Steve Milloy at JunkScience points out what is above the fold in the NYT today – FUD
Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt
Here’s his scan of the front page at right:
Readers may recall my post What 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere looks like where I presented a meme to help people understand that 400 PPM is just a number. A lot of interest was expressed on this thread about t-shirts.
You ask, I provide, in a choice of sizes, styles, and colors:
Order yours here on your favorite garment, mug, or bag here:
http://www.cafepress.com/WattsUpWithThat
UPDATE: I get email showing me that one of the haters has come up with a t-shirt design. this is from “Sou” (no real name given).
She seems genuinely happy that in her world view that her children will die. How sick.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Claim: CO2 makes you stupid?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/17/claim-co2-makes-you-stupid-as-a-submariner-that-question/
It is often said that CO2 is a heat-trapping gas. This is a common misconception that needs correcting.
CO2 is a radiative gas that immediately emits the energy that it absorbs and is not able to capture heat. At any altitude, CO2 radiates in all directions, but it can only add energy to colder molecules (mostly above); CO2 does not add energy, or raise the temperature of colder molecules (mostly below) or add heat to the earth’s surface, which is already radiating at a higher temperature on average. While there are many re-emissions by CO2 from the surface to the top of the atmosphere, radiative transfers occur practically instantaneously, adding no measurable delay to the cooling process.
In short, CO2 does not store heat, it passes heat upwards, and it can only slow the cooling of the surface by a few milliseconds.
On the other hand, O2 and N2 make up 99% of the atmosphere, and these gases do trap heat, due to their low emissivity. O2 and N2 are heated by contact with the surface, by contact with radiatively-heated gases like CO2, and by contact with H2O vapor, which both radiates and releases latent heat as it condenses. O2 and N2 convect the heat upwards against the pressure of the atmosphere, until at the top heat is radiated into space. This delay of cooling results in a higher surface temperature, and raises the effective radiating altitude to many kilometers above sea level.
In summary, diatomic gases emit poorly and retain heat. Triatomic gases emit strongly and radiate heat away. O2 and N2 deserve the credit for a warm global habitat, not CO2.
Jim: so a problem that came to light two years after the event, when 150 mothers were caring for their damaged babies was an “administrative issue … easily corrected after the fact”? Huh? An extraordinarily heartless attitude.
Nota bene: I believe this issue neither detracts from the intent of the original thread nor runs counter to site policy. As I commented above, it’s unfortunate that three out of seven of these t-shirts have that inappropriate and unhelpful (except perhaps to CAGW zealots) slogan.
_Jim says:
May 12, 2013 at 7:04 am
” DirkH says May 12, 2013 at 6:32 am
…
The computer system used by the Berlin fire guard collapsed on New Years eve,
Due to a DATE issue?
DirkH, I hate to do this to ya, but, at this point that is pure “hearsay” (i.e., defined as being “The evidence of those who relate, not what they know themselves, but what they have heard from others”.)”
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berliner_Feuerwehr
“In der Neujahrsnacht 2000 kam es zu einem Totalausfall der Leitstellen-IT einschliesslich Rückfallebene. Es war für mehrere Stunden keine geordnete Abarbeitung von Notrufen möglich; als Behelf wurden Einsatzfahrzeuge auf Streifenfahrten geschickt. Ein Zusammenhang mit dem sogenannten Jahr-2000-Problem bestand dabei nur am Rande.[18][19] Das betroffene Einsatzleitsystem FIS wurde mittlerweile durch das modernere IGNIS ersetzt.[20]”
What they mean by this is that attempts at fixing the obsolete software to harden it for the year 2000 problem made the system even more fragile. So in that regard the collapse of the system is Y2K related.
More details here:
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Computer-GAU-Das-Silvesterchaos-bei-der-Berliner-Feuerwehr-25744.html
It’s a long time since that was reported so I didn’t have the link at hand. Heise is the publisher of the leading German computer magazine c’t. They are a trustworthy source – sometimes they even report something from the anglosphere which our German MSM have conveniently forgotten to translate.
Sorry, an error in my posting above. It should read
“CO2 does not add energy, or raise the temperature of warmer molecules (mostly below)”
THAT was a statistical exercise, not a “critical function”. In your own words you put it:
1) “Health Visitor … noticed a higher than usual number of babies with Downʼs Syndrome ”
Was this a review of ‘actual’ babies birthed vs THE previous ‘projection’ of at-risk babies _to_ be birthed? Or was this as compared to some national average? … unclear as expressed …
2) “… pregnant women who were referred to the National Health Serviceʼs Northern General Hospital in Sheffield as possibly being at risk of having babies with birth defects ”
WHAT? They were referred ‘as possibly being at risk’ before the problematic ‘screening’ (the one under discussion with the bad ‘date calculation’) took place? How was the pre-screen preformed?
My summary at this point: A pre-screening resulted in referrals for additional screening of some women to take place at another facility.
3) “were initially screened by a routine designed to identify those at highest risk. ”
So … this is the ‘screening’ with the faulty date calcs? It strikes me now as not strictly a “Y2K” problem, but rather a programming error, where insufficient testing was performed on really *basic* numerical ‘handling’ (DATE computations; computations involving DATES).
4) “ … the PathLAN computer used for the task used a two-digit system. …”
Yup. This looks like a programming-error problem with the ‘error’ resulting from dates in/near Y2K. I’m surprised other errors were not induced/seen somewhere else (at other facilities, doing other day/date/age related computations), as ‘common libraries’ are often invoked for routine computations like these involving the time period/elapsed time between dates and so forth.
.
In part.
The text reads a little differently (i.e. SOFTWARE HORROR STORY):
Hmmm … dodgy and undocumented software; what could go wrong?
… and we KNOW they extensively regression-tested any and ALL changes over the years (do I need to add tag: /sarc?)
.
Harabin on the BBC was punting it as “highest level in the history of the human race.” Naturally there was no one there to pose the question “when did we start measuring it reliably?”
Unfortunately, supplying simplistic examples like this belie the more involved (internal mathematical) environment DATE computations include such as calculating the number of days between dates (and for which representation in the form “991231″ or “000101″ is wholly unsuitable for doing the math operations on straightaway).
One would need to know the actual (hardware: IBM SYSTEM/360 or 370, TI 990/12, DEC PDP/11, VAX 11/780 or 8800 etc, or earlier e.g. Burroughs, UNIVAC, NCR, Control Data, Honeywell, General Electric and RCA ) platform and operating system (of the day for the hardware) plus the installed programming languages (FORTRAN of which there were several versions, COBOL, APL, C, PASCAL, BASIC, and then the various MS languages and versions, etc.) in order to have some idea of what various library functions required as arguments in terms of day/date format (two or four digit year, or a DATE type as implemented by MS using an 8-byte floating-point number) to fully ‘play out’ this angle …
.
Frost warning here in Ohio tonight.
Hope the manufacture of my several T shirts contributed a little CO2 to the place. It’s mighty chilly here. {{{Brrrrrrrrrrr}}}
Jim – your use of bold capitals gives away a hectoring uncertainty. Shouting isn’t persuasive. I doubt if you really understand the nature of Y2K problem.
What happened was that the Health Visitor, a long-standing NHS professional, noted a far higher than normal number of babies in her patch with birth defects. Her experience told her that something was amiss. So, using her initiative, she tracked the problem down to a miscalculation of the mothers’ ages at the local hospital. The miscalculation was found to have been caused by a two digit date system that hadn’t been corrected.
The NHS utilises vast numbers of dates for a huge range of purposes, from scheduling operations to “use-by” dates for drugs. Fortunately, it had undertaken a massive and costly Year 2000 compliance programme to locate and fix problems. It was remarkably successful although, unsurprisingly, numerous examples were missed. Most were identified and fixed after the event. Those unfortunate women in Yorkshire were the victims of one that wasn’t.
Had you been around at the time would you have advised the NHS not to bother about locating and fixing all these two digit dates because, as you bizarrely seem to think, they were “not strictly” Y2K problems?
[snip – off color comment plus fake email address -mod]
Inadequately tested subroutines or callable ‘library’ functions/badly written software; how much clearer can I make this?
Strictly speaking, a “Y2K” problem is when the clock struck twelve and functionality in a ‘box’ or system was lost … didn’t happen here.
Also fail to see where the ‘harm’ occurred to the involved 150 individuals; this was a ‘screening’ process no? What was to be prescribed given the loose ‘match’ to identifying criteria?
Again, this was would not fit within the definition of a “critical function”.
Have a good day.
.
@guenier you’ve hugely missed the point of this. As an operator of a server farm, I know all about y2k issues, and I know about the efforts to solve it. I was aware of the issue as far back as 1978.
But, in the public’s perception, Y2K was a “non-event” just like 400PPM is a non-event that has zero impact on our daily lives. That’s the point. 2000 or 400 – both are just a number that some people wanted us to fear.
No disrepect intended to people who worked hard to make Y2K a non-event.
Sorry, but I’m not changing it.
Jim – ” a “Y2K” problem is when the clock struck twelve and functionality in a ‘box’ or system was lost”. Nonsense. I thought you didn’t understand. Read this. And, if you can, tell me where I got it wrong (without shouting please): http://fm2x.com/The_Century_Date_Change_Problem.pdf
Here’s a test for you. It was reported** that in the United States there were around 500,000 cases where an expected death in a year beginning “19” had already been set in stone for someone still alive in 2000. Were they Y2K problems?
* http://reason.com/archives/1999/07/01/grave-problem
Anthony – your privilege Sir.
guenier,
Your last link is from 1999, when there was lots of arm-waving over the approaching Y2K apocalypse [which didn’t happen]. From the link:
“In some old cemeteries,” the International Cemetery and Funeral Association’s Bob Fell told the Orlando Sentinel, “you can find somebody who was born in 1810 and died in 1805.”
So that factoid doesn’t even refer to a computer problem.
In the event, Y2K was not nearly the problem that was widely predicted. Rather, it was on the order of the 1970’s global cooling scare, or the killer bees scare — and lots of similar scares that sell newspapers, but which are mostly just overblown hype.
Same with CO2 @0.04%. On balance, the added CO2 is a net benefit.
@ur momisugly Guenier
IIRC Russia, Ukraine, China and Indonesia did nothing, or next to nothing about their Y2K problems. Perhaps you could give us some examples of the Y2K disasters that inevitably must have occurred in those countries as a consequence if you are correct.
Here is a graphic I put together to show the increasing disparity between anthropogenic emissions and CO2 level. CO2 level is determined by temperatures and, as temperatures recede, it is decelerating.
In contrast, human emissions are relentlessly accelerating. The disparity should become undeniable in the next several years as we shift into the cooling phase for global temperatures.
guenier says:
May 11, 2013 at 8:57 pm
“It’s a foolish error to focus especially on Y2K. Y2K was a real and potentially dangerous problem, largely fixed by the dedicated work of thousands of relatively junior IT people carrying out a mind-numbingly boring and thankless task. It had little to do with the roll over from 1999 to 2000: problems occurred both before and after that, arguably the most serious in 2010.
See this: http://fm2x.com/The_Century_Date_Change_Problem.pdf
Getting this wrong risks damaging the sceptic position.”
==============================================
I completely agree that it’s inappropriate to equate Y2K with 400 PPM. Granted the media and a lot of wackos went overboard with the doom and gloom (just like 400 PPM), but you are absolutely correct that the reason Y2Y was largely a non-event was because of the hard work of many programmers who worked tirelessly to fix broken code.
Daryl M,
Answer the question asked above by the Pompous Git:
Countries that ‘did something’ about Y2K and countries that did nothing all fared the same. None had any significant problems, whether they ‘did something’ about Y2K, or not.
dbstealey said @ur momisugly May 12, 2013 at 4:45 pm
Don’t hold your breath waiting for the answer 🙂
The Pompous Git.
You said: “IIRCC Russia, Ukraine, China and Indonesia did nothing, or next to nothing about their Y2K problems. Perhaps you could give us some examples of the Y2K disasters that inevitably must have occurred in those countries as a consequence if you are correct.”
Here’s an extract from pages 14 and 15 of my paper** (note especially the second paragraph, and go to the paper itself for supporting data, links etc.):
“Banking, in particular, is intrinsically an international activity – see the statements and advice from the Bank for International Settlements referred to in page 7 and detailed in endnotes viii and ix. Note also that the World Bank produced a “tool kit” re Y2K for developing economies (endnote xxvi). Moreover, no bank or other financial institution could regard the matter as resolved unless it had been resolved also in overseas banks and by other, not necessarily financial, organisations with which it had dealings. So banking action had a substantial knock-on effect throughout the world. Similar considerations applied to telecommunications (endnote xxvii) and other essentially international concerns such as meteorology (endnote xxviii) and air traffic control (endnote xxix).
So, contrary to the impression given by much of the media, international Y2K remedial activity was substantial and widespread. Nonetheless, itʼs true that the problem was considerably more serious in some countries than in others. For example, unsurprisingly, little action was taken – or was necessary – in underdeveloped countries such as Chad, Haiti and Afghanistan where few businesses or services were computerised. But also some more developed economies, such as countries in Eastern Europe, needed to do relatively little. And that, paradoxically perhaps, was because they had introduced digital computing on a substantial scale relatively late; therefore, unlike developed Western economies, they did not rely on systems incorporating software originally developed in the 1960s and 1970s. And, in any case, countries that were less technologically developed and had simpler infrastructure had less to go wrong and any problems were much easier to resolve. For example, many developing countriesʼ telecommunications were controlled by analogue systems (with gauges) not digital systems (with readouts) and thus were not at risk (endnote xxx).”
** http://fm2x.com/The_Century_Date_Change_Problem.pdf
dbstealey: I suggest you read the above paper (or at least the Executive Summary). It demonstrates how you’ve misunderstood Y2K and Daryl M has not. Thanks.
PS: unless anyone insists to continuing this Y2K exchange, I suggest we give it a rest. Anthony isn’t changing the 400PPM t-shirt and I accept his decision. So the matter’s effectively closed for the purposes of this thread.
@ur momisugly guenier
As I suspected, there were no disasters. Note that I’m not saying that there were not problems caused by the 2 digit date issue, just that the prediction of disasters for those who did nothing to remedy the problem. IIRC Indonesia said they would institute remediation if there were problems in NZ @ur momisugly midnight on 31 December 1999. Also IIRC I informed my US colleagues shortly after that time: “Suddenly, nothing happened”. It seems that suddenly nothing else has happened that was beyond the usual minor fsk-ups caused by poor coding decisions. The onus is on you to demonstrate actual disasters caused by lack of remediation by countries that claimed not to have instituted any. All else is arm-waving.
How about a thermal version.
http://www.cafepress.com/WattsUpWithThat
doesn’t work.
Not it’s not a problem on my end, it’s a design flaw. There should be need for updated browsers etc.
Plus, corporate comp users often can’t update.