Computers, and technology in general, have come a long way in today’s world. The modern world is actually shaped and defined through the usage of computers, those neat little gadgets that do the hard work for you. Modern computers are also perfectly capable of entertaining, organizing, reminding, even surprising you. That wasn’t always the case. Here is glimpse of the history of computers and their humble beginnings. These computers may not have been as powerful as modern computers, but they’re old black and white photos are intriguing nevertheless. If for no other reason, then because those old computers were capable of filling a whole room with their robust circuitry. Enjoy these old photos of the first generation of computers.

AVIDAC, Argonne’s first digital computer, began operation in January 1953. It was built by the Physics Division for $250,000. Pictured is pioneer Argonne computer scientist Jean F. Hall.

A press conference for what is considered the first computer, the Electronic Numerical Integrator and Calculator (ENIAC), was held at the University of Pennsylvania on February 1, 1946. The machine (shown here with a technician) took up an entire room, weighed 30 tons and used more than 18,000 vacuum tubes to perform functions such as counting to 5,000 in one second. ENIAC, costing $450,000, was designed by the U.S. Army during World War II to make artillery calculations. The development of ENIAC paved the way for modern computer technology–but even today’s average calculator possesses more computing power than ENIAC did.

The first ever computer in Latvia was developed and made at the start-up Institute of Electronics and Computer Science in early sixties. No computers were made industrially in USSR at that time. Therefore successful completion of that project certainly represented a significant achievement. Built on a lot of vacuum tubes, the computer actually worked well and was used for supporting research activities for several years till the time when it became possible to replace it by a more powerful industrially made computer.

The CSIRAC was Australia’s first computer. The name stands for CSIR originally stood for “Council for Scientific and Industrial Research”. This name was in effect from 1926 to 1949.

Read more »

Illustration in a 3D pixel style, for an article named The Makeable Human, about the rise of electronic implants in medical science.

Sevensheaven images and prints are for sale at sevensheaven.nl

There was a major development over the weekend in the case of a US research vessel, RV Marcus Langseth, seeking to conduct seismic testing in Canada's first marine protected area.

Environmentalists are fuming after learning the federal government has given permission to a U.S. research ship to begin controversial seismic testing in Canadian waters, despite an ongoing court challenge.

"The issue at stake here is the fact that by issuing this clearance permit for the vessel, they are valuing American interests above that of the Canadian environment and Canadian species at risk," said spokesman Kori Brus. "They've given no reason; they've simply done it."

A foreign affairs spokesman on Sunday would not confirm the ship has been given clearance to begin its test program. He refused to comment, saying the issue was before the courts.

While the Canadian government is refusing to comment on a decision that threatens blue whales and the integrity of the nation's first marine protected area, environmentalists ARE fuming - and rightfully so. The federal government's own documents demonstrate a full awareness of the impacts this testing will have on endangered whales, and they have allowed this research to go forward regardless of the best science available.

We're in court tomorrow working to have the permit issued to the US vessel stayed. More to come then.

From The Guardian: Race against time:

But two years ago, almost to the week, scientists noticed that the Arctic was losing ice at an almost unbelievable pace, outstripping the climate models by decades. Clearly we’d passed a threshold, and global warming had gone from future threat to present crisis. It wasn’t just Arctic ice; at about the same time methane levels in the atmosphere began to spike, apparently as a result of thawing permafrost. Surveys of high altitude glaciers showed they were uniformly melting, and much faster than expected. Oceanographers reported – incredulously – that we’d managed to make the oceans 30% more acidic.

Those observations changed everything – and they produced what is almost certainly the most important number in the world. A Nasa team headed by James Hansen reported that the maximum amount of carbon the atmosphere can safely hold is 350ppm, at least if we want a planet “similar to the one on which civilization developed and to which life on earth is adapted.” Since we’re already at 390ppm, the message was clear: we don’t need to buy an insurance policy to reduce the threat of future warming. We need a fire extinguisher, and we need it now.

Scientists have heard that message – in March they gathered by the thousands at an emergency conference to declare that the five-year-old findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were dangerously out of date.

But politicians haven’t caught up. As we head toward the crucial Copenhagen talks slated for December, Obama and the rest of the world’s political class are still using the dated science and its now stale conclusions.

Read the complete article.

Here's a good rebuttal for anyone still running into the C02 - They Call It Pollution, We Call It Life crowd.

A favorite argument of global warming deniers is that the carbon dioxide is harmless because it's "just plant food". It turns out that like any other "food", too much will only cause harm.

Both Grist and Environmental Defense are covering new research showing that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will mean less food value (i.e. decreased nitrogen and protein) in our fruits and vegetables. Think you'll get around that by boosting your meat diet? Once more, think again. Lower food value in plants, means less protein for grazing cows and pigs and therefore less meat produced by each animal. Add to this the exploding demand for meat from developing countries like China and you will need to tell me where we're meant to get all of these food calories from.

Maybe the new denier jingle can be "C02 - They Call It Pollution, We Call It A Cure for Obesity".

Three fishermen from Wales have invented a box that can be fixed to the exhaust outlet of any vehicle and safely capture greenhouse gas emissions.

However, in addition to reducing the vehicle emissions by 85% to 95%, the Greenbox goes one step further by providing the raw ingredients for new biofuel production. Once full, the Greenbox can be detached from the vehicle and sent to a bioreactor where it provides food to algae that can then be converted to bio-diesel.

Through a chemical reaction, the captured gases from the box would be fed to algae, which would then be crushed to produce a bio-oil. This extract can be converted to produce a biodiesel almost identical to normal diesel.

This biodiesel can be fed back into a diesel engine, the emptied Greenbox can be affixed to the car and the cycle can begin again.

The process also yields methane gas and fertilizer, both of which can be captured separately. The algae required to capture all of Britain's auto emissions would take up around 1,000 acres

Although there are no immediate plans for production, the product has gained the attention of UK Labour MP David Hansen, and Toyota and GM have reportedly spoken to the inventors. Facilities and infrastructure are obviously lacking for both the mass production of the Greenbox and the associated biofuel production chain. However, at the bare minimum the announcement shows the sort of ecological and self sustaining solutions that are waiting to be discovered. Time will tell if it becomes economically viable.

Story via Reuters.

In yet another blow to climate change 'skeptics', a newly released study demonstrates that global temperatures are rising at an accelerating rate despite the fact that the sun's output has been decreasing since 1985.

The study not only delivers a blow to deniers arguments, but to their credibility as well. For the past decade, a well funded strategy of public relations spin and unsupported claims have been the backbone of skeptics' attempts to derail efforts to fight global warming.

With the solar argument now put to rest, skeptics will be scrounging for a new angle. Watch for it in the coming months.

The people at RealClimate have saved us all a great deal of work by putting together a one-stop post for climate change information.

The article highlights key information for novices and experts alike, and also provides links for debunking the bogus arguments of skeptics. To their list, I would add the following two resources:

1. DeSmogBlog's Denier Database: offers a thorough and ongoing investigation of the 61 signatories to an anti-climate-change petition sent in April, '06 to Canada's Prime Minister. Supporters claim it is signed by "60 leading scientists." DeSmogBlog reports on their credentials and their connections (or their lack of connections) to the oil or tobacco industries.

2. SourceWatch: This is my first stop whenever a new anti-global warming claim hits the press. SourceWatch is a wiki environment documenting the PR and propaganda activities of public relations firms and public relations professionals engaged in managing and manipulating public perception, opinion and policy. It also includes profiles on think tanks, industry-funded organizations and industry-friendly experts that work to influence public opinion and public policy on behalf of corporations, governments and special interests.

As any reasoning person knows, understanding who is making a specific claim can be as important as the claim itself. DeSmogBlog and SourceWatch provide two excellent sources for the background of key deniers, and for discovering who writes their pay cheques. RealClimate is THE blog for global warming science.

Happy debating!

One of the biggest criticisms of the Conservatives' climate change plan is that it relies on "intensity based reductions" in greenhouse gases. In the real world, this means that industry has to use less energy for every unit (ex. one barrel of oil, one car, one tonne of steel etc) it produces. Emissions will go down, but only if production doesn't go up by too much.

As it turns out, we have already been lowering our emissions intensity for decades, and the result has been spiraling greenhouse gases and unchecked global warming.

The latest UN report on climate change was released today, and in the intro of the main report is this handy little factoid:

The effect....of the decrease in global energy intensity (-33%) during 1970 to 2004 has been smaller than the combined effect of global income growth (77 %) and global population growth (69%); both drivers of increasing energy-related CO2 emissions.

In a little over three decades, overall energy intensity has been reduced by 1/3rd. At the same time, greenhouse gas emissions have skyrocketed by 70% - thanks to more people, using a greater total amount of energy, to buy more stuff.

Next to wages, energy costs are one of the biggest liabilities facing many industries. Business people are smart leaders who understand this fact, and that each dollar saved in costs is another dollar in their pockets as profit. So the real reason why industry is so quick to say yes to intensity targets is because they are already using them.

What Environment Minister John Baird and his Conservatives have done is waste tax payers' dollars creating a climate change plan that tells Canada's oil sands industry to keep doing exactly what it is already doing. On top of that, if energy intensity has already decreased 33% in recent decades, what makes Baird think that making a "mandatory" decrease of 26% by 2015 is going to solve global warming, particularly when oil sands production is going to triple by that same year?

It's about the same as someone spending their way out of debt, or eating their way out of obesity.

Canada's oil producers will gladly accept the Conservative's emissions targets, pocket the efficiency gains as increased profits, and leave Canada saddled with more greenhouse gases.

Three weeks ago the first ever northern white rhino was born in captivity. Buoyed by this success, scientists are planning to launch one of the most high tech and aggressive breeding programs in history to save the rhino - the world's most endangered large mammal - from extinction. Just 2 fertile females remain of a once mighty population that roamed over large areas of central Africa.

Now a team of researchers in Budapest are planning to use artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization and sex-selection of embryos to boost the numbers of northern whites as quickly as possible while there is still time.

If this team succeed(s), they will have pulled off one of the most extraordinary feats in wildlife conservation. Most experts assume the northern white is doomed and will join the dodo, passenger pigeon, quagga and Tasmanian wolf as victims of the predations of modern humans.

Since 1960, South African conservation efforts have helped the southern white rhino (the near cousin to the northern) rebound to a healthy population 11,000. However, ongoing political unrest and poaching throughout the northern white's natural range in Uganda, Sudan and Congo have led to the decimation of the species. Just 4 animals are believed to remain in the wild, combined with an additional 10 in zoos. The two females who hold the last hope for the species - Najin and her daughter Fatu - both reside at Dvur Kralove in the Czech Republic.

Acting where the US auto industry has failed to, the Union for Concerned Scientists have unveiled a minivan design that confirms automakers can build vehicles that would meet or exceed global warming pollution standards adopted by California and 10 other states using existing technology - without placing huge costs on the consumer.

Dubbed the UCS Vanguard, their mini van would cut global warming pollution by more than 40 percent, with a cost increase of just $300. However, that extra cost would result in more than $1,300 in lifetime consumer savings, with a payback time of less than two years.

Specific design features include:

• variable valve timing, currently used in most Toyota and Honda models as well as many Ford vehicles, which better controls the flow of air and fuel into the engine, leading to more efficient combustion and improved performance.


• a six-cylinder engine that can deactivate two cylinders when it requires less power, a feature currently found in 20 vehicle models.


• a "automatic manual" transmission that electronically adjusts its six gears to increase performance and efficiency.


• stronger hoses and tighter connections in the air conditioning system reduce the amount of concentrated global warming pollutants, called hydrofluorocarbons, which leak into the air. The minivan also uses a less-polluting refrigerant.


• capability to run on either pure gasoline or a mixture of gasoline and as much as 85-percent ethanol. Using 85-percent corn-based ethanol can reduce global warming pollution from 10 percent to 30 percent. Using "cellulosic" ethanol could cut global warming pollution by as much as 90 percent. There are currently 32 types of flex-fuel vehicles on the road.

Coming to an autoshow near you?

The environmental community is a few weeks overdue for some good news. Here are three news items to make you smile heading into the weekend.

1. From the Financial Times, the largest charity concert in history is being planned for July 7th. The theme? Global Warming. The Host? You guessed it, Al Gore.

The event is targeting an audience of 2 billion viewers through a series of coordinated film, music and television events in seven cities including London, Washington DC, Shanghai, Rio de Janeiro, Cape Town and Kyoto. The formal announcement is expected by Mr. Gore today in London. Thanks to Lighter Footstep for the link.

2. Al Gore also checked in with Richard Branson today. Together they launched a $25 million contest with the money awarded to the person who comes up with the best way of removing significant amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

A panel of judges will oversee the prize, including James Lovelock and Nasa scientist James Hansen. Needless to say, Sir Richard will be footing the multi-million dollar bill.




3. Finally, British scientists are proposing a new method of carbon storage to help reduce Europe's greenhouse gas emissions.

Their cold storage technique would involve storing carbon in crystal and liquid form in cool, high pressure ocean sediments, and have already identified several potential test sites in Europe.

Link via Hugg.

Yesterday, the Exxon funded Fraser Institute released a farcical rebuttal to the UN climate report. For anyone who is still following the issue, or for general fans of oil funded reports like this one, RealClimate has an excellent analysis of the document.

An unofficial, "Independent Summary for Policymakers" of the IPCC Fourth Assessment report has been delivered by the Fraser Institute. It's a long, imposing-looking document, resembling, come to think of it, the formatting of the real Summary for Policymakers document that was released on Friday...The Fraser Institute has assembled an awesome team of 10 authors.

According to the press release, the (Fraser Institute) London kickoff event will be graced by the presence of "noted environmentalist" David Bellamy. It's true he's "noted," but what he's noted for is his blatant fabrication of numbers purporting to show that the world's glaciers are advancing rather retreating, as reported here.

By contrast the official IPCC report drew on the expertise of 2,500 scientific reviewers and 800 authors.

There you have it. Another "market based solution" to an inconvenient truth brought to you by The Fraser Institute. Always available......for the right price.

The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) is denying that it was prepared to pay global warming skeptics to publish reports that case doubt on the UN climate change report released Friday.

However, Greenpeace obtained a copy of a letter sent out by the AEI making the pitch to a climate scientist in Texas. In the July 5th letter, scholars for the organization wrote:

"As with any large-scale `consensus' process, the IPCC is susceptible to self-selection bias in its personnel, resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent, and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work of the complete... reports."

In addition to the perverse framing above, the letter offered $10,000 for an essay of 7,500 to 10,000 words, in addition to "honoraria" and travel expenses for participation in a series of conferences.

The negative responses from the scientists contacted by the AEI ultimately led them to abandon the project.

As most now know, the world's foremost body addressing global warming, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), released their 4th report this past Friday. The document is the most comprehensive report on the impacts of climate change ever produced and included the input of 600 authors from 40 countries, over 620 expert reviewers, government reviewers, and representatives from 113 governments.

Even more forcefully than in their 2001 report, the findings emphasize that human activity is to blame for massive increases in greenhouse gases and that the earth is facing catastrophic risks from global warming. Specific projections include:

• Probable temperature rise between 1.8C and 4C Possible temperature rise between 1.1C and 6.4C
• Sea level most likely to rise by 28-43cm
• Arctic summer sea ice disappears in second half of century
• Increase in heatwaves very likely
• Increase in tropical storm intensity likely

But despite the overwhelming consensus on the threats we face, and our own blame for them, opponents are still massing resources to try to falsely diminish this scientific work. In addition to the Fraser Institute's upcoming response report, the Guardian and others are reporting that the Exxon funded American Enterprise Institute offered to pay scientists and economists $10,000 a shot for articles that contradict or criticize the IPCC's report. When you've posted the biggest profit in the history of the world, whats a few thousand dollars?

Get ready. More will surely be on the way.

The policy makers summary of the IPCC report can be accessed here.

As the momentum continues to swing towards stronger action on global warming, the sordid details of cover-ups and obfuscation by governments will continue to come to light.

This week, the Bush Administration was accused of widespread and systematic tampering with the works of government climate scientists.

Details are coming to light in ongoing hearings by US House committee on oversight and government reform - now controlled by the Democrats - following years of complaints from the scientific community.

The interference went so far as removing mere references to global warming. A survey of 1,600 government scientists completed by the Union of Concerned Scientists revealed that 46% had been warned against using terms like global warming both in speech and official reports. The resulting culture through the community was described as one of "anticipatory self-censorship."

Additionally, 43% said that their reports had been revised dramatically enough to change the meaning of their scientific findings, and 38% reported direct knowledge of cases where scientific information on climate was stripped from websites and reports.

No doubt there will be more details to come.

This week's Georgia Straight published a punishingly accurate condemnation of the Canadian media's role in convincing the public that there is a scientific debate about global warming, when in reality there is none. Calling their actions "journalistic malpractice" columnist Mitchell Anderson deftly outlines the failure of our media system and the role of big oil in manufacturing that failure.

the public is being misinformed on climate science by poor journalism that continues to tell both sides of the story even when there is no other side. The resultant political inaction might well kill the planet.

The opinions of any so called global warming "skeptic" should be considered null and void until unless they can refute the contents of this article.

The piece also offers some valuable reading for anyone who wants to be informed about the truth about global warming and are also listed under the new Must Reads header on the Conscious Earth's sidebar. They are required reading for anyone with an interest in both the global warming and the environmental debate.

Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to "Manufacture Uncertainty" on Climate Change - the title says it all.

Balance and Bias: Global Warming and the U.S. Prestige Press - outlines how global warming science is distorted by media.

In 2001 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published a report that sent the political world reeling, and made any legitimate skeptic of global warming rethink their position.

After the most comprehensive look at global warming science ever performed, the panel found a 100% agreement that global warming was a serious issue affecting our future and that it is unquestionably being caused by human generated greenhouse gases. Much of the political and media debate since then has been an effort for the world to come to grips with the end of global warming debate and start coming up with real solutions.

Now the IPCC's 4th report is set for release, and a draft copy released yesterday offers a sneak preview of the scientific consensus surrounding the environmental destruction and unstable weather that will be caused by unchecked climate change.

A draft copy of the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, obtained by The Observer, shows the frequency of devastating storms - like the ones that battered Britain last week - will increase dramatically. Sea levels will rise over the century by around half a metre; snow will disappear from all but the highest mountains; deserts will spread; oceans become acidic, leading to the destruction of coral reefs and atolls; and deadly heatwaves will become more prevalent.

The report is compiled by thousands of leading scientists and is considered incredibly conservative. Only points and conclusions that are considered indisputable by the entire panel are published in the final document.

Specific findings from the report will include:

• 12 of the past 13 years were the warmest since records began
• ocean temperatures have risen at least three kilometres beneath the surface
• glaciers, snow cover and permafrost have decreased in both hemispheres
• sea levels are rising at the rate of almost 2mm a year
• cold days, nights and frost have become rarer while hot days, hot nights and heatwaves have become more frequent
• and finally, in a point leveled squarely at industry funded "skeptics", the panel reports that mankind's industrial emissions have had five times more effect on the climate than any fluctuations in solar radiation.

The final draft of the IPCC report is scheduled to be released on February 2nd, and will be a further wake up call to any governments still dragging their feet in fully recognizing the threat of global warming.

Following through on their goal to paint their party in a greener light, Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn and newly appointed Enviroment Minister John Baird have announced 58 million dollars per year for four years for the development of clean energy technologies. Meanwhile, in what I'm sure they would insist is an irrelevant side point, the Tories continue to funnel 1.4 billion in tax subsidies to the booming oil and gas industry.

The famous "doomsday clock" is a concept timepiece that first appeared in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 60 years ago. Since then it has been an ongoing symbolic image that periodically changes to reflect new threats or treaties that influence the likelihood of nuclear holocaust.

This week, the clock was moved forward two minutes to stand at 5 minutes to midnight (aka "doomsday"). The move comes not because of new nuclear threats, but rather to reflect the risk of catastrophic global warming now faced by humankind. The announcement came during an unprecedented joint news conference at the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington, DC, and the Royal Society in London.