Computers generally only actually care about calendar time when they are dealing with money. This is because money is not only a store of value, it also has velocity. The primary tool for accounting the velocity of money is time, or more precisely, calendar days. All accounting systems use calendar time, all deposits, interests due, transfers, credits and debits are ALL dated. For this reason EVERY money transaction must record as a minimum, both the amount AND the date.

Early computer systems were a bit limited in memory, so it became common practise to save on memory by only using the last two digits of the calendar year, which of course created the now legendary ‘Y2K Crisis’. And a crisis it was, well for the banks, insurance companies, … any large commercial entity that used computers on a large scale to manage money. It got a lot of attention, and lots of resource was thrown at it to ensure that come the dreaded date, all the bugs had been ironed out.

But along the way, a technically illiterate media somehow got the idea that ALL computer systems must have this Y2K bug, and well what if the big computers that ran the power systems, the water, the phones, trains and so-on… what if they crashed too? What kind of huge disaster would that be? The answer of course was always… not at all likely.

Because in fact systems like power and water, are run not by ordinary computers as most people are familiar with, but by specialised real-time hardware usually called PLC’s (Programmable Logic Controllers) or DCS’s (Distributed Control Systems). There were two main reasons why these systems were almost completely immune to the Y2k issue.

1. Most real-time applications, ironically enough, are not the slightest bit interested in the calendar date/time. They handle state logic or physical variables like temperature, flow or pressure, which are rarely if ever related to calendar time. What is of interest is elapsed time (time intervals) almost always much less than a year long. So the year value hadly ever used.

2. And even if it was used most real-time control system (by the 90′s) used proper 4 digits for their year value anyhow.

Of course us real-time control system engineers always KNEW that the Y2K bug was totally irrelevant to our systems (although that didn’t stop a few from charging fees for mostly useless “Y2K Audits” )… yet because we are so much the poor cousins of our much more glamorous and better paid IT relations… no-one from the media ever bothered to ask us the truth.

This is how people can become convinced that they are inhabited by the spirits of ancient aliens who were kidnapped millions of years ago and trapped under a volcano by another alien called Xenu. Ludicrous, but once you’ve invested enough in it, it becomes obvious.

Similarly, people will try to cast doubt on anthropogenic global warming by pointing out that people have been wrong about other things before, or by pointing out that sometimes it still gets cold, or that the globe has been hotter in the far distant past, or that there was a hot spell in the 30s, or a cold spell a thousand years ago …

None of those “arguments” make any sense at all, but they don’t have to make sense … they just have to reassure people that actually everything is ok; they don’t have to do anything, and it’s not their fault the world is going to hell in a handbasket.

Alex, you slacker, you missed a couple of hackneyed “Chicken Little” “the sky is falling” scares, Remember the dreaded Acid Rain scare? And the Ozone Hole? Can’t you whip up a bit of cynicism about those other atmospheric pollution scares, too? I’ve seen other AGW denialists play that card, and I’m disappointed you didn’t drag it out.

The interesting (and encouraging!) thing about those atmospheric pollution crises is that ultimately they were headed off by concerted international efforts, before their effects were too disastrous. At considerable expense, mind you. Who now misses CFCs? Surely the AGW denialists who so treasure their incandescent bulbs could muster up just a little nostalgic affection for those old CFC-powered spray cans?

As to the Y2K issue I am less convinced that it was a cogent and relevant argument. At the time the truth appeared to be that no one knew whether ‘legacy code’ would cater to a millenial time change. Or not.

Including the then government computer wizz Minister-duly responsible for expending some $360+ mn on the supposed problem. By name Mr. Williamson, of National. Still there! But then in the glow of overall ignorance there can be no reason to honestly suggest he shouldn’t be. Because of it.

“There will be a stable climate in our time”…

I’ll give you a hint: it involves a dedicated effort from governments and companies all over the world to co-operate by utilising the best relevant technical and scientific information available to address the problem to ensure it didn’t happen.

Oops I just gave you the answer, didn’t I?

[ Alex also beleives that he can never die because it hasn't happened yet. Climate change myth debunked - http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462 }

Forests in Khazakstan?

I suspect I probably killed messages prior to the time of the actual ban – but what the hell – it isn’t like he said anything that he hasn’t said a thousand times before.

However insulting my writers as a straight personal attack is a no-no…

I particularly don’t like the use of psuedo-science.

Pascals bookie said it correctly. When I did my earth science degree from 1978-1980, there were two contending trains of thought on future climate change amongst the academic community who looked at the subject. Most looked at the greenhouse gas effect as the likely outcome. A few thought an ice-age. The former dug around for evidence. The latter dug around for headlines because they couldn’t find any evidence outside of northern Europe and the north-east USA.

30 years later, we now have the data that was lacking in the early 1980′s, and we still get old fools like burt bringing up discarded headlines.

Yes the climate change will make it warmer. That is not the good thing that you anticipate

Very large areas are flattish peat permafrost. The likely outcome is that they will become pretty good bogs and swamps as happens now in areas that defrost in summer. This is already having a substantial effect on the existing populations (there was a good BBC radio journo on National radio last week talking about the current effects). Most transport is done by rivers or in the freeze. As the latter gets shorter they’re starting to have to look at abandoning the areas too far from the rivers because they can’t supply them.

As permafrost peats defrost and resume putrefaction, they will then release large amounts of interesting greenhouse gases. This is one of the substantial risk areas because there is a hell of a lot of carbon locked up in those bogs. There are strong issues about the level of cascade that we likely to see as some areas get warmer.

Besides, you have to remember that the IPCC does conservative projections – ie what the vast majority in the IPCC advisory panel is willing to sign off on. From what I know of the issues (with a BSc in earth sciences 30 years ago and continued reading since), I wouldn’t be surprised to see a 3-4 degree C average warming in the next 30 years. But we’ll probably get a pretty good idea now that the climate down cycle is largely over.

And you still haven’t bothered to read anything that’s been presented to you.

What do you think about the article that Con linked to twice and I quoted?

[lprent: Added to auto-moderation. If you can't control yourself, then I'll just have to help...]