Bazz,

Y2K wasn't a scam but the scare around it most certainly was. Remember at the time that people talked about planes falling out of the sky or morons like Helen Caldicott talking about nuclear plants blowing up. It was all bogus but some made millions from it.

As you say the problem was that, in the early stages of computers, data storage was expensive and precious so saving space by not recording the year was valuable. But by the early 1990s that was no longer the case so the newer computers started storing the century and/or storing the date as a number eg Excel records the date as the number of days from 01/01/1900.

Therefore any computer and software from around 1995 was always going to be fine. But the scammers convinced millions that they were in trouble if they didn't cough up to solve a problem that didn't exist. One group I know created a programme called Utility 10000 that, they said, checked and fixed all 10000 potential problems in your system. In reality it displayed the number 10000 on screen and counted backwards to 1. It did nothing else because the programmers were able to ascertain within 5 minutes if there was a problem. They made over $300k from it.

Its true that companies with old systems had a problem. But it was a problem that was easily resolved either by simply upgrading the data storage protocols to include the century or via software changes. eg add 36525 (the number of days in a century) to the stored date. I did work for a few Russian companies in those days and one was quoted $US750,000 to fix a problem that I fixed in one hour using the above method.

I'm personally know that GJColes employed over 60 people and a budget of $50 million to fix a problem that their Y2K task-force manager agreed didn't exist.

Before the renewable energy scam, Y2K was the biggest fraud ever perpetrated. And the scammers walked away scot-free and rich.

mhaze

You ask about the relevance of the references I have provided, it is my way of showing just how wrong the article is. The science was quite solid prior to the groups such as Heartlands being resourced by fossil fuel companies to undermine the science. Heartlands et al have done a magnificent job of of undermining the science and fooling many people. We are now paying the cost of ignoring the science.

mhaze, you are not able to debunk those articles with any kind of evidence, so just make meaningless statements. You showed you were not able to comprehend the straight forward graph I highlighted .. so why do you bother

mhaze
This might help you in relation to Figure 3, when CO2 is 380ppm in the atmosphere, the temperature expected was .8C. So I'm not sure how you came up with .."while temperatures rose by about 0.7c by 2020." The current level of CO2 in the atmosphere is just under 410ppm.
There are spikes in the level of CO2 in the atmosphere due to seasonal variations, and some of those spikes have exceeded 410ppm. On an annual basis the increase in CO2 is 2-3ppm.

In relation to aggression, I did not complain, it is an observation that people who employ aggression are trying to hide a lack of an evidence based argument. So use it as much as you like. You did not understand the comment I made, I welcome aggressive comments except when they are directed at scientists unaware of this site. Aggressive comments provide a red flag to any casual reader.

Whatever happened to the denier datum year of 1998, deniers no longer use it?

ant,

You wrote:

"You ask about the relevance of the references I have provided, it is my way of showing just how wrong the article is."

But the articles you posted are entirely consistent with the article in this thread. For example the Shell articles show that there is expected to be a mild warming over the next 60 years or so. Refer to the quote from the Shell articles I posted earlier. Likewise the thread article says "There is no issue in accepting the reality of climate change, including warming and reduced rainfall in southern Australia in recent decades." The thread article accepts that there's some man-made warming and your Shell articles do likewise. They are largely consistent. So how these articles are "showing just how wrong the article is" is something only you can see.

I say I largely agree with the Shell analysis and you reply that "you are not able to debunk those articles with any kind of evidence". Somehow you think that me not debunking a position I largely agree with is significant. Go figure.

And speaking of figure, let's go to Fig3:

You say "So I'm not sure how you came up with .."while temperatures rose by about 0.7c by 2020." I was comparing the figure 3 predicted increase of 1c to the actual increase of 0.7c up to 2020. Seems clear to me. It shows that the Fig3 prediction overstated the actual increase by about 50%.

But, and I'm almost embarrassed to have to point this out, its at this point that it all falls apart for you. You wrote "This might help you in relation to Figure 3, when CO2 is 380ppm in the atmosphere, the temperature expected was .8C."

ant, that's utterly wrong. The predictions in the graph are that when Co2 levels reach 380ppm (at around 2000AD) temperatures increase by 0.4c NOT 0.8c.

I couldn't work out how you got that so wrong and then I realised that you utterly misunderstood the graph. Then I realised that 380ppm and 0.8c are on the same horizontal line. But they are at different periods. The 380ppm occurs around 2000 but the 0.8c temperature increase occurs some time after 2010.

You've utterly misunderstood the graph. Its about change over time. The CO2 level is read from the left Y-axis and temperatures from the right Y-axis. Time is across the X-axis.

If you are unable to understand a simple graph, you're going to struggle to understand climate science - and that explains a lot.
One doesn't need to be a math wiz to understand this stuff but being utterly innumerate is a problem.

So I'll leave you unmolested but please be more careful about accusing others of misunderstanding this or that issue when in fact your understanding is highly suspect.

Once a turbine is up to speed it doesn't take much to keep is spinning. But these turbines are not freewheeling are they!? And the reason why their energy coefficient is just 20%

Up against the massive resistance of millions of miles of wires and sudden load imbalance as trains etc, start and stop, arc furnaces kick in an every air conditioner in the country is switched on and refrigerators have to work overtime, keeping their contents cool.

In any event, was just seeing if there was a mostly CO2 free (banker-friendly) PRAGMATIC method of using coal that wouldn't be shot down in flames by corporate due diligence, Dummies! Eliminate known and proven inertia and transmission/distribution losses, Dummies.

Folk will ask if you need solar thermal, why bother with coal? Because Dummies, you'd still need to spin stuff and send electric current down millions of miles of wires!

Not concerned, how we generate power!

Just the quadrupled cost of our 18th-century model, massively mechanical, with moving parts, corrosion and the huge maintenance bill/short life span, wastage/extreme vulnerability that is part of the current system.

Fact #1/ Absolutely no inertia in cooking gas from coal.

#2/ No transmission resistance, no need for, extremely expensive stage down transformers, at distribution end, Dummies!


#3/ Lighter than air methane can almost push itself up the line especially if the upward slopes and expansion chambers are used intelligently!

#4/ methane like hydrogen is a reductant that enables the life of well-sealed pipes to endure for possibly centuries, with minimal maintenance.

#5/ The energy coefficient of the methane/ceramic cell coefficient is 80%!

That's four times better than current coal-fired power, Dummies and therefore, quadruples the current life expectancy of our know thermal coal reserves, as well as quartering current power prices, Dummies.

Just making the business case for doing it differently, Dummies! Moreover, don't give a rat's for the absolutely absurd, asinine views of Lord whatsisname!

Bet my house I've shovelled and tested more coal and installed more transformers than that ignoramus personified, anti-gas, gasbag.
Alan B.