia whose government cannot afford to match the USA/european subsidies.)
>
>Divert that surplus to production of fuel and not only could the respective
>government stop highly subsidizing their farmers, but there would no longer be a
>surplus of wheet/corn, allowing farmers in developping nations to make a living
>from their crops and greatly help the plight of those countries.
>
Sorry you are massively underestimating the amount of land required.
Even at the height of the food and wine mountains in Europe the overproduction
wasn't anywhere within a thousand miles of 14-27%.
From http://www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp?id=11549
"
The EU goal of replacing 5.75% of fossil fuels with bio-fuels by 2010 would
require significant imports from countries like Brazil and Indonesia. According
to the EU-sponsored Well to Wheels study, Europe would have to use 14-27% of
its agricultural land to reach this target - more than is realistic, meaning
the target cannot be met with domestically produced biofuels alone.
"
and from http://www.i-sis.org.uk/BFOA.php
"
David Pimentel, a professor of crops science at Cornell University New York and
Tad Patzek, a professor of chemical engineering at University of California
Berkeley, reviewed the energy balance and economics of producing biomass,
ethanol or biodiesel from corn, switchgrass, wood, soybeans and sunflower using
the now generally accepted life-cycle analysis. Although there is much
controversy over the energy balance of ethanol and biodiesel, the energy
balance of biomass yield is generally less subject to dispute, and is therefore
a useful starting point.
It turns out that switchgrass has the most favourable output/input energy ratio
of 14.52, followed by wheat at 12.88, and oilseed rape at 9.21, if the straw is
included. Switchgrass is hence the most promising energy crop, whether as
biomass for burning or to make other fuels downstream, such as ethanol.
A quick calculation showed that even if all the farmland in the United States
were converted to growing switchgrass, it would not produce enough ethanol for
the country?s fossil fuel use. Switchgrass takes several years to mature. The
yield ranges from 0 for complete failure of the crop to take hold to 20 t or
more per ha, a lot depending on the rainfall. A yield of 15 t /ha is
optimistic; and would provide some 250 GJ/ha of raw chemical energy a year. If
that energy could be converted with 70 percent efficiency into electricity,
ethanol, methanol etc., it would take about 460 m ha to produce the 80EJ
(ExaJoule = 1018J) fossil fuel energy used in the USA each year. The total
farmland in the USA is 380 m ha, of which 175 m ha is harvested cropland.
"
David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University
Neil Rieck
[...snip...]
>
> and global warming has nothing to do with us ...
>
> they just studied the surface temperatures on Mars and found
> they have risen the same as ours ...
>
Let's not mix apples and oranges. While it is true that changes in orbital
geometry along with a Sun that's now 30% hotter may have the same trigger
effects, the results are far different.
Raise the temperature of Mars by 5 degrees and you may unthaw some CO2 ice.
Raise the temperature of Earth by 5 degrees and you will unthaw the
permafrost (which will release CO2 and methane) and the oceans (which will
release methane hydrate). Now when these gases are released heating will
probably jump up another 5 degrees and that will kill off everything)
Check this link for more information about what happened on Earth 250
Million years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian_extinction
Neil Rieck
Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge,
Ontario, Canada.
http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/
Tom Linden
And this is to reduce the non-existant global warming?
>
> "
>
> David Webb
> Security team leader
> CCSS
> Middlesex University
>
>
>> And yes, it would mean that the price of corn would rise. But if you
>> convince
>> enough cotton growers to grow sugar cane instead, you could reduce
>> surplus of
>> cotton (and hence reduce subsidies). Also, there is a lot of sugar cane
>> that
>> could be important from developing nations, even nations such as Fiji
>> and those
>> revenus woudl greatly help those nations, who, for the first time,
>> would have
>> valuable commodities to trade.
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Bill Gunshannon
"Neil Rieck" <n.r...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>
> Check this link for more information about what happened on Earth 250
> Million years ago.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian_extinction
Damn. And nature did all that without man's help. Go figure.
Dave Weatherall
wrote:
> In article <45f5e64b$0$16288$8826...@free.teranews.com>,
> "Neil Rieck" <n.r...@sympatico.ca> writes:
> >
> > Check this link for more information about what happened on Earth 250
> > Million years ago.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian_extinction
>
> Damn. And nature did all that without man's help. Go figure.
>
> bill
Bill
nature isn't the problem. Nature was in 'balance' last time
around and I seem to think that any inhabitants then would not have
been too keen on what was happening. It may be that wamer temperatures
are 'natural'. The problem is that the human action increases the
imbalance and increases the likelihood of catastrophe if we continue
as we are. No action because its 'natural' won't help avoid the
effects.
--
Cheers - Dave W.
JF Mezei
> are 'natural'. The problem is that the human action increases the
> imbalance and increases the likelihood of catastrophe if we continue
> as we are. No action because its 'natural' won't help avoid the
> effects.
And the last time the global temperature was warm enough that ice shelves had
melted, there were high concentrations of people and buildings on the coasts.
Now that there are, a rise in sea levels will not only zap a large part fo
florida, but also affect New York, Boston, Amsterdam, Venise, Los Angeles,
Sydney, Hong Kong and there are so many other cities on shores of the ocean....
Also flooded will be a huge chunk of Bengladesh, some whole islands in the
pacific and indian oceans (incuding the Maldives).
We are talking at least a billion people affected by this. That is a hell of a
lot of people to displace. And a hell of lot of infrastructure rendedred
worthless an needing to be rebuilt elsewhere. (think Manhattan, JFK, LGA and EWR
airports etc.
I realise that americans have not seen the evidence because their media has not
challenged the white house. But outside of the USA, we have seen the testomonies
from former white house employees who confirmed that the white house, from jan
17 2001 had a direct policy of controlling all environmental report releases and
editing them prior to their release to change "is happening" with "may be
happening" (and other similar changes from a fact to a possibility. These
changes allowed the white house to proclaim that there is no proof and that it
is all circumstantial evidence. Note that a large majority of white house
staffers from jan 17 2001 came from the texas oil industry, including those who
came up with the idea to edit all environmental reports to introduce "may be" as
needed.
Neil Rieck
"Bill Gunshannon" <bi...@cs.uofs.edu> wrote in message
news:55mc3uF...@mid.individual.net...
> In article <45f5e64b$0$16288$8826...@free.teranews.com>,
> "Neil Rieck" <n.r...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>>
>> Check this link for more information about what happened on Earth 250
>> Million years ago.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian_extinction
>
> Damn. And nature did all that without man's help. Go figure.
>
In the current theory, the initial CO2 release occurred as a result of large
volcanic activity in Siberia.
Now it is true that the industrial age of man has released quite a bit of
CO2 already, but what would happen if a natural event, like a volcano,
occurred? The combined effect of all these events could drive the planet's
temperature higher which could melt permafrost and release oceanic methane
hydrate which would make things even hotter.
Let's all stop listening to politicians and start listening to scientists.
Currently greater than 95% of more than 10,000 peer reviewed scientists
believe that the global warming is here, and that it's man made.
On the flip side, a majority of these scientists believe that Kyoto is
flawed. Kyoto is a failed political response to the problem identified by
scientists.
Bill Gunshannon
Or man could abandon his arrogance, admit he is not the top of
the food chain and accept that in the grand scheme of nature he
is an insignificant little gnat.
When nature is thru with us it will sweep us from the planet just
like the dinosaurs and there is nothing we can do to lengthen or
shorten that period of time.
Tom Linden
wrote:
>
> "Bill Gunshannon" <bi...@cs.uofs.edu> wrote in message
> news:55mc3uF...@mid.individual.net...
>> In article <45f5e64b$0$16288$8826...@free.teranews.com>,
>> "Neil Rieck" <n.r...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>>>
>>> Check this link for more information about what happened on Earth 250
>>> Million years ago.
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian_extinction
>>
>> Damn. And nature did all that without man's help. Go figure.
>>
>
> In the current theory, the initial CO2 release occurred as a result of
> large volcanic activity in Siberia.
>
> Now it is true that the industrial age of man has released quite a bit
> of CO2 already, but what would happen if a natural event, like a
> volcano, occurred? The combined effect of all these events could drive
> the planet's temperature higher which could melt permafrost and release
> oceanic methane hydrate which would make things even hotter.
>
> Let's all stop listening to politicians and start listening to
> scientists. Currently greater than 95% of more than 10,000 peer reviewed
> scientists believe that the global warming is here, and that it's man
> made.
I suspect that is rubbish. I doubt that man's influence on the global
temperature is even measureable. The temperature was actually warmer when
the vikings were raiding the British Isles and as you might expect the sea
level
was correspondingly higher. There have been numerous scholarly articles on
the climate of the earth for many years, and it would behoove you to study
those
before exposing your ignorance of these matters. Here is a starter.
http://www.kednos.com/physics/climatology/iceage.html
The irony of the political debate on this matter is that the earth is
actually
entering into a cooling period which will result in another Ice age in
about
12,000 years. Before that, and for the next few hundred years we will
likely
have a repeat of the so-called mini-ice age from which we emerged 150 or
so years
ago, which was believed to have been cause by a shutdown of the Atlantic
conveyor.
>
> On the flip side, a majority of these scientists believe that Kyoto is
> flawed. Kyoto is a failed political response to the problem identified
> by scientists.
>
> Neil Rieck
> Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge,
> Ontario, Canada.
> http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/
--
dav...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk
>In article <DTiotGxQ0bj6-pn2-BR6kf8ohpcRS@dave2_os2.home.ours>,
> "Dave Weatherall" <djw-n...@nospam.nohow> writes:
>the food chain and accept that in the grand scheme of nature he
>is an insignificant little gnat.
>
>When nature is thru with us it will sweep us from the planet just
>like the dinosaurs and there is nothing we can do to lengthen or
>shorten that period of time.
>
the mammals have so far managed less than 65 Million. Our own species Homo
Sapiens has been around for about 150000 years. Homo Erectus seems to have
been around for more like a Million years.
If it hadn't been for an asteriod hit the dinosaurs might still be going
strong.
Unlike the dinosaurs there is at least a possibility that in a few decades time
we might be able to stop such an asteriod. Alternatively today we are perfectly
capable of shortening our stay on Earth.
David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University
>bill
dav...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk
>On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:38:25 -0800, <dav...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
>> <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> writes:
>>> dav...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
>>>> If only it were that simple. Unfortunately you need land to grow you=
>r =
>
>>>> bio-fuels
>>>> on, which in Europe and the US is already being used to grow pesky =
>
>>>> things like
>>>> food.
>>>
>>>
>>> Growing things like food with pesky subsidies and overproduction whic=
>h =
>
>>> results
>>> in those countries dumping their highly subsidised products in poor =
>
>>> countries as
>>> food aid, and this prevent local farmers in those countries from maki=
>ng =
>
>>> a
>>> living. In essence, taxpayers in europe and USA end up hurting =
>
>>> struggling
>>> farmers in africa. (as well as farmers in developped nations such as =
> =
>
>>> canada and
>>> australia whose government cannot afford to match the USA/european =
>
>>> subsidies.)
>>>
>>> Divert that surplus to production of fuel and not only could the =
>
>>> respective
>>> government stop highly subsidizing their farmers, but there would no =
> =
>
>>> longer be a
>>> surplus of wheet/corn, allowing farmers in developping nations to mak=
>e =
>
>>> a living
>>> from their crops and greatly help the plight of those countries.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Sorry you are massively underestimating the amount of land required.
>>
>
>> overproduction
>> wasn't anywhere within a thousand miles of 14-27%.
>>
>>
>> "
>> The EU goal of replacing 5.75% of fossil fuels with bio-fuels by 2010 =
> =
>
>> would
>> require significant imports from countries like Brazil and Indonesia. =
> =
>
>> According
>> to the EU-sponsored Well to Wheels study, Europe would have to use =
>
>> 14-27% of
>> its agricultural land to reach this target - more than is realistic, =
>
>> meaning
>> the target cannot be met with domestically produced biofuels alone.
>> "
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> and from http://www.i-sis.org.uk/BFOA.php
>>
>> "
> =
>
>> York and
>> Tad Patzek, a professor of chemical engineering at University of =
>
>> California
>> Berkeley, reviewed the energy balance and economics of producing bioma=
>ss,
>> ethanol or biodiesel from corn, switchgrass, wood, soybeans and =
>
>> sunflower using
>> the now generally accepted life-cycle analysis. Although there is much=
>
>> controversy over the energy balance of ethanol and biodiesel, the ener=
>gy
>> balance of biomass yield is generally less subject to dispute, and is =
> =
>
>> therefore
>> a useful starting point.
>>
>
>> energy ratio
>> of 14.52, followed by wheat at 12.88, and oilseed rape at 9.21, if the=
> =
>
>> straw is
>> included. Switchgrass is hence the most promising energy crop, whether=
> as
>> biomass for burning or to make other fuels downstream, such as ethanol=
>..
>>
>> A quick calculation showed that even if all the farmland in the United=
> =
>
>> States
>> were converted to growing switchgrass, it would not produce enough =
>
>> ethanol for
>> the country?s fossil fuel use. Switchgrass takes several years to =
>
>> mature. The
>> yield ranges from 0 for complete failure of the crop to take hold to 2=
>0 =
>
>> t or
>> more per ha, a lot depending on the rainfall. A yield of 15 t /ha is
> =
>
>> year. If
>> that energy could be converted with 70 percent efficiency into =
>
>> electricity,
>> ethanol, methanol etc., it would take about 460 m ha to produce the 80=
>EJ
>> (ExaJoule =3D 1018J) fossil fuel energy used in the USA each year. The=
> =
>
>> total
>> farmland in the USA is 380 m ha, of which 175 m ha is harvested cropla=
>nd.
>
>And this is to reduce the non-existant global warming?
I think pretty much all the naysayers have now conceded that global warming is
taking place. The only dispute is with some mavericks who don't accept that
this is down to human activity.
David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University
>
>>
>> "
>>
>> David Webb
>> Security team leader
>> CCSS
>> Middlesex University
>>
>>
>>> And yes, it would mean that the price of corn would rise. But if you =
> =
>
>>> convince
>>> enough cotton growers to grow sugar cane instead, you could reduce =
>
>>> surplus of
>>> cotton (and hence reduce subsidies). Also, there is a lot of sugar ca=
>ne =
>
>>> that
>>> could be important from developing nations, even nations such as Fiji=
> =
>
>>> and those
>>> revenus woudl greatly help those nations, who, for the first time, =
>
>>> would have
>>> valuable commodities to trade.
>
>
>
>-- =
Bob Koehler
> how long is the support for open vms on itaniums, is it true DOD wanted
> support till 2020 for their applications?
>
Nobody knows. It's like asking how long GM expects to continue
support for the last Chevy. Niether Itanium nor Chevrolet are making
any end of life plans.
Bob Koehler
>
> And bob, you mention animals generating 18% of world's CO2 emissions. The USA
> generates 25% of the world's emissions.
Must be all them steer in Texas.
Bob Koehler
>
> Divert that surplus to production of fuel and not only could the respective
> government stop highly subsidizing their farmers, but there would no longer be a
> surplus of wheet/corn, allowing farmers in developping nations to make a living
> from their crops and greatly help the plight of those countries.
>
If all the land currently in production in the US and all the land
intentionally allowed to lay fallow were used for nothing other than
to grow bio-fuels (meaning we'd import ALL our food instead of being
one of the world's largest food exporters), we could not make enough
bio-fuels to stop importing oil.
Tom Linden
160 Billion tons of CO2 goes into the atmosphere every year, man is
responsible
for about 6 of those
--
Tom Linden
How many calories does take to produce one liter of ethanol, and how many
calories can be extracted from that liter?
Tom Linden
wrote:
Let's get the spelling right:-)
Bob Koehler
>
> Damn. And nature did all that without man's help. Go figure.
>
I don't care who did it. I don't care what's happening on Mars
with respect to global warming. I just want to do what we can to
aleviate it so all my great grandchildren don't starve.
Bob Koehler
>
> I suspect that is rubbish. I doubt that man's influence on the global
> temperature is even measureable.
The measurements have been made. You might not like some of the
theories, but the facts are real.
Tom Linden
I believe there is some scientific debate about these measurements, and
they
are not facts. It has nothing to do with what I like.
JF Mezei
> 160 Billion tons of CO2 goes into the atmosphere every year, man is
> responsible
> for about 6 of those
How many tonnes do plants reabsorb from the atmosphere ? Your statement is
meaningless without that metric.
About bio-fuels: they may not be the magic answer to replace oil completely. But
they can certaintly significantly reduce oil use. If all US cars ran on a mix of
10% bio fuel, this would reduce by 10% the net CO2 addition from the US cars.
That does not stop the problem, but it is a step forward. And for every
percentage that you reduce net CO2 emissions, it gives you more time to find a
permanent solution.
DaveG
Koehler) wrote:
> In article <55mc3uF25oge...@mid.individual.net>, b...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
>
> > Damn. And nature did all that without man's help. Go figure.
>
> I don't care who did it. I don't care what's happening on Mars
> with respect to global warming. I just want to do what we can to
> aleviate it so all my great grandchildren don't starve.
I agree with Bob. And when you go home tonight, shut your desk light
off if its on.
Dave...
JF Mezei
> I believe there is some scientific debate about these measurements, and
> they
> are not facts. It has nothing to do with what I like.
Many many years ago, I heard a very interesting inteview on Charlie Rose (PBS).
He interviewed someone from the Smitsonian institute. This was not long after
the Montreal protocol for CFC/Ozone hole was signed.
She likened global warming to the ozone hole. For many years, politicians
constantly argued that there was no hard proof that CFCs were harming the planet
and refused to act. Then, one day, they find 2 HUGE ozone holes and compare skin
cancer rates of australia to other place on earth and see a significant
difference. The Montreal Protocol was signed pretty quickly because they were
not only faces with irrefutable evidence, but also a catastrophy affecting humans.
(remember that interview was a long time ago). She then said that global warming
was at the same point as the ozone hole was year before where politicans refuse
to admit to it. And she pointed to the fact that USA car makers were now making
bigger and bigger cars while the rest of the world was maintaining smaller cars
in terms of production capacity. (and this was an understatement when you
consider how the USA car industry have since used their marketing force to
convince americans (and many outside the USA) that SUVS and that terrible
contraptoion called a Hummer were cool.
She warned that eventually, the facts would become irrefutable and government
would be forced to act. The longer this would take, the more catastrophic the
steps would have to be. And in terms of the USA econony, an "instant" ban on
polluting cars would result in the decimation of the USA economy since it is so
reliant on the car industry, and the later would not be able to switch to making
fuel efficient cars quickly enough.
Hint: take a look at the health of the USA car industry today. And the USA
hasn't even begun to even mandate car makers to stop making fuel guzzlers. Ford
is having to sell profitable assets such as Aston Martin to pay for its massive
losses. Daimler is wanting to distch its hopeless Chrysler division and GM is
downsizing like mad.
Yet, all 3 continue to market their SUVs on TV, mostly because that is all that
they can build since their production lines were transformed to make those small
trucks. And that is the main difference with the foreign car makers. They may be
making some SUVs for the USA market, but they represent only a small portion of
their manufacturing capacity, so when SUV sales tank, it doesn't bring down the
whole company.
Do you know why Chrysler refused to distribute its SMART cars in the USA ? (I
say "its" because SMART are a product from their Daimler parent) ? There is
strong demand for them even in the USA. Chrysler did not wish to start marketing
small fuel efficient cars because it would go against its core product line of
big fat cars/SUVs and Chrysler makes more money selling an SUV than a smaller car.
Chrysler finally relented, but on the condition that SMART produce a bigger
Smart Car for the USA market.
Just consider how much your economy depends on the car industry. Jobs, steel,
plastics, electronics, tires, oil companies, petrol stations, car retailers etc.
Delaying the inevitable may have given the US industries a "pleasant" time
without any need to shape up, but the longer the delay, the more bitter the pill
will be.
Bill Gunshannon
Actually, I think all the people who believe so strongly in this should
shut their cars off (don't sell it, that just moves the problem to
someone else's hands) get rid of the TV, stereo, computer, video game,
refirgerator, stove and all the other trappings of modern industrialized
life. Oops. My mistake. It's me you want to change my lifestyle,
not you. Kind of like Al Gore.
DaveG
> In article <1173809915.271752.100...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>,
> "DaveG" <david.gudew...@abbott.com> writes:
>
> > On Mar 13, 10:46 am, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob
> > Koehler) wrote:
> >> In article <55mc3uF25oge...@mid.individual.net>, b...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
>
> >> > Damn. And nature did all that without man's help. Go figure.
>
> >> I don't care who did it. I don't care what's happening on Mars
> >> with respect to global warming. I just want to do what we can to
> >> aleviate it so all my great grandchildren don't starve.
>
> > I agree with Bob. And when you go home tonight, shut your desk light
> > off if its on.
>
> Actually, I think all the people who believe so strongly in this should
> shut their cars off (don't sell it, that just moves the problem to
> someone else's hands) get rid of the TV, stereo, computer, video game,
> refirgerator, stove and all the other trappings of modern industrialized
> life. Oops. My mistake. It's me you want to change my lifestyle,
> not you. Kind of like Al Gore.
>
> bill
>
> --
> Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
> University of Scranton |
> Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
Perhaps every little bit helps. Perhaps. And I wasn't thinking about
Al Gore, I was thinking about my kids and their kids.
Dave...
Stephen Hoffman
> how long is the support for open vms on itaniums, is it true DOD wanted
> support till 2020 for their applications?
The public statements around HP product plans are in the OpenVMS
roadmap. <http://www.hp.com/go/openvms/roadmap>
General discussions and particularly formal support agreements are
not something that is particularly unusual, given the comparatively long
life-cycles of the projects typical of military and large-scale
commercial enterprises, such as building ships, new factories or new
production lines.
Folks expecting to have a project with a production life-time of many
years will tend to buy spares and/or support contracts, and to factor in
maintenance and MTBF and related over the expected lifetime of the
project. None of this is news to you.
If you're fitting some number of OpenVMS I64 boxes into some larger
environment and particularly an environment you expect to use for ten or
more years in production, you'll likely want to agree upon a contract
for software and hardware and upgrade services. With HP, most likely.
Almost without doubt, someone from your organization could receive
the direct and undivided attention of a corporate officer from within
the HP organization for the purposes of this question and of your
particular project requirements.
--
www.HoffmanLabs.com
Services for OpenVMS
JF Mezei
> The public statements around HP product plans are in the OpenVMS
> roadmap. <http://www.hp.com/go/openvms/roadmap>
The roadmap is a nice document, but it is subject to change anytime, hence it is
not a binding legal document.
The roadmap on June 24 2001 was a nice rosy document. The roadmap on June 25
2001 was completely different with a focus on that unwanted port to that IA64 thing.
Even if IA64 were a success, HP would be quite reluctant to commit to developing
new IA64 based systems for more than 5 years into the future. They would have no
problems promising support for 15 years into the future.
And when you think about it, it isn't that hard to make such a support promise.
Even if Intel/HP were to announce today that IA64 was pointless, they would
still deliver Tukwilla, promised for 2009, but likely delayed until 2010. From
that point in, IA64 based system might sell for another 3-4 years, and the 5
year timer starts at the last sale. That is 12 years. Adding an additional 3
years of support is not that much a burden. Look at VAX support, it is still
alive , kicking and keeping VMS alive today.
The big issue that isn't discussed however are commitments from serious
middleware people such as Oracle for IA64 in the same time lengths that the
current owner of VMS is willing to legally commit to.
Jeff Campbell
> Tom Linden wrote:
>> 160 Billion tons of CO2 goes into the atmosphere every year, man is
>> responsible
>> for about 6 of those
>
> How many tonnes do plants reabsorb from the atmosphere ? Your statement
> is meaningless without that metric.
>
> About bio-fuels: they may not be the magic answer to replace oil
> completely. But they can certaintly significantly reduce oil use. If all
> US cars ran on a mix of 10% bio fuel, this would reduce by 10% the net
> CO2 addition from the US cars.
Combustion of ethanol forms carbon dioxide and water:
C2H5OH + 3 O2 → 2 CO2 +3 H2O
> That does not stop the problem, but it is
> a step forward. And for every percentage that you reduce net CO2
> emissions, it gives you more time to find a permanent solution.
---- Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
---- East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption ----
Dr. Dweeb
Indeed - quite a good article and plenty of "real science" in there, rather
than the crap that seems to make headlines. There is plenty of real
information out there. Most of the information in that article is unknown to
the general populace - a sad indictment of our education systems. While I
would vote for getting "cleaner" air, I mean smog is a real problem (try
Beijing for some fun) and less polluting vehicles get my vote. As for
modifying our reliance on fossil fuels - well, the only reason I can see is
to lessen the industrial west's dependence on the 12C barbarians who happen
to own vast pools of the stuff.
Dr. Dweeb
The only point of Bio-fuel is to lessen dependence on the middle east.
Main, Kerry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: JF Mezei [mailto:jfmezei...@vaxination.ca]
> Sent: March 13, 2007 3:58 PM
> To: Info...@Mvb.Saic.Com
> Subject: Re: HP OpenVMS I64 Support Plans?
>
> Stephen Hoffman wrote:
> > The public statements around HP product plans are in the OpenVMS
> > roadmap. <http://www.hp.com/go/openvms/roadmap>
>
> The roadmap is a nice document, but it is subject to change
> anytime, hence it is
> not a binding legal document.
>
Not indended to be legal document. It's a guide to assist in planning
for future features. "Subject to change" is all over the document.
Try getting a 5 year futures commitment from any vendor on any platform
about any product.
Good luck.
> The roadmap on June 24 2001 was a nice rosy document. The
> roadmap on June 25
> 2001 was completely different with a focus on that unwanted
> port to that IA64 thing.
>
> Even if IA64 were a success, HP would be quite reluctant to
> commit to developing
> new IA64 based systems for more than 5 years into the future.
> They would have no
> problems promising support for 15 years into the future.
>
Legalese is legalese - again, try getting a 15 year formal commitment
to be made on a public web site from any vendor on any platform about
any product.
Good luck.
> And when you think about it, it isn't that hard to make such
> a support promise.
> Even if Intel/HP were to announce today that IA64 was
> pointless, they would
> still deliver Tukwilla, promised for 2009, but likely delayed
> until 2010. From
> that point in, IA64 based system might sell for another 3-4
> years, and the 5
> year timer starts at the last sale. That is 12 years. Adding
> an additional 3
> years of support is not that much a burden. Look at VAX
> support, it is still
> alive , kicking and keeping VMS alive today.
>
> The big issue that isn't discussed however are commitments
> from serious
> middleware people such as Oracle for IA64 in the same time
> lengths that the
> current owner of VMS is willing to legally commit to.
>
Try getting a 15 year formal commitment from Oracle, SAP or any other
vendor to be made on a public web site.
As an example, Oracle could buy SAP or vide versa - do you think lawyers
want the new company to be locked in to 15 years of support of all the
combined products?
Good luck.
:-)
Regards
Kerry Main
Senior Consultant
HP Services Canada
Voice: 613-592-4660
Fax: 613-591-4477
kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcom
(remove the DOT's and AT)
OpenVMS - the secure, multi-site OS that just works.
Jan-Erik Söderholm
> JF Mezei wrote:
>>
>> About bio-fuels: they may not be the magic answer to replace oil
>> completely. But they can certaintly significantly reduce oil use. If
>> all US cars ran on a mix of 10% bio fuel, this would reduce by 10% the
>> net CO2 addition from the US cars.
>
> Combustion of ethanol forms carbon dioxide and water:
>
> C2H5OH + 3 O2 → 2 CO2 +3 H2O
>
And so what ?
That CO2 that was picked up by the plants used to produced the
ethanol, not some CO2 burried deep down for several millions
years ago. *That* is the difference.
Re-circulation of *todays* CO2 is no problem, of ocurse.
It's the burning of *fossile* fuels that is the problem.
Jan-Erik.
JF Mezei
> Combustion of ethanol forms carbon dioxide and water:
Again:
bio fuels take their carbon from the air (extracted by the plants).
They do not add more carbons to the atmosphere. (eg: net 0 addition of carbons)
fossil fuels are extracted from storare and dumped into the atmosphere and
represent a net addition of CO2/Carbon into the atmosphere->plant->atmosphere cycle.
Toundras are a particular problem. The bio matter remains frozen instead of
decomposing, and is thuse sequestered. But *any* warming releases bio matter
that was previously in year yound permafrost, and decomposes, releasing CO2. The
amount of CO2 to be released in the atmosphere by thawing of a couple of cm of
surface is HUGE. In summer, only the surface thaws. But add more heat and a lot
more will thaw.
Similarly, any ice that melts in the arctic ocean exposed the darker water. Ice
reflects heat back to space. Water absorbs the heat. So if your summer lengthens
and temperature rises above freeziong point, a lot more ice will melt, exposing
more ocean, which in turn will quicken the process.
If you do not know the thickness of the greenaland ice sheet, then you have no
idea of what global warming is all about. Melting of ice floating on the ocean
doesn't add to the ocean levels. But it helps warm the oceans. Melting of ice on
greengland and antarctica is significant because that water is a net addition to
the ocean levels. The greenland ice sheet is MASSIVE. (kilemetreS thick).
Now, you may choose to refise the evidence of recent (50 years) climatic changes
in the arctic because you choose to look only at your moderate weather where you
live. But the first signs of global warming happen at the poles. And it has
happened.
b...@instantwhip.com
glaciers used to be in California ... we had an ice age ... it was
hotter
in the 1930s then it is now ...
this has been going on for thousands of years ... and it is caused by
the
sun ... solar flare activity will be at its worst this year and may
knock
out another satelite or cell communications ...
There is nothing you can do about solar flares! Al Gore has you
all losing it ... you can all peddle bicycles and that will not change
the fact that the sun can cause climate change ...
and the scientist who discovered the device that measures ozone
levels said we know NOTHING about the ozone and that these holes
coming and going may be normal activity that has happened for
thousands of years ... calm down ...
b...@instantwhip.com
> In article <DTiotGxQ0bj6-pn2-BR6kf8ohpcRS@dave2_os2.home.ours>,
> "Dave Weatherall" <djw-noth...@nospam.nohow> writes:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 01:12:30 UTC, b...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)
> > wrote:
>
> >> In article <45f5e64b$0$16288$88260...@free.teranews.com>,
> >> "Neil Rieck" <n.ri...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>
> >> > Check this link for more information about what happened on Earth 250
> >> > Million years ago.
> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian_extinction
>
> >> Damn. And nature did all that without man's help. Go figure.
>
>
> > Bill
> > nature isn't the problem. Nature was in 'balance' last time
> > around and I seem to think that any inhabitants then would not have
> > been too keen on what was happening. It may be that wamer temperatures
> > are 'natural'. The problem is that the human action increases the
> > imbalance and increases the likelihood of catastrophe if we continue
> > as we are. No action because its 'natural' won't help avoid the
> > effects.
>
> Or man could abandon his arrogance, admit he is not the top of
> the food chain and accept that in the grand scheme of nature he
> is an insignificant little gnat.
>
> When nature is thru with us it will sweep us from the planet just
> like the dinosaurs and there is nothing we can do to lengthen or
> shorten that period of time.
>
>
> --
> Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
> b...@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
> University of Scranton |
>
> - Show quoted text -
well Bill, God is going to come back before that happens and
after 1,000 years, create a new earth ... now weither you are
here to see it is another matter ...
b...@instantwhip.com
> the mammals have so far managed less than 65 Million. Our own species Homo
> Sapiens has been around for about 150000 years. Homo Erectus seems to have
> been around for more like a Million years.
> If it hadn't been for an asteriod hit the dinosaurs might still be going
> strong.
> Unlike the dinosaurs there is at least a possibility that in a few decades time
> we might be able to stop such an asteriod. Alternatively today we are perfectly
> capable of shortening our stay on Earth.
b...@instantwhip.com
>
> >--
> >Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
> >b...@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
> >University of Scranton |
> >Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h> - Hide quoted text -
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
so you were around when this asteroid hit?
what happened to the dinosaurs is a world flood hit ...
ever hear of Noah and the ark?
b...@instantwhip.com
Koehler) wrote:
> In article <55mc3uF25oge...@mid.individual.net>, b...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
>
> > Damn. And nature did all that without man's help. Go figure.
>
> I don't care who did it. I don't care what's happening on Mars
> with respect to global warming. I just want to do what we can to
> aleviate it so all my great grandchildren don't starve.
you cannot do a thing with the sun ...
you could try praying to Someone who can ...
Jeff Campbell
> Jeff Campbell wrote:
>
>> Combustion of ethanol forms carbon dioxide and water:
>
> Again:
>
> bio fuels take their carbon from the air (extracted by the plants).
> They do not add more carbons to the atmosphere. (eg: net 0 addition of
> carbons)
>
> fossil fuels are extracted from storare and dumped into the atmosphere
> and represent a net addition of CO2/Carbon into the
> atmosphere->plant->atmosphere cycle.
>
Fossil fuels are bio-mass. No net change.
>
> Toundras are a particular problem. The bio matter remains frozen instead
> of decomposing, and is thuse sequestered. But *any* warming releases
> bio matter that was previously in year yound permafrost, and decomposes,
> releasing CO2. The amount of CO2 to be released in the atmosphere by
> thawing of a couple of cm of surface is HUGE. In summer, only the
> surface thaws. But add more heat and a lot more will thaw.
>
> Similarly, any ice that melts in the arctic ocean exposed the darker
> water. Ice reflects heat back to space. Water absorbs the heat. So if
> your summer lengthens and temperature rises above freeziong point, a lot
> more ice will melt, exposing more ocean, which in turn will quicken the
> process.
>
> If you do not know the thickness of the greenaland ice sheet, then you
> have no idea of what global warming is all about. Melting of ice
> floating on the ocean doesn't add to the ocean levels. But it helps warm
> the oceans. Melting of ice on greengland and antarctica is significant
> because that water is a net addition to the ocean levels. The greenland
> ice sheet is MASSIVE. (kilemetreS thick).
>
> Now, you may choose to refise the evidence of recent (50 years) climatic
> changes in the arctic because you choose to look only at your moderate
> weather where you live. But the first signs of global warming happen at
> the poles. And it has happened.
I suggest you read the article at the URL Tom Linden posted:
<http://www.kednos.com/physics/climatology/iceage.html>
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Steven M. Schweda
> so you were around when this asteroid hit?
> what happened to the dinosaurs is a world flood hit ...
> ever hear of Noah and the ark?
Ever hear of Santa Claus and the tooth fairy?
For the love of God, or as a personal favor to me, please take this
entire inappropriate, pointless, vacuous discussion to a more
appropriate forum. (Perhaps comp.os.vms.nla0.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven M. Schweda sms@antinode-org
382 South Warwick Street (+1) 651-699-9818
Saint Paul MN 55105-2547
Bill Todd
...
> The only point of Bio-fuel is to lessen dependence on the middle east.
Your obvious ignorance in this area should have prevented such an
unwarranted public display of it.
Bio-fuel is a renewable, sustainable form of energy on human
time-scales: the carbon that it returns to the atmosphere is only that
which it recently absorbed from it.
Fossil fuels are neither renewable nor sustainable on human time-scales:
the carbon that they release to the atmosphere comes from the Mesozoic
or earlier, and won't get absorbed again in similar quantities for a
similar period of time (hundreds of millions of years) - thus
contributes to a major net increase in CO2 in the atmosphere for any
period of interest to humanity.
Legitimate debate can occur about just how much bio-fuel it is feasible
to produce, and just how much of the total demand it can satisfy, and
just how soon those limits can be increased - but its ability to reduce
net carbon contributions to the atmosphere is in no doubt whatsoever.
The fact that it may also reduce dependence on external sources of fuel
is merely a secondary benefit (if that: there's a reasonable argument
that until such time as most use of fossil fuels has been abandoned it
makes more sense, from a strictly selfish viewpoint, to buy other
countries' reserves rather than use up our own).
- bill
Paul Sture
"Tom Linden" <t...@kednos-remove.com> wrote:
> Here is a starter.
>
> http://www.kednos.com/physics/climatology/iceage.html
>
> The irony of the political debate on this matter is that the earth is
> actually entering into a cooling period which will result in another
> Ice age in about 12,000 years. Before that, and for the next few hundred
> years we will likely have a repeat of the so-called mini-ice age from
> which we emerged 150 or so years ago, which was believed to have been
> cause by a shutdown of the Atlantic conveyor.
>
"Global Warming - Is it real?"
http://mclean.ch/climate/global_warming.htm
--
Paul Sture
Neil Rieck
news:paul.sture.nospam-7...@mac.sture.ch...
> In article <op.to4qoywette90l@hyrrokkin>,> Paul Sture
>
Rather than going to web sites with "their own" interpretations of currently
published data, it might be more useful to visit the IPCC site where this
information was first published (BTW, you'll notice it is not all one sided;
they publish warts as well). Here is a neat FAQ from the 2001 report:
http://www.ipcc.ch/about/faq.htm
Summary for Policymakers (from the 2001 report)
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/005.htm
enlarged temperature graphs
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-1.htm
BTW, this body of peer reviewed scientists has been working on this since
1990. This is not something they cooked up over night to piss off the rest
of the world.
Like I said in a previous post, I'll trust a room full of scientists long
before I ever trust a room full of politicians. (which is very weird because
the founding fathers of the USA were almost all amateur scientists (a.k.a.
Natural Philosophers); what the hell has happened to our world?)
Neil Rieck
Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge,
Ontario, Canada.
http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Neil Rieck
"Neil Rieck" <n.r...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:45f733ea$0$16337$8826...@free.teranews.com...
>
Sorry for replying to my own post.
I need new glasses and didn't initially see "Summary for Policymakers
(Feb-2007)"
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf
JF Mezei
> glaciers used to be in California ... we had an ice age ... it was
> hotter
> in the 1930s then it is now ...
Do you understand the meaning of the first word in "Global Warming". ????
Record breaking warm winter in europe doesn't make a trend. Warmer than usual
climate in California in the 1930s doesn't make a trend on a global basis.
But when you look at global satistics over the last 50 years, there is a clear
trend towards generally warmer temperatures on a global basis, especially in the
very sensitive areas near arctic/antarctic circles.
Warmer temperatures in california don't have global, repercussions. It has local
repercussions on agriculture and water supply.
Warmer temperatures in arctic and antarctic have global repercussions due to
rising ocean levels. This is not only flooding, but also weather patterns. If
the gulf stream is perturbed by the greater amount of water in the atlantic,
then western europe would have extremely different weather in the winter for
instance.
And while the earth has the ability to adapt, it can only do so at a certain
rate. The great barrier reef in Australia can't move south to espape the warming
of the ocean over 100 years. It might be able to gradually espand towards the
south as fast as it dies in the north over a thousand years. But not over 100 years.
> There is nothing you can do about solar flares!
Sure. You can build a giant umbrella over the earth :-)
However, under a healthy planet, a temporary "glitch" in solar heat into to the
earth gets reflected back quickly. But with a surplus of CO2, such temporary
glitch will take much longer to be reflected back because the CO2,s role is to
slow down reflection of heat to space.
>Al Gore has you
> all losing it ...
If you don't like that one person, then read the unedited scientific reports
from NASA and NOAA. But your white house won't let you access the unedited versions.
Tom Linden
<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> b...@instantwhip.com wrote:
>> glaciers used to be in California ... we had an ice age ... it was
>> hotter
>> in the 1930s then it is now ...
>
> Do you understand the meaning of the first word in "Global Warming". ????
>
> Record breaking warm winter in europe doesn't make a trend. Warmer than
> usual climate in California in the 1930s doesn't make a trend on a
> global basis.
>
> But when you look at global satistics over the last 50 years, there is a
> clear trend towards generally warmer temperatures on a global basis,
> especially in the very sensitive areas near arctic/antarctic circles.
50 years is not near long enough to draw any conclusions on trends. The
data
that I have read does not suggest that, and I am speaking as a published
physicist who spent a number of years working with satellite meteorology.
We have numerous cycles, the shortest being the sunspot cycle, about every
11 years, the next peak of which should occur in 2011. There several other
solar cycles effecting the output of our furnace, ranging from 22 (magnetic
pole reversal) to 180, IIRC. The most significant
cycle for the earths climate is the 25,600 year precession of the
equinoxes,
and is responsible for the regular occurrence of the ice ages.
This causes, for example the perhelion to advance one day about every 70
years,
which currently occurs on January 4th, but coincided with the winter
solstice
during the time of the vikings. Then there is the nutation which casues
the axial
tilt to the ecliptic to vary from around 21 to 24 or more degrees. The
tropics
are currently around 23 degrees, when the number is less there is less
insolation
and thus cooler,
The longest cycle is about 400,000 years and is related to planetary
alignments
causing the eccentricity of the earths orbit to increase to about 0.05
(currently
0.01 or nearly circular) resulting in extreme ice ages when it coincides
the
extemes of the equinoxes.
In addition to the astonomical influences the earth itself has many
feedback mechanisms.
Because we are in a warm period several interesting phenomena are
occuring, the warmth
increases global precipitation in some areas resulting in a thickening of
the ice
sheets on Greenland and Antartica, while simultaneously causing melting of
the extremes
of these ice sheets. They still have melted enough to expose land to
vegetation in
Greenland as was experienced by the Norsemen who settled there. Now this
gets interesting,
the Gulf streams moves about 18 million m**3 of warm salty water per
second and as it
swings around Greenland and Iceland it starts to cool and being heavier,
owing to the
higher salinity, it is pulled down by gravity and thus returns to the
tropics. This
is known as the North Atlantic conveyor. However, with the increased
runoff from the
melting of the ice sheet, the salinity is reduced. As this continues it
remains bouyant
and the conveyor shuts down! Europe gets cold the alpine glaciers start
growing, and the
earth cools. Try and model that in a computer! The same is tru for the
conveyors in the
Pacific Japanese-> Alaska current, Australian to Humboldt
>
> Warmer temperatures in california don't have global, repercussions. It
> has local repercussions on agriculture and water supply.
>
> Warmer temperatures in arctic and antarctic have global repercussions
> due to rising ocean levels. This is not only flooding, but also weather
> patterns. If the gulf stream is perturbed by the greater amount of
> water in the atlantic, then western europe would have extremely
> different weather in the winter for instance.
>
> And while the earth has the ability to adapt, it can only do so at a
> certain rate. The great barrier reef in Australia can't move south to
> espape the warming of the ocean over 100 years. It might be able to
> gradually espand towards the south as fast as it dies in the north over
> a thousand years. But not over 100 years.
>
>> There is nothing you can do about solar flares!
>
> Sure. You can build a giant umbrella over the earth :-)
>
> However, under a healthy planet, a temporary "glitch" in solar heat into
> to the earth gets reflected back quickly. But with a surplus of CO2,
> such temporary glitch will take much longer to be reflected back because
> the CO2,s role is to slow down reflection of heat to space.
>
>
>> Al Gore has you
>> all losing it ...
>
> If you don't like that one person, then read the unedited scientific
> reports from NASA and NOAA. But your white house won't let you access
> the unedited versions.
>
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
David J Dachtera
I doubt (He) will change (His) plans just for our convenience.
This planet has gone through climate changes before.
This planet will go through climate changes again.
"Not my will, but Thine be done." Get over it.
--
David J Dachtera
dba DJE Systems
http://www.djesys.com/
Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page
http://www.djesys.com/vms/market/
Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page:
http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/
Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page:
http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/
Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page:
http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/
David J Dachtera
>
> In article <55mc3uF...@mid.individual.net>, bi...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
> >
> > Damn. And nature did all that without man's help. Go figure.
> >
>
> I don't care who did it. I don't care what's happening on Mars
> with respect to global warming. I just want to do what we can to
> aleviate it so all my great grandchildren don't starve.
The probability of that is close to nil. Climate change on that scale takes
hundreds of generations, many centuries even, without cosmic intervention.
Bill Todd
> JF Mezei wrote:
...
>> fossil fuels are extracted from storare and dumped into the atmosphere
>> and represent a net addition of CO2/Carbon into the
>> atmosphere->plant->atmosphere cycle.
>>
>
> Fossil fuels are bio-mass.
You are an idiot.
- bill
Bill Todd
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 07:21:20 -0800, Bob Koehler
> <koe...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org> wrote:
>
>> In article <c2d20$45f59dbc$cef8887a$27...@TEKSAVVY.COM>, JF Mezei
>> <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> writes:
>>>
>>> Divert that surplus to production of fuel and not only could the
>>> respective
>>> government stop highly subsidizing their farmers, but there would no
>>> longer be a
>>> surplus of wheet/corn, allowing farmers in developping nations to
>>> make a living
>>> from their crops and greatly help the plight of those countries.
>>>
>>
>> If all the land currently in production in the US and all the land
>> intentionally allowed to lay fallow were used for nothing other than
>> to grow bio-fuels (meaning we'd import ALL our food instead of being
>> one of the world's largest food exporters), we could not make enough
>> bio-fuels to stop importing oil.
>>
> How many calories does take to produce one liter of ethanol, and how many
> calories can be extracted from that liter?
The real question is how many more calories can be extracted from it
than the *nonrenewable* calories required to produce it. While wasting
*renewable* calories may itself become an issue down the road, as long
as there are enough available to reduce the use of *nonrenewable*
calories it's still a net win right now.
Producing ethanol from what would otherwise be waste products is a clear
win: virtually all the calories (renewable or not) were already spent
to produce the non-waste product that generated that waste. Hell, the
waste would otherwise ferment, break down, and release a significant
percentage of its carbon back into the atmosphere anyway, so burning it
productively rather than throwing that energy away is eminently sensible.
Producing bio-fuel on land that would otherwise lie fallow (as long as
sensible crop rotation is used to avoid depleting the land) is nearly as
clear a win, as long as minimal use of nonrenewable energy sources
occurs (such use should obviously be minimized in the previous case as
well, but there the primary - non-waste - product determines just how
much use of non-renewables might be justifiable, whereas when the
primary product is the bio-fuel itself then clearly it can't possibly
justify high levels of nonrenewable energy use).
The fact that proper use of bio-fuel (and other forms of renewable
energy which are still grossly underutilized) may not be able to offset
all oil imports, or X% of total fossil fuel use, really isn't very
relevant as long as it can reduce it even moderately significantly.
Because the fact is that we have to reduce carbon emissions drastically
regardless of *how* we do that, so the real question is just what
*balance* of approaches will reach the required target (renewables,
increased efficiency, just plain cutting back, possibly atomic power as
a stop-gap: while its waste is also a major problem, it's not the
*same* problem that threatens us in the coming decades, and we've
already got it to some degree anyway - though it's worth remembering
that atomic fuel itself is a finite, non-renewable resource which won't
solve our problems long-term, though fusion power presumably would).
In other words, continuing to consume fossil fuel at anything like
current rates is just not on the table as an option (not only because of
global warming but because of its decidedly finite nature): the
discussion really should be about what the balance among the alternative
approaches should be, not carping about their inability to sustain what
has already become an unsustainable life-style (at least using the
current "Hey, the climate isn't *that* bad yet and we're nowhere nearly
out of oil - so why worry?" mind-set).
- bill
Dr. Dweeb
I just do not subscribe to the idea that burning oil is a significant global
warming issue. Nor do my scientist friends.
As the as the previously posted article
http://www.kednos.com/physics/climatology/iceage.html pointed out, the
science on this is extremely dodgy, while the science on known cyclical
changes due to the physics of the earths movement, solar activity etc. is
extremely well understood and documented.
One of my buddies is one of the world's leading geologists and his position
is identical to the paper quoted above. Is the earth a bit warmer just now
than a little while back? Yes. Is it due to human factors? Most probably
not. The observed changes are currently well within normal natural
movements.
Dweeb.
There is no argument about oil being non-renewable, or the fact that using
it degrades the general air quality, or that the west is from its
perspective better off burning everyone else's supplies.
Dweeb
Dr. Dweeb
Indeed. Actually, there is photographic evidence of the Greenland coastline
being very green in the last century IIRC.
Ships have been dropping by for several hundred years. Again, the changes
in state are not unknown and have been observed before.
Bill Todd
...
Here is a starter.
>
> http://www.kednos.com/physics/climatology/iceage.html
This appears to be your own posting of the personal views (footnoted
though they may be) of an oil/gas company geologist - hardly the most
objective source. A refereed paper in a respected scientific journal
would be far more credible: you can find superficially-authoritative
support on the Internet for virtually any viewpoint as long as you're
not picky.
- bill
Bill Todd
...
> "Global Warming - Is it real?"
>
> http://mclean.ch/climate/global_warming.htm
Are you seriously offering up John McLean (though he seemed a nice
enough fellow when we were working on the VMS paper) as an authority on
climate change?
- bill
Bill Todd
...
> Actually, I think all the people who believe so strongly in this should
> shut their cars off (don't sell it, that just moves the problem to
> someone else's hands) get rid of the TV, stereo, computer, video game,
> refirgerator, stove and all the other trappings of modern industrialized
> life. Oops. My mistake. It's me you want to change my lifestyle,
> not you.
I already changed it long ago. My cars have averaged over 40 MPG for
more than two decades now, and my previous cars and my wife's averaged
in the mid-30s, I built our house 16 years ago with 13" of insulation in
the walls and roof, we heated it with wood and solar panels for the
first 13 years (I finally broke down and got a small propane furnace
which uses about 500 gallons per year - not too bad for central New
Hampshire, even though we did splurge a bit by building about 3500
square feet), we recycle and avoid unnecessary consumption, and our
other energy use is at worst moderate.
So it indeed is your mistake: try not to compound it further by
continuing to be such an idiot.
- bill
Bill Todd
...
> I just do not subscribe to the idea that burning oil is a significant global
> warming issue. Nor do my scientist friends.
Those opinions, plus a buck or so, will get you a cup of coffee. As I
suggested already to Tom, finding a refereed paper in a respected
scientific journal that strongly supported this position would give it
considerably more weight than random Internet postings do.
- bill
Dr. Dweeb
I suggest that this "fact" is not as solid as you believe, and a large body
of hard science research casts some considerable doubt on the thesis that
carbon emissions are a causal factor. In geological history, CO2 levels
have risen after temperature increases, not before, and therefore cannot be
ascibed causality. The whole idea "increasing CO2 gives Global warming" is
decidely shaky on geological history terms, or any other scientific terms
for that matter.
As mentioned previously, I can think of plenty of other reasons to want to
reduce dependence on carbon fossil fuels. GW is not one of them.
> emissions drastically regardless of *how* we do that, so the real
> question is just what *balance* of approaches will reach the required
> target (renewables, increased efficiency, just plain cutting back,
> possibly atomic power as a stop-gap: while its waste is also a major
> problem, it's not the *same* problem that threatens us in the coming
> decades, and we've already got it to some degree anyway - though it's
> worth remembering that atomic fuel itself is a finite, non-renewable
> resource which won't solve our problems long-term, though fusion
> power presumably would).
> In other words, continuing to consume fossil fuel at anything like
> current rates is just not on the table as an option (not only because
> of global warming but because of its decidedly finite nature): the
finite, but still large.
Bill Todd
...
> As mentioned previously, I can think of plenty of other reasons to want to
> reduce dependence on carbon fossil fuels. GW is not one of them.
And as mentioned previously I'm still waiting for something a hell of a
lot more credible than your personal opinion about global warming - such
as a paper in a reputable refereed scientific journal (this being, after
all, a question of scientific investigation rather than amateur debate).
- bill
dav...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk
>JF Mezei wrote:
>> Tom Linden wrote:
>>> responsible
>>> for about 6 of those
>> How many tonnes do plants reabsorb from the atmosphere ? Your statemen=
>t=20
>> is meaningless without that metric.
>> About bio-fuels: they may not be the magic answer to replace oil=20
>> completely. But they can certaintly significantly reduce oil use. If al=
>l=20
>> US cars ran on a mix of 10% bio fuel, this would reduce by 10% the net =
>
>> CO2 addition from the US cars.=20
>
>Combustion of ethanol forms carbon dioxide and water:
>
>
But the idea is that the plants used to make the ethanol had removed that CO2
from the atmosphere when they were growing. So that the net impact on CO2
levels is zero.
The only problem with that idea is that it doesn't take into account CO2
produced in processing the plants into ethanol etc
David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University
> > That does not stop the problem, but it is
>> a step forward. And for every percentage that you reduce net CO2=20
>> emissions, it gives you more time to find a permanent solution.
>
>
Andrew
Koehler) wrote:
> In article <55mc3uF25oge...@mid.individual.net>, b...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
>
> > Damn. And nature did all that without man's help. Go figure.
>
> I don't care who did it. I don't care what's happening on Mars
> with respect to global warming. I just want to do what we can to
> aleviate it so all my great grandchildren don't starve.
I agree. There is almost unanimous scientific agreement that A the
world is getting hotter and B that mans activities through the release
of greenhouse gases and the destruction of CO2 regulators like the
tropical rainforest's is making the situation worse.
Idiots can argue about Sun cycles etc as much as they like but the sad
reality is that their arguments fall into the same category as early
theological arguments about the number of angels you could get on a
pinhead.
The sad irony is that there is also a very good economic argument for
ignoring the people who are in Global Warming Denial and pushing ahead
with CO2 reduction programs.
Oil and Coal are the two most significant sources of man produced CO2.
World Oil production has peaked while demand has not, this inevitably
will lead to long term price rises which will impact the economies
most dependent on Oil and Coal the worst while impacting low carbon
economies least. The Bush administration's inability to grasp this is
probably the biggest single long term threat to the US economy.
Even at current energy prices installing energy efficient light bulbs
and super insulating my house have paid for themselves in roughly 12
months in terms of reducing my utility bills while composting and
recycling costs me nothing while having a positive effect on our
carbon footprint. Our rain water recycling system will take longer to
pay for itself but I expect that to break even in 4 years. As business
cases I can sell this kind of return to almost anyone except it would
seem the Bush administration.
Nor is the US well placed to reap the benefits which will come from
the new industries spawned by the demand for renewables. Without
access to a large internal market and without government support the
US should expect to become a net importer of renewable technologies
and associated technologies such as nuclear power. The worlds largest
suppliers of Wind generators and Biomass heating systems are European
as are the most likely technologies for future Nuclear generation
facilities.
The state of California has recognized this.
To pile irony on irony, when the Bush administration ruled out
implementing Kyoto they did so ostensibly because of a claimed cost to
the US economy of 400 billion dollars. Not long after this Bush
invaded Iraq ostensibly to depose Saddam but in reality to get access
to a secure source of Oil in the middle east. The invasion of Iraq has
cost at least 400 billion dollars so far and has not resulted in a
secure Oil supply. At least ratifying Kyoto would have forced US
consumers and industry to address the issue which made a secure Oil
source an imperative if the economy is to survive.
Contemplate the situation the US may find itself in in the next 3
decades where they lose the top spot for CO2 emissions not because the
US has cleaned its act up but because the source of those emissions
has become too expensive for the US economy.
regards
Andrew Harrison
dav...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk
>On Mar 13, 10:09 am, davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
>> In article <55nhomF25qft...@mid.individual.net>, b...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
>> >In article <DTiotGxQ0bj6-pn2-BR6kf8ohpcRS@dave2_os2.home.ours>,
>> > "Dave Weatherall" <djw-noth...@nospam.nohow> writes:
>> >> On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 01:12:30 UTC, b...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >>> In article <45f5e64b$0$16288$88260...@free.teranews.com>,
>> >>> "Neil Rieck" <n.ri...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>>
>> >>> > Check this link for more information about what happened on Earth 250
>> >>> > Million years ago.
>> >>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian_extinction
>>
>>
>>
>> >> Bill
>> >> nature isn't the problem. Nature was in 'balance' last time
>> >> around and I seem to think that any inhabitants then would not have
>> >> been too keen on what was happening. It may be that wamer temperatures
>> >> are 'natural'. The problem is that the human action increases the
>> >> imbalance and increases the likelihood of catastrophe if we continue
>> >> as we are. No action because its 'natural' won't help avoid the
>> >> effects.
>>
>> >Or man could abandon his arrogance, admit he is not the top of
>> >the food chain and accept that in the grand scheme of nature he
>> >is an insignificant little gnat.
>>
>> >When nature is thru with us it will sweep us from the planet just
>> >like the dinosaurs and there is nothing we can do to lengthen or
>> >shorten that period of time.
>>
>> Well the dinosaurs were in the ascendancy for over 150 Million years whereas
>> the mammals have so far managed less than 65 Million. Our own species Homo
>> Sapiens has been around for about 150000 years. Homo Erectus seems to have
>> been around for more like a Million years.
>> If it hadn't been for an asteriod hit the dinosaurs might still be going
>> strong.
>> Unlike the dinosaurs there is at least a possibility that in a few decades time
>> we might be able to stop such an asteriod. Alternatively today we are perfectly
>> capable of shortening our stay on Earth.
>>
>> Security team leader
>> CCSS
>> Middlesex University
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >--
>> >Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
>> >b...@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
>> >University of Scranton |
>> >Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h> - Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>
>what happened to the dinosaurs is a world flood hit ...
>
>ever hear of Noah and the ark?
>
Ah so you don't believe in the sciences of geology, paleontology and astronomy.
You must also have problems with radio-active decay (since you obviously cannot
trust radiocarbon or similar forms of dating). Tree-rings and ice-core samples
must present similar problems if you believe in Bishop Usher's date for
creation ( not to mention genetic clocks).
As I recall the flood in the Bible was a result of God's Wrath.
However if you wish to equate acts of nature with acts of God then you must
also disagree with the statement
"When nature is thru with us it will sweep us from the planet just
like the dinosaurs and there is nothing we can do to lengthen or
shorten that period of time.
"
since God's covenant with Noah would seem to preclude God's complete
destruction of Mankind.
dav...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk
The Sun nowadays is substantially hotter than when the Earth first formed.
However life has largely compensated for this by the reduction of the
greenhouse effect by sequestering away CO2 in fossil fuels deposits etc.
David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University
>you could try praying to Someone who can ...
>
dav...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk
>JF Mezei wrote:
>>
>>> Combustion of ethanol forms carbon dioxide and water:
>>
>>
>> bio fuels take their carbon from the air (extracted by the plants).
>> They do not add more carbons to the atmosphere. (eg: net 0 addition of
>> carbons)
>>
>> and represent a net addition of CO2/Carbon into the
>> atmosphere->plant->atmosphere cycle.
>>
>
>
Fossil fuels are bio-mass which was sequestered away and therefore reduced the
Earth's greenhouse effect. This reduction compensated for the fact that the
Sun has slowly been getting hotter as it ages.
All other things being equal in about 1 or 2 Billion years life would hit a
limit in how much Co2 could be sequestered in order to reduce the greenhouse
effect to compensate for further increases in the Sun's output. At that point
any further reduction in C02 levels would cause severe problems for plantlife
which need Co2 in the atmosphere in order to survive.
Burning fossil fuels releases that sequestered greenhouse gas back into the
atmosphere increasing the greenhouse effect with todays hotter Sun.
David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University
>>
>> Toundras are a particular problem. The bio matter remains frozen instead
>> of decomposing, and is thuse sequestered. But *any* warming releases
>> bio matter that was previously in year yound permafrost, and decomposes,
>> releasing CO2. The amount of CO2 to be released in the atmosphere by
>> thawing of a couple of cm of surface is HUGE. In summer, only the
>> surface thaws. But add more heat and a lot more will thaw.
>>
>> Similarly, any ice that melts in the arctic ocean exposed the darker
>> water. Ice reflects heat back to space. Water absorbs the heat. So if
>> your summer lengthens and temperature rises above freeziong point, a lot
>> more ice will melt, exposing more ocean, which in turn will quicken the
>> process.
>>
>> If you do not know the thickness of the greenaland ice sheet, then you
>> have no idea of what global warming is all about. Melting of ice
>> floating on the ocean doesn't add to the ocean levels. But it helps warm
>> the oceans. Melting of ice on greengland and antarctica is significant
>> because that water is a net addition to the ocean levels. The greenland
>> ice sheet is MASSIVE. (kilemetreS thick).
>>
>> Now, you may choose to refise the evidence of recent (50 years) climatic
>> changes in the arctic because you choose to look only at your moderate
>> weather where you live. But the first signs of global warming happen at
>> the poles. And it has happened.
>
>I suggest you read the article at the URL Tom Linden posted:
>
> <http://www.kednos.com/physics/climatology/iceage.html>
>
Simon Clubley
>
> Not indended to be legal document. It's a guide to assist in planning
> for future features. "Subject to change" is all over the document.
>
> Try getting a 5 year futures commitment from any vendor on any platform
> about any product.
>
> Good luck.
>
1) How about this from the Microsoft patches (note the 5 years of Mainstream
support):
|Microsoft Support Lifecycle for Business and Developer Software
|===============================================================
|The Microsoft Support Lifecycle policy provides consistent and
|predictable guidelines for product support availability at the
|time that the product is released. Under this policy, Microsoft
|will offer a minimum of ten years of support. This includes five
|years of Mainstream Support and five years of Extended Support for
|Business and Developer products. Microsoft will continue to provide
|security update support, at a supported Service Pack level, for a
|minimum of ten years through the Extended support phase. For more
|information about the Microsoft Support Lifecycle, visit
|http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/ or contact your Technical
|Account Manager.
Or the 10 year plan that DEC put in place when it dropped the PDP-10
in 1983 ?
Or the 5 year support committment for the server version of Ubuntu 6.06 LTS ?
Simon.
--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
If Google's motto is "don't be evil", then how did we get Google Groups 2 ?
Bob Koehler
>
> She warned that eventually, the facts would become irrefutable and government
> would be forced to act. The longer this would take, the more catastrophic the
> steps would have to be. And in terms of the USA econony, an "instant" ban on
> polluting cars would result in the decimation of the USA economy since it is so
> reliant on the car industry, and the later would not be able to switch to making
> fuel efficient cars quickly enough.
We've seen a bit of "kill the messenger" from the Bush
administration. This can delay the day that the facts become
irrefutable. Fortunately we' ve also seen a start of the acceptance
that global warming is real in the conservative community, and moving
on to arguing what and if we should do something about it.
Bob Koehler
>
> this has been going on for thousands of years ... and it is caused by
> the
> sun ... solar flare activity will be at its worst this year and may
> knock
> out another satelite or cell communications ...
I think it's been going on for millions of years. But our
contribution has not. And our contribution is showing significant,
measured, problems.
The Sun's contribution may not be under our control, but it takes
about an 11 year cycle. Measured temperature changes track more
closely to human activity than they do to the 11 year cycle.
So leave the poor Sun out of it. The evidence shows not guilty.