Science and Technology news... :: View topic

Antony Clements · Guest

"Antony Clements" <antony.clements@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:inQHk.4628$sc2.3410@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
[quote]actually that has been debunked recently. carbon in their air makes for
better plant growth, the more plant growth the less carbon in the air. so
the industrial revolution didnt do much for the atmosphere at all, but it
did do wonders for the rainforests of the world. the amazon for example is
going through a growth spurt because of the excess carbon in the
atmosphere, it levels out. on top of that, contrary to popular belief, the
amazon is not in danger of being wiped out either. in the 70 odd years
since the harvesting of that particular rainforest occured, slightly less
than 13% has been cleared. that>s about 0.43% per year. so it is as i
said, carbon is the least of our worries, it>s methane and other gases
that are the real culprits.
[/quote]
minor error... the Amazon has only been harvested for 30 years, not 70

Unruh · Guest

"Antony Clements" <antony.clements@bigpond.com> writes:

[quote]"Unruh" <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote in message
news:6ILHk.701$%%2.535@edtnps82...
i beg to differ, if either of these theories pan out, then the
possability,
however remote and obscenely unlikely, is there that a soldier could point
a
device at say a missile silo, and disrupt it>s inherant gravity on a
quantum
scale, making said missile silo fall apart or collapse in on itself.

Horseshit.

who says it>s not theoretically possible, to manipulate gravity on the
quantum level?
[/quote]
Me.

Unruh · Guest

"Antony Clements" <antony.clements@bigpond.com> writes:

[quote]"Unruh" <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote in
As if everyone had time to just point out the next flaw in an idiotic
system.

not all systems are idiotic, and no i>m not referring to any of my systems
[/quote]
Your assumption was that many flaws had already been pointed out in that
system and the person came back with his next itteration, and was ignored
and noone bothered pointing yet another flaw.

WTShaw · Guest

On Oct 10, 11:54 pm, "Antony Clements" <antony.cleme...@bigpond.com>
wrote:
[quote]"Sportman" <sport...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:f87aeaf4-9c13-4193-b8ae-3b46bfde2cef@s9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

Is C# and PHP not also popular? Are desktop applications not becoming
web applications?

it appears that C, in any variant, or PHP are not as popular. there are
quite a few things you can do in C++ that you can do in Java, small
applications and such, but when it comes to, as i read it 'mission critical'
coding, java doesn>t stand a chance. you will NEVER find java outside of web
based applications, and by web based i dont mean the WWW, i mean web
browsers. you will NEVER find mission critical software written in Java
because it as a language is entirely unsuited and in many cases completely
incapable of doing some things. for example, you will NEVER find an air
traffic control system written in Java, or the OS in an aircraft, they are,
in this day and age, written in ADA. granted it MIGHT have a Java front end,
but the guts are always written in something that is more stable and more
efficient and in general more powerful.
[/quote]
As one who is not bound to a single language, appropriate choice of
one for a specified use can be very important. For web use for
instance, the gui is important. On a cut and pate basis, javascript
is handy for email. You can do some tremendous things with it. On
the other hand, a compiled one might be just the thing, especially if
that was all you knew.

Different programing languages can be somewhat equivalent and that
debate means whatever you want to experiment in will tend to be in
your current choice. There were once very few choices, like a
suitable assembly, forgo(a primitive fortran), and due to bookkeeper
bewilderment...cobol. Be glad you now have better choices.

Unruh · Guest

"Antony Clements" <antony.clements@bigpond.com> writes:

[quote]"Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:90e96906-aa9b-494b-b040-3739f5790207@p59g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
Carbon dioxide is transparent to sunlight - but it blocks, and is
therefore warmed by, long wave infrared of the type the Earth radiates
at night. Atmospheric carbon dioxide can be measured, it has been, and
it has gone up.

actually that has been debunked recently. carbon in their air makes for
better plant growth, the more plant growth the less carbon in the air. so
the industrial revolution didnt do much for the atmosphere at all, but it
did do wonders for the rainforests of the world. the amazon for example is
going through a growth spurt because of the excess carbon in the atmosphere,
it levels out. on top of that, contrary to popular belief, the amazon is not
in danger of being wiped out either. in the 70 odd years since the
harvesting of that particular rainforest occured, slightly less than 13% has
been cleared. that>s about 0.43% per year. so it is as i said, carbon is the
least of our worries, it>s methane and other gases that are the real
culprits.
[/quote]
The question is not whether more CO2 increases plant yield, it is whether
the plant yield increase is able to remove it all the excess. It is not--
the evidence is there. CO2 levels have risen.
Given that CO2 levels have risen, can that CO2 act as a greenhouse blanket?
The answer is yes.
Does methane act as a greenhouse gas as well? Yes. Have methane levels
risen in their greenhouse effect as much as CO2 has? I believe the answer
is no.

[quote]This is global warming - science, yes, but not rocket science. It>s
pretty hard to get wrong, even if there are ways to dance around it.

not hard to get wrong that the climate is changing, very easy to get wrong
the causes.
[/quote]

[quote]So here, at least, the ecology side isn>t crying "Wolf". Anyways,
there>s something called nuclear power which can produce all the
energy we want without burning oil - and the objections to *that* from
the ecology crowd _are_ bunk. So we don>t have to wait for absolute
proof, for the polar ice cap to melt, and so on - we can act now
*without* wrecking the world economy or making the United States
weaker.

they are doing both and neither. they say help us stop global warming, you
cant, it>s a natural process. they say stop dumping carbon into the
atmosphere, carbon has an almost nil effect on the atmosphere. the reason
[/quote]
False-- and it is not carbon, it is carbon dioxide. Carbon in the
atmosphere does have nill effect. Carbon dioxide does not (Look at the IR
absorption spectrum of CO2)

[quote]why they concentrate on carbon is because it>s easier to do something about.
i say why bother, the effect is negligable. granted we do need more
sustainable energy options, but that doesnt change the fact that
'ecologist>s and particularly the groups that spring up around them, employ
scare tactics quite often. they go off half cocked and listen to one person
who says one thing in a doomsday kind of way when there are a half dozen
people who say almost the exact opposite.

i>ve eevn said this directly to various ecologist activists, and they just
sit there twiddling their thumbs cause they dont actually have a clue what>s
going on, they just see a cause and want to be a part of something.[/quote]

Antony Clements · Guest

"Unruh" <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote in message
news:gkSHk.749$%%2.133@edtnps82...
[quote]who says it>s not theoretically possible, to manipulate gravity on the
quantum level?

Me.
[/quote]
there are 2 here who would disagree with you that i>t impossible to
manipulate a gravitational field. think of it this way, if we could somehow
figure out how to change a baryon into a hadron, you>ve manipulated the
field on a quantum level. in theory it can be done, just re-arrange the
quarks that make up each. in practice on the other hand, is a completely
different matter and we are at least 200 years away from having such precise
particle physics.

Antony Clements · Guest

"Unruh" <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote in message
news:ylSHk.751$%%2.300@edtnps82...
[quote]Your assumption was that many flaws had already been pointed out in that
system and the person came back with his next itteration, and was ignored
and noone bothered pointing yet another flaw.

[/quote]
it>s no assumption, it happens.

Antony Clements · Guest

"Unruh" <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote in message
news:JqSHk.752$%%2.680@edtnps82...
[quote]The question is not whether more CO2 increases plant yield, it is whether
the plant yield increase is able to remove it all the excess. It is not--
[/quote]
every major climate scientist you could possibly name disagrees with you on
that point. several world authorities on the subject have come out and
publicly said it>s complete crap, leave the plants alone and things will
balance out.

[quote]the evidence is there. CO2 levels have risen.
[/quote]
no one is disputing that. every time there is a major thaw in the ice sheets
around the world there is an increase in CO2, big deal it proves nothing. as
i said, the effects of the industrial revolution on the atmosphere are
negligable, it>s been shown several times.

[quote]Given that CO2 levels have risen, can that CO2 act as a greenhouse
blanket?
The answer is yes.
[/quote]
it can, does it? no. because there would need to be a 15 fold increase in
the amount of carbon in the atmosphere to have a significant effect.

[quote]Does methane act as a greenhouse gas as well? Yes. Have methane levels
risen in their greenhouse effect as much as CO2 has? I believe the answer
is no.
[/quote]
no, just every time you or any other animal release intestinal gas, or
disturb a methyl hydrate deposits on the continental shelf due to
exploratory drilling.

[quote]False-- and it is not carbon, it is carbon dioxide. Carbon in the
atmosphere does have nill effect. Carbon dioxide does not (Look at the IR
absorption spectrum of CO2)
[/quote]
ok, let me put it a different way... oxygen absorbs IR, carbon absorbs it
better, so yes airborne carbon does have an effect, i am not disputing that.
but the effect is >ALMOST< nil.

Antony Clements · Guest

"Sportman" <sportman@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f87aeaf4-9c13-4193-b8ae-3b46bfde2cef@s9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
[quote]Is C# and PHP not also popular? Are desktop applications not becoming
web applications?
[/quote]
it appears that C, in any variant, or PHP are not as popular. there are
quite a few things you can do in C++ that you can do in Java, small
applications and such, but when it comes to, as i read it 'mission critical'
coding, java doesn>t stand a chance. you will NEVER find java outside of web
based applications, and by web based i dont mean the WWW, i mean web
browsers. you will NEVER find mission critical software written in Java
because it as a language is entirely unsuited and in many cases completely
incapable of doing some things. for example, you will NEVER find an air
traffic control system written in Java, or the OS in an aircraft, they are,
in this day and age, written in ADA. granted it MIGHT have a Java front end,
but the guts are always written in something that is more stable and more
efficient and in general more powerful.

Antony Clements · Guest

"WTShaw" <lurens1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:535cf96f-c0c7-4f71-b7c1-32b0af818425@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
[quote]As one who is not bound to a single language, appropriate choice of
one for a specified use can be very important. For web use for
instance, the gui is important. On a cut and pate basis, javascript
is handy for email. You can do some tremendous things with it. On
the other hand, a compiled one might be just the thing, especially if
that was all you knew.
[/quote]
yes you can do some tremendous things, but it still doesnt negate the fact
that for many things a particular language is just not suitable irrespective
of the capabilities. and for other things, some languages just arent capable
of doing what you need to do, like Java. you wouldn>t write a device driver
in Java, because Java just does not have the capabilities that are required,
and even if it did, it would not be suitable anyway.

biject · Guest

On Oct 11, 3:50 am, David Eather <eat...@tpg.com.au> wrote:

[quote]???? You are aware that both polar caps are melting and disappearing at
the fastest rate in history and the same is true of glaciers world wide
- none are "growing". You also know that ice acts as a big heatsink.
When it was ice it was colder than 0 degrees C, and it absorbed heat
without melting until it reached 0 degrees. After the ice is gone the
rate of temperature rise will increase a little more. Additionally, the
ice caps may be responsible for the deep sea currents that moderated
temperature variability. With the icecaps gone, the temperature range
experienced will increase.

Some or even much of the arable land will cease to be productive and
this could happen in a very short space of time. The nightmare scenario
is the possibility of 6 billion people and enough food for only 2 billion..
[/quote]
Actually the climate is getting colder the warming trend is over
which is sad the world would be more suitable for mankind if the poles
did melt. But its not going to happen in the near future since the
world is cooling. It>s not surprising you would think warming is still
going on since that>s the mantra you need to publish now a days but it
a cooling trend we are in. In fact the cooling is at a record rate.
But that does not stop the hype about global warming. The cooling is
what will hurt crop yields,

Its the GORE lies that even have NASA science going backwards. There
is no room there to have honest discussions.

David A. Scott
--
My Crypto code
http://bijective.dogma.net/crypto/scott19u.zip
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/Kong/scott19u.zip old version
My Compression code http://bijective.dogma.net/
**TO EMAIL ME drop the roman "five" **
Disclaimer:I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be drugged.
As a famous person once said "any cryptograhic
system is only as strong as its weakest link"

biject · Guest

On Oct 11, 6:51 am, "John E. Hadstate" <jh113...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[quote]"Quadibloc" <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message

news:90e96906-aa9b-494b-b040-3739f5790207@p59g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 9, 4:44 pm, biject <biject.b...@gmail.com> wrote:

To tell the real science from the oil industry shills, you need
to know a few basic facts.

[/quote]
What about the shills for GORE??

[quote]Carbon dioxide is transparent to sunlight - but it blocks, and
is therefore warmed by, long wave infrared of the type the
Earth radiates at night. Atmospheric carbon dioxide can be
measured, it has been, and it has gone up.

This is global warming - science, yes, but not rocket science.
It>s pretty hard to get wrong, even if there are ways to dance
around it. So here, at least, the ecology side isn>t crying
"Wolf".

[/quote]
But the sad truth is that this is less than half the picture. For
years I have had to argue about bijective compression methods since
many people take a few simple facts and then there brain shuts down.
Real science is not being done since all discussion in this area is
under control of the hordes who think global warming is such a fact
that other views are not even allowed to make it into the main stream.
The same thing happens in more and more areas of science. We are in a
cooling trend that is fact. The ice cap did not melt as much as people
hoped we are in for a long cold winter. And NASA is lead by those that
have such narrow close minded views that real science can>t be openly
done there. Political correctness touches all and destroys ones
ability to think,

[quote]
John Savard

Thank you, John. Since everything you>ve said has been
well-understood since at least the middle 50s, and since we
have subsequently done nothing except make the situation worse
by choosing to follow people who are more ignorant and more
stupid than dirt, do you really have any hope that we will make
the right choices in the near future?

[/quote]
You got this one right. Sadly though the media government the Noble
people are following the wrong people.

[quote]Allow me just one question. If we can build nuclear power
plants that are safe enough and reliable enough to be operated
by a 17-year-old (the US Navy has been doing this for at least
four decades), then what is the problem with shore-based
nuclear power? Obviously, there is an agenda at work here to
which I>m not privy.
[/quote]
Ah the NAVY. It was a great place. I knew Dr. Miles and Cold Fusion
or a simalar process could be the answer. But the Navy following the
hordes that said Pons and the other guy could not have found anything
ended it. But I trust Dr, Miles there is something there but no real
science is done in this important area.

David A. Scott
--
My Crypto code
http://bijective.dogma.net/crypto/scott19u.zip
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/Kong/scott19u.zip old version
My Compression code http://bijective.dogma.net/
**TO EMAIL ME drop the roman "five" **
Disclaimer:I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be drugged.
As a famous person once said "any cryptograhic
system is only as strong as its weakest link"

David Eather · Guest

Quadibloc wrote:
[quote]On Oct 9, 4:44 pm, biject <biject.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
I see from the paper I quoted the same thing has occurred
in climate science where only the idiots who think global warming is
occurring when actually real data suggests that an ice age is more
likely in the near future.

To tell the real science from the oil industry shills, you need to
know a few basic facts.

Pretty well everywhere on Earth, each day it gets warmer during the
day while the Sun shines. Then, at night, it gets cooler - instead of
staying the same, and getting warmer still the next day. Why does it
get cooler at night? Outer space doesn>t come in contact with the
Earth through convection to take heat away.

No; it gets cooler at night because the Earth radiates into the
blackness of space.

Do you see the ground beneath you glowing? Is the Earth as hot as a
light bulb>s filament, or the Sun>s surface? No. So what the Earth is
radiating is long-wave infrared, appropriate to blackbody radiation
for its temperature.

Carbon dioxide is transparent to sunlight - but it blocks, and is
therefore warmed by, long wave infrared of the type the Earth radiates
at night. Atmospheric carbon dioxide can be measured, it has been, and
it has gone up.

This is global warming - science, yes, but not rocket science. It>s
pretty hard to get wrong, even if there are ways to dance around it.

So here, at least, the ecology side isn>t crying "Wolf". Anyways,
there>s something called nuclear power which can produce all the
energy we want without burning oil -
[/quote]
IIRC, there is only 30 years worth of fissionable uranium (at current
world power levels) and most of that uranium is in Australia.
Plutonium, if required, can be more abundant and provide another 70
years of power. A world wide shift to nuclear power also has the
problem of getting some of the lunatic states that much closer to
fission/fusion weapons and delivers dirty weapon capability in gift wrapping

and the objections to *that* from
[quote]the ecology crowd _are_ bunk.
[/quote]
I agree. There are no technical reasons (my personal choice would be
very deep sea dumping). I just don>t trust business and governments when
short cuts make more profit. Which I think is a justified position
given the worlds collective histories.

So we don>t have to wait for absolute
[quote]proof, for the polar ice cap to melt, and so on - we can act now
*without* wrecking the world economy or making the United States
weaker.

John Savard
[/quote]
IMO, since it seems to be impossible for society to actually reduce
overall energy consumption per person, and no combination of alternative
energy sources will replace a sufficient percentage of power to stop
global warming, (this is premised on some records of global warming
showing a constant rise in temperature starting in the 1950>s i.e. the
environment could not cope with carbon emissions at the 1950>s levels),
this leaves the only workable solutions as those that include population
reduction. (by passive, humane methods of course!)

A sad state of affairs I think.

David Eather · Guest

biject wrote:
[quote]On Oct 10, 6:28 pm, Unruh <unruh-s...@physics.ubc.ca> wrote:

The question is not whether more CO2 increases plant yield, it is whether
the plant yield increase is able to remove it all the excess. It is not--
the evidence is there. CO2 levels have risen.
Given that CO2 levels have risen, can that CO2 act as a greenhouse blanket?
The answer is yes.

The fact is if global warming was occurring an ice free north pole
might be
a giood thing. But the fact is a cool period is comming you may not be
aware
of
[/quote]
???? You are aware that both polar caps are melting and disappearing at
the fastest rate in history and the same is true of glaciers world wide
- none are "growing". You also know that ice acts as a big heatsink.
When it was ice it was colder than 0 degrees C, and it absorbed heat
without melting until it reached 0 degrees. After the ice is gone the
rate of temperature rise will increase a little more. Additionally, the
ice caps may be responsible for the deep sea currents that moderated
temperature variability. With the icecaps gone, the temperature range
experienced will increase.

Some or even much of the arable land will cease to be productive and
this could happen in a very short space of time. The nightmare scenario
is the possibility of 6 billion people and enough food for only 2 billion.

Antony Clements · Guest

"David Eather" <eather@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:Gq6dnfnrq6NW623VnZ2dnUVZ_uKdnZ2d@supernews.com...

[quote]???? You are aware that both polar caps are melting and disappearing at
the fastest rate in history and the same is true of glaciers world wide -
none are "growing". You also know that ice acts as a big heatsink. When
it was ice it was colder than 0 degrees C, and it absorbed heat without
melting until it reached 0 degrees. After the ice is gone the rate of
temperature rise will increase a little more. Additionally, the ice caps
may be responsible for the deep sea currents that moderated temperature
variability. With the icecaps gone, the temperature range experienced
will increase.
[/quote]
it>s also been shown through correlative evidence that the cycles of the sun
determine the mean temperature of the earth. the mean temperature rises a
few degrees which melts enough polar and glacial ice which interupts the
currents thus throwing everyone into an ice age that lasts for a few
centuries. it can>t be stopped, it is a natural process. once enough cold
water is dumped into the deep sea currents we will experience an ice age, it
does not have to be a particularly big difference, a few degrees C is enough
to trigger the event. in fact, every climatologist you could possibly name
has said that in the next 50 to 100 years we will be in an ice age, not a
sauna. are we having an effect? yes we are. will it happen regwardless of
human intervention? yes it will. the whole 'reduce your carbon emissions'
thing is just a push for more sustainable energy sources. which i am all
for, but there is still no need to push the panic button about global
warming.

[quote]Some or even much of the arable land will cease to be productive and this
could happen in a very short space of time. The nightmare scenario is the
possibility of 6 billion people and enough food for only 2 billion.[/quote]


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Compression Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Page 3 of 4