Global Warming

This is a discussion on Global Warming within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; I must confess, I haven't read the following yet: http://www.hudson.org/files/publicat...balWarming.pdf But it was the topic of an interview I was ...

  1. #1
    Just Lurking Dave_Sinkula's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    5,006

    Global Warming

    I must confess, I haven't read the following yet:
    http://www.hudson.org/files/publicat...balWarming.pdf

    But it was the topic of an interview I was listening to on my commute home this evening.

    And heck, we haven't had a nice little 'God' thread in a while, so let's see what comes of this.

    Discuss.
    7. It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.
    40. There are two ways to write error-free programs; only the third one works.*

  2. #2
    Devil's Advocate SlyMaelstrom's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Out of scope
    Posts
    4,077
    I read the first half of it and it's all stuff I've heard before. They have quite a good amount of evidence to support their claim and really shouldn't be ignored. Some of what they say directly conflicts with theories made by the pro-global warming groups, which bugs me. This tells me that someone is lying. Both sides appear to have "evidence" but they both know that the average Joe simply doesn't have enough time or knowledge to go over that evidence and make our own judgements, so we have to consult with experts who historically have lied time and time again to push an agenda. I don't know what to believe. I personally think we should do something about the emissions rates in this country, but I think we should do it for our lungs and bodies, not because it may or may not be killing the O-Zone. Maybe it will help that, too, but who knows. I definitely don't think we should push ourselves close to an economic recession to try and make this global warming problem stop which is really what the terms of the Kyoto Protocol expect from us if we signed.

    Oh, and sorry I didn't read the whole thing, I'm a bit on the busy side. I didn't see anything about "God" in there, in fact the word didn't come up in a search, either... so I don't know what you're asking there. Perhaps you'd like to summarize the second half? I'll probably get to it myself, anyway when I can find the time.
    Sent from my iPad®

  3. #3
    {Jaxom,Imriel,Liam}'s Dad Kennedy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    1,065
    I live in the Heart of Dixie. . . Alabama. . . nice warm humid state. . . EXCEPT. . .


    I have just come in from my Taylor Waterstove. I put in a 300 pound 2.5 ft X 3 ft log this morning; my heater was empty tonight. The wife's Jeep has an outside temperature gauge. . . 26F. . . Please tell me: Where is this "Global warming" and when is it to begin? I'm FREEZING down here!!!!

    EDIT: Oh, they are anti-global warming. . . I get it.
    Last edited by Kennedy; 12-05-2006 at 01:07 AM.

  4. #4
    Yes, my avatar is stolen anonytmouse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    2,544
    I know that Americans are convinced that climate change is a global conspiracy by the scientific community to destroy America, but it's really not! Of course, I could be in on the conspiracy! Doh, now I've confused myself. [1]


    Of the authors, you can read about Fred Singer here and the other author is an economist. You can read a response at realclimate.org.

    Incidentally, it has been nearly exactly a year since the last thread on climate change. My post in that thread still stands, only moreso with the additional science over the last year.

    [1] Phew, by using the word "doh", from a loveable American television character, I've proved that I can't be in on the conspiracy, or can I?

  5. #5
    Devil's Advocate SlyMaelstrom's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Out of scope
    Posts
    4,077
    It not a question of whether there is or isn't human induced climate change, it's a question of if that's the sole reason for the climate change. Much of the precautions we take to stop global warming bases it's agenda on the fact that the climate change is completely due to humans. If we were to find out that only a portion of it is our emissions problems we wouldn't need to be so hasty in changing it.
    Sent from my iPad®

  6. #6
    CSharpener vart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Rishon LeZion, Israel
    Posts
    6,484
    If we were to find out that only a portion of it is our emissions problems we wouldn't need to be so hasty in changing it.
    If the human's effort can move the catastrofic subsequences of the global warming from say 25 years to 250 years in the future it will be still worthy...
    Because the longer time till the X day may give enough technology strength to prevent Armageddon to happen...

    So I think, it depens and say: "Hey! we are not only ones responsible" is not enough.
    The first 90% of a project takes 90% of the time,
    the last 10% takes the other 90% of the time.

  7. #7
    Devil's Advocate SlyMaelstrom's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Out of scope
    Posts
    4,077
    No, think of it like this... let's say we have a leaky roof in our house that lets in about a gallon of water every time it rains, but also, every spring time our house also gets flooded with ground water that we can't prevent. Now, obviously the gallon of water coming in during the rain isn't helping, but since it's really only a portion of the flooding problem, do you think we should pull funding away from other necessities in order to patch up the roof or would you say it's better to take a little more time and try to put some savings away to fix it down the road?

    I don't know if what these guys are saying about the warming cycle is true and I don't know if everything the global warming guys are saying is true, but I think we should put just as much research into one as the other. Even the response cited by anonytmouse says there is known natural climate changes but appears to not consider them often in their counter points. The also put a whole lot of words into this author's mouth and try to imply he was saying something he wasn't. "Avery’s implicit promise would seem to be that with rising CO2, the heavens will part and let the excess energy out," Note the use of "the heavens" as if to say the Avery is basing he studies off of religion. This would lead the less informed to think of him as a religious nut and not a scientist. I must say, I'm not a fan of that article Anony.

    Anyway, as I said, I think we should do something about emissions and I think we actually are starting to do something, I don't feel we need to take away money from other things to get something done faster than it may need to be.
    Sent from my iPad®

  8. #8
    Super Moderator VirtualAce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    9,598
    I am a huge weather fanatic and as such I realize that short of Katrina most of the severely intense weather has happened in the past during times that we had no greenhouse emissions. So basing any findings on current weather patterns is downright ridiculous since we only have about 100 years of actual recorded weather. How do we know what happened 1000 years ago or how bad the storms were? Do you realize that 100 years in the scope of climate change is like hardly a drop in the bucket. It is insane to suggest just because we have some bad storm or more snow or less rain or more rain it is caused by something that has not even been on the earth for that long.
    It's a big earth with a big ecosystem that has time and time proven it can survive just about anything. So when climate can be affected by the flap of a butterfly's wings and in a time when our weather forecasts are only extremely accurate out to about 2 hours or so I hardly doubt we can pinpoint the exact cause of our problem...if there is one. I believe we are seeing a normal climate shift that is far beyond our control. You really want to believe the crazy reports when we cannot even tell if it's really going to rain tomorrow or not?

    For forecasting the weather forecasters are given 4 or 5 models from the computer systems and it is the forecaster's job to determine which one he thinks is going to happen. He relays this to several other forecasters on staff at the National Weather Service and they discuss all of the possibilities. They arrive at an agreed upon forecast through compromise, observation, experience, and weather history or by what it has done in the past in a similar situation. Predicting huge climate changes is just simply not possible with our current weather models or even saying that this or that pollutant affected the weather is also in the impossible realm. We just don't know.

    And what of an eruption like Mt. Saint Helens which blew out one half of the mountaintop and released enough ash to cover cities? I'd say she put out more sulfur and greenhouse gases in 1 minute than we have in 200 years.
    There is evidence of what has been called 'The Little Ice Age' in which average temps fell significantly. Some claim we are still in this period and that just now we may be coming out of it.

    Personally I think it's too extreme on either side of the argument and the correct answer is probably somewhere down the middle of both sides. Reducing emissions cannot be bad for sure so we should strive for that. However banning ideas and technologies that make our economies what they are is just as ludicrous as saying we shouldn't give a rat's ass what we stick in the atmosphere.

    I agree that both sides probably have concrete evidence for and against global warming. But I also agree that both sides are pushing an agenda and both sides tend to get into radicalism and name calling. You are not a stupid scientist if you believe something is affecting our climate but just as equally so you are not stupid for believing that something is not enough to affect our climate. Calling one side stupid or claiming the facts 100% point to this or that is ludicrous since neither side has 100% concrete undisputable evidence of the claims they make.

    So I say let's do all we can to reduce emissions if anything to just improve the air quality which may in turn help our lungs and lead to a healthier lifestyle. But let's not go off the deep end and start banning this or that in a radical effort to rid ourselves of fossil fuels. Do that and you may find yourself like California did a few years ago....in the dark without power.
    Last edited by VirtualAce; 12-05-2006 at 04:07 AM.

  9. #9
    monotonously living Dissata's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    341
    Quote Originally Posted by Bubba
    I am a huge weather fanatic and as such I realize that short of Katrina most of the severely intense weather has happened in the past during times that we had no greenhouse emissions. So basing any findings on current weather patterns is downright ridiculous since we only have about 100 years of actual recorded weather. How do we know what happened 1000 years ago or how bad the storms were? Do you realize that 100 years in the scope of climate change is like hardly a drop in the bucket. It is insane to suggest just because we have some bad storm or more snow or less rain or more rain it is caused by something that has not even been on the earth for that long.
    It's a big earth with a big ecosystem that has time and time proven it can survive just about anything. So when climate can be affected by the flap of a butterfly's wings and in a time when our weather forecasts are only extremely accurate out to about 2 hours or so I hardly doubt we can pinpoint the exact cause of our problem...if there is one. I believe we are seeing a normal climate shift that is far beyond our control. You really want to believe the crazy reports when we cannot even tell if it's really going to rain tomorrow or not?

    For forecasting the weather forecasters are given 4 or 5 models from the computer systems and it is the forecaster's job to determine which one he thinks is going to happen. He relays this to several other forecasters on staff at the National Weather Service and they discuss all of the possibilities. They arrive at an agreed upon forecast through compromise, observation, experience, and weather history or by what it has done in the past in a similar situation. Predicting huge climate changes is just simply not possible with our current weather models or even saying that this or that pollutant affected the weather is also in the impossible realm. We just don't know.

    And what of an eruption like Mt. Saint Helens which blew out one half of the mountaintop and released enough ash to cover cities? I'd say she put out more sulfur and greenhouse gases in 1 minute than we have in 200 years.
    There is evidence of what has been called 'The Little Ice Age' in which average temps fell significantly. Some claim we are still in this period and that just now we may be coming out of it.

    Personally I think it's too extreme on either side of the argument and the correct answer is probably somewhere down the middle of both sides. Reducing emissions cannot be bad for sure so we should strive for that. However banning ideas and technologies that make our economies what they are is just as ludicrous as saying we shouldn't give a rat's ass what we stick in the atmosphere.

    I agree that both sides probably have concrete evidence for and against global warming. But I also agree that both sides are pushing an agenda and both sides tend to get into radicalism and name calling. You are not a stupid scientist if you believe something is affecting our climate but just as equally so you are not stupid for believing that something is not enough to affect our climate. Calling one side stupid or claiming the facts 100% point to this or that is ludicrous since neither side has 100% concrete undisputable evidence of the claims they make.

    So I say let's do all we can to reduce emissions if anything to just improve the air quality which may in turn help our lungs and lead to a healthier lifestyle. But let's not go off the deep end and start banning this or that in a radical effort to rid ourselves of fossil fuels. Do that and you may find yourself like California did a few years ago....in the dark without power.

    3 cheers for dialectics!
    if a contradiction was contradicted would that contradition contradict the origional crontradiction?

  10. #10
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,577
    Fortunately there's a third moderate side who only tries to understand if something is going on, and why. Earth experienced many natural climate events that had a global scope, were severe, and lasted for decades, centuries and thousands of years. They had no relation to human activity since there weren't any humans.

    That there is some sort of a climate shift, I don't think we can deny it. Personally, I never experienced 50C (122F) heat waves before. And we had two lasting around 7 days each in the past 4 years. I never saw a tornado before, we had 3 in 2 years (I still didn't see them, they happened further south). I never had rainless freezing cold winters. We had 2 in the past 10 years.

    If it is mankind doing I don't know. Some scientists barricade themselves on the yes, and some on the no. I however tend not to listen to economists or politicians on these matters.

    It thus all boils down to... belief.

    I'm on the yes side, if for nothing else, for the fact some prominent scientists seem to be. However, like them, I'm a cautious yes. It seems to me it is as much ridiculous to completely deny it, as it is to completely support it. We simply don't have the science yet to support our claims.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  11. #11
    Devil's Advocate SlyMaelstrom's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Out of scope
    Posts
    4,077
    Where did you see a 122&#176; heatwave? O_O

    In the 20 years I've lived in New Jersey, I noticed almost no difference in the weather. The smallest difference is that it seems the snow comes later and later every year. Really, that's about it. Maybe Jersey is a safe haven from the weather problems.
    Sent from my iPad®

  12. #12
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,577
    I was talking about Portugal. 2003 and 2005 summers were the worst in recorded climatic events over here (dating back to 1837). We are a warm country by european standards, reaching occasionally 45C (113F). But even so we experience such temperatures during 2 or 3 days, tops, and not every year.

    Like I said I don't know what to make of it. I don't think skilled scientists know either. But... it would pay to be just a little more cautious. I'm a believer we have the power to change our planet at a global scale.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  13. #13
    Confused Magos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    3,145
    All I know is that here in Sweden we'd usually have at least a meter snow by this time (like 10-15 years ago). Today we have green grass, buds and even flower sightings. Bears won't go to sleep either...
    Oh, and today I'm only wearing a T-shirt outside. In December?
    Last edited by Magos; 12-05-2006 at 08:30 AM.
    MagosX.com

    Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day.
    Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

  14. #14
    Devil's Advocate SlyMaelstrom's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Out of scope
    Posts
    4,077
    Quote Originally Posted by Magos
    All I know is that here in Sweden we'd usually have at least a meter snow by this time (like 10-15 years ago). Today we have green grass, buds and even flower sightings. Bears won't go to sleep either...
    Oh, and today I'm only wearing a T-shirt outside. In December?
    Again, the point being made is whether or not this is a natural change or human change or more likely a mix of both.
    Sent from my iPad®

  15. #15
    The Earth is not flat. Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,420
    I personally think we should do something about the emissions rates in this country, but I think we should do it for our lungs and bodies, not because it may or may not be killing the O-Zone.
    Global warming != ozone hole
    Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. basic question about global variables
    By radeberger in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-06-2009, 01:54 AM
  2. First oil, then warming, now ..cooling?
    By VirtualAce in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 12-29-2008, 11:06 PM
  3. Kyoto - global warming hype
    By VirtualAce in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 12-12-2005, 04:43 AM
  4. Global Variables, include files and classes
    By sharpstones in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-12-2005, 11:06 AM
  5. defining and using a global class
    By cjschw in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-05-2004, 09:51 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21